• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Half Title
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Participants
 List of papers
 Introduction and summary
 World overview
 Regional presentations
 Nonfood uses of animals
 Competition between man and...
 Food needs in the future
 Comparative efficiency of...
 Unconventional feeds
 Potential of nonruminants
 Potential of ruminants
 Alternative uses of land
 Potential for development of range...
 Summaries and concluding remar...
 Tables






Group Title: Working papers - Rockefeller Foundation
Title: The Role of animals in the world food situation
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00054827/00001
 Material Information
Title: The Role of animals in the world food situation a conference held at the Rockefeller Foundation, 1975
Series Title: Working papers - Rockefeller Foundation
Physical Description: 101 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Publisher: The Foundation
Place of Publication: New York
Publication Date: 1975
 Subjects
Subject: Food supply -- Congresses   ( lcsh )
Animal industry -- Congresses   ( lcsh )
Food of animal origin -- Congresses   ( lcsh )
Genre: conference publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00054827
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000355412
oclc - 01958396
notis - ABZ3643
lccn - 75040307

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Half Title
        Half Title
    Title Page
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Table of Contents
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Participants
        Page 5
        Page 6
    List of papers
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Introduction and summary
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    World overview
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Regional presentations
        Page 17
        Asia
            Page 18
            Page 19
            Page 20
        Latin America
            Page 21
            Page 22
            Page 23
        Africa
            Page 24
            Page 25
            Page 26
            Page 27
        The United States
            Page 28
            Page 29
            Page 30
            Page 31
            Page 32
            Page 33
            Page 34
            Page 35
    Nonfood uses of animals
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
    Competition between man and animals
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
    Food needs in the future
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
    Comparative efficiency of animals
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
    Unconventional feeds
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
    Potential of nonruminants
        Page 59
        Page 60
    Potential of ruminants
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
    Alternative uses of land
        Page 64
        Page 65
    Potential for development of range lands
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
    Summaries and concluding remarks
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
    Tables
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
Full Text

WORKING PAPERS
THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION

THE ROLE OF ANIMALS
IN THE WORLD FOOD SITUATION

>WORLD OVERVIEW
> REGIONAL PRESENTATIONS:
LATIN AMERICA, AFRICA,
UNITED STATES, ASIA
> NON-FOOD USES OF ANIMALS
> COMPETITION BETWEEN MAN
AND ANIMALS
> FOOD NEEDS IN THE FUTURE
>THE COMPARATIVE EFFICIENCY
OFANIMALS
> UNCONVENTIONAL FEEDS
>POTENTIAL OF NON-RUMINANTS
> POTENTIAL OF RUMINANTS
> ALTERNATIVE USES OF LAND
> POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVEMENT OF
RANGE LANDS
>WITH SUMMARIES AND DISCUSSIONS
AND 23 TABLES

A CONFERENCE HELD AT
THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION 1975


PUBLICATION DATE DECEMBER 1975






























The Role of Animals in the World Food Situation





















The Role of Animals in the
World Food Situation



A conference held at The Rockefeller Foundation, 1975




























Published December 1975

The Rockefeller Foundation









Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Main entry under title:

The Role of animals in the world food situation.

(Rockefeller Foundation Working papers)
1. Food supply--Congresses. 2. Animal industry--
Congresses. 3. Animal food--Congresses. I. Series:
Rockefeller Foundation. Working papers The Rockefeller
Foundation.
HD9000.1.R64 338.1'9 75-40307
































Published in December 1975 by The Rockefeller Foundation

Printed in the United States of America










CONTENTS


Page


Introduction and Summary 9

World Overview 15

Regional Presentations 17
Asia 18
Latin America 21
Africa 24
United States 28

Nonfood Uses of Animals 36

Competition Between Man and Animals- 40

Food Needs in the Future 46

Comparative Efficiency of Animals 52

Unconventional Feeds 56

Potential of Nonruminants 59

Potential of Ruminants 61

Alternative Uses of Land 64

Potential for Development of Range Lands 66

Summaries and Concluding Remarks 69

Tables 76














PARTICIPANTS


Martin E. Abel
Professor of Agricultural and Applied Economics and
Director, Economic Development Center
University of Minnesota

Glenn H. Beck
International Agricultural Research Specialist, Office of Agriculture,
Technical Assistance Bureau
U.S. Agency for International Development

John E. Butcher
Professor of Animal Science
Utah State University

Theodore C. Byerly
Formerly Assistant Director, Science and Education Commission
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Bart P. Cardon
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Arizona Feeds, Inc.

Ralph W. Cummings, Jr.
Agricultural Economist, Agricultural Sciences and
Social Sciences
The Rockefeller Foundation

Martin H. Gonzalez
Director of Rancho Experimental La Campana

Clarence C. Gray III
Associate Director, Agricultural Sciences
The Rockefeller Foundation

William L. Johnson
Associate Professor of Animal Science
North Carolina State University

James E. Johnston
Associate Director, Agricultural Sciences
The Rockefeller Foundation

Terry Klopfenstein
Associate Professor of Animal Science
University of Nebraska

A. Colin McClung
Deputy Director, Agricultural Sciences
The Rockefeller Foundation








James McGinnis
Professor of Poultry Science
Washington State University

John J. McKelvey, Jr.
Associate Director, Agricultural Sciences
The Rockefeller Foundation

William McMillan
Executive Vice President, American National Cattlemen's Association

Maiden C. Nesheim
Director, Division of Nutritional Sciences
Cornell University

John L. Nickel
Director General, International Center of Tropical Agriculture

John A. Pino, Chairman
Director, Agricultural Sciences
The Rockefeller Foundation

Ned S. Raun
Animal Scientist, Beef Production Systems
International Center of Tropical Agriculture

Thomas Reid
Head, Department of Animal Sciences
Cornell University

Boyce Rensberger
Science Writer, The New York Times

Lyle Schertz
Deputy Administrator, Resource and Development Economics, Economic Research
Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture

James M. Spain
Soil Scientist, Beef Production Systems
International Center of Tropical Agriculture

Kenneth L. Turk
Professor Emeritus, Animal Science
Cornell University

R. O. Wheeler
Acting Director, Winrock International Livestock Research and Training Center











LIST OF PAPERS


The following are papers presented or consulted at the conference. They
may be obtained by writing to the author at the address listed below.

"Potentials for Livestock Production in Africa"
Glenn H. Beck and Howard B. Sprague
Office of Agriculture, Technical Assistance Bureau
U.S. Agency for International Development
Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20523

"Competition Between Man and Animals for Food and Habitat"
T. C. Byerly
6-J Ridge Road
Greenbelt, Maryland 20770

"The Role of Animals in the Future World Food Supply U.S."
John E. Butcher
Department of Animal Science
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84521

Collections of Tables for Talk on "Feedgrains and Feedlot Operations"
Bart P. Cardon
Arizona Feeds, Inc.
P. 0. Box 5526
Tucson, Arizona 85705

"Potential Improvement of Range Lands for Animal Production"
Martin H. Gonzalez
Rancho Experimental La Campana, INIP-SAG
Chihuahua, Mexico

"Production Potential of Ruminants as Influenced by the Refeeding of
Screened Cattle Manure Solids"
W. L. Johnson
Department of Animal Science
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607

"Conflict and Complementarity in Asian Animal Feeding and Food Production"
James E. Johnston
Agricultural Sciences
The Rockefeller Foundation
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036








"Cellulosic Crop Residues and By-products"
and
"Feeding Brood Cows During a Grain Shortage"
Terry Klopfenstein
Department of Animal Science
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, Nebraska 68503

"Meat Mythology"
C. W. McMillan
American National Cattlemen's Association
1015 National Press Building
Washington, D.C. 20045

"Discussion of Projected World Food Demand and Supplies to 1985"
M. C. Nesheim
Division of Nutritional Sciences
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14853

"Overview of Livestock Industry in Latin America"
and
"Production Potential for Ruminants in the Lowland Tropics of Latin America"
Ned S. Raun
Beef Production Systems
International Center of Tropical Agriculture
Apartado Aereo 6713
Cali, Colombia

"Comparative Efficiency of Animals in the Conversion of Feedstuffs to
Human Foods"
J. T. Reid, K. L. Turk, R. Anrique
Department of Animal Science
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14853

Collection of Tables for his Presentation of the "World Overview"
Lyle Schertz
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Economic Research Service
Washington, D.C. 20250

"Land Use Alternatives for the Humid and Subhumid Tropics of Latin America"
James M. Spain
Beef Production Systems
International Center of Tropical Agriculture
Apartado Aereo 6713
Cali, Colombia

"Other Roles of Animals: Significance of Animals in Farming Systems and
in the Provision of Farm Power and Pleasure"
K. L. Turk
Department of Animal Science
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14853










Introduction and Summary /


Unless unforeseen forces cause a change in current trends, the amount of food
required by the world's people within the next twenty years will be more than
double that currently produced -- and could double again in each succeeding twenty-
five years or less thereafter.

Such a requirement will tax the world food producing capacity under any cir-
cumstances; it also will place great pressures on agriculture to produce without
adversely affecting the environment. That means that the land currently in use
must be made to yield more, that new production technologies must be developed and
put to use, that new land areas must be brought into productive use (perhaps at
great cost), and that all resources must be used more wisely, more effectively,
more efficiently in the sustained production of food.

What people eat depends of course on a number of factors determined by custom,
a comparison of cost, taste, and availability. There may or may not be any direct
relationship between cost and nutritional value. However, as incomes rise, people
generally will move up the nutritional ladder, substituting first cereals for
starches, and then fats and animal products for cereals. The abundance and price
of one food commodity, such as cereals, will influence the "offerings" and prices
of other commodities, such as meats. That the supply and demand of different food
commodities are influenced by economic considerations is often overlooked when food
emergencies occur.

In the wake of the recent world food crisis, the use of grains to feed animals
has come under public scrutiny. Whether grains are fed to animals (as "feed"
grains) or fed to people (as "food" grains), the truth of the matter is that most
grains can be readily fed to both.

On the other hand, animals, which provide man with much nutrition as well as
draft power, hides, fertilizer, and many other useful products, consume many other
things besides grain. Most of these "other things" have no direct value to man.
Economic considerations generally determine what proportion of animal feed is
grains as compared to "other things."

Recognizing that the food-population balance is precarious, it becomes impera-
tive to gain a better understanding between the forces of demand (and in the case







of the poor, of basic food requirements) and those of supply. How animals, and
more particularly the feeding of animals, fit into that balance was the primary
purpose of calling together a selected group of knowledgeable individuals not
to provide all the answers but to set forth those issues which must be examined
with continuing refinement and to determine our current state of knowledge about
those issues. The emphasis fell on ruminant animals, in large part because they
offer that greater flexibility in the use of feed resources which places them at
the center of controversy. The basic questions asked were: What are the re-
sources? Where are they? How can they be best used to feed the world in which
some semblance of choice remains?

It is not possible to summarize adequately two intensive days of discussion
on such a complex subject in these pages. However, several key points of agree-
ment seemed to emerge:

1. 400 to 500 million people in the world now suffer an absolute shortage of
calories or malnutrition. There has been little or no improvement in this apalling
figure in recent years and, due to the historically unprecedented rate of popula-
tion increase, it will be increasingly more difficult to improve the state of nutri-
tion in the future.

2. In the developing countries, there is only limited competition between
human beings and livestock for food. Farm animals, particularly ruminants, have a
unique ability to convert feeds other than cereals and oilseeds into protein for
human consumption; generally these animals either graze or eat waste products.
Grains and other high quality feeds are fed primarily to supplement the usual ra-
tions in order to strengthen animals for heavy productive work or to produce prod-
ucts in which the grain-to-product ratio is relatively low, i.e., milk or poultry.
Consequently, animals in developing countries are smaller, grow slower, mature
later, and produce less than their western counterparts. Yet they are reasonably
efficient considering the land, labor, and nutrients available to them.

