Chapter 5 -- Economics, Politics, Law, History

- CHAPTER 5 -
ECONOMICS, POLITICS, LAW AND HISTORY OF GRAZING
Edition 6, July, 2007 (Updated December 2010)

(5-A) - Grazing Land Economic Issues - [A1] Desertification Costs, [A2] Water for Grazing, [A3]~ US Grazing Fees, [A4] Grazing Economics, [A5]~ Economics of Alternatives to Grazing, [A6]~ Grazing Subsidies, [A7] Land Ownership Patterns, [A8]~ Feedlot/ Meatpacker Data,
(5-B) - Meat- and Wool Production, Consumption, Exports, Prices - [B1] Meat, Milk and Wool Production, [B2] Meat, Milk and Wool Consumption, [B3] Side Effects of Meat Consumption, [B4]~ Meat and Wool Exports, [B5] Feedlot/ Meatpacker Data, [B6] Meat/ Wool Prices,

NOTE: Chapter 5 Sections (5-C) and beyond are in another file.
(5-C) -Over-grazing Side-Effects - [C1] Plants, [C2] Wildlife, [C3] Water, [C4] Forests, [C5]~People, [C6] Livestock, [C7] Public Access to Public Lands, [C8] Dust Storms,
(5-D) - Politics - [D1] Anger against federal employees and environmentalists, [D2] USFS, [D3]~BLM, [D4] Grazing Fee Politics, [D5]~Overgrazing Politics, [D6] Subsidy Politics, [D7]~Emergency Feed Program Politics, [D8] Public Opinion, [D9] Foreign Grazing Politics, [D10]~Grazing Permit Buyouts,
(5-E) - Law - [E1] Major Federal Laws (Chronological order), [E2] Grazing Permits, [E3] Grazing on Western Public Lands - Right or Privilege, [E4] Lawsuits, [E5] Indian Lands, [E6] State Laws, [E7]~National (US) Wildlife Refuges, [8] Asia, [9] Europe,
(5-F) - History of Grazing and Grazing Lands - [F1] General, [F2] Oceania, [F3] Africa, [F4]~Iceland, [F5] Asia, [F6] Major Grasslands of Centuries Past, [F7] US Deserts, [F8] Early US Wildlife, [F9] Early US Livestock Populations, [F10] Latin America,
[F11] Native Prairie, [F12] Trees and Shrubs on Grasslands,
(5-G) - Livestock-Generated Waste -
(5-H) -Grain-Grass Substitution - [H1] Global, [H2] US, [H3] Outside the US,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - og5
NOTE: The notation (su3) means that the data is used in the document analyzing the sustainability of the productivity of the world's food, fiber and water supply systems. (See elsewhere in this website.)

SECTION (5-A) - Grazing Land Economic Issues - [A1] Desertification Costs, [A2] Water for Grazing, [A3] US Grazing Fees, [A4] Grazing Economics, [A5] Economics of Alternatives to Grazing, [A6] Grazing Subsidies, [A7] Land Ownership Patterns, [A8]~ Feedlot/ Meatpacker Data,

[A1] - Economic Issues - Desertification Costs -

In addition to the on-site effect costs of land degradation (loss of productivity), the off-site effect costs include displacement of people affected by loss of productive land resources, losses to national food production, siltation of dams and watercourses that reduce the economic life of irrigation systems and power stations, and dust emissions that affect public transportation (e.g. roads and railways) and are health hazards (97E1) In the US, it has been estimated that the off-site costs of land degradation may be 45-times greater than the direct cost of the loss of the land’s productivity (97D2).

Desertification is costing China $7.7 billion/ year (06P1).

Direct, on-site cost of failure to prevent desertification during 1978-91: $300-$600 billion (UNEP estimate).

Total direct, on-site income foregone as a result of desertification: $42 billion/ year. Direct cost of all preventative and rehabitational measures: $10-22.4 billion (UNEP estimate) (95D2).

The value of potential forage lost due to past- and present over-grazing of western US rangelands is estimated to be about $200 million/ year. Even greater losses may be attributed to reduced quality and quantity of useable water, diminished fish- and wildlife populations, shortened economic life of water supply- and hydroelectric reservoirs, and to other costs of deteriorated watersheds (Harold Dregne estimate in Ref. (90C1)).

[A2] - Economic Issues - Water for Grazing -

The Bear River, which loops 500 miles across three states, is the longest stream in the Western Hemisphere that doesn't flow into an ocean. Since the arrival of the pioneers, the watershed has become a sump of polluted water that's run off from the large proportion of grazed land along its tributaries. Livestock production has so damaged the Bear River and its watershed in Utah, Wyoming and Idaho that Cascadia Times has named it the most cow-damaged river in the West. The other nine rivers on the Cascadia Times list are: 2) Salmon River ID; 3) Gila River, NM/AZ; 4) John Day, OR; 5) Owyhee River, OR/NV/ID; 6) Sweetwater River, WY; 7) Big Hole River MT; 8) Little Humboldt River NV; 9) Yampa River, CO; 10) Kern River CA (02U1).

Ranchers don't have to treat their pollution, don't need permits to destroy wetlands and don't have to meet state water quality standards that are supposed to protect a river from high temperatures, pollution, sedimentation and loss of oxygen (02U1).

Ranching has successfully fought off every effort to bring it into compliance with the nation's primary water-protection law, the Clean Water Act. Other industries must comply with this law (02U1).

Ranchers are allowed to block rivers, kill fish and siphon off every last drop of water from rivers with impunity - actions that no gold mine, pulp mill or housing subdivision could ever get away with. For rivers in the West, 2002 has been a year of severe drought. While media attention has focused on the drought, news reports have missed one key fact: The millions of cows that run through the West's publicly owned deserts, mountains, canyons, plateaus and valleys have made the effects of drought much worse (02U1).

According to the University of New Hampshire Magazine (Spring, 2001), beef production accounts for roughly a third of all freshwater withdrawals in the US. It takes 15,000 tons of water (3.6 million gallons) to produce one ton of grain-fed beef (up to 100,000 tons according to some estimates), but only 1000 tons to produce a ton of grain. Each 16-ounce porterhouse steak took 1800 gallons of water to produce. Each calorie of beef takes 1.5 gallons (192 oz.) to produce; each calorie of grain takes about one cup (8 oz.) (Jim Powers jhpowers@commspeed.net Prescott National Forest Friends PO Box 10642 Prescott, AZ 86304 928-776-1552).

Regarding the amount of water used for meat consumption:
29% of Arizona's water is used for animal feeds (alfalfa, hay, feed grains),
22% is used for growing cotton, a surplus cotton the government pays farmers not to grow and is massively subsidized;
28% is used for fruits nuts and vegetables for human consumption;
14% is municipal and industrial users;
4% is for power and mining.
X% is lost in evaporation from reservoirs.

(Robert A. Witzeman, M. D. Cons. Chair, Maricopa Aud. Soc. 4619 E. Arcadia Lane Phoenix, AZ 85018 tel. 602 840-0052 witzeman@home.com)

To produce a single pound of meat takes an average of 2500 gallons of water - as much as a typical family uses for all its combined household purposes in a month (87R1). Comments: By "meat" is probably meant beef.

Over half the total amount of water consumed in the US goes to irrigate land growing feed and fodder for livestock (87R1).

US-wide, about 18% of total consumptive water use is attributable to feed for livestock (99B3).

A USGS report ([19] in (99W2)) said that, in 1995, livestock in Arizona used 32 million gallons of water/ day (30 million in New Mexico) (excludes water used to irrigate crops grown to feed livestock) (99W2).

In Colorado, alfalfa to feed cows consumes 30% of Colorado's water, yet adds less than $200 million to Colorado's economy (89R1).

In 1986, irrigated California pastures used 5.3 million acre-ft. of water - as much as all 27 million people in the state consumed. 0.02% of the economy consumed 14% of California's water-use (89R1).

[A3] - Economic Issues - US Grazing Fees -

About 0.51% of people living in the West hold permits to USFS and BLM lands. Ranching on federal lands provides about one dollar of every $2500 of income received by Westerners. St. Clair explains: "...the vast majority of grazing allotments reside with a small fraction of permittees, including some of the richest families in America, multinational corporations, regional utilities, media celebrities, and several politicians." He contends that grazing subsidies may exceed a billion dollars annually, and refers to ranching subsidies as "an untouchable form of [social] welfare." St. Clair states: "...take away the subsidies, the nearly free forage, the roads, the even cheaper water that magically appears from nowhere in the middle of the high desert, the tax breaks, predator control, abeyances from environmental standards and disproportionate political clout when any thing else goes against him, such as drought, range fires, bad investments. See also: http://tinyurl.com/2awxq2 (Jeffrey St. Clair, How the West was Eaten," Counterpunch, February 10/11/07
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair02102007.html)

The Bush administration has announced it is lowering the monthly cost of grazing cattle on federal land from $1.56 to $1.35 per cow/calf, effective 3/1/07. This is the lowest allowable fee, and is based on the value of public lands grazing in 1966. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, the federal government loses an estimated $123 million to over $500 million per year on its grazing program (see: http://tinyurl.com/yunbjk). (Andrea Lococo, (Wildlife Consultant, Animal Welfare Institute,) "Forest Service and BLM Announce 2007 Federal Gazing Fees," USDA Forest Service news release, 2/2/07. http://www.fs.fed.us/news/2007/releases/02/grazing-fee.shtml)

A 10/24/02 report by the Center for Biological Diversity and six other groups, extends some of the findings of a 1999 Mercury News investigation of federal grazing programs. The conservation groups calculated that the average price in the West to rent private land to graze cattle is $13.10/ cow/ month. But 23,600 western ranchers who rent federally owned forests, deserts and meadows from the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) pay $1.43/ cow-month (02R2). Taxpayers also shoulder other costs. They pay to restore streams damaged by cattle. They pay to filter out giardia and other parasites that end up in city water supplies from cows. They pay to fence public campsites and archaeological sites. They pay for government trappers to kill mountain lions, coyotes and other predators that threaten cows on the public range. Nowhere does Uncle Sam account for the full cost (02R2).

A-Grazing Fee Values; B-Cost of Below-Market Grazing Fees; C-Lack of Bidding for Grazing Permits; D-Sub-Leasing of Grazing Permits; E-Some Grazing Permit Owners

(Grazing Fee Economics) In the US West, federal agencies charge significantly lower rates to lease federal grazing land than those for state- or private lands. Yet there has been substantial debate over whether these fees may be considered "subsidized." Federal grazing allotments typically require that the allottee install and maintain fencing and develop water sources for the livestock, whereas other landowners may include these items in their higher fees. Independent analyses, however, show that such differences are insufficient to account for the discrepancy between federal and state private lands fees (91G2) (94D1).

[A3a] - US Grazing Fees - Grazing Fee Values -

Fees charges for grazing are set separately by the USFS and BLM. Each charge a monthly fee for each animal grazed on an allotment (94D1).

The 1994 BLM charge per "animal-unit-month" (AUM) is $1.98/ AUM (94D1).

The fee ranchers pay to graze livestock on federal land is lower than at any time since 1975, set at $1.35/ cow/ month, far below the current market average of $11.10 on private land in the 11 westernmost states (99R1).

Grazing fees on federal land are discussed in detail in Ref. (87H1).

Of 370,000 livestock producers in the US, only 25,000 have federal grazing permits (87H1).

Background facts and analyses on grazing fees on BLM- and USFS lands are in Ref. (83S1).

The federal government charges ranchers $1.35/ animal-unit-month (AUM) (pennies/ acre) to graze livestock on public lands administered by BLM and the USFS ([16] in (99W2)). An animal-unit-month is the amount of forage needed to sustain one cow and her calf (or one horse, five sheep, or five goats) for a month (99W2).

Grazing fees on public lands are usually only 10-20% of fees charged to graze private rangelands - and there is no competitive bidding (83S1).

Some grazing fees ($/ AUM) (82C1)
Year - - - | 1978| 1979| 1980| 1981| 1982
BLM fee- - | 1.51| 1.89| 2.36| 2.31| 1.86
Private fee| 7.11| 7.53| 7.88| 8.83| - -

Some More Grazing Fees ($/ AUM) (pages 372 and 572 of (91J1))
Year|1910|1915|1920|1925|1930|1935|1940|1945|1950|1955|1960
USFS|0.04|0.10|0.13|0.13|0.14|0.08|0.15|0.25|0.42|0.37|0.51
BLM |- - |- - |- - |- - |- - |- - |0.05|0.05|0.08|0.15|0.22
Year|1965|1970|1975|1980|1985|1989|1990
USFS|0.46|0.60|1.11|2.41|1.35|1.86|1.81
BLM |0.30|0.44|1.00|2.36|1.35|1.86|1.81

Average 1980-85 private land grazing fee: $7.50/ AUM (p. 572 of (91J1)).

Average 1990 private land grazing fee: $10. / AUM (p. 572 of (91J1)).

In 1980, BLM- and USFS grazing fees peaked at $2.36 and $2.41/ AUM - less than one third of fair-market value (p. 371 of (91J1)). (One AUM provides a total weight gain of 28-90 lb. (p. 374 of (91J1))).

Grazing fees have historically averaged 10-20% of fair market value (p. 373 of (91J1)).

The US Dept. of the Interior reduced the grazing fee charged to public land ranchers by 30% ($1.60/ AUM to $1.35/ AUM) in response to falling cattle prices. With this decrease, the federal government's below-market grazing subsidy is expected to be $14 million/ year (Wall Street Journal, 1/24/97).

In the 16 western states (Texas excluded) the selling price of federal grazing permits is about $550,000 for a medium (250-animal) operation (Ref. 32 of (93H1)). Under normal financing with most favorable interest rates (8-10%/ year), annual capital costs for these ranchers are well over twice their annual earnings potential (93H1).

Monetary value of livestock grazing on public lands under BLM management (based on US Dept. of the Interior 1990 land- and AUM statistics, and Torell and Doll's economic evaluations (93H1)
(Areas are in units of 1000 acres, AUMs in 1000s, Dollar values in $1000s)
State - - | Area~ |AUMs |Total Est.| Annual $
- - - - - | Grazed| ~ ~ | $ Value# | Generated @
Arizona ~ | 11,211| 681 | ~54,501~ | 1342
California| ~7,812| 380 | ~30,384~ | ~748
Colorado~ | ~7,731| 800 | ~64,032~ | 1474
Idaho ~ ~ | 12,252|1400 | 111,985~ | 2758
Montana ~ | ~7,880|1318 | 105,470~ | 2597
Nevada~ ~ | 46,838|2736 | 218,856~ | 5389
New Mexico| 12,511|1911 | 152,866~ | 3764
Oregon~ ~ | 12,632|1063 | ~85,031~ | 2094
Utah~ ~ ~ | 22,077|1331 | 106,483~ | 2622
Wyoming ~ | 17,399|2010 | 160,768~ | 3959
# at $80/ AUM - the peak in fair market value in the early 1980s. Present fair market value would be $60-70/ AUM.
@ Based on $1.97/ AUM

The maximum total fair market value of grazing permits on BLM lands is about $1 billion. (The annual budget for the BLM is about $1 billion/ year.) (93H1).

(Grazing Fee Rebates) Ranchers holding federal grazing permits obtain further benefits when the fees they pay are returned to them in the form of range improvements on both federal and local levels. In effect, the use of these fee receipts to benefit the ranchers means that the ranches are further subsidized, since they recover a significant portion of the value of the fees (94D1).

More than 50% of federal grazing fees are returned to the public-land ranching interests (p. 572 of (91J1)),

[A3b] - Economic Issues - Cost of Below-Market Grazing Fees -

In 1992, the US Government Operations Committee estimated that the federal government had lost $1.18 billion since 1985 from pricing grazing fees below market value (94D1). That report estimated that $150 million/ year might be recovered if grazing fees were raised to fair market value (94D1). In 1993 the Congressional Budget Office estimated that raising grazing fees could reduce the federal deficit by $20 million/ year, after a phase-in period (93C1) (94D1).

Grazing fees fail to recover BLM- and USFS costs of running the program. The shortfall from grazing fees for the two agencies in 1990 reached $52 million (92C1) (94D1).

The Inspector General determined that BLM had a 1990 shortfall of $2.9 million on just those lands sub-leased by permittees, while permittees might have made as much as $5.1 million by sub-letting the allotments for fair market value (92I1) (94D1).

Since 1977, at least half of all USFS- and BLM grazing fees ($15-20 million/ year) have gone to range improvements. Improvements often cost $10-$25 for every AUM that returns just $2.00 to the US treasury (94O1).

1987 BLM- and USFS grazing fee revenues were $21 million, which netted $6.5 million to the US treasury. 1987 BLM and USFS direct expenditures on public lands ranching were $65 million (p. 572 of (91J1)). BLM and USFS direct- and indirect expenditures for public ranching are roughly $160 million/ year. Tax loss to public land ranching is roughly $1000 million/ year; private economic loss to public lands ranching is roughly $1000 million/ year, for a total economic loss of about $2 billion/ year (91J1).

In 1981 federal agencies collected $24.9 million in grazing fees, but paid $58.5 million in costs of managing grass lands (83S1) (85R1). This amounts to a subsidy of $14/ animal grazed - about $2117 for each rancher using public lands (85R1).

Grazing fees pay only 57% of the cost to BLM of administering grazing lands (88S1).

Apart from this question of the relative value of federal versus private grazing land, two other factors suggest that federal grazing fees lie below market value: increased land values and profitable sub-leasing. Holding a federal grazing lease increases the value of the associated ranch by a measurable amount. Thus, the federal lease is regarded as more valuable than simply the opportunity to purchase forage on the open market, yielding the conclusion that the federal price is lower than the open market. In addition, BLM lessees (but not USFS lessees) are allowed to transfer or sublease their grazing rights, and frequently do so at a profit (94D1).

