What Are the Livestock Industries Doing, and What Do They Need from Us?
David L. Meeker
The Ohio State University, Columbus 43210
ABSTRACT: Livestock industries are facing global competition and revolutionary changes. While facing this global competition, the similarities of many animal meat products require that they compete on a cost–of–production basis. Additional issues include the environmental impact of animal agriculture, the role of animal products in human nutrition, food safety and quality, biotechnology, animal welfare, and market access. Progressive producers are becoming more aware of the needs of their customers and are striving to improve product quality. Checkoff funds are used to finance promotion, research, and consumer information programs and are increasingly used to finance producer education. Industrialization trends in the livestock industries are changing the needs of constituencies, delivery mechanisms, and relationships with the people involved. Characteristics of closed operations include high production cost, outdated technology, smaller size, older operators, and lack of management focus. Successful operations tend to be growing in capacity, are system–oriented, maintain high throughput, keep accurate records, use outside consultants, and control production costs. Modern livestock production has lowered the cost of production by integrating new production and management technologies. In order for producers to be successful in the future, access to technology, capital, and timely information will be critical. Animal scientists have many common objectives with livestock industries. Their work in research, teaching, and extension is critical for continued progress. However, people in the industries sometimes have the perception that academic arrogance, discipline myopia, uncoordinated research, slow technology transfer, increasing research costs, and counter–productive tenure systems prevent animal scientists from being as relevant and responsive as they could be. Support from the industries is essential as animal scientists and academic departments seek political and funding support. This support can be attained by including integrated systems research, improving communication skills, achieving more efficient research budgets, rapidly publishing results, reducing the cost of information distribution, developing flexible research agendas, retraining scientists, acquiring modern methods, and emphasizing critical thinking, communication, and teamwork when teaching.
Introduction
While U.S. livestock industries are facing many issues including global competition and revolutionary change, they still continue to contribute greatly to the economy. They benefit from improving economies worldwide, along with the ample technology and natural resource base of the United States, which provides great export opportunities. Meanwhile, industrialization trends in the livestock industries are changing the needs of constituencies, delivery mechanisms, and relationships with the people involved. Success of U.S. products in the future will depend on producers’ access to technology, capital, and information.
Many issues facing livestock industries are common across species, but each has special marketing and economic challenges in addition to biological differences. The issues faced by livestock industries and the differences among the species must be understood by animal scientists if we are to serve these constituencies well. Animal scientists have many objectives in common with livestock industries. Their work in research, teaching, and extension is critical for continued progress. However, changes in direction are needed to make sure animal scientists are relevant and responsive to their constituencies.
This article reviews trends in the major meat livestock industries, emphasizes issues facing animal scientists and commercial animal agriculture, and recommends changes in direction for members of the American Society of Animal Science. The principle examples will be drawn from the beef and pork industry sectors.
Trends in Animal Agriculture Production, Consumption, and Exports
As economies improve and discretionary incomes increase, meat production and consumption rise (Figure 1, USDA, 1997). The various protein sources compete for market share with cost of production as the major competitive factor. Additional factors such as product quality, marketing efforts, and product availability modify the competitive position of each meat product. Trends in per capita consumption of various meats since 1970 (Figure 2, USDA, 1997) indicate the effect of changes in the competitive factors. Notable changes are the decrease in beef consumption and the increase in poultry consumption. United States exports are increasing (Figure 3, USDA, 1997) and will become more of a deciding factor in production strategies in the future. Until recently, exports were a small percentage of production of meat and were not considered major enough to change quality standards or production techniques.