3. In the developed countries, livestock production is intensive and based on
maximizing yield utilizing grain and feed concentrates. Swine and poultry consume
a portion of grain products over most of their lives. Dairy cattle are fed grain
supplements during their productive lives. Beef cattle are started on pastures and
then generally switched to grain for finishing. The feedlot can be best conceived
of as a beef factory rather than a livestock operation. The success is based on
business principles. It depends on the cost and availability of feed ingredients
both of which have been highly favorable in the U.S. until recently.

10








4. While the grains generally fed to beef cattle in the U.S., primarily
corn or sorghum, are not major foodgrains in the U.S., they can be and are eaten by
millions of people in the developing world. The high productivity of U.S. farmers
and the existence of enormous quantities of surplus grain in the U.S. made possible
a livestock production system based on grain feeding and still providing relatively
inexpensive meat to the American consumer. However, it is not automatic that grain
"released" from feeding animals will be exported abroad. Grain will be fed to

livestock when it is economic to do so. From time to time, in the future as in the
past, we can expect shifts in grain feeding to beef cattle and certainly changes
in price relationships.

5. There are significant differences among types of livestock regarding rela-
tive efficiency in converting grains. While the measurement of efficiency is com-
plicated, generally it can be concluded that dairy enterprises achieve the most
efficient levels of protein production (growing more efficient as the proportion of
grain rises), followed by the production of broilers and eggs in the U.S., then
pork, and lastly beef. However, the future of ruminants, including beef cattle, is
assured because they can digest the cellulose in grass and other forages, which man
cannot use directly. Taking into consideration all factors, the pig, not the cow,
is in the most precarious position of all farm animals in the U.S. from the stand-
point of efficiency.

6. There is substantial scope for improving animal production in both devel-
oping and developed countries. Range management has yet received only limited at-
tention. Pastures can be upgraded. Many of the animal diseases are not adequately
controlled. Effective methods of treatment have been developed to break down the
woody fibers in the cell walls of crop residues to increase digestibility. An
odorless, sanitary, nutritious feed has been developed from animal manure.

7. Government policy can do much to improve the state of animal production
throughout the world. Funding for research is now very low, services to treat ani-
mal diseases are generally inadequate, marketing systems are often poorly coordi-
nated, and prices received by farmers fluctuate widely. In each area, government
action could make significant contributions.

8. Much remains to be done in seeking alternatives to current feeding prac-
tices. Under present conditions in which world markets will be bidding for U.S.
grains, some shifts in meat production and consumption patterns are likely and
probably desirable.










We hope that this report will be the beginning of a continuing intelligent
dialogue on the topic of the role of animals in the future world food supply.


The Rockefeller Foundation
December, 1975


John A. Pino
Ralph W. Cummings, Jr.











WORLD OVERVIEW


Lyle Schertz
U.S. Department of Agriculture


Dr. Schertz, the first speaker, presented an overview of the world's food re-
sources by means of a series of tables (see appendix). In 1959-61, he pointed out,
about half the world's protein supply came from cereals. Less than one-seventh of
the protein in the diet-deficient countries came from animals, but in the developed
countries the proportion was almost one-half (table 1).

Dr. Schertz showed that the use of cereals for livestock feed in the diet-
adequate countries almost equaled the consumption by humans in the diet-deficient
lands.

The Green Revolution, he asserted, has been largely a phenomenon of the richer
countries. To be sure, total grain production rose proportionally more in the
less-developed countries than in the developed nations between 1948-52 and 1966-70.
But average grain yields per hectare rose sharply in the latter, especially in the
United States, and only slightly in the former. Most of the production gains in
the less-developed countries came from a sizable expansion of the areas devoted to
grain production (table 2).

The Place of Cereals

Next, Dr. Schertz discussed changes in world consumption of cereals as food
and as feed. He pointed out the "very dramatic increase" in the use of grain as
feed in the USSR between 1966 and 1975 and "the very substantial decrease here in
the United States as price ratios justified and encouraged producers to change
their feeding of grain" (table 3).

While production of grain per capital in the United States is quite high and is
increasing, per capital consumption as food declined here between the mid-sixties
and 1970. The Soviet Union showed a similar pattern, although cereal consumption
as food is still more than twice as high there. The People's Republic of China,
however, and the developing world in general showed slight increases in per capital
consumption as food.







Meat Consumption

Turning to meat, Dr. Schertz showed a chart of the total production of beef
and buffalo, pork, and poultry from the mid-sixties to 1972 (table 4). It showed
that the developed countries started at a much higher level than the developing
world and increased production at a much steeper rate. The centrally planned na-
tions fell in between on both counts. When production of the meats was separated,
it became apparent that the centrally planned countries fell below both the de-
veloped and the developing worlds in beef and buffalo, but exceeded both in pork,
thanks to the large number of swine in China. The curves for poultry meat produc-
tion were similar to those for total meat.

When numbers and production of cattle and buffalo are charted as percentages
of the world, Dr. Schertz demonstrated, two phenomena become apparent (table 5).
One is that the rich countries have a disproportionate share of the animal food.
"The other thing you'll notice here is the relatively large numbers of livestock in
low-income countries," he continued. "Developed countries have 21 percent of the
cattle numbers, but they produce about 50 percent of the beef, about 50 percent of
the milk, and about 40 percent of the hides. Looking at the developing countries -
one sees a very large percentage of the animal numbers, 60 percent, but production
as being quite low in terms of animal units." Data for swine, sheep, and goats
show similar profiles, but data for chickens are not as disproportionate--because,
Schertz suggested, of a better transfer of technology.

The consumption of meat reflects the same trends. Consumption is comparatively
high in the developed countries, except for Japan, and low in the rest of the world,
Including the Soviet Union. Finally, tables on the world meat trade in 1975 showed
the developed world as a net exporter and both the developing and the centrally
planned nations as net importers (table 6).

Summarizing this part of his presentation, Dr. Schertz asserted that on a
worldwide basis the consumption of grain as animal feed was low and that the produc-
tivity as food of the great numbers of animals in the low-income countries was also
very low. He emphasized, however, that this calculation made no allowance for the
use of animals for power or other functions.

Discussion

Incomes

In the subsequent discussion, Dr. Schertz stressed the importance of income in
determining the world's grain distribution. As evidence he cited the Soviet Union's







large grain purchases in 1972, which showed a relatively new ability to pay to
overcome domestic shortfalls. Iran and other Middle Eastern countries are also
using their higher incomes from oil to buy more meat and other food resources.

Outside the Market

An "added complexity" to keep in mind, he continued, was the dynamics of sup-
ply response. If everyone in the United States decided to live on cereals and to
eat no meat, he said, the subsequent drop in demand for cereals as animal feed
would result in lower prices, and in response the supply would fall. But if no
other factor produced higher incomes for people in India and Bangladesh their con-
sumption of cereals would not significantly improve. On the other hand, if live-
stock consumption in the United States rose, say, 20 percent, grain production
would probably increase without much rise in prices. The people of Bangladesh and
India again would see little effect.

Nutrition

R. O. Wheeler, an economist, asked: "What do we know about nutrition with
respect to animal protein?" He expressed doubt about the usefulness of discussing
equity or income distribution as it affects diets without more understanding of
this point. John Butcher replied that members of Western societies consume much
more protein than they need nutritionally, and therefore "it's not a matter of
looking at animal protein in terms of its quality factor alone."

James E. Johnston commented that the greatest nutritional shortcoming among
poor people around the world had been shown to be calories, not protein. For this
reason, he said, defenders of animal food products should be cautious about justi-
fying them because of their protein content.

Animals as Recyclers

Bart Cardon, a cattle feeder, pointed out that the ruminant has the capability
of using a tremendous variety of feeds. "In the developing countries they're pri-
marily on roughages," he said. "Roughages are particularly effective in supporting
a cow-and-calf, and raising a calf to a young age. But the productivity of the
animal as it grows up is related to the consumption of grain. We increase ruminant
efficiency as we divert grain to their diet."

Food Grains vs. Feed Grains

William McMillan of the American National Cattlemen's Association agreed that
the greater productivity of livestock in the developed countries resulted from their







greater consumption of grain. "And I think somehow or another," he added, "we've
got to be able to differentiate between animal grains and people grains."

Dr. Schertz argued, however, that it was difficult to calculate what propor-
tion of the grain fed to animals was actually usable by humans. Some people regard
maize, for example, as food, and others do not. Indians eat millets, which we
would classify as coarse grains. Then too, land that is used to grow one type of
grain can sometimes be used to produce others. Moreover, people's preferences can
change with changing conditions. Bangladesh, for instance, which once requested
rice as food aid from the United States, was given wheat instead and developed a
preference for it. A similar result followed a shipment of sorghum to India in the
1960s. For these reasons, he said, he had not attempted to estimate the amounts of
feed usable as food.

Measuring Productivity

Dr. Pino supported this point and also wondered whether speed of weight gain
was necessarily the most useful measure of efficiency in animal production.

Dr. Johnston, just before beginning his formal presentation on livestock in
Asia, said one factor that explained much of the difference in productivity be-
tween Asia and the West was the proportion of reproducing cows. "In most Western
countries they are at least 50 percent of the total population. In Asia they are
frequently less than 10 percent, because animals are retained for draft use rather
than reproduction and meat. There are many things that determine productivity."











REGIONAL PRESENTATIONS


Three speakers each dealt with one of the broad regions of the developing
world Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Sharp differences were apparent in the
way animals are raised, used, and regarded. In Asia, animals by and large are part
of subsistence-level systems in which they consume very little that the farm family
might otherwise use. The use of water buffaloes and cattle as draft animals, more-
over, is highly important over much of the continent.

In Latin America, in contrast, large numbers of cattle are raised for both
meat and milk on pasture-based systems and on farms of all sizes from tiny plots to
enormous ranches.

And in Africa, where most of the cattle are raised in nomadic systems, large
areas of the continent are barred to them because of the prevalence of trypanoso-
miasis and other diseases. An even greater contrast exists between these various
systems and the United States practice of finishing beef cattle in feedlots on
high-grain concentrates.











ASIA


James E. Johnston
The Rockefeller
Foundation


Describing the traditional Asian systems, Dr. Johnston pointed out that they
had developed over thousands of years. They are basically subsistence systems, he
said, to which the animals contribute labor, manure for fertilizer and fuel, and
food--milk, eggs, and meat. But animals seldom consume food that would normally
be needed by the human population. Urbanization and the shrinking size of land
holdings are now eroding these systems, and intensive production on the Western
model is appearing, as well as other systems that employ an intermediate technology.
Nevertheless, traditional ways remain dominant.

By Western standards these systems seem inefficient, Dr. Johnston said. The
animals are smaller, grow slower, mature later, and oduce less than their Western
counterparts. Yet they are reasonably efficient considering the land, labor, and
nutrients available to them, and their performance could improve with additional
inputs.

More particularly, Dr. Johnston described the Asian domestic animals as fol-
lows (table 7):

Sheep and Goats

Most of the 500 million sheep and goats of Asia are found in the semiarid
zones of Western Asia and China. Some, like the Awassi sheep of Syria, are quite
productive. Others are less so, but are nonetheless quite efficient on ranges
where forage is sparse and waterholes miles apart. Grazng is the only agricultural
use possible for suchareas.

Water Buffalo

The total in Asia is about 125 million, almost all the world's buffaloes.
There are two types, the riverine, found from India west, and the swamp, used east
of India, which commonly is slightly smaller. Buffaloes are the principal draft
animals in the rice-growing areas. They also produce milk and, after their working
life is over, a high percentage of the region's "beef." Their normal diet is weeds,
grass, and agricultural wastes. Grain is fed only rarely, and then to high-producing







milk cows and animals performing exceptionally hard labor. The growth potential
of buffaloes is reasonable; recent studies in Thai villages showed that yearlings
gained an average of 400 to 600 grams a day on available grazing.