[A3c] - Economic Issues - Lack of Bidding for Grazing Permits -

"After 6.5 years of protracted legal and political battles" and 4 Idaho Supreme Court decisions, the Idaho Land Board awarded two 10-year grazing leases to Idaho Watershed Project. The decision is an important victory in efforts to make "public lands ranchers" fairly compete for use of public grasslands and indicates the "inexorable decline" of ranchers' "political clout and economic status." (GREENLines Issue #1046, 1/14/00, GREEN, GrassRoots Environmental Effectiveness Network).

Another influence on who gets the benefit of federal grazing allotments is the capitalization of the value of federal permits into the value of the underlying ranch. When a ranch is sold, part of the price includes the value of any associated federal grazing allotment. Even if the existing grazing permit is not transferred with the property, permits are generally renewed for the same allotment. Thus an allotment may be associated with the same ranch for generations. The value of the grazing subsidy is capitalized into the value of the ranch, and the first owner retains that value when the ranch is transferred (94D1).

A recent USDA report concluded that ranchers holding federal grazing permits earned more than ranchers without access to federal lands (94U1) (94D1).

Still a further indication of the subsidy is a GAO finding that federal grazing fees fell through the 1980s, while grazing fees for private lands rose (91G2) (94D1).

Under a "use it or lose it" permit system, a small group of ranchers enjoys a monopoly on federal lands, as they have for decades. Even when hunters, fishermen or environmentalists have offered to outbid cattle operators and remove cows, a 1934 law prohibits it (99R1).

Federal grazing permits are sold with base property for up to $900/ animal. Permits are accepted as security for bank loans and included in appraised value of ranches (85R1).

Ranchers use their public land grazing leases as collateral to secure bank loans, and market their ranches for sale with public land grazing leases included, as if public land were a private asset (99W2).

According to the 1990 Farm Cost and Returns Survey, BLM- and USFS permittee grazing-fee expenses represent 3% of total cash costs. Non-permittee net costs are about $40/ cow higher than permittee costs (94B2).

[A3d] - Economic Issues - Sub-Leasing of Grazing Permits -

The Interior Inspector General reported several cases of profitable sub-leases, including one in which a California public utility subleased its base property and 20 federal grazing allotments. The sub-lessees paid the utility $3.90/ animal-unit-month, in addition to $1.81 paid to BLM (92I1) (94D1). The profit from these subleases shows, not only that the original leases lie below market value, but also that lessees can convert subsidies to cash (94D1).

A study by Colorado State University found that over 900 BLM livestock permittees have sub-leased their public-land grazing allotments for an average $7.76/ AUM - over five times the federal grazing fee (87U1).

[A3e] - Economic Issues - Some Grazing Permit Owners -
Through Freedom of Information Act requests, billing records were obtained of the more than 26,300 livestock operators who lease land from the US Forest Service and BLM. An analysis found such Rolex ranchers as hotel mogul Barron Hilton, beer giant Anheuser-Busch Inc. and Mary Hewlett Jaffe, daughter of Silicon Valley billionaire William Hewlett, enjoying below-market grazing fees (99R1).

[A4] - Economic Issues - Grazing Economics -

Globally, an estimated 200 million people make their living as pastoralists, tending cattle, sheep, and goats (10B1).
In 1950, Africa had 227 million people and 273 million livestock (10B1).
In 2007, Africa had 965 million people and 824 million livestock (10B1).

(Brush Control Economics - US) In most cases, brush control is practiced on historically overgrazed ranches -- ranges where overstocking has eliminated grass as a fuel for fire and as a competitor to brush invasion and expansion. On public lands the costs of brush control are paid for by the land managing agencies or shared by the agencies and permittees. On private lands these costs are normally divided between the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and participating ranchers, with the government assuming as much as 65% of the cost. As a general rule, intensive brush control on public and private lands of the arid regions are not cost-effective to ranchers when they alone must pay the full economic price. Costs on a per-hectare basis for herbicidal and mechanical treatments average $5-8/ hectare and $10-12/ hectare respectively. Moreover, the income flow of benefits from control treatments in generally short-lived. On less productive sagebrush ranges and on most mesquite and shinnery oak ranges in the arid region, benefits rarely exceed costs long enough to make investments profitable. Also, intensive brush control treatments have hidden costs that are often ignored in assessments of profitability and desirability: environmental costs like loss of soil stability in shinnery oak sites, and loss of wildlife habitat on sagebrush ranges. Without cost-sharing subsidies, ranchers would not, and could not, afford such widespread and costly rangeland treatments. The effects of government brush control subsidies are numerous. They discourage ranchers from seeking more environmentally friendly solutions to brush encroachment. They reward bad management, giving poor ranch managers a competitive edge over those whose practices are better. They encourage overstocking by masking the true costs of resource depletion. Also, they sustain livestock operations at levels that are otherwise non-sustainable. In all, brush control subsidies make land degradation a bearable cost of arid land ranching (00H2).

In spite of trends towards increasing scales of production and vertical integration, the greater part of the food consumed in developing countries is still produced by semi-subsistence farmers (03S2).

Livestock ownership currently supports and sustains the livelihoods of an estimated 675 million rural poor (99L2) (03S2).

An estimated 250 million work animals provide draft power for cultivation of about half the total cropland in developing countries (03S2).

Of 102 counties in the 7-state region encompassing the Columbia River Basin, only 11 counties were found to have more than 1% of total income or employment associated with public land grazing (99P1). (Federal grazing leases in this region support about a third of the total federal grazing supply in the 11 Western states.) (99P1).

In the 11 Western states livestock grazing on federal public lands provides 0.06% of the jobs (fewer than 18,000 jobs) and 0.04% of the income ((96P1) Table 8-2).

Beef produced from federal grazing lands (250 million acres) accounts for less than 3% of total production. As recently as 1999, public lands ranching accounted for 0.04% of all income and 0.06% of all employment in the West. These returns are alarming given the enormous federal subsidies for public lands ranching (02R1).

A study cited in Journal of Range Management concludes that ranching operations for grazing permittees on public lands "had a return rate that ranged from negative to 1-2%/ year. ..." (02R1).

Ref. (02G1) identifies the characteristics and attitudes of public lands ranchers. The authors randomly contacted 2000 US Forest Service and BLM permittees. A number of studies show that ranching made no rational sense from a profit perspective. One study concluded "ranches had a return rate that ranged from negative to 1-2%, while prices for ranches seemed well above a "rational value " based on the capitalized value of ranch earning potential. This suggests that profit maximization is not the primary goal of public land ranchers. Seven goals or objectives for continuing in ranching were identified. They were:
Owning land and a ranch is consistent with my family's tradition culture and values (called TRAD)
A ranch is a good place to raise kids (FAMILY)
Living on a ranch allows me to live closer to family and friends (FRIEND)
I want to obtain a good return on investment (PROFIT)
With my skills it would be difficult for me to obtain a job outside of ranching. (SKILLS)
I continue ranching so I will have a business to pass on to my children (PASS)
Based on these factors eight different ranchers were identified. Small hobbyist, retired hobbyist, working hobbyist, trophy rancher, diversified family rancher, dependent family rancher, corporate rancher, sheep rancher.

All groups ranked consumption objective above profit maximizing. This is not surprising, as anyone with a goal to make money would not enter ranching.
All groups ranked TRAD and FAMILY as the most important objectives. I.e. custom and culture. PROFIT was ranked in the middle across all groups. Many do not believe it's possible to make a profit under current market conditions.

Small hobbyists (11.1% of respondents) had the lowest dependency on ranching. Most income comes from off ranch jobs. They also have the smallest herd size and smallest deeded acreage.
Retired hobbyists (18% of the respondents) are the most dependent on ranch income of all hobbyists. They might be appropriately called "retired ranchers".
Working hobbyists (average age 51 years) (15.4% of the ranchers) had a low dependence on ranching income and had the highest dependency on off-ranch income. They had relatively small herds, but had the largest of the hobbyists. They ranked profit relatively high compared to other groups. HISTORY was also important suggesting that many probably grew on the ranch and were continuing the "family " business.
Trophy ranchers (6% of respondents) rank profit very low, yet they have large herds, large acreage, and high overall labor requirements. They also have the highest income of all groups, but most of this income comes from off-ranch sources, particularly investments. Trophy ranchers are the best educated of the group. They also had the least dependency on public forage.
Dependent Family Ranchers (18.6% of the respondents) had the highest dependency on ranching and least diversified income sources. This group appears to feel very strongly about ranching as a way of life. It also feels the most "trapped " (their word) in ranching because they were the least educated and felt they no other skills other than ranching. It also had the highest degree of debt load. It was the least willing to participate in conservation practices (so much for the "family ranchers " loving the land).
Diversified Family Ranchers (13.5% of ranchers) had the smallest herd size of any group dependent on ranching (i.e. not hobbyist). They are diversified into other income sources from logging off ranch jobs, cultural commodities, etc. This group ranked making a profit second highest of all groups. On average this groups owns 4765 deeded acres (that' s pretty good size ranch).
Corporate Ranchers (13% of respondents) were highly dependent on ranching for income, had the largest herds, and large deeded acreages. They also hire the second largest labor force (after Trophy Ranchers). Even for these corporate ranchers, lifestyle (getting to wear the boots and hat) was ranked more important than financial return. They along with sheep ranchers, were the most financially stressed.
Sheep Herder/Ranchers (4.3% of all respondents) and is dependent on sheep. This group had the largest herds and the largest deeded acreage. It also had the highest labor requirements. The group is highly dependent on ranching income. It was also the group most willing to participate in riparian conservation (maybe because sheep don't hang out in riparian areas like cows). This group also had the highest dependency on public lands in all seasons.
Conclusions: Hobbyists comprise 50.4% of all public lands ranching operations. The 49.6% are highly dependent on ranching for income. Public land ranchers control 107,516,920 private acres or 14.21% of the total land base in the 11 western states. (This is 29,000 permit holders (One rancher may hold several permits-so the number of ranchers actually involved is less than the total number of permits). This is an amazing concentration of wealth and land in a very small percentage of the population (02G1).

Estimate the Value of Production of Various Land Types (Dregne and Chou (Ref. 18 of (97C1)))
Land Type- - - - -|Productivity ($/ km²/ year)
Irrigated Cropland|62,500
Rain-fed Cropland | 9,500
Rangelands~ ~ ~ ~ | 1,750

Comments: Irrigated lands are thought be about four times more productive than rain-fed croplands, but the more expensive crops are grown on irrigated lands, explaining why irrigated lands are over six times more productive than rain-fed croplands on a $/ unit-area basis.

Some livestock production values ($million/ year) (p. 572 of (91J1))
Western BLM and USFS| $ 390
Western public lands| $ 550
US~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | $21,000

Studies by New Mexico State University revealed that ranchers with fewer than 300 cattle may lose up to $60/ head. Smaller operations lose even more (94O1).

A Perspective on New Mexico:

Gross income per average New Mexico ranch: $119,000 in 1990 (Sunwest Bank report).
Median household income in New Mexico: $24,087 (US census data, 1990)
Per-capita income in New Mexico: $11,246 (US census data, 1990).
Of 1,484,339 New Mexico residents counted in the 1990 census, 305,934 were living below the poverty level ([5] in (99W2)).

New Mexico was rated #4 among the top 10 states with the highest taxes on the poor in a 1996 report by Citizens for Tax Justice ([6] in (99W2)).
A 1998 report by the Institute for Women's Policy Research found New Mexico to be the state with the greatest percentage of women in poverty ([7] in (99W2)).

Arizona has 722,660 residents living in poverty (1995 census report) (99W2).

Employment and Income from Federal grazing in the 11 western states (See Ref. (99P1) for a breakdown by state.)
Agricultural jobs as a % of total jobs ~ ~ | 2.06%
Cattle and sheep jobs as a % of total jobs | 0.53%
Federal grazing jobs as a % of total jobs~ | 0.06%
Federal grazing jobs ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 18,000
Agricultural income as a % of total~ ~ ~ ~ | 1.19%
Cattle and sheep income as a % of total~ ~ | 0.31%
Federal grazing income as a % of total ~ ~ | 0.04%

Net cash farm-related income in the 11 western states: $5.08 billion (1987 Census of Agriculture).

Nationally, almost 80% of the income received by beef-raising operations comes from non-farm sources (99P1). It is the growth in non-basic jobs and income during the past decade that has kept agriculture in the 11 western states from shrinking significantly - not the other way around (99P1).

(Ranching Income) On BLM lands in the Chihuahuan Desert producing 300+ lb/ acre/ year of forage, a well-managed, medium-sized cow-calf unit of 250 animals can generate about $40,000/ year. When perennial forage production drops below 100 lb./ acre/ year, financial losses from grazing are almost certain (Ref. 28 and 15 of (93H1)).

(Ranching Income) Live cattle futures for front-month August '98 contract: 64.3 cents/ lb. (1997 high: 70 cents/ lb.) The price for feeder cattle (cattle that feedlots buy from ranchers to fatten for slaughter): 72.2 cents/ lb. (Wall Street Journal, 7/6/98).

(Ranching Income) In 1997 farmers were getting $1/ pound for lamb; 85 cents in 1998; 75 cents in 1999 (99S1).

(Ranching Income) Lamb prices fell 40% between 1997-99 - a drop the American Sheep Industry Association, blames on imports (99S1).

North Dakota Rancher Profits Data from North Dakota Farm Business Management Program at North Dakota State University, 3/5/00
1990-93 $152-$190 per beef cow sold.
1994 $50 per beef cow sold.
1994-1998 $3 per beef cow sold.

(Ranching Costs) It costs $2.50 to shear a sheep to get an average 10 pounds of wool. "At 38 cents/ pound for wool, net profit is $1.30/ sheep (99S1).

(Ranching Costs) Fencing costs more than $5000/ mile (99W1). Comments: The same author later cited a figure of around $10,000.

(Private Grazing Fees) The average rate that ranchers charge each other to graze private property in the 11 westernmost states is $11.10. Critics, who like to point out it costs more to feed a hamster than the federal government charges to feed a 1,000-pound cow (99R1).

(State Grazing Fees) Oklahoma charges up to $10.80/ month for grazing fees.

(State Grazing Fees) Montana charges $4.40/ month for lands, most adjacent to federal property (99R1).

Among all Arizona agricultural commodities, cattle and calves represent 20.2% of total farm receipts ([9] in (99W2)).

(Ranching Income) In the 11 western states, $1 out of every $2500 in income received is directly associated with grazing on federal lands (99P1).

(Ranching Employment) In the 11 western states, one out of every 2000 jobs is directly tied to federal land grazing (99P1).

Montana obtains about 7% of its forage from federal lands. Cattle and sheep operations are responsible for about 50% of the dollar value of all of Montana's agricultural sales (99P1).

(Ranching Income) Agriculture is responsible for 7% of total Montana income. The net result of all this is that federal grazing is responsible for about 0.25% of all income in Montana (99P1).

(Ranching Income) Ranching directly provides under 0.5% of all income received by Westerners, and ranching on public lands is responsible for even less economic activity (99P1).

(Ranching Employment) Employment in the ranching industry is of low importance in the Interior Columbia Basin. Ranching produces 1% of jobs in the entire Interior Columbia Basin, and federal-land grazing produces 0.01-0.3% of jobs in Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and Montana (Powers 1996, p. 184). BLM and USFS lands provide only 7.0% of forage used in the Basin, and cattle dependent on federal forage for some part of the year account for only 2% of total agricultural sales across the Columbia Basin (97H2) (97B3).

(Ranching Income) Financial returns for private land ranches in the Great Plains average $5-10/ acre/ year (net) (Ref. 16, 32, 36 of (93H1)).

(Ranching Return on Investment) Historically, returns on invested capital for western ranches have been 2-6%/ year (Refs. 10, 32, 44 of Ref. (93H1)).

(Ranching Return on Investment) Historically the nominal rate of return on livestock investments has averaged under 2%/ year. As a result, long-term ranching profits have come primarily from the 10-15% annual appreciation in value of privately owned and publicly permitted or leased grazing lands (94O1).

(Ranching Profitability) Because of the low economic productivity of public grazing lands, holdings over 20,000 acres are generally needed to sustain a family. Very few public land grazing allotments approach such size (94O1).

Below are some net incomes during 1988-92 for federal land cow-calf ranchers in various regions:

Those in the sagebrush type (NV, WY, UT, ID, and Eastern OR) $0.80/ acre/ year.
Southwest desert ranches (AZ, NM) $0.60/ acre/ year.
Ranches in southwest coniferous forest/ pinyon-juniper $2.55/ acre/ year (Refs. 32, 36 of Ref. (93H1)).
Private ranchers of the Great Plains net $5-$10/ acre/ year on tall- and mixed-grass prairies (94O1).

Comments: Returns clearly increase with increasing precipitation.

World prices for Patagonia (Argentina) wool has fallen from $1/ lb. to under $0.30/ lb over the past 8 years (94N1). Comments: Presumably this reflects greater use of synthetic fibers.

[A5] - Economic Issues - Economics of Alternatives to Grazing -

Since 1997 the Grand Canyon Trust, based in Flagstaff, Ariz., has paid to remove cattle on 750,000 acres in the new Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument in Utah (02R2).

The National Public Lands Grazing Campaign, backed by a steering committee that includes the American Lands Alliance, Center for Biological Diversity, Committee for Idaho's High Desert, Forest Guardians, Oregon Natural Desert Association and Western Watersheds Project, has formulated an innovative compensation proposal that could save public lands ranchers from dire economic times, a losing occupation and a vanishing way of life. The campaign proposes that Congress establish a buyout program to compensate grazing permittees who voluntarily relinquish their public lands leases. 85 conservation groups already endorse the plan across the country. The campaign proposal would pay federal permittees nearly three times market rate to voluntarily relinquish their grazing permits. The average market value in the West of a federal animal-unit-month (AUM) is $50-$75. The new proposal would compensate permittees at a fixed price of $175/ AUM. Under the plan, a permittee with 300 cow/ calf pairs that graze public lands for five months of the year would receive upwards of $262,000. Under the proposal, compensating all federal grazing permittees at a rate of $175/ AUM would initially cost taxpayers about $3.3 billion. But the net savings of the program would be $5.5-$11 billion. Federal grazing permit buyouts are ecologically imperative, economically rational, fiscally prudent, socially compassionate and politically pragmatic, NPLGC notes.