Demographics
The economic impact of U.S. livestock production is very large; farm receipts for hogs total more than $10 billion annually (NPPC, 1997b) and cattle receipts total approximately $40 billion annually (NCBA, 1997). Each dollar in farm receipts is multiplied by a factor of approximately six in total economic impact involved as food reaches consumers. For example, the total economic impact of the $10 billion pork industry on the U.S. economy is $60 billion (NPPC, 1994). Numbers of producers are decreasing as the average size of operations is increasing. Table 1 shows the changes in numbers of pork operations in the various size groups (determined by number of hogs sold per year) during the years of 1991 through 1994. Many people are surprised to see growth in the mid–sized groups, assuming that the well–publicized growth in the very large farms has precluded growth in other demographic groups. Even after dramatic growth of large farms and the substantial drop in smaller farms, there remains a wide variety of sizes of farms contributing significant numbers of pigs. Whereas the number of operations is decreasing over time, the number of well–paying management jobs is increasing (NPPC, 1997a). The increasing professional nature of these jobs and the change in ownership structure dictate that animal scientists examine their relationships with the pork industry. Research, teaching, and extension strategies need to be changed to fit the modern livestock industries.
The beef industry is structured differently than the pork industry, with large numbers of cow-calf operations selling feeder calves to a small number of very large feedlots. The rate of change in demographics (Table 2) is much slower in the beef industry than in the pork industry. The difference in the structure of the two major livestock industries, the differences in rates of change, and the differences in the biology of the animals all indicate that research, education, and extension activities may need to be customized to relate best to the different industries.
Figure 2. U.S. per capita meat consumption: boneless equivalent excluding variety meats (USDA, 1997).
Important Factors
The traditional production factors of genetics, nutrition, reproduction, environment, health, and management have been the major emphases of animal scientists. Until recent years, these have also been the main factors of concern for the livestock industries. However, modern livestock production now entails additional factors that must be considered as animal scientists relate to the industries. Marketing factors such as location of packing plants, value and quality of products, competition, customer service, and product delivery have become increasingly important. Management factors such as knowledge of technology, skills of management and labor, information flow, and ability to attain capital have also become more important considerations for the animal production industries.
In the past, ownership of land or machines may have been the most important factors for success. Now, access to technology, capital, and information are also important. Information about operating costs, competitors, supplies, markets, and customers have become essential to successful management of modern businesses. Producer access to technology, patented animals, intellectual property rights, and privately owned, proprietary technology developed in publicly supported laboratories are particularly important considerations for animal scientists and Land Grant universities.
Table 1. Number of pork operations by size (USDA, 1997)
| No. of market hogs sold/yr | 1991 | 1994 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Under 1,000 | 160,400 | 120,433 | −25%; |
| 1,000–1,999 | 16,647 | 15,188 | −9% |
| 2,000–2,999 | 6,435 | 6,191 | −4% |
| 3,000–4,999 | 3,621 | 3,806 | +5% |
| 5,000–9,999 | 1,861 | 2,209 | +19% |
| 10,000–49,000 | 1,045 | 1,062 | +2% |
| >50,000 | 41 | 66 | +61% |
Concerns of Livestock Industries
Livestock producers are concerned about how to sustain a profitable future. They worry about public policy decisions that can hinder their businesses. They also worry about the polarization and controversy in agriculture surrounding the "big vs small" producers. They understand that attention to important issues can affect their sustainability. Product consistency, quality, and price are understood to be the underlying factors most likely to affect profitability.
Industry organizations such as the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association ( NCBA) and the National Pork Producers Council ( NPPC) provide leadership as the industries strive to protect producers’ sustainability and profitability. These organizations are characterized by aggressive elected leaders who use strategic planning and always seem to be in a hurry and under pressure to manage change. They promote the idea that the industries are producing food within a chain and competitive global atmosphere rather than feeding animals independently. These organizations are self–funded through national checkoff systems authorized legislatively as well as through direct dues. The checkoff money is used for promotion, research, and consumer information. Dues revenues are used to support legislative, regulatory, and judicial efforts.