Cattle

Although cattle are smaller than buffaloes, they can work longer hours during
hot weather and can be used in upland areas where water for wallowing is not avail-
able. Most native breeds produce less milk than the riverine buffalo. Cattle are
not slaughtered in India, for religious reasons, but elsewhere they are a valuable
source of meat. Little cross-breeding to Western.types has been done. The feeding
and management of cattle are similar to those for the water buffalo. The number of
cattle in Asia is more than 350 million.

Swine

The Muslims, who are preponderant in Western Asia, do not eat pork, but the
pig is the most important meat animal (except for fish) in China and in areas in-
fluenced by Chinese culture. The continent numbers perhaps 280 million swine, and
more than 80 percent of them are in China. Although the pig's digestive system is
more like the human's than it is the ruminant's, it does not compete for the human
food supply under traditional feeding and management. Almost anything of nutritive
value can go into its feed, including banana stems, water weeds rice bran and
table scraps, and this feed is usually cooked. The growth of swine is slow but re-
quires little or no cash outlay. In Thailand, as an example, a typical farmer
raises and sells one or two pigs a year, and the sale is his principal source of
cash.

More intensive production units have been established to consume the rice by-
products of mills, distilleries, noodle factories, and the like, and to supply pork
to urban areas. These units supplement the feed with vitamins, minerals, and anti-
biotics but little else. Another system found in Southeast Asia associates pigger-
ies with fish-stocked ponds. Water plants in the ponds are fertilized by the pigs'
wastes and are consumed by both the fish and the pigs. The fish are harvested by
periodically draining the ponds.

In recent years many modern pig-producing units have been established near the
cities. Their standards of management, sanitation, feed efficiency, and pork qual-
ity compare favorably with those in Western countries. Some farmers use commercial-
ly formulated rations, but most buy only premixes and prepare their own rations,
varying the composition according to prices.







Poultry and Eggs


In response to lower relative prices, the demand for poultry products has ex-
panded more rapidly than any other form of animal output during the last two de-
cades. A consumer preference for live native birds is yielding in the cities before
the price advantage of fully dressed hybrid broilers, and egg consumption is gain-
ing even more rapidly. The modern high-production units depend on commercial
mixed feeds. Despite this trend, native fowl remain quite important on farms and
in villages. There they make an important contribution to the nutrition of rural
families at practically no cost.

Ducks

Numbering 95 million, ducks are found principally in the lowland areas of
Southeast Asia. Meat production tends to be seasonal, with large numbers of duck-
lings hatched toward the end of the rice-growing season to glean the paddies after
harvest. Thus they make use of a resource that otherwise would be wasted. Some
large flocks are maintained in confinement and fed on trash fish and rice by-
products, but in general ducks cannot compete with chickens in feed efficiency un-
der intensive conditions.

Dr. Johnston estimated that the potential for increasing the production of
animal food products in Asia was considerable (tables 8, 9). But any such in-
crease, he said, must not come at the expense of food grains (table 10). "The
truth is that Asia needs all of its food grains for human consumption. Diversion
of either cereals or land on which cereals can be grown to use in animal produc-
tion would be hard3 to ust~y ." He calculated, however, that the present supplies
of bran, oil seeds, and other crop by-products could sustain larger numbers of
cattle and buffaloes than they now do. As crop production increases through the
spread of multiple cropping and other developments, by-products will represent a
growing resource that will be usable only by feeding animals.










LATIN AMERICA


Ned S. Raun
International Center of
Tropical Agriculture


Dr. Raun opened his presentation by explaining that he would go over the avail-
able data on the region as a whole and then would examine the livestock industry in
Colombia in more depth as an indicator of the pattern in many other countries.

Numbers of Livestock

Referring to table 11, Dr. Raun pointed out that the numbers of livestock in
Latin America in 1972 were very large, totaling around 250 million head. Beef pro-
duction was about 7 million metric tons, or 27 kilograms per head. By contrast,
the number in the United States was 117 million and production per animal was 87
kg. Thus the productivity per beef animal in the U.S. was more than three times
that in Latin America. In milk, pork, sheep, and goats, the contrast in productiv-
ity was even more marked, amounting to a fivefold difference.

With one exception, he said, the greatest numbers of livestock are concen-
trated in four countries--Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, and Argentina. The exception
is Peru, which has more swine, sheep, and goats than Colombia, as well as an exten-
sive population of llamas and alpacas.

Protein Production

In table 12 Dr. Raun offered a calculation of protein production in Latin
America from different sources. The crude protein from animals was about 2.7 mil-
lion metric tons and from plants was 7.7 million tons. The animal products' share
of the total was 26 percent. When digestible protein retained is considered, how-
ever, the proportion from animal products rises to 37 percent. Moreover, it seems
likely that practically all the animal protein is consumed by humans while consid-
erable quantities of the plant protein cannot be so consumed and are used as animal
feed instead.

The primary sources of animal protein are beef, with 39 percent of the total,
and milk with 31 percent. Pork, poultry, and eggs each fall in the 8-11 percent
range, and sheep and goats account for only 2 percent. Of the meat consumed in
Latin America, beef represents about 70 percent, compared with less than 50 percent







in the United States (although the totals consumed here are larger). "The point
is," Dr. Raun said, "that beef and milk are not just items that are consumed. They
are diet staples."

Data on family food budgets, he continued, reinforce this point. Argentina,
Brazil, Colombia, and Chile are countries with distinct economic and social pat-
terns, yet in each the percentage of the food budgets spent on beef falls in a
narrow range of between 23 and 25 percent. In terms of total family expenditures,
the percentage devoted to beef ranges from 9.1 to 15. The income elasticity of de-
mand for beef with respect to income was less than 1 in high-income groups but more
than 1 in low-income groups, again indicating that beef is a basic food commodity
rather than a luxury food item.

Production in Colombia

Dr. Raun pointed out that of all the beef produced in Colombia, 125,000 metric
tons, or 23 percent, came from dairy cattle. Conversely, of the milk entering com-
mercial channels, 925,000 tons, or 46 percent, came from beef cattle. This pattern
appears in most Latin American countries.

The cattle and sheep in Colombia, he said, are produced in life-cycle produc-
tion systems on pasture. The amount of grain fed these animals is insignificant.
Unlike Asia, Latin America's use of crop residues as feed for these ruminants is
not an important consideration outside of Mexico, although the practice does offer
some potential. The picture is entirely different, however, for poultry and swine.
Poultry in Colombia consume 750,000 tons of concentrates a year and 83 percent of
all commercial concentrates. Pigs are fed 500,000 tons of concentrates, but most
of this is farm-produced, consisting of root crops, grains, and other products for
which there is no effective market or which are not consumed by people.

Cattle are found on 488,000 farms, and 82 percent of these farms are smaller
than 50 ha. These smaller farms have 4.1 million head of cattle, 21 percent of
the total in Colombia. While these data point up the large number of cattle on
just a few farms, they also indicate that the cattle holdings of small farmers are
far from insignificant. Dairy cattle reflect a similar pattern.

Dr. Raun showed that the cattle reproduction rate in Colombia of 50 percent
(one calf every two years), slaughter age of four years, slaughter weight of males,
and daily milk production per cow compared unfavorably with the corresponding data
for the United States.

The primary biological constraint on livestock production, he said, is that of







nutrition, with livestock management and animal health as secondary constraints.
Socioeconomic constraints he listed as being the availability and cost of inputs,
credit, and transportation.











AFRICA


Glenn Beck
U.S. Agency for International Development


The overview of Africa, the third major underdeveloped region of the world,
was presented by Dr. Beck on the basis of a paper whose coauthor was Howard B.
Sprague. Africa, said Dr. Beck, depends as much as any other region on the rumi-
nant to harvest plant energy. But the predominant livestock system differs sharply
from that of most other areas. This system is nomadism, and Dr. Beck estimated
that 40 million people depend on it as a way of life.

The land area of Africa, Dr. Beck said, is almost 5 billion hectares, three
times that of the United States. Of this, only 7 percent is considered arable.
Another 25 percent is classified as permanent grassland; but this figure under-
states the land available for grazing by perhaps 100 percent because it omits the
semiarid areas and the communal grazing grounds around villages. The land must
support a population 64 percent larger than that of the U.S., and growing three
times as fast.

The number of cattle and other livestock is estimated at 167.7 million,
Dr. Beck reported. Small stock such as goats total perhaps 226 million; trans-
lated into large animal units, the overall total amounts to 215 million. Dividing
this into the understated grassland figure yields an average of 2.4 hectares per
animal unit.

As in Asia and Latin America, the productivity of ruminants in Africa is con-
siderably below the United States norms. Annual births are 45 percent of the cows
in Africa, compared with 80 percent in the U.S. Calf losses are 35 percent, com-
pared with 5 to 10 percent. The average age of cattle at marketing is seven years
in Africa, and the market weight is half the U.S. average. The offtake of herds is
only 10 percent a year. A given gain takes two to three times as much feed as it
does in the U.S., although Africa's feeding is almost entirely on forage. "It is
unrealistic," Dr. Beck said, "to expect that Africa will soon equal the efficiency
of production in the U.S., but it may be reasonable to substantially improve Afri-
can performance."

As for dairy production, he said Africans like milk and consume as much as they







can get. The Fulani of West Africa, for instance, keep cattle principally because
they can sell the milk, and milk is also obtained from camels, horses, goats, and
sheep. The pressure for more dairy products is heavy in the swelling urban areas.
But production depends on the range animal, which is not bred specifically for this
purpose, and European dairy breeds suffer from climate tolerance. Commercial
dairying of the Western type is possible, however, in the highlands. Efforts to
concentrate dairy herds in feedlots have also been generally successful in West
Africa, but this requires management skills that are not widely available.

The numbers of nonruminants are relatively low, with populations of fewer than
6 million pigs and 400 million poultry, partly because no demand for pork exists in
the Muslim areas. Most of the pigs that are raised, however, are held in large
commercial operations. On the other hand, most African families keep bush fowl,
and thus the reported number of poultry is probably too low. Dr. Beck suggested
that the prospects for growth in these numbers is limited because of the high cost
and limited availability of feedstuffs, especially protein.

Lack of transportation is one of the most severe limitations on animal produc-
tion, Dr. Beck pointed.out. The Sahelian and Sudanian zones of the interior are
major production areas, but markets are largely on the coast. Lack of transport
forces cattle to be driven, often across tsetse fly zones, and they reach market in
very poor condition.

Another major constraint is disease, particularly trypanosomiasis--the disease
carried by the tsetse fly--and the tick-borne East Coast fever. These and other
diseases are prevalent over wide areas of the continent between the Sudanian zone
and South Africa, rendering animal production practically impossible.

But the major problem is the overgrazing of range lands, Dr. Beck asserted.
"Grass and water," he explained, "are considered free resources, available to the
stock that gets there first." He believed that the future of the ruminant in Afri-
ca depends greatly on the improved utilization of the range. At a terrible cost,
the recent drought in the Sahel performed the necessary task of reducing the number
of cattle.

He also called for development of complementarity between crop and livestock
production. "The herdsman needs forage for his livestock in dry seasons," he said,
"and this may logically be produced in cropping regions and under irrigation in the
Sahel. The crop farmer needs livestock to utilize crop by-products and wastes,
and also needs the livestock manure to improve soil fertility. This







complementarity is important and apparently offers substantial opportunity to im-
prove the efficiency and dependability of production to both types of producers."

New international research centers in Africa are tackling the problems of im-
proving range land, of introducing mixed, permanent farming systems, and of control-
ling animal diseases. Long-term breeding projects to upgrade indigenous livestock
are also necessary.