Estimated total recreational visit-hours (in thousands) on public lands under the jurisdiction of the BLM in 1985 and 1990 (Refs. 38 and 39 of (93H1))
State- - -|- 1985 | 1990
Arizona ~ | 18,418| 72,776
California|101,938|233,704
Colorado~ | 17,350| 19,332
Idaho ~ ~ | 32,955| 20,261
Montana ~ | ~2,325| 23,044
Nevada~ ~ | ~8,072| 18,040
New Mexico| ~6,463| 13,653
Oregon~ ~ | 36,302| 58,924
Utah~ ~ ~ | 14,418| 49,031
Wyoming ~ | ~3,266| 10,037
Totals~ ~ |241,507|518,802

Hunting on BLM lands in the West provide net economic values of $168 million/ year (93H1). Non-consumptive recreation provides $53 million/ year. Fishing provides $79 million/ year (93H1). The total of these is about $300 million/ year (no multiplier effects). Livestock grazing on BLM lands in 11 western states might have a net economic value of $500 million (93H1).

Colorado loses an estimated 1 million acres of cattle land per year to developers and homebuyers. Land bought for $10 an acre in 1943 is now fetching appraisals of $10,000 an acre (Associated Press, 12/27/99).

Recreation visits to BLM lands in the 11 western states: 60 million/ year (91W1).

Costa Rica's livestock cattle industry produces $42/ km²/ year in export revenues
Costa Rica's banana industry produces $6036/ km²/ year in export revenues (p. 355 of Ref. (91J1)).

[A6] - Economic Issues - Grazing Subsidies -

(Grazing Policy Errors – US) Natural resource and range management schools in leading western universities argue that (1) that the highest and best use of rangelands, even in advanced countries such as the US, is for food production and (2) that rangeland forage is essential to providing adequate supplies of red meat in the US. Economic trends, however, argue against such assumptions. First, the profitability of arid land ranching has declined in recent years. Rates of return on ranch investments are now lower than the historic levels of 2-3%. In addition, land appreciation that traditionally supported low returns to ranch investments is now negative in many areas of the arid West. Driven by consumer demand, market forces are making it clear that the highest and best use of many western ranges is no longer red meat production. Second, supplies of red meat are abundant and at low prices, and will remain so irrespective of arid land contributions. Like foodstuffs in other sectors of the agricultural economy, a shortage of red meat is not a foreseeable problem. Market forces, if left unfettered, would likely retire the most marginal -- and mostly environmentally sensitive -- grazing lands in the arid region, would encourage technologies and management strategies favoring long-term economic survival, and would provide powerful incentives for many grazers to explore and develop alternative land uses that are both economically and ecologically sustainable. The curriculums of natural resource and range management schools have had the opposite effect of unfettered markets, however. With few exceptions, the framers of those curriculums have not considered or challenged the institutional and policy roots of land degradation. Academic researchers have not examined in scientific light the ecological implications of the grazing permit system, the institutional flaws that promote poor stewardship, the subsidy systems that reward bad management practices, and the intrusions into market processes that drive arid land users to undesirable land use outcomes. Instead, researchers have become institutional bulwarks and apologists for flawed institutions, unworkable public policies, and badly motivated ranchers (00H2).

(Emergency Feed Subsidies – US) The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service distributes emergency feed relief during periods of drought to both private and public lands ranchers in the arid region of the US. Nationwide, the program spends more than $0.5 Billion in some years in direct cash assistance, and millions more in direct distribution of corn feed. In the western states, ranchers who participate in the program receive annual average cash payments ranging from $4,000 in New Mexico to $11,000 in Oregon, plus varying amounts of free corn feed. In theory, the feed program is intended to supplement rangeland forage during unusual climactic periods of extreme drought. This program encourages ranchers to stock their ranchlands for years of above-average precipitation rather than for average years. This argues persuasively that the feed program is little more than a federal subsidy for overstocked and overgrazed lands. New Mexico is a case in point. Emergency feed relief represents 10-15% of the net income of private and public land ranchers in that state. Economic studies found that aggregate stocking rates in New Mexico are 15-25% higher than they would be in the absence of feed subsidies. In other words, government assistance encourages, and allows, levels of stocking that are economically nonviable and ecologically destructive to the grass resource. The result is a spiraling effect where overgrazing creates demand for feed subsidies and where feed subsidies expand otherwise non-sustainable numbers of livestock. The net effect is to make land degradation an ongoing program of public policy (00H2).

In 1981, grazing revenues for the federal government were $24.9 million. Costs of range management and payments to local governments in lieu of property taxes totaled $58.5 million (85C1).

Federal subsidies benefit 22,350 livestock operators (2.3% of the operators in the contiguous 48 states) ((94U2) pp. 3-65), who collectively produce about 2% of the US beef supply (86C1). The 4,600 sheep producers with federal permits ((94U2) pp. 3-65) represent 4% of US producers (91V1).

Although the USDA's Farm Service Agency is mandated to give emergency livestock feed relief to ranchers only in periods of extreme drought, in practice it hands out $100-$500 million/ year during both dry and wet years (95H3). In effect, emergency feed relief creates artificial drought by subsidizing overgrazing. It allows ranchers to run a grass deficit. Each year that they overstock and overgraze - irrespective of rainfall - their rangelands produce less grass, and with less grass their need for drought relief mounts (95H1).

Direct and indirect subsidies (for public-land ranching in the US) may reach $500 million/ year (95H2), which include $180 million/year for the BLM grazing program ((97N1) p. 666) and $13.9 million/ year for Wildlife Services' pest- and predator control ((97P2) p. 4).

American taxpayers lose at least $128 million/ year, and potentially up to $1 billion/ year, subsidizing cattle grazing on millions of acres of public lands across the US West, according to a new study commissioned by conservation groups (02R2).

The lack of transparent accounting was the most frustrating thing about determining the full cost of federal grazing programs. The range management programs of the BLM and Forest Service run at a loss of about $124 million, after subtracting fee receipts. This however, is just the tip of the iceberg. Numerous programs both in and outside the two agencies also bear costs related to the grazing program. No system could be found that adequately accounts for all of these costs. The deeper problem is the ecological cost. Livestock cause massive and widespread damage to watersheds, streams, wildlife and endangered species, because they are virtually everywhere most of the time on public lands. A lot of money is spent trying to correct these problems and we have no full accounting of those costs because the government simply ignores them. New report gives further weight to the earlier reports that the cost of federal grazing programs is between $500 million and $1 billion. A full accounting of the ecological costs - soil erosion, extirpation of predators, water pollution, endangered species, spread of weeds, dewatering of rivers for irrigated pasture - would give a price of sustaining public lands grazing in the billions of dollars (02M2).

The minimum cost to the federal taxpayer of the federal grazing program is $128 million a year.

The real full cost is likely to lie in the range of one half to one billion dollars a year.

Allowing grazing fees to be determined by the market would not recoup the full costs of the program.

There is no accounting system that adequately discloses the numerous indirect costs of the grazing program (02M2).

Under rights provided by the Freedom of Information Act, Forest Guardians, a Santa Fe-based conservation group, assembled a database of Livestock Assistance Program spending over the past decade and found that a yearly average of $24 million has been distributed to beneficiaries of the program nationwide. In 1999, that figure was $40 million, allotted to over 9,000 recipients. When natural disasters strike, ranchers become eligible for livestock assistance funds. The USDA defines such disasters as drought, disease, insect infestation, flood, fire, severe storms and earthquakes. To qualify for funding, ranchers must suffer a 40%+ loss of grazing for 3 consecutive months during the calendar year (01E1).

Livestock producers have received $237 million in federal aid from the USDA since 1990 (01E1).

Ref. (99W2) concludes that there are simply too many benefits allotted to the ranching industry in the Southwest to detail all of them -especially those that are not direct payments or tax breaks.

Arizona Common Ground Roundtable claims that, to preserve open space in Arizona, even greater subsidies and benefits for ranchers are needed ([63] in Ref. (99W2)). However the only Arizona land at risk for development is the 17% that is private land; the remaining 83% is public land (99W2).

(Diversion of Tax Revenues to Ranchers' Benefits) The Arizona Heritage Fund draws millions of dollars each year from lottery proceeds and directs them to state parks and the Game and Fish Department. But Arizona's Game and Fish Department used $3 million in Heritage Fund money to buy a ranch, and grazing continues on the ranch's public land grazing allotments ([56] in 99W2). In 1999, the Arizona State Parks Board used $8.6 million in Heritage Fund money to purchase development rights and 3,600 acres of the 21,100 acre-San Rafael Ranch south of Patagonia. The Nature Conservancy, which bought the rest of the ranch, will sell it to a rancher for cattle grazing. The public will only have access to the ranch 8 times a year ([57] in Ref. (99W2)).

The economic benefits that accrue to the few ranchers who lease BLM and USFS lands for grazing:

do not begin to match the economic and ecological losses to the public of healthy plant and animal populations, functioning ecosystems, clean water, recreation, and the knowledge that wild places still exist,
don't match the costs to the American public in terms of range management, road construction and obliteration, weed control, juniper burning programs, protection of endangered species, and restoration of streams and hillsides (97B3).

Ranchers using federal lands in the West also receive benefits from the Department of Agriculture. They may benefit from subsidized loan programs of the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), and from animal damage control and disease control programs of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (94D1).

In addition to the direct benefits from below-market grazing fees, federal grazing allottees receive benefits from the use of environmental amenities commonly withheld from other extractive industries. For example, grazing allotments have been allowed to continue in more than a dozen units of the National Park system. Such extractive use is inconsistent with the overall purposes of the National Parks. Commonly, mining claims in these areas are limited to existing claims, and timber cutting is not allowed. Only livestock grazing continues the new extraction of resources from the parks (94D1).

(Taxpayer-Financed Wildlife Eradication) NM ADC agents made 412 visits to Sam Donaldson's ranch and 99 visits to Republican Congressman Joe Skeen's ranch between 1991-96 to carry out "livestock protection" activities at taxpayer expense (99W2).

(Taxpayer-Financed Wildlife Eradication) The New Mexico FY97 annual report of ADC shows 10,439 animals killed at a cost of $2,256,486.([47] in Ref. (99W2)). The New Mexico ADC was funded with $1,255,195 in federal tax dollars in 1997, $275,000 in state tax dollars, and $726,291 in so-called cooperative funds that included $551,048 in county funds. The New Mexico state legislature funds ADC covertly in a line item deep within the Higher Education budget and increased the funding during the 1999 legislative session to $304,000 (99W2).

(Nevada) In late 1992, the District 1 Grazing Advisory Board in Nevada found itself with $290,000 in excess funds. State law permitted expenditures for "emergencies," so the board - after narrowly rejecting a proposal to use the funds to sue the federal government over a property rights issue - determined that drought conditions constituted an "emergency," and rebated $200,000 of the grazing fee funds directly to the district's ranchers (94D1).

Half of the value of the fees paid to BLM by grazing allottees are transferred into a Range Betterment Fund. This fund may be used only for a variety of range improvements, including wildlife habitat, water quality and other range conservation improvements as well as grazing improvements. In practice, BLM's accounting for the fund has been shoddy, but the vast majority of the sums accounted for - more than 90% - have gone to grazing-related expenses. Thus, the grazing allottees appear to receive the benefit of most of the fees paid into the fund (94D1). In addition to this federal fund, both BLM and the USFS pay a portion of grazing fees back to the states, which the states then distribute to the counties where the grazing occurs. The USFS pays 25% of its grazing receipts back to the states; BLM payments range from 12% to 50%, depending on various statutory authorities. County payments are then distributed according to state law. In many areas, however, these payments again contribute to ranching operations through local "grazing advisory boards" controlled by the ranchers, which manage the payments according to state law. At times, these funds have been used to sue the federal government (94D1).

Ref. (94D1) describes the complex web of overlapping and sometimes contradictory benefits (subsidies) (price supports, tax breaks, low-cost loans and exemptions from environmental laws) given in mineral extraction, irrigation water, hydropower, timber, grazing and recreation.

(Taxpayer-financed wildlife eradication) In 1998, the USFS and the BLM lost $94 million on grazing, spending $116 million and taking in only $22 million in fees. Under another program, known as Wildlife Services, the US Department of Agriculture spent $14.6 million more in state and federal funds to kill coyotes, mountain lions and other predators for Western ranchers (99R1).

(Taxpayer-Financed Wildlife Eradication) In FY 1997, ADC's Arizona program received $432,518 in federal tax dollars and $323,608 in "cooperative" dollars. Those include $2,575 from Phoenix area taxpayers, $50,507 from individual beneficiaries, $28,513 from the USFS, $95,188 from organizations, $82,900 from the state government, and $63,925 from Apache, Greenlee, Cochise, and Graham County taxpayers (99W2).

(Taxpayer-Financed Fencing) The public will probably be asked to send upward of $100 million in the next decade to lace its public lands with thousands of miles of fence that have no purpose other than to avoid closing livestock allotments. The cost/ benefit ratio is typically on the order of 100:1 on these projects - neglecting the near eradication of recreational opportunities (99W2).

(Tax Breaks) The Arizona Farm Bureau web site boasts about other tax savings it recently won for farmers and ranchers.[38] ."Saving you $76,960/ year because farms and ranches continue to be valued and taxed using the current use formula while other formulas changed, saving you an additional $65/ year by referring to the voters in November a total exemption from property tax of the first $50,000 of personal property, saving ranchers $636 and farmers $6,500/ year because a tax on the lease of public property only applies to those who lease commercial property from cities and counties [and] saving you $102/ year because the Department of Revenue is stopped from charging you sales tax on installation and repair of tax-exempt machinery and equipment" (99W2).

(Tax Breaks) Arizona taxes commercial leases, amusement and entertainment establishments, retail establishments, and businesses where food and drink are sold - but not rodeos (99W2).

(Tax Breaks) Arizona provides an exemption from the tax imposed on the retail classification for the sale of livestock feed, salts, vitamins, and other additives, implants used as growth promoters, and injectable medicines sold to persons who are engaged in producing livestock or livestock products, or in feeding livestock commercially (99W2).

(Tax Breaks) Arizona laws say ranchers who purchase and install an agricultural water conservation system get a tax credit equal to 75% of the qualifying expenses incurred in the purchase or installation of the system (99W2).

(Tax Breaks) Arizona law says the motor-carrier fee for vehicles used "only for transporting agricultural products" shall be 0.7 of the full rate. To qualify, keep a bale of hay in the back of your pickup truck (99W2).

In New Mexico lenders may charge businesses higher interest rates on loans than is permitted by state usury laws. Lenders may charge points up to but not exceeding 3% of the loan amount on interim construction loans. Lenders may charge up to the maximum interest rate for points plus interest on loans secured by real property. But this is not applicable to loans secured by a first mortgage on farm, ranch or agricultural real estate where the purpose of the loan is primarily for farming, ranching or agricultural purposes" (99W2).

(Tax Breaks) In New Mexico, every vehicle and trailer, when driven or moved upon a highway, is supposed to be subject to the registration and certificate-of-title provisions of the Motor Vehicle Code. However, an exception is made for "any implement of husbandry which is only incidentally operated or moved upon a highway." A New Mexico Attorney General Opinion stated that a "pickup truck per se is not an implement of husbandry but could possibly be so used and be exempt from registration" (99W2).

(Tax Breaks) New Mexico residents pay registration fees on their trucks and buses. But under the Motor Vehicle Code, all farm vehicles of more than 6000 pounds are charged two-thirds the regular rate (99W2).

(Tax Breaks) Although most NM residents must pay registration fees, based on weight, on their freight trailers and utility trailers, this state law "shall not apply to farmers or ranchers who transport to market only the produce, animals or fowls produced by them, or who transport back to their farms or ranches supplies for use thereon" (99W2).

(Tax Breaks) Receipts from warehousing grain or other agricultural products may be deducted from gross receipts. Receipts from threshing, cleaning, growing, cultivating, or harvesting agricultural products, including ginning of cotton or processing for growers, producers, or nonprofit marketing associations of other agricultural products raised for food and fiber, including livestock, may be deducted from gross receipts (99W2).

New Mexico's minimum wage law covers most workers, but not workers employed by ranchers (99W2).

New Mexico's labor laws apply to thousands of employers but not to those who happen to be ranchers (99W2).

Residents of New Mexico pay some of the highest gasoline prices in the nation. But ranchers can claim a refund on state gas tax paid ([37] in Ref. (99W2)). Approximately 300 permittees are actively taking advantage of the allowable refund. An average of $251,518 was paid out to those permittees in each of the last 3 years (99W2).

In 1996, the federal grazing program generated $25 million, while costing $77 million to administer ([17] in Ref. (99W2)).

The ranching industry could not survive without the vast array of tax benefits and subsidies - hundreds of millions of dollars per year -that result from its disproportionate influence. Particularly egregious, public lands ranching is the most ubiquitous form of land degradation in the region. This activity harms wildlife, degrades watersheds, pollutes drinking water, destroys riparian habitat, and denudes sensitive arid grasslands - and means yearly financial losses for every American taxpayer (99W2).

Ref. (99W2) documents the existence and impact of numerous governmental supports for grazing in the arid Southwest - mainly in Arizona and New Mexico.

In 1995, two environmental organizations bid on nine state land grazing leases at rates double those paid by ranchers. Every bid was rejected except one for an uncontested grazing lease on a parcel of land that had been vacant for 10 years. In 1996, the groups bid on 3 more grazing leases, again at higher rates than ranchers, and were eventually awarded one ([26] in Ref. (99W2)).