Issues Facing Animal Agriculture
Environmental Issues. Environmental issues are now considered one of the most critical by the livestock industries. These issues encompass many areas, including air quality and odor from livestock production, water quality, research and education to improve technology, and application of technology to solve problems. Government activities with the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Endangered Species Act, federal conservation and nutrient management programs, and private property rights are critical to the livestock industries.
Food Safety. On–farm quality assurance programs, the prospect of Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point ( HACCP) programs extending from packing plants to farms, food irradiation, and food safety research investments are listed as important industry issues. Government activity with inequities of meat and poultry inspection regulations and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) are monitored by the industry organizations. Issues receiving a large amount of public attention such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and antibiotics use must be handled properly to prevent loss of markets.
Marketing and Industry Structure. Livestock market competitiveness, livestock and meat price reporting, value–based marketing, and third-party oversight of packer carcass measurements are important issues. Government can affect these by changing the Capper– Volstead Act, restriction of foreign ownership of land, or by controls on corporate farming, contracting, and vertical integration.
Export trade is critically important to livestock industries; thus, it has strongly supported U.S. Government efforts to negotiate the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ( GATT) and North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA) . Efforts to counter the European Union Third Country Meat Directive banning U.S. beef because of the use of synthetic growth enhancers are also strongly supported by NCBA and NPPC. Increased foreign trade also exacerbates the problems of prevention of animal diseases entering the United States from other countries.
Human Nutrition. The prospect of more people practicing vegetarianism is a concern of the livestock industries, as is the role of meat in a healthy diet. Nutrition labeling of meat products has been a challenge for the organizations, not because they oppose the consumers’ right to know, but because of the possibility that such efforts can add marketing expense or be a burden to smaller meat operations if they are not implemented in a practical manner.
Table 2. Number of operations with cattle and calves by size (USDA, 1997)
| No. of Cattle | 1993 | 1995¹ | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1–49 | 778,425 | 760,200 | −2.3% |
| 50–99 | 210,286 | 209,600 | −.03% |
| 100–499 | 213,975 | 214,560 | +2.7% |
| 500–999 | 17,216 | 18,520 | +7.6% |
| ≥1,000 | 8,606 | 9,230 | +7.3% |
¹In 1995, 909,130 farms of the total farms with cattle and calves had beef animals, and 300 feedlots with capacity of at least 16,000 cattle accounted for 82% of beef marketings.
Other Issues. Many other issues are important to livestock industries, including animal welfare, the availability of animal health products, worker health and safety, and tax regulations. Both the NCBA and NPPC encourage all of their members to become informed and active in public policy discussions. The members of ASAS should do the same.
Perceptions of Animal Scientists
Scientific knowledge may be developed in disciplines, but it is most effectively applied by livestock industries in systems. The problem of discipline myopia—the inability of animal scientists to cooperate, understand, or even communicate beyond the boundaries of their traditional discipline—is perceived as a problem.
Animal research is seen as uncoordinated and too expensive. Researchers are seen as greedy, especially when they advise the producer groups to stop advertising and invest more checkoff money in research. Research agendas are seen as very slow to respond to change because researchers seem to be reluctant to upgrade their skills, retrain, and redirect formula funding.
Technology transfer is considered to be too slow, caused by basic researchers not communicating with extension personnel and extension agents who are thus not up–to–date. Academic arrogance, the tendency of Ph.D.s to "talk down" to people and the tendency of some university faculty to consider their position in society far above that of industry workers with equal education, hinders communication and cooperation with livestock industries.
The tenure system is considered to be antiquated. Young faculty are seen as spending much time and effort attending to the details of achieving tenure, and these activities are often seen by livestock industries as irrelevant to their needs. Faculty with tenure are often seen as unduly protected from the realities of the changing global economy and recalcitrant to react to the forces that dictate a faster response in other sectors of society.
Possible Solutions
Disciplines must function in systems. As animal scientists consider their roles and relationships with livestock industries, they must understand the trends, markets, issues, challenges, and politics. Animal scientists must help producers and others understand change and cope with it. Scientists should improve their communication skills, taking seriously their responsibility to explain technology without talking down to people with less education. Animal scientists should be open, accessible, and flexible in their relationships with industry.