Yet much can be done with existing technology. The effects of droughts could
be greatly reduced, for instance, and improved animal husbandry and marketing sys-
tems offer much potential. Dr. Beck called for "numerous practical demonstrations
of integrated systems suited to local conditions" both to prove their economic ad-
vantages and to demonstrate that the local people can operate them.

In a brief discussion after the presentation, Dr. Beck noted that the competi-
tion between game and domestic animals for grazing was a controversial problem in
East and South Africa. Dr. Pino added that on a recent visit to Africa he had been
impressed with the potential of the eland for meat production.

Control of Diseases

Dr. John J. McKelvey, Jr., also noted that programs to control trypanosomiasis
must not only deal with the tsetse fly but must also provide for "careful and fore-
sighted" use of the land that provides the fly's habitat. Dr. Wheeler said the fly
imposed a kind of rotational grazing system on the herdsmen that actually helped to
avoid overgrazing. Dr. McKelvey said that people working for African development
were interested in improving nomadism, particularly in the Sahel, rather than
drastically changing it.

Dr. Pino described the work of ILRAD, the International Laboratory for Re-
search on Animal Diseases, which is situated in Kenya. He stressed the importance
of developing disease control technology in order to open to animal production an
area of Africa larger than the United States. Another research possibility he
cited was the collection and evaluation of animal germ plasm.

Multiple Grazing

At another point, Dr. Pino said he wondered whether the multiple-grazing con-
cept didn't deserve emphasis. A variety of species, he explained, could use dif-
ferent forages in the same habitat and so make more efficient use of a given graz-
ing area.

This remark drew a positive response from several participants. Dr. Beck said








the practice was already quite important in Africa. Dr. Martin Gonzalez added that
in the Edward's plateau of Sonora, Texas, a mixture had been shown to use the land
most efficiently and to yield the highest income. Dr. Butcher praised the idea
but added that managing the land under such a system was more expensive, though
this was not necessarily a deterrent. Dr. Byerly pointed out that management
problems were more difficult in a migratory region than in one where the agricul-
ture was sedentary and the land fenced. Mr. Cardon said a task force had been ex-
amining multiple-use concepts and was soon due to publish its report.

Dr. Johnston said that in the more humid areas of the Middle East, sheep and
goats were herded together because the goats browsed the brush, which otherwise
would cast too much shade and inhibit the growth of the grass the sheep eat. Thus
the use of goats permits the range to carry more sheep. Then too, the goat is
hardier in a drought and so represents a hedge against hard times. Dr. Wheeler
pointed to goats as an example of a technological base that might be receiving in-
adequate research, and Dr. Gonzalez cited Mexican studies of raising goats with
cattle both for control of vegetation and for meat.











THE UNITED STATES
"We Want Beef
Because We Like It"
John E. Butcher
Utah State University
Bart P. Cardon
Arizona Feeds, Inc.


From these surveys of the developing world the conference turned to the United
States, which had already been cited often as a basis for comparison. The descrip-
tion presented was the familiar one of the nation as hog (and cattle) butcher of
the world--and its breadbasket as well. The statistics defined impressive peaks
in production per unit of land and of labor. Nevertheless the experts at the con-
ference expressed considerable apprehension about the future of animal production
here. Drastic changes for the worse were seen as overtaking the industry.

The introduction to the U.S. scene, and much of the gloom, was provided by
Dr. Butcher. On one point, however, he was optimistic. "Only 8 percent of the
world's ruminants are found in the U.S.," he said. "But they produce as much food
as 60 percent of the ruminants found in developing countries. It is obvious to me
that we have increased the efficiency of ruminants in the U.S. Therefore we could
have tremendous potential in the developing countries."

Cattle Sales

The economic importance of cattle, Dr. Butcher said, is indicated by the
1972 sales figures. Cash receipts for ruminants and dairy products amounted to
$25.8 billion that year, he said, which represented about $3 of every $4 received
for livestock products and 42.5 percent of the receipts for all agricultural prod-
ucts. His source for these facts was "Ruminants as Food Producers: Now and for
the Future," a study published this year by the Council for Agricultural Science
and Technology (CAST) in Ames, Iowa.

Dr. Butcher also referred to "Meatfacts: A Statistical Summary about America's
Largest Food Industry," 1974 edition (American Meat Institute, Washington) as a
source of data. This pamphlet, drawing on U.S. Department of Agriculture statis-
tics, shows that the number of cattle and calves on farms numbered 127,540,000 at
the beginning of 1974. This was more than double the number in 1925. During 1973,
34 million cattle and 2.4 million calves were slaughtered, or 28.5 percent of the







year-end numbers, while the offtake 50 years ago was more than 10 percentage
points higher.

As for per capital consumption of beef and veal, the total was 68.1 pounds in
1925 and 111.4 pounds in 1973, a rise of almost two-thirds. Beef and veal repre-
sented less than half of total meat consumption in 1925 but 65.4 percent in 1973.

The rising preference for beef was reflected in cattle prices received by
farmers which at $42.80 in 1973, averaged five and a half times the 1925 figure.
The increase over the same period for hogs and lambs was considerably less. The
1973 price, however, was sharply higher than the $33.50 posted the year before,
and since then it has subsided.

"As a supplement to these data," Dr. Butcher said, "beef cattle numbers are
continuing to increase, and there is an estimated surplus of 4 to 8 million breed-
ing cows in addition to a surplus of slaughter animals."

Other Livestock

The growth of the swine industry in the United States has been less dramatic.
The numbers over fifty.years rose less than 10 percent, to 61 million head, and
pork production was 12,751 million pounds, up 56.9 percent. The United States popu-
lation over the same period rose 81.5 percent. Hog prices rose only two and a half
times, less than half the rate for beef cattle.

Meanwhile the decline of the sheep industry has been severe. Sheep and lambs
numbered 16,545,000 at the beginning of 1974, 57.1 percent fewer than in 1925. Con-
sumption of lamb and mutton was only 2.7 pounds per person, compared with 5.2 pounds
50 years earlier. The price of lambs was $55.30 per 100 pounds, less than the
prices of beef cattle, calves, or hogs. In 1925, on the other hand, the price was
$12.40, more than that of any of the other livestock and almost twice that of beef
cattle. The 50-year price increase was only 184.7 percent. Dr. Butcher said the
decline in sheep in the U.S. had been attributed largely to "lack of labor, preda-
tor problems, and difficulty in marketing--an unfortunate situation."

Poultry and swine output, Dr. Butcher continued, has also been in financial
trouble as a result of higher production costs, especially for grain and labor.

Grazing and Feed

The importance of grazing land or range land is emphasized, he said, by the
CAST report's statement that 63 percent of the total land area of the 48 contiguous
states falls in this category. "'Self-harvesting' of forage from the grazing lands








and residues or by-products from cash crops would seem to be very important in the
production of high-quality human food at low dollar cost and minimum expenditure
of fossil fuel," he suggested.

The CAST report discusses the controversy over the role of grain as food and
as feed in terms favorable to animal production. "However," Dr. Butcher said, "it
seems obvious that there will be a transition for more grain to be used for human
consumption and therefore less grain available for animals." Of the world's annual
grain exports, the U.S. already supplies 44 percent of the wheat, 50 percent of the
corn, and 89 percent of the soybeans. He wondered how much these proportions could
be increased and suggested that the export of energy for human consumption might
best be done in the form of fat.

He sounded his gloomiest note in considering the future of the animal industry
in the United States. His prepared paper asserted: "Low prices of animals and
animal products versus high production cost have already caused financial disaster
for many livestock enterprises, and the immediate future (one to two years) doesn't
indicate much improvement. This is very serious. Will this result in a major
change in means and methods of livestock production in the U.S.?" Departing from
his text, he then remarked: "I don't think a lot of us recognize how serious this
is. I am old enough to remember the thirties--a pretty tough time. As far as I am
concerned I think that some of our problems in animal production in the United
States are as serious, or possibly more serious, or will be more serious by this
fall. I've had quite a bit of background in discussing this with credit agencies,
and I think that can be supported."

As an avenue of research, Dr. Butcher suggested the study of efficient ways to
use more labor in animal agriculture as a means of increasing employment both in
the U.S. and abroad. He emphasized even more strongly the need for research to
minimize the cost of animal maintenance (that is, the feed necessary to prevent
weight loss) through the use of forage and by-products, and to use the higher-
quality feeds like grain for production (that is, to put weight on animals).

The U.S. Feedlot

The importance of grain in U.S. beef production was also stressed by Mr. Cardon,
one of the nation's leading feedlot operators. Feedlots feed grain, he stressed, be-
cause they make more money doing so than they would otherwise. The main reason, he
asserted, is that the carcasses of grain-finished cattle receive higher grades and
hence higher prices under the U.S. Department of Agriculture's grading system.







Grass vs. Grain

As evidence he offered a comparison of the returns to slaughtering a steer
directly off pasture versus fattening it first in a feedlot. For ease of calcula-
tion he figured both animals at 1,000 pounds, although the first would not actually
be grass-fat but would be a feeder of 600 to 800 pounds (table 13).

At the date of his study, he said, the grain-fed animal, which would have been
graded choice, would have been worth 40.6 cents a pound on the hoof. The pasture-
fed steer, however, would have been useful only for hamburger, and hence its value
would have been 17.5 cents a pound less. Moreover, the grain-fed steer would have
yielded a meatier carcass and would have shrunk less in processing, so its relative
value after butchering would have been even more. At feed costs then current, the
return to feeding would have been $44 a head.

Mr. Cardon conceded that it was possible to fatten a steer to choice grade on
grass, although he emphasized that the feat was rare in the United States of today.
He cited a study conducted at the USDA experiment station at Beltsville, Maryland,
which fed alfalfa in pellet form rather than loose to increase intake. But he
showed, using the study's figures, that the cost of feeding the steers to finished
weight, 997 pounds, was virtually identical for both alfalfa and grain (table 14).
The feed prices.he quoted were those being paid at his feedlot, plus allowances
for other costs, including pelleting the alfalfa. When the cattle were sold their
grades were almost the same, and hence they received identicalprices. But since
the grain-fed carcass yielded almost 45 pounds more when dressed, it offered an
added return of $30.54.

"And that's why we use grain," Mr. Cardon said.

The grain fed to cattle, Mr. Cardon pointed out, was not grown for human con-
sumption. Of five leading grains raised in the United States, only wheat does not
find its principal use as feed (table 15). Only 2 percent of the maize, for example,
is used directly as food, and 5 percent more is used by industry, principally for
whisky.

Feedlots as Factories

As for feedlots, he said, they can best be conceived of as beef factories
rather than livestock operations. Their success, he emphasized, is based entirely
on business principles, not nutrition, and depends on the improvement they give to
the quality of the beef. Quality is determined by the USDA grades--prime, choice,
good, and standard. These grades depend on the degree to which the lean meat is

31








marbled with fat. The more the marbling, the theory goes, the more tender it will
be for steaks and roasts, and hence the better the consumer will like it. Thus the
feedlot's chief job is to fatten steers.

The added fat, Mr. Cardon said, replaces water in the tissues, not protein.
Grass-fed carcasses shrink more in processing than the grain-fed because they have
more moisture to lose. The fat represents energy the animal has consumed in excess
of its maintenance requirements. For this reason, energy, chiefly grain, represents
80 to 90 percent of the cost of feedlot rations, the rest being nutritional elements
like vitamins and minerals.

"The beef industry tries to sell its product on the basis of protein quality,"
he continued. "But I say we ought to sell beef for its true value, which is both
energy and protein."

Within the beef industry as a whole, Mr. Cardon explained, feedlots occupy the
second level of a funnel-shaped system leading from farm to consumer (table 16).
Three thousand of them feed 70 percent of the beef grown by 2 million farmers and
ranchers, whose herds average about 22 mother cows. The rest of the funnel is
occupied by some 750 meat packers and 250 retail food chains. Each layer of the
industry is a different business with different technologies, and the total system
is thus quite complex.