Direct federal government payments to farmers and ranchers in New Mexico were $55.2 million in 1995, according to the NM Department of Agriculture. Those payments included $9.8 million in livestock emergency assistance, $4.7 million in National Wool Act payments, $8.1 million in Disaster Program Payments, and $3.4 million in Feed Grain payments, to name just a few.([36] in 99W2) In June 1999, the US Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman added $70 million to $200 million distributed to more than 167,000 producers in 31 states for 1998 grazing losses (99W2).

Reuters reported (3/24/98) that the USDA would buy $30 million worth of US beef products to help cattle ranchers "struggling amid falling demand for beef in Asia and increasing herds at home" (99W2).

NM ranchers received $10.2 million in wool and mohair subsidies in 1992 [35] . Congress voted in 1994 to phase out the subsidies, but in 1998 the subsidies were resurrected when a provision to give mohair producers interest-free loans was inserted into the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations bill ((17) in 99W2).

According to the Navajo County (AZ) Assessor's office, property taxes on a 100-acre parcel of grazing land would be $3.44/ year (99W2).

Although 99% of New Mexico trust-land is open to livestock grazing, grazing leases generate only about 4% (approximately $6.5 million) of trust-land revenues ([23] in Ref. (99W2)).

According to the Arizona Land Department's 1998 annual report, 8.5 of the state's 9.3 million surface acres of trust land are leased for grazing, or 94%. The 1,291 grazing leases on those lands generated $2,200,176 for the Land Department during FY98 - $0.26/ acre. Yet the Arizona Constitution requires the Land Department to obtain the highest possible income from the land while protecting it for the benefit of public schools ([20] in Ref. (99W2)).

Congress ordered the US Park Service to study the future of grazing inside Grand Teton, one of handful of national parks in the West -others include Capitol Reef and Dinosaur in Utah - where livestock are allowed to pasture. In Grand Teton National Park the US Park Service diverts water from a stream for ranch irrigation, maintains 100 miles of fences in that valley and spends $40,000/ year to manage a cattle allotment while receiving $8,000/ year in grazing fees (Christopher Smith, Salt Lake Tribune, 8/5/99).

Australia's handful of powerful, wealthy stockmen control about half of Australia, pay only token grazing fees, and are heavily subsidized by numerous direct and obscure means (91J1).

San Jose Mercury News (11/7/99) gives a scathing investigative report on the $100 million in "taxpayer subsidies" for grazing on BLM and national forest lands. The report looks at the costs and impacts of 3.2 million cattle grazing on 254 million acres of public land in 17 western states. The biggest 10 lease holders, which includes "wealthy hobby ranchers, agribusiness giants and corporations," control 65% of all grazing on BLM land and 49% on national forests. In 1998, the BLM lost over $94 million on its grazing programs."

Robert Nelson, 18-year veteran of US Dept. of the Interior's Office of Policy Analysis, writing in Fordham Environmental Law Journal (1997) calculated grazing-management costs on BLM lands of $200 million/ year.

While most in New Mexico have to pay gross-receipts tax on everything from food to medicine, ranchers get numerous exemptions:

receipts from selling livestock
receipts of growers, producers, nonprofit marketing associations from selling livestock, live poultry, unprocessed agricultural products,
receipts derived from feeding or pasturing livestock,
receipts derived from penning or handling livestock prior to sale,
receipts from selling feed for livestock,
receipts of auctioneers from selling livestock or other agricultural products at auction (99W2).

Public land ranching on western US public land produces $550 million worth of livestock annually - far less that what taxpayers spend on the industry (91J1).

Direct subsidies to US public-land grazers total roughly $100 million/ year (Indirect subsidies not counted) (91J1).

It costs $11.70 to $43.50 for the BLM to spray grasshoppers to prevent them from eating $1.35 worth of forage (p. 381 of Ref. (91J1)).

The USDA (APHIS) spends $6.36 to $9.54 to save an AUM (= 2-3 acres) from grasshoppers, even though it receives only $2.04/ AUM (Little Missouri National Grassland of western North Dakota) (94O1).

The value of the forage produced by federally subsidized (60-100%) brush control is far less than the cost of brush removal (94O1). Comments: Brush control is not usually needed when grassland is not over-grazed.

The list below of National Forest expenses associated with fencing of streams to protect endangered species from cattle does not include other environmental costs (re-seeding, erosion control, etc.), predator control (coyotes, mountain lions, etc.), routine management (salaries, vehicles, etc.), road construction and maintenance, or non-USFS subsidies (emergency feed programs, etc.). The federal loss (not cost) of all these latter programs together was conservatively estimated as $100 million/ year for all BLM and USFS allotments ([39] in (99W2)). If the expenses were included of protecting endangered birds, fish, reptiles, and watersheds from cattle and restoring forests and woodlands scarred by overgrazing-induced fire suppression, the annual federal loss would likely be $300-$500 million (99W2).

1994, Sunflower Allotment, Tonto National Forest: To restore 20 miles of Sycamore Creek within the Dos S unit of the Sunflower Allotment, the USFS proposed to spend $261,000 on fencing and upland waters. The rancher pays $10,700/ year to graze 450 cattle. The proposal is only to keep cattle out for 10 years ((43) in Ref. (99W2)).

1995, Six Bar Allotment, Tonto National Forest: The USFS spent $98,000 on range improvements to allow a rancher to graze 250 head all year, providing approximately $6,000 to the USFS ((43) in Ref.99W2).
1995, Tonto Basin Allotments, Tonto National Forest: To compensate for destroying riparian habitat around Roosevelt Lake, the Bureau of Reclamation was forced by the USFWS to spend $2.1 million ($191,000/ ranch), to fence cattle from riparian areas on 11 allotments around Roosevelt Lake ([42] in Ref. (99W2)).
1996, Apache Trout Protection, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest: The USFS and Arizona Department of Game and Fish spent $350,000 to fence cattle out of habitat for the threatened Apache trout. $100,000 was spent on one allotment alone, even though it generates only $2,500/ year in grazing revenue for the USFS (Barber 1996). The total federal cost of fencing national forest streams to allow cattle to remain on the threatened Apache Trout grazing allotments is $1.5-$2.0 million ((41) in (99W2).

1995, Apache Maid Allotment, Coconino National Forest: The USFS spent $600,000+ on a livestock management plan for the Apache Maid grazing allotment - primarily fencing to keep cattle out of sensitive riparian areas ([43] in (99W2)).
1998, Gila Basin Allotments: Joe Skeen (R-NM) secured an appropriation of $400,000 to fence cattle from streams on National Forests in the Gila River basin to protect endangered species ([44] in Ref. (99W2)).

1998, Baseline/Horsesprings Allotment, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest: The USFS spent $150,000 on fences, pipelines, and stock tanks to keep cattle out of habitat for the threatened spikedace (a fish) in Eagle Creek. Grazing fee revenue: $4,000/ year.((43) in (99W2)).

1999, Windmill Allotment, Tonto National Forest: The USFS decided to spend $223,000 on fencing, cattle guards, water tanks, and pipelines to reverse riparian and stream-bank degradation in Oak Creek, Dry Creek, and Jack's Canyon. Projected annual revenue from grazing fees: $5,141.((43) in Ref. (99W2)).

Very roughly $200-250 million total is spent by the BLM and USFS directly or indirectly on public land ranching (not $65 million as claimed by these agencies) (p. 389 of Ref. (91J1)).

In 1983, the BLM received 11.1 cents return for each dollar it reported spending on grazing programs (86J1). For the USFS the ratio was $0.38/ $1.00 (86J1).

The average cost to taxpayers of grazing on USFS- and BLM lands is nearly $10/ AUM (94O1).

In 1992 the BLM spent $90 million on its rangeland, and received $22 million in grazing fees. In 1992 the USFS spent $60 million (including the range's share of overhead costs) and collected $11 million. The US Treasury spent about $150 million on grazing, and received $8 million from ranchers (94O1).

In 1985, the BLM spent over $4 million on range-management and improvements in Oregon, yet collected only $1.3 million in grazing fees (89W1). The BLM spent $75/acre on 750,000 acres of land (with a value of half of that) to restore badly over-grazed lands in the Vale District of southeastern Oregon. Most allotment in this district were small and communal (94O1).

The ADC (Animal Damage Control) spends $21 million/ year in 14 western states (80% federal, 20% state and county) on animal control (p. 389 of Ref. (91J1)). ADC's 1990 budget was $29.6 million ($19 million for states west of the Mississippi) + $15 million in state funds. Over 60% of the total is directed toward protecting livestock (p. 389 of Ref. (91J1)).

Direct and indirect water subsidies to California's livestock industry total $26 billion/ year (p. 394 of (91J1)).

Without public-lands ranching, taxpayers would save at least $1 billion/ year - roughly twice the livestock value on public lands ranching -a subsidy of $400/ year/ cow (p. 401 of Ref. (91J1)).

Many government subsidies support the ranching industry, e.g. university- and county extension services, predator-, erosion-, disease- and fire control programs, big-game management, fences, cattle guards, water tanks, and corrals. Many of these last four items are 100% taxpayer-funded once county-, state- and federal funding are added up (87L1).

The US Dept. of the Interior reduced the grazing fee charged to public land ranchers by 30% ($1.60/AUM to $1.35/AUM) in response to falling cattle prices. With this decrease, the federal government's below-market grazing subsidy is expected to be $14 million/ year (Wall Street Journal, 1/24/97).

The WTO concluded "the excessive amount of subsidies" that South Korea provided to its cattle industry violated its commitments under the 1994 Uruguay Round to reduce domestic farm support, USTR said. South Korean regulations discouraged consumption of imported beef (Reuters, 8/2/00).

[A7] - Economic Issues - Land Ownership/ Leasing Patterns -

The number of ranchers leasing US national forests and Bureau of Land Management lands has dropped 19% since 1988 - from 33,471 to 27,040, but the number of livestock has stayed the same USDA (Paul Rogers and Jennifer LaFleur, San Jose Mercury News, 12/5/99).

Public-lands ranchers make up 2% of America's 1.1 million cattle operations, according to the USDA (Paul Rogers and Jennifer LaFleur, San Jose Mercury News, 12/5/99).

Nearly 40% of Utah cattle ranchers plan to retire soon, and a third of those want to sell their land to developers (Salt Lake Tribune, 10/5/99).

In 17 Western states, livestock grazing is allowed on 254 million acres of national forests and BLM land. On that vast expanse, 26,300 ranchers graze 3.2 million cattle. The top 10% of grazing-permit holders control 65% of all livestock on BLM property, federal records show. On national forests, the top 10% control 49% of the livestock. Many of the largest are grazing associations in the Dakotas, Wyoming and Colorado, made up of family ranchers. Others are corporate entities such as Idaho billionaire J. R. Simplot, media mogul Ted Turner or Hunt Oil Co. of Dallas (99R1).

In Nevada, 880 permittees graze livestock upon public land, and 2000 people are engaged in agriculture, including farming (99W1).

Beef cattle producers with federal permits make up 3% of the 907,000 producers in the 48 contiguous states (94B2). In 11 western states, federal permittees and lessees make up 22% of total beef producers. Sheep producers with federal permits in the 11 western states make up 19% of all sheep producers (94B2).

Of 336,765 farms and ranches with livestock in the 16 western- and Great Plain states, 8% (26445) graze their animals on federal lands (89W1).

In Oklahoma, with 58,236 livestock producers, only 39 individuals hold federal leases (89W1).

Some 1323 livestock operators graze their animals on federal lands in Arizona (0.00041% of Arizona's population) (89W1).

The 2000 largest allotment permittees in the US West control 74% of public grazing forage (99W1). Only 10% of public land forage goes to permittees considered "small operators". (GAO report - See Ref. (99W1))

Some 3,529 ranchers hold livestock grazing permits on federal public lands in New Mexico - on BLM and/or USFS land ([1] in 99W2). The Arizona Cattle Growers' Assn. puts the number of Arizona ranches at 2,000, while a 1982 U. of Arizona study says there are 1,770 ranches in Arizona ([2] in (99W2)). Tucson wildlife and grazing expert Steven Johnson has calculated that fewer than 100 Arizona ranchers actually depend on cattle ranching income ([3] in Ref. (99W2)).

A 1992 study by the National Wildlife Federation used data that BLM had provided to the House Government Operations Committee, the Federation examined holders of multiple allotments, revealing even greater concentrations of grazing land. By looking for common names and addresses in the BLM data, plus corporate ownership data, the report found a number of clusters of numerous allotments under the same name, or under different names at the same address. Similar data could be developed for the National Forests (94H1) (94D1). It concluded that 20 entities controlling the largest amount of public grazing land accounted for 9.3% of all animal-unit-months available on BLM lands (92C1) (94D1).

Dan Russell of California held the largest acreage - 40 allotments (5 million acres of federal land in CA, NV and WY).
Ellison Ranching Co. of Nevada holds 16 BLM grazing permits (2.4 million acres), plus another 2 allotments issued by the USFS for Humboldt N. F.

J. R. Simplot Co. has nearly 1 million acres of BLM grazing permits in Idaho, UT and NV, and is adding on another 700,000 acres of public lands in Oregon as part of an acquisition of Metropolitan Life's ZX Ranch.

GAO prepared profiles of BLM's grazing allotments and permits in 1992, and of the USFS's grazing allotments and permits in 1993. Out of 22,058 total BLM allotments in 1991, the 500 largest controlled almost 50% of BLM's total grazing acreage (92G1) (94D1). The 2,000 largest allotments controlled almost 75% of the land (92G1) (94D1). This concentration of land by the largest operators was consistent in the National Forests as well. The USFS managed 8,472 allotments in 1992, of which the 500 largest controlled one-third of the total allotment acreage, and the 2,000 largest controlled 70% of the total acreage (93G2) (94D1).

The bottom 50% of grazing permit holders on USFS land control 3% of the livestock; on BLM land, the bottom 50% control 7% (99R1).

John "J. R." Simplot, 90, is listed on the Forbes 400 list with a net worth of $3.6 billion. Ranked by cattle numbers, he reigns as the largest operator on BLM lands in the US. Simplot controls permits to graze on at least 1.9 million acres of BLM land - an area 6 times the size of Los Angeles - mostly in Idaho, Nevada and Oregon (99R1).

The economic benefits of our public lands do not flow equitably to all permit holders of public lands. The bulk of the benefits go to a small number of individuals, corporations, and partnerships. The 1,000 largest BLM permit holders over the entire West (out of 22,000 permittees) control 50% of the total forage (AUMs), and the 1,000 largest USFS permit holders (of 8,200 permittees) control 63% of the forage. Conversely, the 1,000 smallest permit holders of BLM or USFS forage control 0.3-0.4% of the forage (97H2). Only the largest permit holders appear to not be losing money on their operations (Table 6.17 in (97H2)) (97B3).

The bulk of BLM grazing permits are in the hands of a few operators; 1800 BLM livestock operators control nearly 50% of all AUMs on BLM land (87U1).

At Pinnacles National Monument cows won permission to graze in a presidential order Clinton signed. Among the beneficiaries is one of the richest families in America. The family of Teledyne Inc. co-founder Henry E. Singleton of Beverly Hills will pay $163 a year to continue grazing cattle on more than 1,000 acres within Pinnacles' new southern flanks near Chalone Peak. President Teddy Roosevelt established Pinnacles National Monument in 1908. Known for its striking rock formations, the 16,300-acre park was expanded by nearly 50% when Clinton added 7,955 acres of BLM land (Paul Rogers, San Jose Mercury News, 4/14/00).

The NPS has worked in recent years to remove cattle from the fewer than a dozen of America's 379 national parks where livestock still grazes. Parks executives have teamed with private land conservation groups to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in Arches and Capitol Reef national parks in Utah, and in Great Basin National Park in Nevada. Efforts are under way to remove cattle from the new Mojave National Preserve by buying out ranchers who were allowed to stay when Congress established the park in 1994 (Paul Rogers, San Jose Mercury News, 4/14/00).

During his presidency, Bill Clinton established 5 national monuments, all from BLM lands. Grazing was allowed to continue on every one where there were cattle (Pinnacles, Escalante-Grand Staircase in Utah, Grand Canyon-Parashant in Arizona, Agua Fria in Arizona - all of which had cows -and offshore rocks and islands off California). Only Pinnacles is administered by the National Park Service, which generally has stricter rules than land administered by BLM (Paul Rogers, San Jose Mercury News, 4/14/00).

The National Park Service is reissuing grazing permits to run cattle and horses in Grand Tetons National Park. Grazing is allowed on 8% of the park - 24,445 acres. The park has spent $58,000 to manage grazing and has collected $8,700 in grazing fees (Billings Gazette, 4/30/00).

According to the USDA, there are 88,785 beef farms or ranches in the West, but the number is declining. Analysts say 70% of ranches will change ownership in the next 5-10 years. "The timber era, the cattle era, the mainstream big-dam era, the wise-use era are ending," writes Ed Marston in the 4/00 issue of High Country News. "An immense landscape is going from one way of life to another in an astoundingly short time" (Todd Wilkinson, Special to The Christian Science Monitor: 05/01/2000).

According to an article in Wild Earth Magazine on ending public lands ranching, written by Andy Kerr and Mark Salvo, it would cost taxpayers an estimated $1.6 billion to buy back all grazing leases on US public lands, with agreements that those leases would permanently be taken out of circulation. Comments: The US taxpayer-financed subsidy for public land ranching is several hundred million dollars annually (according to Lynn Jacobs (91J1), so this idea has merit. (Stan Moore, San Geronimo, CA, hawkman11@hotmail.com 8/16/00).

[A8] - Economic Issues - Feedlot/ Meatpacker Data -

Corn, together with pharmaceuticals and other chemicals, has made it profitable to fatten cattle on feedlots rather than grass, cutting (by up to 75%) the time from birth to slaughter (George F. Will, "Agriculture that harms," Pittsburgh Post Gazette (3/9/09) p. B7.).

In the US, most cattle spend the last 4 months of their lives in feedlots eating a combination of corn, sorghum or wheat and high quality hay and mineral supplements. In Argentina, corn is the principle cattle feed, totaling 3.6 million tons, or 18% of Argentina’s corn crop. Much of that corn was heavily subsidized to compensate domestic users for high international prices (08R1).