Research. Experiments on narrowly defined basic principles must be integrated with other disciplines and technology into applied systems usable by production agriculture. The frontiers of future discovery may well lie in interactions rather than main effects. Partnerships with commodity groups can help elucidate the important interactions underlying significant industry problems. Researchers should become more willing to aggressively market their services and point out how their skills can be useful to livestock industries. Researchers must be willing to revamp research agendas and must be willing to retrain to pursue emerging industry problems. Researchers must respond to the same economic and competitive pressures that drive the livestock industries and give more research value for each dollar invested. This responsibility does not rest on academics and Land Grant universities alone. Animal scientists in the livestock and supporting industries should help fund research and fight unnecessary proprietary restrictions that hinder technology transfer.
Technology transfer must be faster. The time lag between discovery, publication, and commercialization must be reduced. Authors and reviewers control approximately 8 mo of the approximately 12 mo it takes to publish in the Journal of Animal Science, on average. The ASAS must decrease this turnaround time, and ASAS members must do their part.
Teaching. Teaching should occur from an ecological paradigm. Industry problems, customs, and procedures should be considered in the context of the subjects taught just as animal agriculture should be considered in the context of the global ecosystem. Students should be prepared to cope with change and understand the opportunities that can come from change. They should be able to think critically, create solutions, write effectively, speak easily, and work in teams. Livestock industries will provide many quality jobs in technical and management fields. Animal scientists can play a very important role in preparing people to take advantage of these opportunities. This responsibility does not rest on academics alone. Animal scientists in the livestock and supporting industries should put forth increased efforts to establish internships, outreach programs, and public relations to draw more people into animal agriculture.
Extension. Technology transfer must be faster. New paradigms must be developed for extension, incorporating a service mentality. We should be willing to use information from any source but provide objectivity as users fit the information into their systems. Extension should embrace partnerships with livestock industries, particularly NCBA and NPPC efforts to reach producers with technical advances, environmental assurance education, and on-farm food safety efforts. Extension personnel, both faculty and staff, should be up–to–date in technology of livestock production and the technology of information delivery. Every agent and specialist should be equipped with a laptop computer, E–mail capability, and the most modern presentation equipment and software. The Extension system should be on the cutting edge of these advancements.
Conclusion
Industry depends on animal scientists to create new knowledge, to apply the knowledge in systems, and to educate the people needed for improvement and expansion; in other words, it depends on the Land Grant mission of research, extension, and teaching. However, to work toward this mission in a more relevant and responsive manner, animal scientists must increase their involvement with livestock industries, and thus their understanding. Being intelligent and technically advanced is important, but an understanding perspective of the industries can greatly improve animal scientists’ effectiveness.
Implications
Changes recommended here in research, extension, and teaching include better understanding of what motivates, challenges, and engages the livestock industries. Improved communication can increase industries’ respect for and support of animal scientists and result in research agendas that are more readily embraced by potential users. An increased level of mutual understanding among livestock industries and animal scientists can be the foundation for action as some members of society raise moral, ethical, and environmental concerns about new and advanced technologies. If scientists look beyond the detail of their chosen discipline, integrate their work with other disciplines, and understand the industries for which new technologies are intended, they will be better prepared to participate in modern production agriculture.
Literature Cited
NCBA. 1997. Cattle and Beef Handbook. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Englewood, CO.
NPPC. 1994. Economic Impact of the U.S. Pork Industry. National Pork Producers Council, Des Moines, IA.
NPPC. 1997a. Employee Management in the Pork Production Industry. National Pork Producers Council, Des Moines, IA.
NPPC. 1997b. Pork Facts. National Pork Producers Council, Des Moines, IA.
USDA. 1997. Livestock Marketing Information Center (LMIC).