Feeding Strategies

Successful feedlot.operation, he demonstrated, requires a sharp eye on the
prices of feeders, feeds, and fattened steers. When the cost of feeders is less
per pound than the cost of their gains in the feedlot, he buys them as light as
possible, usually something over 300 pounds. These are fattened as much as possi-
ble, to something over 1,000 pounds. But when the feeders cost more than the
gain, he buys them as heavy as possible, usually 600 pounds or more. These are
kept only long enough to maximize their quality, which requires a gain of as little
as 350 pounds. The results of feeding five different lots of about 500 head each,
some acquired light and others heavy, are shown in table 17.

Mr. Cardon pointed out that the feed conversion for these herds ranged from
7.4 to 8.3 pounds of feed per pound of gain, considerably less than figures men-
tioned in other discussions. When only the grain content of the feed is considered
the ratios were lower, between 5.5 and 6.22. And if it is assumed that the cattle
before entering the feedlot had eaten no grain, the ratio of finished weight to
grain consumed was much less than that, from 1.97 (for a herd that was heavy at








acquisition) to 3.9 (for a light herd). "We have the capacity," he said, "to
double the grain consumption or to cut it in half, depending on what I call the
economics of the moment. And it isn't an exercise in nutrition or cattle manage-
ment. It's a business decision based on the economics of the industry."

His company, he said, had a computer program capable of weighing the various
factors and prescribing a feeding strategy every week, or if need be every day.
One factor it had not changed, however, despite wide swings in prices, was the
grain in the feedlot ration. If too much low-quality roughage is fed, cattle will
eat barely enough to meet their maintenance requirements and will not gain effi-
ciently. Best results come from including 45 to 50 percent grain in the ration.

Cattle feeders lost money over the past year or two not because of the weather
or the government, Mr. Cardon suggested, but because of bad business judgment. "I
found out early in life that outside of the movies the man in the white hat doesn't
always win," he said. "But I knew that God took care of cattle feeders, drunks,
and similar fools--until about the middle of 1974, when all at once I realized he's
so busy with the Arabs that he had no time for cattle feeders. Now, hopefully, in
1976 he'll come back and take care of us."

Discussion

Following Mr. Cardon's presentation came a discussion of the grades of beef
established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. At the time of the conference
the department had promulgated a new set of grading regulations. One of their
effects would have been to permit some beef currently graded as standard or good
to enter the next higher grade. The action had been attacked by some consumer
groups, however, and court action had delayed its implementation. In that context
the following exchange took place:

Beef Grading

MR. McMILLAN: The changes narrowed the good grade to what we would call a
workable grade. Up to this point it's been a very wide thing, but no consistency
of quality. Therefore retailers by and large have shied away from it, because they
don't get that 52 weeks a year of consistent quality. I think as a practical
matter if these changes were to go into effect, there would in fact be a greater
use of the good grade. And if that use is greater, then there's going to be an
automatic demand created, and I think more good cattle will be merchandized as
good. I think that would even mean a saving in grain consumption. .

DR. PINO: Is the consumer likely to be paying more for a lesser grade of beef?







DR. NESHEIM: That is the reason why the consumer is afraid he's going to be
ripped off. He is afraid that the meat he is now buying as a good grade, for which
he's paying a certain price, will be raised to a choice price later.

MR. McMILLAN: No, it's not true. If you will look at that chart (table 18),
or consult the literature search that Carpenter of Texas A&M has done, you will
find that you're sacrificing nothing in terms of eating quality in the end product.

DR. NESHEIM: Well, let's not worry about eating quality. We're worried about
what the consumer's going to have to pay for a given piece of meat.

MR. McMILLAN: But that varies anyway. It goes up and down.

MR. CARDON: I never yet have seen any savings that the feeder can bring about
by good management which is retained by the feeder. We're in a very competitive
business. We have an oversupply of animals.

DR. PINO: Bart, I don't think it's the feeder that the consumer's worried
about. It's the market channels--

MR. CARDON: But you see, because of our competition, we're going to sell for
what the consumer will pay. The consumer sets the price in the short term.

DR. BUTCHER: Most chain stores buy their beef from a packer who has his own
grades, and he's been using the proposed system for at least 10 years. So really
we're just making this legitimate.

DR. PINO: Why hasn't this been explained satisfactorily to the consumer by
the meat industry?

DR. BUTCHER: One reason is, some of those guys have been taking advantage of
it. They've been selling it for this price on their own grade rather than USDA's
grade.

DR. PINO: Well then, what the consumer's worried about has been happening to
him for the past 10 years.

DR. BUTCHER: Yes.

DR. PINO: But if we're instituting new federal grades, what are the implica-
tions of what the consumer will pay and what he will get?

DR. WHEELER: There's no agreement, John. You talk to Bill there, and he's
labeled right away as a spokesman for the industry. And in fact, a lot of land
grant universities are labeled the same way. And so I guess it's credibility.
Who's going to make this credible? What institution have we got to do it?

34








At another point in the discussion Dr. Wheeler asked Mr. Cardon: "Isn't it
true, Bart, that the percent of choice coming out of your lot is largely a function
of where you get your feeder cattle?"

"Oh, the quality of the feeder cattle determines," Mr. Cardon replied.
". .. We find that if we market them at about 70 percent choice we get the best
feed cost versus the price we receive. The new grading standards throw out confor-
mation (that is, the animal's structure) as a criterion of quality, and those
(rough) cattle are going to grade higher than they currently are."

And at still another point Dr. Byerly asserted: "The reason we want beef is
because we like it. Now that's a given. That's where we start, not from the
standpoint of any efficiency."











NON-FOOD USES OF ANIMALS


Kenneth Turk
Cornell University


Other Roles of Animals

Nonfood uses of domestic animals were described by Dr. Turk. The most wide-
spread are draft power and transport, but others were cited, including furnishing
leather and wool, providing a good use for products not consumable by humans, and
even horse racing.

Draft Power

Dr. Turk cited an FAO finding of 1966: nearly 85 percent of the total draft
power used in agriculture throughout the world is provided by animals. This study
estimated that despite the spread of mechanical power sources such as tractors,
each of the major developing regions still depended on animals for well over 90 per-
cent of its agricultural power.

For the industrialized regions, on the other hand, the figure was under 5 per-
cent, and for the Soviet Union it was 40.9 percent. At a national level, data from
Thailand and the Philippines showed that 18 percent of the farms used only hand
labor, 72 percent had animal power, and 8 percent had a combination of mechanical
and animal power. In these and other Asian countries most of the animal power is
supplied by the water buffalo, but cattle are also important.

Transport

Other studies estimate that more than 20 percent of the world's population de-
pends partly or entirely on livestock for the transport of essential goods. "The
yak," said Dr. Turk, "has special qualities that make it useful as a pack animal in
the high elevations of Central Asia. The same is true of the llama in the high
Andes of South America, the camel in the arid and semiarid areas of the Middle East
and North Africa, and the bullock, donkey, mule, and horse in many other regions."
These animals, he added, function effectively not only where roads are poor or non-
existent but in cities as well.

Are draft and pack animals, Dr. Turk asked, directly competitive with humans
for food? His answer was, not much. "Most of the species of work animals are








ruminants, with a majority of their food derived from forages, coarse roughages,
and by-products not utilizable by humans. The horse and his relatives are non-
ruminants, but they subsist largely on forages and coarse feeds. When cereal
grains are used to feed draft animals to improve their work efficiency, the grains
are often those not normally consumed by humans. The degree of direct competition
between work animals and humans, therefore, is very low. Even where there may be
some degree of competition, the feeding of animals for these purposes can scarcely
be avoided."

Nonfood Products

Sheep, goats, and other animals are recognized for their production of wool,
mohair, and hair. Dr. Turk noted that the development of synthetic materials had
reduced man's dependence on wool for clothing and other uses, but he detected a
recent trend back toward the use of natural wool and plant fibers.

Hides of animals can be an important source of employment and trade. As an
example he cited India, which in 1972 sold leather and leather goods valued at
$121 million, about 6 percent of the value of all exports.

The usefulness of animal waste in maintaining soil fertility, he said, has
been recognized since the domestication of livestock. Ruminants excrete from 60 to
90 percent of the fertilizing elements (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) they
consume, and the organic matter in manure also improves the physical condition of
soil. Animals are therefore highly useful in cyclical farming systems where the
forage and by-products animals take in are returned to the soil that grew them.
In more intensive animal-raising systems such as feedlots and poultry houses, dis-
posal of wastes has been a major problem. As the costs of chemical fertilizers in-
crease, however, the economic incentives will rise for transporting these wastes to
croplands.

Dung is also widely used for fuel, Dr. Turk continued. In fact, 8 to 12 per-
cent of the world's population depends on this source. About 60 percent of the
dung from cattle and buffaloes in India is used for fuel, the equivalent of about
40 million tons of coal a year.

Other useful nonfood products from animals, he said, include insulin, hormones,
and rennin.

Other Roles

Besides these direct uses, Dr. Turk maintained that the use of animals as







components in total farming systems should be considered as "other roles of ani-
mals." In this sense, animals perform a service apart from what they produce by
putting to some use crop by-products, roadside weeds, wastes, and the like. Simi-
larly, they permit useful employment for grazing and forage of lands that cannot
support crops because of inadequate rainfall, distance to markets, and so on, or
that are periodically planted in grass and legumes in crop rotation systems and for
soil conservation.

As a leading example of the use of animals for pleasure and recreation,
Dr. Turk cited horses. Of the 8 million in the United States, practically all are
used for pleasure riding of various sorts and in the sport of horse racing, which
more people attend than professional football or any other sport. He also pointed
out that pets, primarily cats and dogs, share the homes of millions of families
in the United States and elsewhere as well. Dogs are often used in hunting, and
many households value their role as watchdogs.

Finally, Dr. Turk pointed out that animals play a variety of complex roles in
various societies that also rely on them for food. In many nomadic and seminomadic
systems, "cattle are property, and accordingly they represent variable degrees of
wealth, social status, and community influence. They are a man's legacy to his
son. They can be exchanged to symbolize formal contracts of friendship and assis-
tance. The transfer of cattle from the groom's family to the bride's is needed to
validate a marriage. Herdsmen usually tend to hoard cattle in order to build a
system of human bonds aimed at increasing individual security."

These factors, and others such as the Hindu reverence for cattle, can be
constraints, Dr. Turk said, on efforts to develop more productive livestock enter-
prises. But he concluded that they must be understood and reckoned with in plan-
ning development projects.

Discussion

Eating As Pleasure

Boyce Rensberger opened the discussion of Dr. Turk's presentation by suggest-
ing that the consumption of protein in the United States in excess of nutritional
requirements be counted as a "pleasure or recreational" use of animals. After all,
he explained, much of it is done by eating steaks in restaurants and the like.
After a general chuckle had subsided Terry Klopfenstein pointed out that this con-
sumption was not strictly waste. The body uses the calories in protein for energy
even if it is not needed for other purposes.







Integrated Systems

Dr. Byerly, addressing Dr. Turk's point about integrated crop-livestock sys-
tems, reminded the conference that the trend in the United States was toward live-
stock production in closed environments largely segregated from crop production and
the land. Dr. Turk replied that a majority of the nation's dairy cows were still
run in association with cropping systems. Mr. Cardon again noted the small size
of the average beef-cow herd, but Dr. Klopfenstein added that most of these herds
were not integrated with crop production.

Moderate Technology

Dr. James M. Spain said that livestock had a potential role, at least in
South America, in bridging the technological gap between the very small and the
very large farmer. Animal power can take the small farmer beyond what he can handle
with his own hands up to the point where mechanization is feasible. Then too, a
livestock enterprise can span a wide range of scales of operation without mechaniza-
tion because of the animal's capacity to harvest his own forage.