The use of feedlots for finishing cattle in Argentina has increased from 1.5 million cattle in 2001 to 4.5-5.0 million in 2008. An estimated 15 million cattle were slaughtered in Argentina in 2007. If the number is similar in 2008, that would mean that about a third of Argentina’s cattle are fattened in feedlots now. It is estimated that 70-80% of Argentina’s cattle are going to be finished in feedlots within the next 5 years. Feedlots require increased antibiotic use to control disease due to the small amount of space allotted to each animal (08R1).

High prices of croplands across the Pampas, higher relative profits for growing grain, and government subsidies on feed designed to stimulate production is leading to a surge in feedlots in Argentina. However only feedlots supplying domestic markets are being subsidized by the Argentine government (08R1).

Industrial (feedlot) enterprises now account for 74% of the world's total poultry production, 40% of pig meat and 68% of eggs (96F1) (03S2).

In recent years, industrial (feedlot) livestock production grew at twice the annual rate of the more traditional, mixed farming systems (4.3% vs. 2.2%), and at more than 6 times the growth rate of production based on grazing (0.7%/ year; 96F1) (03S2).

Projected Percent of Cattle and Sheep in Stalls, Pens and Feedlots (02M1)
Region~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ |1997 |2030
Mid-East/N. Africa| 41% | 75%
Asia~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 60% | 60%
Latin America ~ ~ | 15% | 50%
Sub-Saharan Africa| ~6% | 25%

Four firms now handle nearly 80% of all steer- and heifer slaughters. Two decades ago, concentration was less than half as high. The largest hog and cattle packers can deliver meat at costs 3% below those of plants only a quarter as big. Declines in unionization and increases in the use of immigrant workers have cut labor costs substantially for large firms, the report said. "In such an environment, even a modest cost differential can affect a plant's chances of survival, reinforcing the trend toward consolidation," the USDA said on 3/24/00 (US Census Bureau data).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - og5
WEB-SITE NAVIGATION AID
Go to Top of this Section-Grazing Land Economic Issues
Go to Top of this Chapter-Economics, Politics, Law, History
Go to Top of this Review's Appendices (units, conversions, definitions)
Go to Top of this Review's Reference List
Go to Grazing Land Degradation: A Global Perspective (Table of Contents)
Go to Title Page of this entire web site (visit early!)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - og5

SECTION (5-B) - Meat- and Wool Production, Consumption, Exports, Prices - [B1] Meat, Milk and Wool Production, [B2]~ Meat, Milk and Wool Consumption, [B3] Side Effects of Meat Consumption, [B4] Meat and Wool Exports, [B5]~ Feedlot/Meatpacker Data, [B6] Meat/ Wool Prices,

[B1] - Meat, Milk and Wool Production -

Global meat production is projected to increase from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050. Milk output is projected to increase from 580 to 1043 million tonnes (06U1). Comments: "Meat production" here probably does not include fish, but it probably does include fowl and pork which are not normally considered grazing animals.

The livestock sector of the global economy is growing faster than any other sub-sector. It provides livelihoods for about 1.3 billion people and contributes about 40% to the global agricultural output (06U1).

Meat Production: Number of Animals and Carcass Weight (03S2)
Units - - - - | No. of animals | Growth Rate~ |Carcass wt.
Units - - - - | (millions) ~ ~ | ~(%/ year) ~ |kg/animal
Year- - - - - |1967| 1987| 1997|1969|1989|1998|1967|1997
Range - - - - | /69| ~-89| ~-99| -99| -99| -30| -69| /99
World
Cattle/buffalo|1189| 1418| 1497| 0.8| 0.5| 0.7| 174| 198
Sheep/goats ~ |1444| 1708| 1749| 0.9|-0.1| 0.9| ~14| ~14
Pigs~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 566| ~838| ~873| 1.4| 0.3| 0.6| ~65| ~78
Poultry ~ ~ ~ |5585|10731|15067| 3.8| 3.4| 1.6| 1.3| 1.6
Developing countries
Cattle/buffalo| 799| 1013| 1156| 1.3| 1.3| 0.9| 150| 163
Sheep/goats ~ | 862| 1121| 1323| 1.6| 1.5| 1.1| ~13| ~13
Pigs~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 297| ~493| ~581| 2.2| 1.6| 0.8| ~49| ~73
Poultry ~ ~ ~ |2512| 6168|10544| 5.6| 5.5| 1.9| 1.2| 1.4
Sub-Saharan Africa
Cattle/buffalo| 130| ~159| ~200| 1.5| 2.4| 1.1| 137| 130
Sheep/goats ~ | 182| ~269| ~346| 2.4| 2.6| 1.2| ~12| ~12
Pigs~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | ~ 6| ~ 13| ~ 18| 4.5| 2.3| 1.4| ~45| ~47
Poultry ~ ~ ~ | 313| ~555| ~720| 3.1| 2.4| 2.2| 0.9| 1.0
Latin America and the Caribbean
Cattle/buffalo| 219| ~317| ~350| 1.6| 0.9| 1.0| 191| 211
Sheep/goats ~ | 152| ~145| ~119|-0.5|-2.5| 0.6| ~15| ~13
Pigs~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | ~63| ~ 74| ~ 76| 0.6| 0.1| 1.1| ~65| ~72
Poultry ~ ~ ~ | 558| 1248| 2075| 4.5| 5.7| 1.9| 1.2| 1.5
Near East/North Africa
Cattle/buffalo| ~37| ~ 37| ~ 39| 0.0| 0.7| 1.5| 107| 158
Sheep/goats ~ | 205| ~241| ~256| 0.9| 0.5| 1.0| ~14| ~16
Poultry ~ ~ ~ | 215| ~722| 1101| 6.3| 4.9| 2.1| 1.1| 1.1
South Asia
Cattle/buffalo| 293| ~348| ~384| 1.0| 1.0| 0.3| ~95| 121
Sheep/goats ~ | 148| ~241| ~289| 2.5| 1.7| 1.1| ~11| ~12
Pigs~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | ~ 6| ~ 12| ~ 17| 3.4| 3.6| 1.0| ~35| ~35
Poultry ~ ~ ~ | 232| ~472| ~717| 4.4| 4.7| 3.6| 0.9| 0.9
East Asia
Cattle/buffalo| 121| ~153| ~183| 1.8| 2.0| 1.2| 147| 144
Sheep/goats ~ | 174| ~226| ~312| 2.0| 3.1| 1.2| ~12| ~13
Pigs~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 221| ~393| ~470| 2.4| 1.7| 0.8| ~47| ~75
Poultry ~ ~ ~ |1195| 3171| 5930| 6.5| 6.1| 1.5| 1.3| 1.6
Industrial countries
Cattle/buffalo| 263| ~253| ~254|-0.5| 0.2|-0.1| 212| 284
Sheep/goats ~ | 397| ~394| ~341|-0.1|-2.2| 0.2| ~16| ~17
Pigs~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 172| ~206| ~210| 0.7| 0.4| 0.1| ~75| ~85
Poultry ~ ~ ~ |2167| 2941| 3612| 1.8| 2.2| 0.6| 1.4| 1.8
Transition countries (e.g. Poland)
Cattle/buffalo| 127| ~152| ~ 87|-1.0|-6.4| 0.2| 144| 155
Sheep/goats ~ | 185| ~193| ~ 85|-1.9|-9.3| 0.3| ~14| ~15
Pigs~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | ~97| ~139| ~ 81|-0.5|-6.2| 0.0| ~77| ~82
Poultry ~ ~ ~ | 906| 1622| ~920| 0.4|-6.9| 1.1| 1.3| 1.4

Livestock production by commodity: past and projected (03S2)
(1996 is an average of 1995-97)
Year - - - - - - -|1967|1987|1997|2015|2030|1969|1989|1996
Range- - - - - - -| -69| -89| -99| - -| - -| -99| -99| -15
Units- - - - - - -| Millions of Tonnes ~ ~ | %/ Year ~ ~ ~
Total meat
World ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | ~92| 166| 218| 300| 376| 2.9| 2.7| 1.9
- -excl. China~ ~ | ~84| 142| 162| 218| 277| 2.1| 1.3| 1.8
Developing~ ~ ~ ~ | ~28| ~66| 116| 181| 247| 5.2| 5.9| 2.7
- -excl. China~ ~ | ~21| ~41| ~60| ~98| 147| 3.8| 3.9| 3.0
-excl.China/Brazil| ~18| ~34| ~47| ~79| 123| 3.5| 3.3| 3.1
Sub-Saharan Africa| ~ 3| ~ 4| ~ 5| ~ 9| ~16| 2.3| 2.2| 3.3
Latin Amer./Carib.| ~10| ~19| ~28| ~43| ~58| 3.5| 4.5| 2.6
- -excl. Brazil ~ | ~ 7| ~11| ~15| ~24| ~33| 2.5| 3.1| 2.7
Near East/N.Africa| ~ 2| ~ 5| ~ 7| ~13| ~19| 4.4| 3.8| 3.5
South Asia~ ~ ~ ~ | ~ 3| ~ 5| ~ 7| ~13| ~23| 3.7| 2.8| 3.6
East Asia ~ ~ ~ ~ | ~10| ~33| ~69| 103| 131| 7.1| 7.6| 2.4
- -excl. China~ ~ | ~ 3| ~ 8| ~13| ~21| ~32| 5.1| 4.1| 3.0
Industrial~ ~ ~ ~ | ~46| ~71| ~85| ~99| 107| 1.9| 1.8| 0.9
Transition~ ~ ~ ~ | ~17| ~29| ~17| ~20| ~22| 0.0|-6.4| 0.8
Bovine meat
World ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ |38.0|53.7|58.7|74.0|88.4| 1.4| 0.8| 1.4
Developing~ ~ ~ ~ |11.8|19.3|28.0|41.2|55.0| 3.0| 3.8| 2.3
- -excl. China~ ~ |11.7|18.4|23.2|33.5|44.1| 2.5| 2.2| 2.2
excl. China/Brazil|10.0|14.4|17.3|25.2|34.1| 2.0| 1.5| 2.3
Sub-Saharan Africa| 1.6| 2.2| 2.6| 4.3| 6.7| 1.5| 1.7| 3.0
Latin Amer./Carib.| 6.8|10.4|13.1|18.2|22.5| 2.5| 2.1| 1.9
- -excl. Brazil ~ | 5.1| 6.5| 7.2| 9.9|12.5| 1.4| 0.4| 1.9
Near East/N.Africa| 0.7| 1.3| 1.8| 2.8| 4.1| 3.2| 3.4| 2.4
South Asia~ ~ ~ ~ | 1.7| 3.1| 4.0| 5.7| 7.4| 3.1| 2.3| 2.1
East Asia ~ ~ ~ ~ | 1.0| 2.3| 6.4|10.1|14.4| 6.4|11.5| 2.7
- -excl. China~ ~ | 0.8| 1.4| 1.6| 2.5| 3.5| 2.1| 2.3| 2.6
Industrial~ ~ ~ ~ |19.1|23.8|25.0|26.6|26.5| 0.6| 0.6| 0.4
Transition~ ~ ~ ~ | 7.0|10.6| 5.7| 6.3| 6.9|-0.3|-7.5| 0.5
Ovine meat
World ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 6.6| 9.1|10.8|15.3|20.1| 1.9| 1.4| 2.1
Developing~ ~ ~ ~ | 3.0| 5.0| 7.4|11.2|15.4| 3.4| 3.7| 2.5
Sub-Saharan Africa| 0.6| 0.9| 1.3| 2.2| 3.4| 2.8| 3.5| 3.1
Near East/N.Africa| 0.9| 1.5| 1.8| 2.6| 3.5| 2.3| 1.9| 2.2
South Asia~ ~ ~ ~ | 0.6| 1.1| 1.3| 2.1| 3.1| 3.5| 1.4| 2.6
East Asia ~ ~ ~ ~ | 0.4| 1.1| 2.5| 3.8| 4.8| 7.0| 8.1| 2.6
Industrial~ ~ ~ ~ | 2.4| 2.8| 2.7| 3.1| 3.5| 0.6|-0.8| 0.9
Transition~ ~ ~ ~ | 1.3| 1.3| 0.8| 0.9| 1.1|-1.0|-6.4| 1.3

Livestock production by commodity: past and projected (03S2) (1996 is an average of 1995-97)
Year - - - - - - - |1967|1987|1997| 2015|1969|1989|1996
Range- - - - - - - | -69| -89| -99| - - | -99| -99| -15
Units- - - - - - - |Millions of tonnes| | %/ Year ~ ~ ~
Pig meat
World~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ |34.1|66.3|86.5|110.2| 3.2| 2.7| 1.4
- -excl. China ~ ~ |28.1|46.2|48.1| 57.9| 1.7| 0.4| 1.1
Developing ~ ~ ~ ~ | 9.7|28.0|49.3| 69.5| 6.1| 5.7| 2.0
- -excl. China ~ ~ | 3.8| 7.9|10.9| 17.2| 3.7| 3.4| 2.7
Latin Amer./Carib. | 1.8| 3.0| 3.9| ~6.0| 2.1| 3.9| 2.5
- -excl. Brazil~ ~ | 1.1| 1.9| 2.3| ~3.4| 1.7| 2.8| 2.3
East Asia~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 7.6|24.2|44.3| 61.6| 6.8| 6.0| 2.0
- -excl.China~ ~ ~ | 1.6| 4.0| 5.9| ~9.3| 5.1| 3.3| 2.8
Industrial ~ ~ ~ ~ |16.6|26.0|29.3| 32.3| 1.8| 1.4| 0.6
Transition ~ ~ ~ ~ | 7.7|12.3| 7.9| ~8.4|-0.1|-5.3| 0.4
Poultry meat
World~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ |12.9|37.2|61.8|100.6| 5.2| 5.4| 2.9
- -excl. China ~ ~ |12.1|34.6|51.2| 81.4| 4.8| 4.1| 2.8
Developing ~ ~ ~ ~ | 3.3|13.2|31.3| 59.1| 7.9| 9.4| 3.8
- -excl. China ~ ~ | 2.5|10.6|20.7| 39.9| 7.4| 7.2| 4.0
excl. China/Brazil | 2.2| 8.6|15.6| 31.9| 6.9| 6.4| 4.3
Sub-Saharan Africa | 0.3| 0.7| 0.9| ~1.9| 3.8| 2.6| 4.3
Latin Amer./Carib. | 1.0| 4.7|10.5| 18.2| 7.8| 9.0| 3.3
- -excl. Brazil~ ~ | 0.7| 2.7| 5.4| 10.2| 6.7| 8.4| 3.8
Near East/N. Africa| 0.4| 2.1| 3.2| ~7.1| 7.7| 5.2| 4.7
South Asia ~ ~ ~ ~ | 0.2| 0.5| 1.1| ~3.9| 7.7| 7.2| 7.9
East Asia~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 1.5| 5.3|15.5| 27.9| 8.5|11.7| 3.5
- -excl. China ~ ~ | 0.7| 2.6| 4.9| ~8.7| 7.3| 6.1| 3.4
Industrial ~ ~ ~ ~ | 8.1|18.8|27.7| 37.5| 4.0| 3.9| 1.8
Transition ~ ~ ~ ~ | 1.5| 5.2| 2.9| ~4.1| 1.6|-6.7| 2.0
Milk (whole milk equivalent)
World~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 387| 528| 562| ~715| 1.3| 0.6| 1.4
Developing ~ ~ ~ ~ | ~78| 149| 219| ~346| 3.6| 4.1| 2.7
-excl. China/Brazil| ~69| 128| 189| ~301| 3.5| 4.1| 2.8
Sub-Saharan Africa | ~ 8| ~13| ~16| ~ 26| 2.7| 1.9| 3.0
Latin Amer./Carib. | ~24| ~40| ~57| ~ 81| 2.6| 3.9| 2.1
- -excl. Brazil~ ~ | ~17| ~26| ~36| ~ 52| 2.2| 4.0| 2.1
Near East/N.Africa | ~14| ~21| ~28| ~ 41| 2.3| 3.1| 2.2
South Asia ~ ~ ~ ~ | ~30| ~65| 104| ~174| 4.5| 4.9| 3.1
East Asia~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | ~ 3| ~10| ~15| ~ 25| 6.9| 4.5| 2.9
- -excluding China | ~ 1| ~ 4| ~ 5| ~ ~8| 7.3| 3.2| 3.0
Industrial ~ ~ ~ ~ | 199| 236| 246| ~269| 0.7| 0.5| 0.5
Transition ~ ~ ~ ~ | 110| 144| ~97| ~100|-0.3|-4.6| 0.2
Eggs
World~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ |18.7|35.6|51.7| 70.4| 3.4| 4.2| 1.8
Developing ~ ~ ~ ~ | 4.9|16.2|33.7| 50.7| 7.0| 8.0| 2.4
- -excl. China ~ ~ | 3.2| 9.5|13.5| 24.6| 5.0| 3.4| 3.6
Sub-Saharan Africa | 0.3| 0.7| 0.9| ~1.8| 3.7| 2.6| 4.0
Latin Amer./Carib. | 1.2| 3.6| 4.6| ~7.3| 4.5| 2.5| 2.8
Near East/N. Africa| 0.4| 1.5| 2.2| ~3.6| 6.0| 4.1| 3.0
South Asia ~ ~ ~ ~ | 0.3| 1.4| 2.2| ~5.7| 6.3| 4.7| 5.8
East Asia~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 2.6| 9.1|23.8| 32.1| 8.3|10.7| 1.8
- -excluding China | 0.9| 2.4| 3.6| ~6.0| 5.0| 3.5| 3.0
Industrial ~ ~ ~ ~ |10.7|12.8|13.7| 14.8| 0.6| 0.9| 0.5
Transition ~ ~ ~ ~ | 3.1| 6.5| 4.3| ~5.0| 0.7|-4.7| 0.8

Growth rates (%/ year) of total livestock production (03S2)
(1998 is an average of 1997-99)
Year - - - - - - -|1969|1979|1989|1998|2015|1998
Range- - - - - - -| -99| -99| -99| -15| -30| -30
World ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 2.2| 2.1| 2.0| 1.7| 1.5| 1.6
- -excl. China~ ~ | 1.7| 1.3| 0.8| 1.6| 1.5| 1.5
Developing~ ~ ~ ~ | 4.6| 5.0| 5.5| 2.6| 2.1| 2.4
- -excl. China~ ~ | 3.5| 3.5| 3.6| 2.8| 2.5| 2.7
-excl.China/Brazil| 3.3| 3.3| 3.3| 2.9| 2.6| 2.8
Sub-Saharan Africa| 2.4| 2.0| 2.1| 3.2| 3.3| 3.2
Latin Amer.Carib. | 3.1| 3.0| 3.7| 2.4| 1.9| 2.1
- -excl.Brazil~ ~ | 2.3| 2.1| 2.7| 2.4| 2.1| 2.3
Near East/N.Africa| 3.4| 3.4| 3.4| 2.9| 2.6| 2.7
South Asia~ ~ ~ ~ | 4.2| 4.5| 4.1| 3.3| 2.8| 3.1
East Asia ~ ~ ~ ~ | 7.2| 8.0| 8.2| 2.3| 1.6| 2.0
- -excl.China ~ ~ | 4.8| 4.7| 3.7| 3.0| 2.7| 2.8
Industrial~ ~ ~ ~ | 1.2| 1.0| 1.2| 0.7| 0.4| 0.6
Transition~ ~ ~ ~ |-0.1|-1.8|-5.7| 0.5| 0.6| 0.5
Table Note: Total livestock production was derived by aggregating four meats, milk and eggs at 1989/91 international commodity prices used to construct the FAO indices of agricultural production.