Food Storage

Dr. Abel asked whether Dr. Turk regarded ruminants as an important means of
food storage in areas where crop production was possible but highly uncertain.
Dr. Turk replied that he did in some cases, and Dr. Beck and Dr. McKelvey agreed
that this was especially true in Africa.










COMPETITION BETWEEN MAN AND ANIMALS


T. C. Byerly
U.S. Department of Agriculture


Dr. Byerly addressed the topic of competition between man and animals for food
and habitat. He included in his discussion the overriding issue of competition for
cereals, but he also examined the consumption of forage by wildlife, the feeding of
pets, and the losses of food to predators and scavengers.

Dr. Byerly began with data on uses of the world's land surface. Of the 13.4
billion ha. of this surface, he said, about 1.4 billion is arable, about 3.1 bil-
lion is in pasture and range, and about 4 billion is in forest and woodland. The
amount of arable land could be doubled, but doing so would displace other valuable
uses. As an alternative, technology can greatly increase crop production in the
present area.

Production of Cereals

The cereals grown on the cropland amount to 1.3 billion metric tons, he said,
and about 500 million tons of this goes directly into human consumption. Livestock
and poultry products provide the world's people with about 25 million metric tons of
animal protein, which equals about 30 percent of the protein in cereals not di-
rectly consumed by man.

U.S.A.

As for the United States, Dr. Byerly said that a total of about 240 million
ha. is capable of continuous cropping under good management, but in recent years
only about half of this has been so used. The rest is in grass, trees, or cover
crops, or is idle. In 1972, for example, 117,715,000 ha. were harvested, including
hay and other roughage (table 19).

Half of this land, in turn, produced food grains and feed grains. The total
output of grains in 1972 was 227,381,000 metric tons, about 2 tons per ha. and more
than 1 ton for each person in the country. Of this, 142,132,000 tons, or better
than 60 percent, were fed to animals. Moreover, 70,730,000 tons of grains were ex-
ported; and while most of this apparently was not used as feed, some of it in ef-
fect replaced inferior grains in human diets, and some of this displaced grain was







feed. Human consumption of grains as food in the U.S. amounted to 20,268,000 metric
tons in 1972. Excluding grain retained as seed, this use amounted to only 11.8 per-
cent of the grain consumed domestically and 8.5 percent of the total dispositions
including exports.

Seven million metric tons of wheat were among the grains used in 1972 for feed
in the United States, compared with the milled products of about 14 million tons
consumed as food. In the world as a whole during the 1975-74 feeding year 30 mil-
lion tons of wheat were reported used as feed. Dr. Byerly said that the meat that
was the ultimate result of the feeding in the U.S. represented 60 grams per person
a day of "excellent protein in a preferred form."

Animal Foods

A comparison of the feeding of different classes of livestock in 1970 and 1920
shows a dramatic decline in the feeding of horses and mules and a rise in that of
nondairy cattle and poultry. Most of the increase in feeds consisted of grain and
other concentrates. Dr. Byerly also found that in 1910 half the milk protein pro-
duced in the United States was fed to animals while in 1973 no more than 10 percent
was. "It seems to me," he said, "that a most impressive change has taken place."

Dr. Byerly refined the accounting of grains used as feed by calculating the
amount of proteins in the by-products fed to animals from the milling of food
grains, compared with the amounts of protein in milk, meat, and eggs. The ratios
are: milk cows 1.31; laying hens .57; and other animals .31. He also
pointed out that "we spare substantial amounts of ruminant feed protein by the feed
use of about 300,000 metric tons of urea annually." Urea contains nitrogen, which
a ruminant can use to synthesize protein.

Protein from another source, soybeans, was used in animal feeds in the U.S. in
1972 in the amount of 4 million metric tons. "This amount of protein would satisfy
the requirements of about 200 million people for a year," Dr. Byerly pointed out.
"Genetically high-lysine corn may become an alternative source of good protein for
both man and animals." Leaf proteins also hold promise, although at present non-
ruminants cannot make use of them.

Dr. Byerly emphasized, however, that "if we move to forage in the United
States by giving up cereals going into ruminants, we're going to cut milk produc-
tion and beef production very sharply. We won't have a surplus of four million
cows to worry about." He pointed out, however, that crop residues and other wastes
could substitute for some of the grain fed to livestock.







Competition from Wildlife


Forage consumption by wildlife was treated by Dr. Byerly as in competition
with man, but in a different sense. Much forage is suitable for both wild and do-
mestic animals. But, he said, "over all our public lands, which are a third of our
whole country, gamehave been given by law and doctrine a place that allows them at
least equal rights and in some cases prior rights." The ratio of livestock to big-
game animal units fell from 80:1 in 1920 to 50:1 in 1970. In the same period the
forest and woodland area not grazed by livestock increased by about 47 million ha.,
and the grazing resources shared by both wild and domestic animals decreased by
about 75 million ha. Man's land use policies thus are favoring, to a degree, the
animals he hunts or preserves for esthetic or other reasons at the expense of the
animals he owns. The contribution of game to the human family's dinner table is
estimated at only 2.5 pounds annually per person. Other wild herbivores also con-
sume forage; it is estimated that six jackrabbits will eat as much as one sheep
(and so will one deer).

A more direct competition for food, as described by Dr. Byerly, is offered by
the coyote. He cited a study conducted in Utah by a group called the Four Corners
Commission, which found that half of all lamb losses, amounting to 5 percent of the
lamb crop, was caused by coyote predation.

Addressing Dr. Butcher, a Utahan, Dr. Byerly said: "I don't know what you're
going to do about it. If you're still out in Utah and prefer coyotes, I guess we'll
have coyotes."

Dr. Butcher rejoined: "We don't feel it's the people in Utah who prefer
coyotes. We feel it's the people in some of the rest of the country."

Other predations, Dr. Byerly said, were caused by the estimated 40 million
rats in the United States, although he suggested that losses have been reduced
greatly by the spread of ratproof grain storage bins in the countryside. Birds of
various sorts also cause locally severe losses in standing grain in many parts of
the world.

Pets

Companion animals--cats, dogs, and others--consume substantial quantities, he
said. Dogs alone are estimated to consume 2.8 million metric tons of feed in the
U.S. "This would seem to me to be all right so long as the family shares its food
with the dog," he added. "But I don't like it if the family has to share the dog's
food. That seems to me to be going a bit far."

42







By way of summary, Dr. Byerly said: "In the United States, livestock provides
an alternative to direct human consumption, export, and industrial use of cereals
and oil seed products. In the next few years, supplies of cereals and oil seed in
excess of demand for uses other than livestock also are likely to be short in the
U.S."
(Dr. Pino later suggested that rat predations were a serious problem in Asia;
Dr. Byerly agreed but said there were no data.)

Discussion

To Feed or Not to Feed Grain

In the ensuing discussion, Dr. Schertz said he thought he had sensed a disposi-
tion among the participants toward increasing livestock production where this would
not compete with humans for grain. He asked: But does this mean that grain should
not be used as feed? Is it even possible to have a livestock industry based on
feeding roughage and waste but no grain?

Dr. Abel responded that posing a question in a simple dichotomous form could
cause one to miss the main point. Where some production systems require grain, he
said, the relevant issue is what the return is on the total bundle of resources in-
vested. Another point, however, is that population and other pressures had mistak-
enly caused land to be planted in grains. Returning such land to pasture, or some
other use, could actually make it more productive and yield a larger social benefit.
But evolving the institutions to control the use of the land is quite difficult.
Consideration of the development of an underdeveloped country, he warned, required
one to face the extremely complex nature of crop and livestock production, and to
consider what will increase the total productivity of a whole package of resources,
rather than simply one of its components.

Dr. Johnson agreed with the concept of maximum utilization of all available
resources and with the point that the merits of livestock production depend on local
circumstances. He noted that most Asian farmers depend on livestock sales for a
major part of their cash income and that the rising demand for consumer goods was
inducing them to sell more and consume less of their own production.

Dr. Raun, also speaking to the use of grain, said that in Latin America feeding
grain to ruminants was insignificant, but was practiced for nonruminants. Most of
the region's swine, however, are found in three countries--Brazil, Mexico, and Ar-
gentina--where development has encouraged production of feed grains, and in turn the
growth of the pork industry. A lower stage of development would not be likely to








foster this kind of animal production or the prerequisite degree of feed grain
production.

Dr. Pino concluded this phase of the discussion by describing the complemen-
tary development of grain and livestock production in an area of Mexico. A poultry-
and-eggs industry began around 1950, and as the demand for its products grew so did
the demand for sorghum as feed. As a result, a large area is now devoted to produc-
tion of this grain, partly displacing maize, which was marginal in places. This
happened, he said, because "it became profitable for somebody to produce it, and
for somebody to buy it, and for somebody to turn it into eggs, which would then
have a market."

Such examples, he continued, raise the question: At what point does a society
develop the market potential to encourage other developments? And of course the
resource base must be considered. The point is, he said, that political leaders
must have a basis for making decisions. "They can't simply say 'It's good to pro-
duce livestock.' They've got to know under what conditions it's good to produce
livestock--or under what conditions it's necessary not to."

Food As Aid

Later in the conference another discussion developed on a similar issue. It
began when Dr. Beck said he believed the grain and livestock situations in the de-
veloping world should be distinguished from those in the United States. On the one
hand was the need to develop forages and range lands for the ruminant with little
or no feeding of grain. In this country, on the other hand, grain production is
increasing faster than its consumption by humans, with markets both through inter-
national trade and through livestock. He called for a clarification of these
matters.

Dr. Pino agreed with Dr. Beck's premises and added that it was obvious that
economics would largely determine how much grain would be fed to livestock. But he
added that the U.S. had to put in the balance moral imperatives, which changed from
year to year. Moreover, it is obvious that less-developed countries will have live-
stock industries for a long time and that their productivity can be improved in
various ways while retaining their reliance on noncompetitive products.

Dr. Schertz suggested that Dr. Beck's and Dr. Pino's viewpoints could be
linked through the question of availability of food aid. He saw a need for a sys-
tem of priorities to assess emergency needs and aid for long-term development, in
contrast to the treatment of food aid as an instrument of foreign and economic policy.







"I'm not sure that we understand the real implications of 'giveaway'programs,"
Dr. Pino replied. "We have often seen results contrary to what we were trying to
do, which was and is to establish the capability of nations to feed themselves."
He also called for a policy regarding storage or maintenance of a grain inventory
in the U.S. "Do we store ten percent of our potential, five percent, twenty per-
cent. Nobody knows."










FOOD NEEDS IN THE FUTURE


Malden C. Nesheim
Cornell University


In presenting his topic, Dr. Nesheim drew on projections of the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations as prepared for the World Food Con-
ference in the fall of 1974. Other recent projections, he said, such as one by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture and another by a group at Iowa State University,
took a similar shape, although their numbers were different.

Two main elements enter such projections, Dr. Nesheim said. One is population
growth, "the number of mouths to feed"; the other is the ability of this population
to pay for food. The FAO study assumed that the developed world's population would
increase at a rate of 0.9 percent a year but that the developing world's rate of
increase would be 2.7 percent. It also posited increases in income and food demand
in both the developed and developing sectors (table 20).

The projected demand for food in 1985, Dr. Nesheim continued, is therefore
modestly higher in the developed world but substantially higher in the developing
world. Under one set of assumptions, the increase in worldwide demand for cereals
is expected to be 58.3 percent by 1990. In the developing market economies, how-
ever, demand for most categories of food will have risen well over 100 percent.
For certain animal products the increase is expected to be even more striking be-
cause as poor people's incomes rise their demand for meat tends to rise even more
rapidly. Dr. Nesheim pointed out that the developing market economies are not ex-
pected to erase their disadvantage relative to the developed world. The dimensions
of this gap are demonstrated by the estimate that the underdeveloped world today has
70 percent of the world's population but consumes only 20 percent of its meat.

This rising demand for meat is expected to affect the balance between the
amount of grains consumed as food and the amount fed to animals. At present, feed
represents 40 percent of the total of these two categories; by 1990 its share is
expected to rise to 44 percent. This will amount to 729 million metric tons, com-
pared with 957 million consumed directly by humans.

Nutritional Forecast

In nutritional terms, Dr. Nesheim said, the FAO's forecast calls for an







improvement in the developing world's per capital caloric intake from 2,200 in 1970
to 2,400 by 1985. The present figure gives rise to concern, he said, because it
is below the minimum nutritional standard. As an average it means that malnutri-
tion is endemic for a certain proportion of the population. The developed world's
caloric demand, by contrast, was 3,150 per capital in 1970.

A similar deficit stands and will continue for protein, he said. In this case,
however, the gap may not be such a disadvantage to the people of the underdeveloped
world. The current level of consumption per person there is put at 57.4 g, and in
1990 it is expected to be 65.6 g. The latest recommended dietary allowance (RDA)
for a 70-kg adult male in the United States, however, is only 54 g. At 96.4 g,
therefore, the current level of protein consumption in the developed countries ap-
pears to be far above minimum nutritional requirements.

Summing all the trends, Dr. Nesheim said the developed world's composite de-
mand for food is expected to rise at a rate of 1.5 percent a year over the next 10
years. Meanwhile its production will increase annually at 2.8 percent, adding to
the comfortable margin the developed countries already enjoy. In the developing
world, however, demand is expected to rise at 3.6 percent per year while food pro-
duction's rate of growth will be only 2.6 percent. These are the kinds of data, he
said, "that led to all the fuss in Rome and led, perhaps, to this meeting."

On a worldwide basis, he said, these trends yield an approximate balance be-
tween production and consumption of grain by 1985. For the developing market econo-
mies, however, there is a deficit of about 85 million metric tons. Other studies
have reached similar conclusions. A transfer of resources on this scale from the
developed to the developing world is unlikely to occur solely from altruistic mo-
tives, he suggested.

Dr. Nesheim raised several questions about these projections, especially those
for demand. Will the world's economic growth, he asked, actually support the pro-
jected increase in demand for food, especially meat? Will it be economic to produce
the extra cereals that will be required to feed many more animals? Will fertilizer
and other inputs be available at low enough prices? Will the developing world's
grain deficit actually permit it (aside from special cases like the oil-exporting
nations) to feed more animals for meat? Will the Western world's food consumption
patterns remain the same in the face of such movements as vegetarianism?

As an indication of what might happen in the United States if circumstances
forced a reduction in beef consumption, Dr. Nesheim described the eating patterns







at two points in the past, in 1939 and in 1972. The figures show a "very striking
increase" in the consumption of meat, poultry, and fish--"stimulated," he said,
"by the readily available cereals that could be converted into meat at very inex-
pensive cost." Eggs and dairy products, however, have decreased somewhat, and
direct consumption of grains has declined a good deal more. "As we change to meat,"
he explained, "we eat less bread and potatoes."

USDA figures show that meat now provides 42 percent of the nation's protein
consumption. Dairy products account for 22 percent more and eggs for another 6 per-
cent, so that 70 percent of the available protein comes from animal products. This
total is considerably higher than in 1939.

While consumption of fats has not changed much over these 53 years, vegetable
fat has risen sharply at the expense of animal fat. Sugar consumption has also
changed little, contrary to popular opinion, but the bulk of consumption has shifted
from the home to manufactured products like soft drinks. "We've changed our habits,
but we haven't changed our total consumption of many things as much as one might
expect," Dr. Nesheim said.

"Nutritionally, from 1939 to 1972, the energy availability has not changed a
great deal," he said. "We have somewhat more protein, though not as much as you
might expect on the basis of the large increase in meat consumption. We eat fewer
carbohydrates. Our calcium consumption is about the same. Our iron consumption is
up a bit. We have about the same Vitamin A intake. In all these cases, with the
exception perhaps of iron for females, our nutrient intake is equal to or well
above the 1974 RDAs."

In light of the FAO projections, Dr. Nesheim concluded, the feeding of grain
to livestock in the U.S. will probably become a political matter. "Will the United
States," he asked, "have a grain policy as part of a foreign policy that will con-
tinue to allow grain availability to feed cattle, swine, and poultry at economical
prices that will allow high levels of consumption to occur?" The "public health
considerations" connected with animal products as well as the world food situation
may well tend to reduce meat consumption as well as grain feeding in the long term,
he suggested.

Discussion

What Kind of Problem

Commenting on Dr. Nesheim's paper, Martin Abel pointed out that the conference
was looking at the figures from the point of view of the "world food problem." But

48







one could also say that the true problem was one of a different sort--a population
problem, perhaps, or, beyond that, a problem of purchasing power and distribution,
since worldwide the projected demand and supply of cereals seem to be in balance.
His conclusion was that there is no single overriding problem, that all these
problems are important.

Critique Extended

On the FAO projections, Dr. Abel asserted that they assumed the price relation-
ships among different classes of foods would remain constant. But this is not neces-
sarily so, he said, citing powerful effects of changes in relative prices in the
United States in the past two years. "What actually happens in 1985 will depend in
part on what happens to relative prices of different kinds of food," he said.

Another factor often overlooked, he continued, is the role of trade in both
agricultural and industrial products. "It doesn't make sense, to me at least, for
every country in the world to try to be self-sufficient in food," he said. Yet dis-
cussions tend to assume that countries are autarkic, with obvious exceptions like
Singapore and Japan. Trade cannot play its potential role in the redistribution of
food, however, while countries like India lack the purchasing power to buy food and
agricultural inputs. Developing countries therefore must wrestle with basic ques-
tions of rate of total development, both industrial and agricultural, as they af-
fect purchasing power.

Questions of Policy

Some countries with food problems but with some potential for agricultural de-
velopment emphasize industry. Still others follow policies that distort the prices
of agricultural products. Certain South American countries, for instance, keep the
price of beef artificially low relative to cereals. Another example is rice, the
price of which certain Asian countries are keeping well below world levels. Such
distortions, Dr. Abel maintained, make it unprofitable for producers to adopt new
technology and so discourage agricultural research.

Dr. Abel said that if sentiment should grow for policies to reduce meat con-
sumption in the U.S., he knew of only two measures that would be effective: a tax
to raise prices and thus reduce demand--as has been done for petroleum--and ration-
ing of supply. He hastened to add that he was not proposing these steps. But he
did not believe that voluntary action would bring about much reduction, and as
Dr. Pino had said earlier, sooner or later one has to stop talking about what should
be done and begin talking about what can be done.







Need for Research

He concluded with a call for research that will contribute toward a broad tech-
nological advance in agriculture, crops as well as livestock. He sensed a consensus
at the conference that not nearly enough money was going into either the food or
nonfood dimensions of livestock.

Elasticity of Demand

During another period of general discussion Dr. Pino asked whether it is al-
ways true that people tend to shift from cereals into animal products as their pur-
chasing power rises. Dr. Abel answered that this effect is supported by "overwhelm-
ing evidence from around the world," although such shifts would be consistent with
prevailing preferences and cultural patterns. Nomadic herdsmen might represent an
exception, but this would be relatively minor. Despite the changes in consumption
of different products in the United States in this century, he pointed out, the in-
dex of total food consumption per capital as measured by the farm-level resources
used to produce this food had remained remarkably stable.

Dr. Nesheim remarked that certain foods do tend to change together; if rice
consumption changes, so will that of foods that go with rice. Dr. Schertz also
cited evidence that in parts of the world, as very poor people gain in income, their
consumption of cereals increases as well as that of meat. More income sometimes
affects diets negatively, he added, as when people shift to more highly milled ce-
reals or when mothers give up breast feeding. But in these matters urbanization is
also a factor.

Prices and Production

On another issue raised by Dr. Abel, Colin McClung said the depressing effect
of low-price policies on agricultural production showed up clearly in India in the
1960s. Only after shortages developed did the policy change, and when prices rose
production did also because better technology was available.

Dr. Johnston agreed and added: "I don't believe that an increase in the
availability of free or subsidized exports is beneficial to these deficient coun-
tries, except in time of actual starvation. As long as you give them an option to
keep enough resources to keep the price down, you do not stimulate production of
grain or anything else within the country."

Discussions of purchasing power, he said, also missed the point that at least
half the people of Asia produced their own food and were outside the cash economy.







They can increase production only if they can sell a surplus at a reasonable price
that will enable them to buy the inputs. Should they do so, he added, this would
also stimulate the nation's industrial sector.

Problem of Distribution

Ralph W. Cummings, Jr., replied with an argument that the food problem really
was a distribution problem. When rich people create a demand for meat, he said,
they make it more profitable to feed grain to animals than to sell it to humans.
Doing so makes it less available to poor people and thus reduces direct consumption.
In a sense, he continued, the United States does have grain, now being fed to ani-
mals, that could be released for human consumption abroad. But lack of purchasing
power limits this course. Thus grain is available for use here in ways that some
people would consider wasteful.

Dr. Abel conceded that "we're always caught up in the short run regardless of
how much we want to think about the long run. But when we talk about problems we
have to ask: Whose.problems are they?" Argentina, for instance, because of
"inimical" policies, has declined from a developed to a less-developed stage. Is
this a problem for the United States, the world community, or whom? Whose problem
is Burma, he asked, whose policies have brought it to the point where it may soon
have to begin importing rice? Ultimately, he asserted, the responsibility must be
narrowed to the individual country itself, though he excepted countries with the
great humanitarian needs of a Bangladesh.

Dr. Wheeler suggested that it didn't make economic sense for the United States
to support a beef research program that might shift the comparative advantage of
trade elsewhere unless a welfare criterion was defined. But Dr. Abel answered:
"We do sometimes do the sensible thing even though we don't have a well-defined
welfare function. We did get rid of our sugar program."

Dr. Nesheim concluded this discussion by supporting a point of Dr. Cummings'
and emphasizing how alarming the projected food deficits were in some areas beyond
1985. He suggested that a transfer of resources from the surplus areas would be
the only way to meet the problem. The United States, he added, had transferred re-
sources to other areas in many ways in the past, including billions of dollars to
Southeast Asia over the past 10 years.











COMPARATIVE EFFICIENCY OF ANIMALS


J. Thomas Reid
Cornell University


J. T. Reid compared the performance of animals in converting feedstuffs to
human foods on the basis of material gathered with the help of his Cornell col-
leagues K. L. Turk and R. Anrique. Care is needed in examining this subject,
Dr. Reid began, because there are many different expressions of efficiency. For
instance, even within species, the most efficient synthesizer of protein is the
least efficient synthesizer of fat, and vice versa; but both protein and fat are
human foodstuffs. Efficiency, moreover, is a ratio, and this presentation uses
energy as its major denominator.

Differences among animals, especially in.digestive systems, also complicate
a comparison of their efficiency, he said. In the simple-gutted animal--the pig,
the chicken, and others, in which, like man, digestion involves little fermenta-
tion--digestion chiefly is in the stomach and absorption chiefly in the small in-
testine. Ruminants such as cattle and sheep, on the other hand, employ a diges-
tion brought about by bacteria in the front of the gut, although some digestion
also takes place at the rear of the gut. A third class of animal is the nonrumi-
nant herbivores such as the horse and the rabbit, some of which also use fermenta-
tion.

These differences, Dr. Reid said, result in differences in the animals' usual
diets. The differences also affect the rate at which feed is digested and the
nature of the substances absorbed. Starch ingested by the simple-gutted animal is
absorbed as glucose, while the ruminant breaks it down into volatile fatty acids
at some cost in energetic efficiency. Thus, on the face of it, a simple-gutted
animal like a pig is one-third more efficient in energy conversion than a ruminant
like a cow.