Globally, livestock production currently accounts for 40% of the gross value of agricultural production. In industrial countries this share is more than 50%. In developing countries, where it accounts for 33%, its share is rising rapidly (03S2).

A slower growth rate applied to a large base year world meat production (218 million tonnes in 1997/99, of which 116 million in the developing countries) will still produce large absolute increases (some 160 million tonnes by 2030, of which some 130 in the developing countries) (03A1).

Total Meat Production (Prod.) and Consumption (Cons.) by Region (03A1)
Year - - - - - - -| 1997|1969|1979|1989|1998
Range- - - - - - -| ~-99| -99| -99| -99| -15
Units ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ |Prod.| Growth, %/year ~ ~
Sub-Saharan Africa| 5320| 2.3| 2.0| 2.2| 3.3
Near East/N.Africa| 6956| 4.4| 4.4| 3.8| 3.6
Latin Amer./Carib.|27954| 3.5| 3.4| 4.5| 2.6
- - - excl. Brazil|15180| 2.5| 2.2| 3.1| 2.7
South Asia~ ~ ~ ~ | 6974| 3.7| 3.9| 2.8| 3.6
East Asia ~ ~ ~ ~ |68734| 7.1| 7.6| 7.6| 2.4
- -excluding China|12692| 5.1| 5.1| 4.1| 3.0
Units - - - - - - |Cons.| Growth, %/year ~ ~
Sub-Saharan Africa| 5408| 2.6| 2.1| 2.1| 3.4
Near East/N.Africa| 8164| 4.7| 3.3| 3.3| 3.6
Latin Amer./Carib.|27296| 3.8| 3.7| 4.8| 2.4
- - - excl. Brazil|15551| 3.0| 2.6| 4.0| 2.6
South Asia~ ~ ~ ~ | 6801| 3.6| 3.8| 2.7| 3.8
East Asia ~ ~ ~ ~ |69472| 7.1| 7.7| 7.8| 2.5
- -excluding China|13923| 5.1| 5.1| 4.6| 3.0
World livestock prod.| ~| 2.2| 2.1| 2.0| 1.7
(meat, milk, eggs)(1)
World cereal feed | ~657| 1.3| 0.6| 0.6| 1.9
(demand - millions of tonnes)
(1) Growth rates from aggregate production derived by valuing all products at 1989/91 international prices.

Meat, aggregate production and demand: past and projected (03A1)
(Productions (Prod.)& Consumptions (Cons.) in 1000 tonnes) (Growth Rates in %/ year) (1998 is an average over 1997-99.)
World - - - | Prod.| Growth, %/year
Year- - - - | 1997 |1969|1979|1989|1998|2015
Range - - - | ~-99 | -99| -99| -99| -15| -30
Bovine~ ~ ~ | 58682| 1.4| 1.2| 0.8| 1.4| 1.2
Ovine ~ ~ ~ | 10825| 1.9| 2.2| 1.4| 2.1| 1.8
Pig meat~ ~ | 86541| 3.2| 2.9| 2.7| 1.4| 0.8
Poultry meat| 61849| 5.2| 5.1| 5.4| 2.9| 2.4
Total Meat -|217898| 2.9| 2.8| 2.7| 1.9| 1.5
World ~ ~ ~ |Cons. | Growth, %/year ~ ~ ~ ~
Bovine~ ~ ~ | 57888| 1.4| 1.2| 0.7| 1.4| 1.2
Ovine ~ ~ ~ | 10706| 1.9| 2.2| 1.4| 2.1| 1.8
Pig meat~ ~ | 86392| 3.2| 2.9| 2.7| 1.4| 0.8
Poultry meat| 60809| 5.2| 5.0| 5.2| 2.9| 2.4
Total Meat -|215795| 2.9| 2.8| 2.7| 1.9| 1.5
Units ~ ~ ~ |Prod. | Growth, %/year ~ ~ ~ ~
Developing~ | 1997 |1969|1979|1989|1998|2015
Countries- -| ~-99 | -99| -99| -99| -15| -30
Bovine~ ~ ~ | 27981| 3.0| 3.4| 3.8| 2.3| 2.0
Ovine ~ ~ ~ | ~7360| 3.4| 3.9| 3.7| 2.5| 2.1
Pig meat~ ~ | 49348| 6.1| 6.0| 5.7| 2.0| 1.2
excl. China | 10892| 3.7| 3.3| 3.4| 2.7| 2.4
Poultry meat| 31250| 7.9| 8.3| 9.4| 3.8| 3.1
Total Meat~ |115938| 5.2| 5.5| 5.9| 2.7| 2.1
excl. China | 59896| 3.8| 3.8| 3.9| 3.0| 2.7
excl. China | 47122| 3.5| 3.4| 3.3| 3.1| 2.9
- and Brazil|
Units - - - |Cons. | Growth, %/year ~ ~ ~ ~
Bovine~ ~ ~ | 28074| 3.4| 3.5| 4.1| 2.3| 2.0
Ovine ~ ~ ~ | ~7625| 3.5| 3.8| 3.7| 2.7| 2.2
Pig meat~ ~ | 49522| 6.1| 6.0| 5.8| 2.1| 1.2
excl. China | 11393| 3.6| 3.2| 3.7| 2.7| 2.4
Poultry meat| 31920| 7.8| 8.0| 9.4| 3.9| 3.1
Total Meat~ |117141| 5.3| 5.6| 6.1| 2.7| 2.1
excl. China | 61591| 4.0| 3.8| 4.1| 3.0| 2.7
excl. China | 49845| 3.8| 3.4| 3.6| 3.2| 2.9
- and Brazil

Despite the shift in meat production toward developing countries, an FAO study (FAO, "World Agriculture: toward 2015/ 2030" [ISBN 92 5 104835 5] (2003)) found that populations in certain regions (much of Africa and the Middle East) of the world will continue in future years to be unable to obtain a significant share of their protein intake from meats. (Comments: These two areas are the areas of the highest population growth rates in the world.) The FAO study said two factors have characterized the global meat economy in recent years -the growing dominance of poultry, and liberalization of trade (03E1).

Poultry's share in world meat production increased from 13% in the mid-1960's to 28% currently, while per-capita consumption increased more than three-fold over the same period." During 1997-99, the world produced 61.8 million tonnes of poultry meat. The FAO study expects world poultry production to rise to 100.6 million metric tonnes (mmt.) in 2015 and 143.3 mmt. in 2030. (In 2030, the world will produce 124.5 mmt. of pork and 88.4 mmt of beef.) Almost all of this increase in poultry production will come in the developing world, particularly from China and Brazil. By 2030, developing countries will be producing 93.5 mmt of poultry. In the same year, industrial countries will be generating 44.1 mmt. of poultry (03E1). (Comments: Poultry makes more efficient use of grain than cattle or pigs.).

During 1997-99, developing countries accounted for 53% of global meat production, a 13% increase in the previous decade. In the same period, developing countries accounted for 39% of global milk production, a rise of 11% in a decade. "The world's food-economy is being increasingly driven by the shift of diets toward livestock products," (FAO data). "In developing countries, meat consumption has been growing 5-6%/ year, and consumption of milk and dairy products grew by 3.4-3.8%/ year in the last few decades." The FAO study (FAO, "World Agriculture: toward 2015/2030" [ISBN 92 5 104835 5] (2003)) updates 1995 forecasts (03E1).

Developing countries, led by China and Brazil, will generate 247 million tonnes of the 376 million tonnes of meat produced in 2030 (FAO data) (03E1). Industrial countries like those in North America, Europe and Oceania will account for 107 million tonnes, with transition economies in Eastern Europe contributing 22 million tonnes (FAO, "World Agriculture: toward 2015/2030" [ISBN 92 5 104835 5] (2003)) (03E1).

By 2030, two-thirds of global meat production will come from developing countries. The world will be producing 376 million metric tons of meat in 2030 (FAO, "World Agriculture: toward 2015/2030" [ISBN 92 5 104835 5] (2003)) (03E1).

In 1996, at farms of all categories, 139 million tons of fodder (in terms of fodder units) were procured (produced?), including more than 47 million tons of concentrates. Silage prevails; the share of hay is smaller; and the share of fodder roots is the least. Fodder consumption by one conventional head of cattle is made up of 2.8 tons of fodder units. To make up protein deficits in fodder, leguminous plants, grass and hay flour, nutrient yeast, and other fodder products with high protein content are used (03C1).

In 1996, in Russia, more than 5 million tons of meat (slaughter weight) were produced (about half of it was beef and veal, and about one third is pork). Also produced were 35 million tons of milk, 32 billion eggs, more than 76 thousand tons of wool, and more than 46 thousand tons of honey. The personal (privately owned?) sector provided more than 55% of the meat, about 47% of the milk, more than 30% of the eggs, and more than 51% of the wool. These figures work out to 2100 kg of milk per cow in 1996, 220 eggs per hen, and 3 kg. of clipped wool per sheep (03C1).

The worldwide number of animals killed for food in 2000 was 45 billion, according to the UN FAO - 306 million cattle, buffalo, and calves, 1.2 billion pigs, 795 million sheep and goats, and nearly 43 billion chickens, ducks, turkeys and geese (01W1).

The total number of mammals and birds raised and killed for food in the US in 2001 is expected to reach 9,906 million, according to extrapolation of data published by USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) (vs. 9,713 million in 2000) (01W1). The year 2001 total includes 40 million cattle and calves (down 4% from 2000), 113 million pigs (down 2%), 4 million sheep (down 7%), 308 million turkeys (up 1.3%), 8,967 million 'broilers' (up 2%), 446 million laying hens (up 3.8%), and 25.6 million ducks (up 2.8%) (01W1). The total also includes nearly 860 million animals that die from mistreatment before ever reaching the slaughterhouse. It does not include aquatic animals used for food, nor the smaller number of terrestrial animals hunted for food or because they compete with farmed animals (01W1). (Continued below)

In 2000, 9713 million mammals and birds were raised and killed for food in the US - 41.7 million cattle and calves, 115.2 million pigs, 4.3 million sheep and lambs, 304 million turkeys, 8,792 million 'broiler' chickens, 429.7 million laying hens, and 26.1 million ducks. In addition to the 8,856 million animals slaughtered in 2000 according to the NASS, another 857 million suffered lingering deaths from disease, malnutrition, injury, suffocation, stress, extermination, or other factory farming practices. Some of these 'other' deaths were reported by the NASS. But, most had to be deduced from secondary sources, such as hatchery reports and interviews with agricultural experts. Examples of deaths that are not reported include 'broiler' chickens and turkeys who die before they are placed on a farm, male layer chicks suffocated at birth, discarded layer hens, and piglets who die before weaning (01W1).

To meet their meat and milk consumption requirements, developing nations will need to increase feed-grain output by 108.8% to 405 million tonnes/ year to support their livestock industries (01U1).

Meat Production (1000 tonnes/ year) (1996-98) ((00W1), Table FG.4) (See Table FG.4 for a breakdown by nation.)
- - - - - - - - - - | Beef/| Sheep/
Region- - - - - - - | Veal | Goats
Asia(excl. Mideast) | 8785 | 4357
Europe~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ |13254 | 1619
Mideast/North Africa| 1475 | 1920
Sub-Saharan Africa~ | 2969 | 1339
North America ~ ~ ~ |12836 | ~128
Cent.America/Caribb.| 1885 | ~ 83
South America ~ ~ ~ |10214 | ~352
Oceania ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 2497 | 1135
Totals~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ |53921 |10954
Developed Nations ~ |30733 | 3395
Developing Nations~ |23183 | 7538

Leading Meat Producers, 1990 (million tons carcass-weight/ year) (91D1)
Pork - | -|Beef - -| -|Poultry|-
China~ |23|USA ~ ~ |10|USA ~ |10
E.C. ~ |13|USSR~ ~ | 9|EC~ ~ | 6
USA~ ~ | 7|EC~ ~ ~ | 8|USSR~ | 3
USSR ~ | 7|Brazil~ | 4|China | 3
Poland | 2|Argentina|3|Brazil| 2
World~ |64|World ~ |48|World |34

The 206 million acres of BLM- and USFS grazing lands in the 11 western states produce 2% of US livestock (91J1).

19% of all red meat produced in the US comes from the 11 western states (86J1).

World beef output increased 5% over the past decade to 54 million tons in 1998. Mutton and goat output increased 26% over the past decade to 11 million tons ((00W1), p. 125).

Meat Production (pork, beef, buffalo, poultry, sheep, goats) (million tons/ year) is plotted vs. time (1950-1989) in Ref. (91D1). Beef and buffalo increased from 20 to 50; pork increased from 18 to 65; poultry increased from 6 to 36; sheep, goats increased from 6 to 8 (91D1).

World meat (excluding fish) Production (million tons/ year and kg/ capita/ year) (pork, beef, poultry, mutton) (FAO and USDA Data) (94B1)
Year - - -|1950|1955|1960|1965|1970|1975|1980|1985|1990|1992
Production| 46 | 60 | 68 | 82 | 98 | 113| 133| 150| 171| 176
Per-Capita|18.0|21.6|22.4|24.5|26.5|27.7|29.9|30.9|32.3|32.1

World Meat Production data (excluding fish) (97B1)
Year - - - -| 1992| 1993| 1994| 1995| 1996 (prelim.)
Million Tons| 175 | 177 | 184 | 192 | 195
kg./Capita~ | 32.0| 32.1| 32.8| 33.7| 33.8

World beef- and poultry Production (million tons/ year) (from a graph) (State of the World 1998, p. 173 - USDA data)
Year - |1950|1960|1970|1980|1990|1997
Beef ~ | 20 | 27 | 40 | 46 | 52 | 53
Poultry| ~6 | ~8 | 14 | 26 | 40 | 60

World production per-capita of beef, mutton, and wool during 1960-80 are tabulated in (81B1) based on FAO data. Beef peaked in 1976 at 11.58 kg./ capita; mutton peaked in 1961 at 1.90 kg./ capita; wool peaked in 1960 at 0.85 kg./ capita (81B1).

During 1950-76, the world's grasslands sustained a doubling of beef output, but since 1976 there has been no growth (Ref. 22 of Ref. (84B1)).

Worldwide, demand for meat is projected to increase by 1.8%/ year (poultry by 2.1%/ year and beef by 1.5%/ year). In per-capita terms, demand for meat products is projected to increase to 31 kg./ capita in 2020 in developing countries, and to increase to 81 kg/ capita in developed countries. In 1993, developing countries accounted for 47% of world meat demand; by 2020 they are projected to account for 63% (97P1).

US Annual Production of Animal Protein and the Required Resource - inputs of land, labor, and energy (80P1)
(Output (Column 2) units: millions of animals.)
(Product (Col. 3) units: billions of kg.)
(Protein (Col. 4) units: millions of kg.)
(Land (Col. 5) units: 1000 km².)
(Labor (Col. 6) units: millions of person-hours.)
(Energy (Col. 7) units: trillions of kcal.)
Animal -| Output |Product|Protein|Land|Labor|Energy
Broilers| 2932.7 | 5.02~ | 465 ~ | ~25| ~18 | 18.24
Turkeys | ~124.3 | 1.04~ | 118 ~ | ~ 9| ~14 | ~6.40
Eggs~ ~ |64362.~ | 3.82~ | 438 ~ | ~42| ~78 | 31.14
Sheep ~ | ~ ~7.5 | 0.74~ | ~18 ~ | 945| ~23 | ~7.05
Dairy ~ | ~ 11.2 |53.26~ |1864 ~ | 163| 825 | 87.22
Pork~ ~ | ~ 68.7 | 7.49~ | 535 ~ | 153| 168 | 91.51
Beef~ ~ | ~ 46.9*|20.07~ |1957 ~ |2887| 592 |171.07
Totals~ | - - - -| - - - |5395 ~ |4224|1718 |412.63
- - - - - - - - * Cattle (41.4)+ Calves (5.5)

US beef production (billion lb/ year) (National Cattlemen's Association data)
Year - - -|1980|1983|1986|1989|1992|1993
Production|21.5|23.0|24.0|23.0|22.8|22.8

US Meat Production (billions of pounds)
(from a chart in Wall Street Journal, 7/16/98)
Year - - -|1994|1995|1996|1997
Production|72. |74. |75.5|76.5

[B2] - Meat, Milk and Wool Consumption -

Argentina leads the world in per-capita beef consumption (155 lb./ capita/ year) (08R1).

Meat Consumption ((00W1) Table AF.2) (A breakdown by nation is shown in Table AF.2)
- - - - - - - - - - -|kg./ person/ year
Region- - - - - - - -|1988|1998
Asia(excl.Mideast) ~ | 15 | 25
Europe ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 58 | 72
Mideast/North Africa | 21 | 22
Sub-Saharan Africa ~ | 12 | 13
Canada ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 99 | 99
US ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ |114 |122
Cent.America/Caribb. | 32 | 39
South America~ ~ ~ ~ | 48 | 61
Oceania~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 98 | 93
Totals ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 33 | 37
Developed Nations~ ~ | 66 | 77
Developing Nations ~ | 18 | 26

Pounds of meat consumed per year per capita (from a graph) (02M1)
Region - - - - - - -|1961|1970|1980|1990|1998
North America ~ ~ ~ | 195| 230| 235| 247| 265
Europe~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | ~80| ~98| 122| 128| 158
Brazil~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | ~61| ~66| ~91| 112| 152
China ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | ~10| ~20| ~30| ~56| 103
Developing Countries| ~20| ~26| ~30| ~40| ~57
Nigeria ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | ~18| ~19| ~24| ~20| ~25

Data from a Worldwatch Press Briefing on Global Trends in Meat Consumption, 7/12/98.

World meat production in 1950: 44 million tons.
World meat production in 1997: 211 million tons.
Meat production per capita in 1997: 36 kg/ capita (more than double the 1950 level).
Global Livestock population in 1997: 1 billion pigs, 1.3 billion cattle, 1.8 billion sheep and goats, 13.5 billion chickens.
During 1987-97 per-capita consumption of beef, pork and chicken has doubled in the world's poorest nations, though it is still 1/3 of the level in industrial nations.
The world's fish harvest has increased from 21 million tons to 120 million tons during 1950-97, tripling per-capita consumption of seafood.
The US and China (25% of the world's population) consume 35% of the world's beef, over 50% of the world's poultry and 65 of the world's pork. If Brazil and the EU are included (total population = ___% of the world's population), this group consumes over 60% of the world's beef, over 70% of the world's poultry, and over 80% of the world's pork (1997 data).

Consumption of beef per capita in Argentina (Wall Street Journal, 1/19/01) (from a chart):
Year|1990| 1992| 1994| 1996| 1998| 2000
Lbs.|180 | 160 | 153 | 140 | 130 | 135

Between 1997/99 and 2030, meat consumption in developing countries is projected to increase from 25.5-37 kg./ person/ year, compared with an increase from 88-100 kg in industrial countries. Consumption of milk and dairy products will rise from 45 kg./ person/ year to 66 kg in developing countries, and from 212 to 221 kg. in industrial countries. For eggs, consumption will grow from 6.5 to 8.9 kg./ capita in developing countries and from 13.5 to 13.8 kg./ capita in industrial countries (03S2).

In industrial countries, consumption of animal proteins increased in the 1960s and 1970s from 44 to 55 grams/ capita/ day. After this, animal protein consumption remained fairly stable. In developing countries, however, although the level of consumption of animal proteins increased steadily from 9 grams/ capita/ day in 1961/63 to 20 in 1997/99, there is still significant potential for increases (03S2).

In industrial countries, cereals contribute significantly less as a share of calories consumed - around 34% - while the contribution of animal products has remained stable at around 23%. In developing countries per-capita consumption of animal products is still less than a third of that in industrial countries, so there remains a significant potential to increase the contribution of animal products to the diet, both in absolute and percentage terms (03S2).

The rising share of animal products in the diet is evident in developing countries. Even though calories derived from cereals have increased in absolute terms, as a share of total calories they continue to fall, from 60% in 1961/63 to an expected 50% in 2030. Similarly, the contribution of other traditional staples (potatoes, sweet potatoes, cassava, plantains and other roots) fell from second largest contributor to dietary calories (10%) in 1961/63 to lowest (6.2%) by 1997/99. By then, animal products had become the second major source of calories (10.6%) in developing countries (03S2).

Total demand for animal products in developing countries is expected to more than double by 2030 (03S2).

Average dairy consumption of developing countries is very low (45 kg./ capita/ year of all dairy products in liquid milk equivalent), compared with 220 kg. in industrial countries (03A1).

Net trade in meat (1) and milk/ dairy ('000 tonnes) (03A1)
Year - - - -| 1964| 1974|1984| 1997| 2015| 2030
Range- - - -| ~/66| ~/76| /86| ~/99| - - | - -
Meat Type
Developing
Bovine~ ~ ~ | ~859| ~706| ~13| -114| -310| -650
Ovine ~ ~ ~ | ~ 52| ~-29|-229| -259| -700|-1170
Pig meat~ ~ | ~ 90| ~ 55| 516| -173| -550| -830
Poultry meat| ~-33| -200|-430| -693|-2340|-3250
Total Meat -| ~969| ~532|-129|-1238|-3900|-5900
Industrial
Bovine~ ~ ~ | -907| ~375| 370| 1491| 1860| 1840
Ovine ~ ~ ~ | ~-20| ~ 86| 372| ~375| ~820| 1270
Pig meat~ ~ | -167| ~273| ~25| ~891| ~930| 1010
Poultry meat| ~ -9| ~110| 314| 2624| 4320| 4800
Total Meat~ |-1103| -452|1080| 5380| 7930| 8920
Transition countries (e.g. Poland)
Bovine~ ~ ~ | ~116| ~-80|-160| -626| -810| -590
Ovine ~ ~ ~ | ~ 43| ~ 34| -16| ~ 12| ~ 10| ~ 20
Pig meat~ ~ | ~207| ~282| ~65| -479| -100| ~100
Poultry meat| ~ 44| ~108| 143| -918|-1000| -620
Total Meat~ | ~409| ~344| ~33|-2012|-1900|-1090

Even in the more food quality/ safety conscious EU, per-capita consumption of meat is projected to continue growing, from 89 to 94 kg. during 1998-2008 ((01E2), Table 1.19) (03A1).

In industrial countries, average consumption of meat at 88 kg/capita is fairly high, although countries with high fish consumption (Japan and Norway) have much lower levels. In principle, the achievement of near-saturation levels of overall food consumption, as well as concerns about health, suggest that there is very little scope for further increases. Yet the data indicate that such increases do take place even in countries that have passed the 100-kg. mark, probably reflecting a mix of over-consumption and growing post-retail waste or feeding of pets. For example, the US went from 112 to 123 kg. in the last ten years (1989-99) (03A1).

Per-capita meat consumption in "transition" economies (e.g. Poland, Bulgaria) will eventually reverse its downward trend of the 1990s (having fallen from a peak of 73 kg. in 1990 to 45 kg. in 1999) (03A1).

Sub-Saharan Africa's economic prospects suggest little growth in its per-capita consumption of meat. There have been no improvements in the past 30 years, with per-capita consumption stagnant at around 10 kg./ capita/ year (03A1).

Average per-capita meat consumption in the Near East and North Africa region grew little since the mid-1980s, in contrast with the sharp increases experienced in the preceding decade of the oil boom. The recent slowdown of the regional average reflected the sharp declines in Iraq, and the near stagnation of per-capita consumption in several other countries. Most countries of the region are in a middling position as regards per-capita consumption (17-47 kg./ capita in 1997/99), although some of the smaller oil-rich countries (such as Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates) have fairly high levels. The three most populous countries of the region, Egypt, Turkey and the Islamic Republic of Iran (which between them have 53% of the region's population) are 20-22 kg./ capita (03A1).

Latin America and the Caribbean, excluding Brazil, is still in a middling position as regards per-capita consumption of meat (45 kg./ capita), with only the traditional meat producers and exporters (Argentina and Uruguay) having levels comparable to those of the industrial countries (03A1).

Recent high-growth rates of per-capita consumption of poultry meat in India (admittedly from the very low base of 0.2 kg. in the mid-1980s to 0.6 kg/ capita/ year in 1997/99) is bound to continue unabated in coming decades (03A1).

India's meat consumption is very low - 4.5 kg./ capita - and it has grown by only 1 kg./ capita in the last 20 years (03A1).

Brazil's current average meat consumption of 71 kg./ capita/ year suggests that the scope for rapid increases of the past continuing unabated through the coming decades is limited (03A1).

China's meat consumption went from 10 kg. in the mid-1970s to 45 kg. currently. If it were to continue at the same rate, it would soon surpass the industrial countries in per-capita consumption of meat, an unreasonable prospect given that China will still be a middle-income country with significant parts of its population rural and in the low income category for some time to come. (Poverty projections of the World Bank suggest that despite the expected rapid decline in poverty, China may still have 200 million persons in the "under US$2/ day" poverty line.) These characteristics suggest that further growth leading to about 60 kg. in 2015 and 69 kg. in 2030 as a national average for China is a more reasonable prospect than the much higher levels that would result from a quasi continuation of past trends (03A1).

Food consumption of meat (03A1)
(1998 is an average over 1997-99.) (kg./ capita, carcass weight equivalent)
Year - - - - - - -|1964|1974|1984|1994|1998|2015|2030
Range- - - - - - -| /66| /76| /86| /96| - -| - -| - -
World ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ |24.2|27.4|30.7|34.6|36.4|41.3|45.3
Developing~ ~ ~ ~ |10.2|11.4|15.5|22.7|25.5|31.6|36.7
- -excl. China~ ~ |11.0|12.1|14.5|17.5|18.2|22.7|28.0
excl. China/Brazil|10.1|11.0|13.1|14.9|15.5|19.8|25.1
Sub-Saharan Africa| 9.9| 9.6|10.2| 9.3| 9.4|10.9|13.4
Near East/N.Africa|11.9|13.8|20.4|19.7|21.2|28.6|35.0
Latin Amer./Carib.|31.7|35.6|39.7|50.1|53.8|65.3|76.6
- -excl. Brazil ~ |34.1|37.5|39.6|42.4|45.4|56.4|67.7
South Asia~ ~ ~ ~ | 3.9| 3.9| 4.4| 5.4| 5.3| 7.6|11.7
East Asia ~ ~ ~ ~ | 8.7|10.0|16.9|31.7|37.7|50.0|58.5
- -excluding China| 9.4|10.9|14.7|21.9|22.7|31.0|40.9
Industrial~ ~ ~ ~ |61.5|73.5|80.7|86.2|88.2|95.7|100.
Transition~ ~ ~ ~ |42.5|60.0|65.8|50.5|46.2|53.8|60.7
World excl. China |28.5|32.6|34.3|34.1|34.2|36.9|40.3
World Excl. China |26.5|29.0|30.6|32.4|33.0|35.6|39.1
and transition countries.

Meat consumption by type (kg./ capita, carcass weight equivalent) (03A1)
World
Year - - - - - - -|1964|1974|1984|1994|1998|2015|2030
Range- - - - - - -| /66| /76| /86| /96| - -| - -| - -
Bovine meat ~ ~ ~ |10.0|11.0|10.5| 9.8| 9.8|10.1|10.6
Ovine/caprine meat| 1.8| 1.6| 1.7| 1.8| 1.8| 2.1| 2.4
Pig meat~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 9.1|10.2|12.1|13.7|14.6|15.3|15.1
- -excl. China~ ~ | 9.7|10.8|11.3|10.4|10.3| 9.9| 9.7
Poultry meat~ ~ ~ | 3.2| 4.6| 6.4| 9.3|10.2|13.8|17.2
Developing countries
Bovine meat ~ ~ ~ | 4.2| 4.3| 4.8| 5.7| 6.1| 7.1| 8.1
Ovine/caprine meat| 1.2| 1.1| 1.3| 1.6| 1.7| 2.0| 2.4
Pig meat~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 3.6| 4.1| 6.4| 9.6|10.8|12.0|12.2
- -excluding China| 2.1| 2.4| 2.8| 3.3| 3.4| 4.0| 4.7
Poultry meat~ ~ ~ | 1.2| 1.8| 2.9| 5.8| 6.9|10.5|14.0
excl. China/Brazil| 1.2| 1.9| 3.2| 4.8| 5.2| 8.1|11.6

The 9900 million animals raised and killed for food account for 98% of all animals killed annually in the US (01W1).
135 million animals are killed for sport,
25 million are used in biomedical research and testing,
10 million are put down in pounds.

During a 75-year lifetime, a typical US resident consumes 11 cows, 32 pigs and sheep, 85 turkeys, 2570 chickens and ducks, and uncounted numbers of fish and other aquatic animals (01W1).

World meat consumption has climbed from 44 million tons in 1950 to 217 million tons in 1999. This growth is roughly double that of population growth. Per-capita meat intake has increased worldwide from 17 kg./ person in 1950 to 36 in 1999 Worldwatch (2/16/01) Global Environment Reaches Dangerous Crossroads.

ILRI estimates of per-capita consumption (in kg/ year) of meat/ dairy products in developing nations between 1993-2020 (01U1):
Meat - -|Per-Capita Consumption
Year - -|2020|1993
beef~ ~ | ~ 7| ~ 5
pork~ ~ | ~13| ~ 9
poultry | ~ 8| ~ 5
all meat| ~30| ~21
milk~ ~ | ~62| ~40
Comments: Are fish included in "all meat" in the table above? Since mutton is omitted from the table above, but probably included in "all meat", it seems doubtful that fish are a component of "all meat".

Dairy demand in developing nations is estimated to make up 59.8% of global milk requirement - 654 million tonnes (01U1).

Milk demand in developing world countries, is forecast to reach 391 million tonnes in 2020, vs. 168 million tonnes in 1993. Comments: For a developing world 1993 population of 4 billion, this gives a 1993 per-capita demand of 0.042 tonnes/ capita - 42 kg./capita/ year (01U1).

Meat consumption in developing nations will rise an estimated 113.6% to 188 million tonnes in 2020 from 88 million tonnes in 1993 (01U1). Comments: For a developing world 1993 population of 4 billion, this gives a 1993 per-capita demand of 22 kg./ capita/ year.

International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), an international institute doing research on the livestock industry, predicts that meat- and dairy demand in developing nations will double by 2020. Urbanization and population growth will fuel a 100% surge in meat and milk consumption in developing world countries by 2020 (01U1).

Globally, meat consumption has tripled since 1961 (99M1), p. 7).

A plot of world meat consumption (1960-99) is on p. 26 of Ref. (00W1).

During 1982-94, global meat consumption grew by 2.9%/ year, but it grew 5 times faster in developing countries than in developed countries, where meat consumption is already high (p. 9-10 of Ref. (99D2)). Comments: This might include fish.

A typical American requires about 2 acres of cropland (over 1/3 of which is used to grow food for beef cattle) and 4.4 acres of grazing land (nearly all of which is used for beef cattle) (p. 364 of Ref. (91J1)).

Fewer than 5% of First-World consumers are vegetarian, and most of them eat lots of dairy products and eggs (99A1).

From US livestock, 5.4 million tonnes of protein is consumed yearly. This supplies 70 grams/ capita/ day. Americans consume an additional 32 grams/ day of plant-protein (Ref. 3 of Ref. (80P1)). The UNFAO recommends a protein intake of 41 grams/ capita/ day (plant + animal) (80P1).

17% of the calories people consume (and 33% of the protein) derive from animal products (global average) (86V1).

Red Meat Consumption (plot in World Watch 9(5) (1996))
(Consumption in units of millions of tons/ year)
Year -|1975|1980|1985|1990|1995
USA ~ | 19 | 19 |19.5| 19 | 20
China | ~7 | 12 |17~ | 25 | 41

1990 Meat Consumption (excluding fish, etc.) (Consumption in units of kg./ capita/ year) (91D1)
USA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ |112| Italy ~ | 77| South Korea|19
Hungary ~ ~ ~ |108| U.K.~ ~ | 71| Philippines|16
Australia ~ ~ |105| U.S.S.R.| 70| Turkey ~ ~ |16
Czechoslovakia|102| Brazil~ | 47| Thailand ~ | 8
France~ ~ ~ ~ | 91| Japan ~ | 41| India~ ~ ~ | 2
Germany ~ ~ ~ | 89| Mexico~ | 40|
Argentina ~ ~ | 82| China ~ | 24|

Americans consume 5 times as much beef as the average human on this planet (6 times as much energy) (82W1).

US meat consumption = 100 kg/ person/ year. (43 kg. of beef, 25 kg. of pork, 24 kg. of chicken/ turkey, 6 kg. of fish, and 2 kg. of veal/ lamb (Ref. 2 of Ref. (80P1)).

Urbanization and population growth will fuel a 100% surge in meat- and milk consumption in developing nations by 2020 (BusinessWorld (Philippines), 4/30/01).

Americans eat 1.2 pounds of lamb/ capita/ year, vs. 68 pounds of beef, about the same for pork, 82 pounds of chicken, and 16 pounds of fish (01G1).

World meat production: 44 million tons (under 18 kg./ capita) in 1950; 211 million tons (36 kg./ capita) in 1997 (98H2).

Over the last decade, per-capita consumption of beef, pork and chicken has doubled in the world's poorer nations-though it is still just one-third the level in industrial nations (98H2).

Per-capita consumption of milk, cheese, yogurt, ice cream and eggs has climbed to all-time highs (98H2).

Global meat consumption is highly concentrated, dominated by only a few nations. The US and China, which contain 25% of the world's population, combine to consume 35% of the world's beef, over half of the world's poultry, and 65% of the world's pork. If Brazil and the EU are included, this group consumes over 60% of the world's beef, over 70% of the world's poultry, and over 80% of the world's pork (98H2).

China produces and consumes half the world's pork (98H2).

1997 pork production (85 million tons) was easily a third higher than beef and poultry production. (Poultry production surpassed beef production in 1996.) (98H2).

World beef and mutton production (kg./ capita) (Ref. 5 of Chapter 6 of (94B3))
Year |1950|1960|1970|1980|1990|1993
Prod.| 9.4|10.5|12.7|11.7|11.8|11.2

US Per-capita Consumption (lb./ year) of beef and poultry (USDA data) (Alan B. Durning, Worldwatch, 1(1) (1988) p. 13)
Year - |1950|1960|1970|1975|1980|1987
Beef ~ | 50 | 63 | 80 | 90 | 77 | 76
Poultry| 26 | 35 | 43 | 50 | 55 | 79

(Global) During 1980-93, world poultry consumption increased 84% (Gary Gardner, Chapter 5 of State of the World 1996).

(Global) During 1976-80, world beef production fell 9% (Ref. 81 of Ref. (82W1)). During 1950-75, world beef consumption doubled, while mutton production increased by 50% (81B1). During 1950-90, world output of beef and mutton increased 2.6-fold, increasing per-capita consumption by 26% (FAO; 1948-85 World Crop and Livestock Statistics (Rome, 1987), FAO Production Yearbook (Rome, 1988-91)).

(China) China's meat demand has more than doubled over the past 7 years (99A1).

(India) India's milk consumption has more-than-doubled since 1980 (99A1). Comments: Much of this is population growth.

[B3] - Side-Effects of Meat Consumption -

Per-calorie land-use efficiencies of fruit and beans are 5 and 3 times that of animal-based foods. That is, an animal-based edible calorie requires the same amount of land as 5 fruit calories or 3 bean calories (08P1).

American red meat is, on average, 350% more greenhouse-gas-intensive per edible calorie than the national food system mean (08P1).

Data from a Worldwatch Press Briefing on Global Trends in Meat Consumption, 7/12/98:
Excess meat consumption is responsible for $60-$120 billion/ year of health-care costs in the US alone. (Domestic cash receipts for the US meat industry totaled roughly $100 billion in 1997.)

The US FDA banned the use of so-called ruminant meat and bone meal in cattle feed in 1997 because mad-cow disease is believed to be spread by feeding cattle by-products of other cattle that may have had the brain-wasting disease. A good source of protein and other nutrients, the meal is still widely used in chicken-, pig-, and pet food. But there have been problems at the mills and processing plants with keeping feed from the ruminant meat and bone meal from mixing with cattle feed, and problems with making sure farmers don't give their cattle the wrong feed (Jill Carroll, "FDA Chief is Pushing Broader Animal-Feed Ban", Wall Street Journal, 3/9/01).

John Robbin's EarthSave web site (http://www.EarthSave.org) gives the following information
Calories of fossil fuel expended to produce 1 calorie from beef: 78
Calories of fossil fuel expended to produce 1 calorie of protein from soybeans: 2
Recommendations of the amount of daily calories to be provided by protein:
- -World Health Organization - - - - - - - - 4.5%
- -Food and Nutrition Board of the USA - 6.0%
National Research Council - - - - - - - - - - 8.0%
Percent of calories as protein in:
Zucchini |28%| Broccoli |47%| Lettuce~ ~ |34%| Tomatoes |18%
Potatoes |11%| Wheat~ ~ |17%| Brown Rice | 8%|.

Produce a day's food for one meat-eater takes over 4,000 gallons. A lacto-ovo vegetarian takes 1200 gallons. A pure vegetarian requires 300 gallons. It takes less water to produce a year's food for a pure vegetarian than to produce a month's food for a meat-eater. (Comment: By "pure vegetarian" Ref. (87R1) must mean vegan) (87R1).

Impacts of Red Meat vs. Pasta (1 lb. of red meat has the nutritional value of 1.4 lb. of grain):
Red Meat
produces 3.4 times as many greenhouse gases,
produces 17.5 times as much common water pollution,
produces 4.5 times as much toxic water pollution
uses 4.9 times as much water & 20x as much land
as a nutritionally equivalent amount of grain. (87R1).
Comments: In general, energy/ nutrition transfers up the food chain are roughly 10% efficient per trophic level (The difference between red meat consumption by humans and grain consumption by humans is one trophic level.) Note that meat protein is not strictly comparable to the carbohydrates, etc. of grain.

A recent court ruling threatens to limit the government's enforcement of its new food safety regulations. A lawsuit was filed by Texas meat grinding company Supreme Beef against the US Dept. of Agriculture when the USDA effectively shut down the company after it failed bacterial contamination tests three times - once after nearly 50% of its meat was found to be contaminated with salmonella. Supported in its lawsuit by the National Meat Association, Supreme Beef charged that the government didn't have the right to shut down its operations simply because it failed to meet the USDA salmonella standards. In March of 2002, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of the meat industry, prompting concern from some industry observers (02P1).

For decades, meat inspectors had practiced the "poke and sniff" method of visually inspecting carcasses for signs of disease. Following the Jack in the Box outbreak, the government proposed implementing a new inspection system that would require microbial testing to detect the presence of invisible, yet harmful, bacteria such as e. coli and salmonella (02P1). The powerful US food lobby - which has contributed heavily to key Capitol Hill lawmakers - aggressively, fought including this testing as part of the new regulations. The USDA resisted industry pressure, and in 1996 the US meat industry began making the transition to the new inspection system. Since then, the USDA has reported a marked drop in salmonella contamination of ground beef, while the CDC has also begun to see a drop in some food borne illnesses. Yet the American consumer still faces serious risks (02P1).

Gone are the days when a hamburger patty contained the meat from a single cow; with enormous numbers of cattle now being herded, fattened, slaughtered, and ground up together, it's virtually impossible to determine how many cows contribute to a single burger (02P1).

Modern advances have enabled some meat companies to strip as many as 400 carcasses an hour - nearly three times as many as in 1970. With large numbers of animals being raised together in huge feedlots covered with feces it's easy for bacteria to spread from one animal to another. "Cows tend to produce feces [and] feces is primarily bacteria. When those bacteria are spread around, there's ample opportunity for bacteria to be spread from one cow to the next. In larger feedlots there's a greater chance for the passage of microorganisms back and forth. All of that contributes to the spread of microorganisms like e.coli (02P1).

Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation, an expose of the meat and fast food industry, notes that the meat industry has fought against food safety inspection for a hundred years (02P1).

FRONTLINE also explores the powerful US meat industry's attempts to resist certain government regulations aimed at preventing contaminated meat from ending up in supermarkets and fast food chains across America (02P1).

More than 100 million pounds of meat has been recalled since 1998 due to suspected bacterial contamination. Since summer of 2001 the US's largest meat processor had to recall 500,000 pounds of beef contaminated with e.coli bacteria from 17 states (02P1).

Growing consumption of meat - particularly large quantities of high-fat meat, dairy products and eggs - is spurring a global epidemic of lifestyle diseases, such as heart attacks, strokes and cancers, as well as creating new pressures on land and water resources, and contributing to water pollution (98H2).

If each American reduced his/her meat consumption by 5%, 7.5 million tons of grain would be saved, enough to feed 25 million people -roughly the number estimated to go hungry in the US (98H2).

A rich body of medical and epidemiological literature implicates excessive meat consumption as the principal risk factor in the development of a variety of lifestyle diseases, ranging from cardiovascular deterioration to many types of cancer. The high quantities of cholesterol, saturated fat, and protein found in meat-rich diets are linked to the incidence of these diseases throughout the world (98H2).

The China Health Project, a joint Sino-American undertaking, examined the health effects of changes in the Chinese diet since the economic reform of 1978 and concluded that the recent increases in breast cancer, colorectal cancer, cardiovascular disease and obesity are closely linked to increased meat consumption. Moreover, these disease changes occurred at a level of meat consumption that is only a fraction of the typical American or European intake. The Chinese Academy of Preventative Medicine recently advised the Chinese government to limit the country's meat consumption, citing the massive health care costs-totaling in the hundreds of billions of dollars - that widespread chronic illness could inflict on the world's most populous nation (98H2).

Dr. Colin Campbell of Cornell University, who headed the China Health Project, conservatively estimates that excessive meat consumption is responsible for between $60-$120 billion/ year of health care costs in the US. Domestic cash receipts for the meat industry totaled roughly $100 billion in 1997. If Campbell's estimates are correct, it is possible that this industry is a net drain on the American economy (98H2).

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), "wide adoption of the high-fat, hamburger-lifestyle" in developing nations has lead to increased cancers and cardiovascular illnesses (98H2).

Reducing global meat consumption even slightly among the affluent would:

Ease the health care burden while improving public health;
Take pressure off of rangelands and grain lands, allowing the agricultural resource base to rejuvenate;
Allow more efficient use of declining per-capita land- and water resources, make grain more affordable to the world's hungry (98H2).

[B4] - Meat- and Wool Exports -

Argentina is the world’s fifth-largest beef exporter (08R1).

US Beef exports to Asia (thousands of tonnes) (Wall Street Journal, 2/10/00) (from a chart)
Year - |1993 |1994 |1995 |1996 |1997 |1998 |1999
Exports| 410 | 460 | 620 | 630 | 570 | 560 | 650

Total Meat Trade by Developing Region (03A1)
Year - - - - - - -| 1964| 1974| ~1984| ~1997| 2015 | 2030
Range- - - - - - -| ~/66| ~/76| ~ /86| ~ /99| - - -| - - -
Sub-Saharan Africa| ~111| ~180| ~ -60| ~ -92| ~-280| ~-740
Near East/N.Africa| ~-97| -337| -1437| -1246| -2360| -3520
Latin Amer./Carib | ~829| ~672| ~ 867| ~ 658| ~1770| ~2770
South Asia~ ~ ~ ~ | ~ -6| ~ ~0| ~ ~47| ~ 173| ~ -80| ~-410
East Asia ~ ~ ~ ~ | ~132| ~ 18| ~ 454| ~-732| -2950| -4000
Milk/dairy products in whole milk equivalent (excl. butter)
Developing~ ~ ~ ~ |-5300|-8735|-20040|-19848|-29600|-38900
Sub-Saharan Africa| -522|-1206| -2785| -2321| -3600| -5200
Near East/N.Africa| -753|-2031| ~-757| -4980| -8900|-12500
Latin Amer./Carib.|-1879|-2571| -5500| -5374| -6350| -6700
South Asia~ ~ ~ ~ | -662| -553| -1247| ~-804| -1200| -1500
East Asia ~ ~ ~ ~ |-1486|-2374| -3751| -6370| -9550|-13000
Industrial~ ~ ~ ~ | 6920| 8973| 18420| 19665| 28000| 35700
Transition~ ~ ~ ~ | ~135| ~898| ~1886| ~2212| ~3500| ~5200
(1) Includes meat equivalent of trade in live animals.

World exports of livestock products and pct. of world consumption (03A1)
(Exports are in units of 1000 tonnes)
Year - - - - - -| 1964| 1974| 1984| 1997
Range- - - - - -| ~/66| ~/76| ~/86| ~/99
Total Meat
Exports ~ ~ ~ ~ | 5996| 8869|14011|27440
% of consumption| ~7.4| ~7.9| ~9.4| 12.7
Bovine
Exports ~ ~ ~ ~ | 3134| 4626| 6225| 9505
% of consumption| ~9.4| 10.3| 12.2| 16.4
Pig meat
Exports ~ ~ ~ ~ | 1734| 2522| 4665| 8270
% of consumption| ~5.7| ~6.0| ~7.9| ~9.6
Poultry meat
Exports ~ ~ ~ ~ | ~436| ~887| 1973| 8465
% of consumption| ~4.0| ~4.7| ~6.3| 13.9
Ovine
Exports ~ ~ ~ ~ | ~691| ~835| 1148| 1200
% of consumption| 11.1| 12.6| 14.1| 11.2
Milk and Dairy (liquid milk equivalent)
Exports ~ ~ ~ ~ |21606|31769|57004|71364
% of consumption| ~6.0| ~7.6| 11.1| 12.8
Note: Meat exports include meat equivalent of live animal exports.

(Trends) The FAO study (FAO, "World Agriculture: toward 2015/ 2030" [ISBN 92 5 104835 5] (2003)) found the same deceleration is not expected for the dairy sector, where production is likely to steadily rise. It projects higher growth in the world milk- and dairy sector than in the recent past because of the cessation of declines and some recovery in transition economies (03E1).

(Trends) The FAO study (FAO, "World Agriculture: toward 2015/ 2030" [ISBN 92 5 104835 5] (2003)) suggests that this expansion in global meat consumption is likely to slow in coming years as big markets in developing countries reach saturation levels. The forces that made for the rapid growth of the meat sector in the past are expected to weaken considerably. Lower population growth is an important factor, as is the natural deceleration following attainment of high consumption levels in the major countries that dominated past increases (03E1).

(Globalization) The FAO study (FAO, "World Agriculture: toward 2015/2030" [ISBN 92 5 104835 5] (2003)) said the second main factor (after the growth of poultry) affecting the world's meat economy in recent years is trade liberalization. "In more recent years, the world meat trade has been expanding rapidly (03E1).

Exports account for nearly 13% of US beef production. The increase in global demand is attributed to rising incomes, a growing middle class, a decline in self-sufficiency, and export promotion efforts. Obstacles to US meat exports include food safety concerns, foreign competition and trade regulations. Japan and Mexico are the largest foreign markets for US beef. Australia leads the US in beef exports. ("Beyond US Borders," Beef Magazine, Kindra Gordon, 8/1/01.)

US Beef exports were up 12% (in volume) in 2000, up 245% since 1990 (01B1).

(Argentina) Argentina, the world's fourth-largest beef exporter, shipped 126,805 tonnes of grass-fed beef between January-April of 2000, vs. 114,712 tonnes in the same months of 1999. Canada is buying 13,258 tonnes of Argentina beef in the first 4 months, versus 434 tonnes in 1999 according to Canada's Import-Export Control Office. Argentine beef exports will be close to 400,000 tonnes in all of 2000. Argentina's beef client in the first 4 months of 2000 included US 13,250 tonnes, Chile 10,709 tonnes, Germany 10,139 tonnes and Israel 6,931 tonnes. This year's start comes after Argentina's range-reared beef exports hit a decade-low 294,945 tonnes in 1998 vs. 341,746 tonnes in 1999. In the mid-1990s, over 400,000 tonnes were consistently sold abroad. The Argentine herd of 50 million head was officially cleared of foot-and-mouth disease. The US market held out for 66 years before finally springing open to Argentine beef in 1997. Sales in 1999 total hit 25,774 tonnes (Robert S. Elliott, Reuters, 6/15/00).

(Argentina) The declaration of Argentina as free of foot and mouth disease had the potential to vastly alter the composition of the world beef trade. The World Organization for Animal Health declared Argentina foot-and-mouth disease-free without requirement for vaccination. Argentina's cattle herd increased 2% in 1999 to 49 million head, twice the size of Australia's. Argentina exported 341,746 tonnes of beef in 1999 against an estimated 831,000 tonnes by Australia in 1999/00. (Reuters, 7/3/00)

(Australia) Australia exports over $1 billion of beef to the US annually (Wall Street Journal, 11/11/97).

(Brazil) Brazil could become the world's largest meat exporter by 2005 if key overseas buyers remove trade barriers. Brazil currently is the world's third largest beef exporter after the US and Argentina. Brazil has the world's largest commercial cattle herd - 170 million head, versus grass-fed producer Argentina's 50 million. Brazil is also the second largest chicken exporter after the US. The main barrier to boosting Brazil's exports of fresh and frozen beef to US markets has been incidents of foot-and-mouth disease in major ranching areas in southern Brazil. Brazil has pledged to wipe out the disease by 2005, and US officials now say Brazil could dispatch its first shipment of beef to the US by the end of 2000 (Reuters, 5/13/00).

(Central America) 25% of Central America's beef is exported, largely to the US (p. 356 of Ref. (91J1)).

(Central America) As beef production increases in Central America, per-capita beef consumption declines. In Costa Rica, where 71% of all new farmland is beef-cattle pasture, beef production doubled during 1959-72, but per-capita beef consumption fell from 30 lb. to under 19 lb./ year. Similar data exist for Honduras (83N1).

(EU) European countries have rigid quotas on imports of US lamb or wool (99S1).

(Japan) Japan imports close to 2/3 of the beef it consumes (Worldwatch Paper 136, 1997).

(South Korea) South Korea is currently the third largest export market for US beef. According to the USDA, South Korea imported 107,000 tonnes of beef in 1998, 199,000 in 1997, 202,000 tonnes of beef in 1999 (USDA data) (Reuters, 8/2/00).

(US) Exports of US meat in 2000: beef exports now estimated at 2.515 billion pounds and pork at 1.275 billion pounds, thanks to growing Asian demand (USDA data) (Reuters, 6/9/00).

(US) The American sheep industry got temporary relief for 3 years from the US International Trade Commission in the form of stiff tariffs on lamb and wool imports from Australia and New Zealand (99S1).

(US) About 25% of US food production is exported, but about half that amount is imported, resulting in a net US food export of about 12% (80P1).

[B5] - Feedlot/ Meatpacker Data -

Feedlots in the 7 biggest cattle-producing states sold 1.707 million steers and heifers to meatpackers in February, 2000 up from 1.560 million head in 1999 (Bloomberg, 3/15/00).

The number of young cattle entering feedlots in the 7 biggest cattle-producing states in February, 2000, totaled a record 1.602 million, vs. 1.563 million in 1999 (Bloomberg, 3/15/00).

[B6] - Meat/ Wool Prices -

Today's beef costs 30% less than it did in 1970 (02P1).

Wool, which once provided a quarter of a sheep man's income, also has been undermined by international markets and by shifting consumer preference for synthetics. The federal wool subsidy was phased out in the 1990s. Now the price of wool in the US doesn't cover the cost of shearing, let alone transportation and other expenses (01G1).

American stockmen have seen their income plummet from 95 to 35 cents/ lb. since mid-2001. Lamb costs as much as $11/ pound retail, but ranchers get 35 cents/ pound on the hoof (01G1).