Net Energy Utilization

Dr. Reid next called attention to table 21. The horizontal axis represents
ME intake remaining after digestion. The body energy gain associated with differ-
ent levels of ME intake is a measure of net utilization, or b value. The steeper
the slope, the greater the efficiency. The point at which the curve intercepts







the zero value on the vertical axis represents the maintenance requirement, or the
level of energy intake at which the animal neither gains nor loses energy.

These definitions established, Dr. Reid set forth the maintenance requirements
and net utilization of different animals under different experimental conditions of
diet, activity, and environmental temperature. Features he pointed out were:

The chicken has much greater net utilization on a diet containing 32 percent
fat (corn oil) compared with one at 4 percent.

A young calf has a very high (84.6 percent) net utilization on a whole milk
diet.

Rabbits and guinea pigs, which are nonruminant herbivores, have somewhat
lower net utilization than simple-gutted animals.

For sheep (and thus presumably for other ruminants as well) the particle
size of the diet affects both net utilization and maintenance requirement.

In a comparison of steers and sheep on the same diet (66 percent hay, 54 per-
cent oats), the net utilization was about the same but the sheep had a lower mainte-
nance requirement.

The wildebeest, an African ruminant, has a net utilization of 59.2 percent;
the experimental data did not include body weight, and so its maintenance require-
ments could not be determined. (Contrary to some African writers, Dr. Reid said,
he did not believe that wild African ruminants are more efficient than our domestic
cattle in the production of meat. "They might be somewhat more efficient," he
conceded, "in terms of their own diet under their own situations than they are
under this fairly abnormal situation of 50 percent concentrates and 50 percent hay,
but I don't know.")

For ruminants as a group, the general level of net utilization is below that
of both nonruminant herbivores and simple-gutted animals. A diet containing concen-
trates, however, results in higher net utilization of metabolizable calories than
an all-forage diet.

Efficiency in Food Production

Measures of energetic efficiency, however, do not indicate how efficient ani-
mal production enterprises are at producing human food. For this reason Dr. Reid
presented table 22, which includes the energy costs of reproduction, rearing of
breeding stock, sterility, and mortality in calculating grams of protein production
per megacalorie of digestible energy. The table shows that dairy enterprises in

53







general achieve the most efficient levels of protein production, growing more
efficient as the proportion of grain rises. Broiler production under conditions
common in the United States produced 11.9 g of protein per Meal, and egg enter-
prises, at an output of 200 eggs per hen per year, yielded 10.1 g. The level of
pork production under ordinary conditions was 6.1 g per Mcal. Beef production,
under even the most favorable assumptions, trailed badly. This poor showing, ex-
plained Dr. Reid, resulted from the low reproductive rate, long growth period, and
slow rate of turnover of cattle.

"Nevertheless," Dr. Reid said, "there are some good things to be said for the
beef animal." The future of ruminants, including beef cattle, is assured because
they can digest the cellulose in grass and other forages, which man cannot use di-
rectly. Since so much of the world's agricultural land is considered fit only for
grazing, cattle permit utilization of an extensive resource that man cannot other-
wise make use of.

The pig, he continued, is in the most precarious position of all farm animals
in the United States from the standpoint of efficiency. This is because pork is
relatively low in protein; at slaughter weight a pig will provide only 13.5 percent
protein. But a pig enterprise requires a high subsidy of fossil energy, and it re-
quires either feeds that humans can also consume directly or land for feed produc-
tion that can also produce human food.

Dr. Reid presented results of four years of studies involving.almost 200 cattle
by his colleagues and himself at Cornell. The study clearly shows, he said, that
cattle like the Holstein, a dairy breed that grows rapidly and matures late, gain
more protein per unit of energy input than do those like the Aberdeen Angus, a tra-
ditional beef breed that grows slowly and matures earlier. The reason, he said, is
that the Angus produces more fat than the Holstein.

Use of Fossil Fuel

Next Dr. Reid remarked that unquestionably the major force behind high agri-
cultural yields per acre in the United States (aside from the availability of water
and sunlight) was the heavy use of fossil fuel. Table 23 estimates the extent of
this use per unit of digestible energy produced for different feeds, taking into
account the energy required to produce farm machinery, fertilizer, and other inputs,
even the food of farm workers. It shows that fossil fuel consumption using pasture
when available in a northern climate is much less than for other forms of feed,
even grass silage. Translated into calculations of the energy subsidy for different







forms of protein production, this approach showed that extensive systems were much
less costly in fossil fuels and that within intensive systems milk required much
less fuel than meat and was comparable to corn.

Dr. Reid concluded by pointing out that the reason ruminants gain more slowly
on forages than on grains is that their energy intake per unit of time is lower and
their maintenance requirement higher. Therefore he called for research on ways to
encourage ruminants on forage to eat more and to direct their metabolism toward the
synthesis of protein rather than fat. He also suggested that the beef industry
either turn to the later maturing types such as the Holstein or slaughter the tra-
ditional beef breeds at lighter weights.

How Lean is Lean?

In a later discussion, Dr. Reid warned that it was dangerous to judge an ani-
mal's fatness by its appearance. He cited a study at the University of Illinois in
which swine of the same ancestry were bred for three different body types. In the
end, the so-called rangy type seemed to yield more protein, even after it was
slaughtered and its carcass physically divided into fat, bone, and lean. Yet when
these pigs were analyzed chemically, there was essentially no difference among them
in protein or fat. "It makes you wonder whether we've really accomplished much in
producing what's called the meat-type pig in this country," he declared.










UNCONVENTIONAL FEEDS


Terry J. Klopfenstein
University of Nebraska


The potential of crop residues for animal feeds was assessed by Terry
Klopfenstein. The potential is considerable, he said, for if we assume that
there is one pound of collectible crop residue per pound of grain produced, there
are about 1.25 billion tons available worldwide. This amount would support some
300 million cattle at the rate of four tons per animal per year if some supple-
mentation was also available.

At present, Dr. Klopfenstein said, residues are used as a growing ration for
dairy and beef cattle (in the form of corn silage, a mixture of grain and residues)
and as a winter ration for brood beef cows. These uses represent less than 15 per-
cent of the feed requirements of the beef animal's life cycle. The cheapest method
of utilizing such residues as corn and sorghum stalks is to let the animals graze
in the fields after harvest, but bad weather may limit such grazing. Then too,
cattle eat only 30 percent of the residue that could be gathered by harvesting.
Harvesting adds considerably to the cost, however, and thus is not economic unless
calf prices are high.

Effects of Treatments

The limitation of crop residues is their low digestibility. In most cases
woody fibers in the cell walls enclose the usable cellulose. For this reason,
Dr. Klopfenstein has conducted experiments at the University of Nebraska in break-
ing down the fibers with chemical treatment before feeding. He reported that
sodium hydroxide appears to have the greatest potential because of its cost, effec-
tiveness, and relative safety. Calves fed corncobs treated with 4 pounds of sodium
hydroxide per 100 pounds gained nearly three times as fast, on considerably less
feed, as those fed untreated corncobs. Both corncobs and the residue of milo
sorghum, when given this treatment, produced gains in lambs about as well as corn
silage; cornstalks and grass silage did less well. Crop residues that were chemi-
cally treated, stored in bunker silos, and fed to growing calves yielded results
80 to.90 percent as good as those of corn silage. Dr. Klopfenstein's calculations
indicated that treatment of husklage is economic in the United States whenever corn







is $2 or more per bushel. In some ways calcium hydroxide is a more desirable
chemical for treating residues, he said, and it has been used successfully in a
mixture with sodium hydroxide.

Related work is in progress in other countries; in Europe a process has been
developed for pelleting straw and sodium hydroxide, which gives a dry product that
can be shipped. Shippers have already begun moving it to Japan from the U.S. West
Coast. A treatment of corncobs with steam at 200 pounds per square inch has also
given excellent results, but the rising cost of fuel has reduced its attractiveness.

Other by-products, he said, are being used or tested as animal feed or offer
some potential for this purpose. Materials that he and others listed included such
by-products of the food-processing industry as bagasse, rice straw, corn gluten
meal, molasses, distillers' and brewers' feeds, and fruit and vegetable waste; in-
dustrial by-products such as sulfite liquor and pulp fines from the woodpulp and
lumber industries; meat meal, paunch contents, and blood from the livestock industry;
and even animal manures.

The use of crop residues as fuel has also attracted interest, he added. Gen-
eral Motors and Iowa State, he said, had been investigating the possibility of
deriving all of a factory's energy needs from the crop residues available within a
radius of 25 miles or so.

Tests With Manure

The potential of manures was described in greater detail by W. L. Johnson.
Tests are under way, he said, to develop methods for making use of the manure pro-
duced by dairy herds. When processed through a vibrating-screen separator, the
liquid portion of the manure that passes through still retains most of its value
as fertilizer. The rest, called screened manure solids (SMS), is a virtually odor-
less product. It has been shown to be useful as bedding for cows; as a feed it
also appears to have some value as a fiber source in complete feeds or as a rough-
age extender in other situations, but not as a source of crude protein, as have
whole cow manure and poultry litter.

Dr. Johnson said that his research at North Carolina State University began
with a test of the palatability of rations containing SMS. He found the intake to
be satisfactory as long as the rations were mixed daily with fresh SMS; palatabil-
ity declined sharply after standing for 24 hours, especially in warm weather.

A second trial compared the results of a ration containing 30 percent SMS and
a standard ration of corn silage and concentrate. Gains were similar (after the

57







two weeks required for the test animals to grow accustomed to the SMS ration), and
while the average quality of the control group's carcasses was higher, the best
carcasses in both groups were graded similarly. Incomplete taste evaluations had
rated the flavor and tenderness excellent. (Manure has not been sanctioned as a
feed, however, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.)

Laboratory tests of SMS, Dr. Johnson said, indicate that more-than-moderate
levels of SMS in a ration could severely limit the voluntary intake because the ani-
mal's gut would fill with fiber that would digest relatively slowly.

"The magnitude of the potential contribution of SMS," he concluded, "can be
better appreciated if one considers that using conservative assumptions, manure from
a 150-cow dairy herd will yield about 1,500 kg of SMS per day. This amount of
SMS could provide the entire roughage requirement of all yearling heifers being
raised for herd replacement, with enough left over to feed out an equal number of
steers for meat purposes." Initial tests of making pressed-particle boards of SMS
for the construction industry were also encouraging, he added.










POTENTIAL OF NONRUMINANTS


James McGinnis
Washington State University


James McGinnis opened his discussion of the potential of nonruminants with
a defense of animal products in general. While plant scientists may in time de-
velop vegetable sources of essential amino acids, they have not yet done so ade-
quately. Until they do, animal products are necessary for nutritionally adequate
diets.

Synthetic Food?

In a digression, he commented:

"The most efficient thing we could do would be to formulate diets for humans
as we do for animals. I don't understand why, since we've begun making hamburger
patties from soybean protein, we don't go the next step and produce a more complete
food. This would let us begin using components like synthetic amino acids that we
don't begin to feed people now."

Promising Species

The nonruminants to which the conference had so far given the most attention,
he said, were swine and poultry. But among those that deserved more attention in
the future are the two single-stomach herbivores that were mentioned by Dr. Reid,
the rabbit and the guinea pig. From the standpoint of efficiency of energy utili-
zation, Dr. McGinnis continued, fish have the greatest potential. This is because
they can consume water plants that require only sunlight and fertilizer; fish can
be fed like other animals.

Avenues for Improvement

Discussions of efficiency in animal production often overlook the possible
uses of animal wastes, he said. "If we conserve the nitrogen in the wastes, it's
amazing how little we really lose," he explained. He described a visit he once
paid to a large egg facility in Chile which, because of disease and other problems,
was not doing very well. But when he expressed his concern, he was told: "Don't
worry. We're breaking even on the eggs and making a profit selling manure to the
vineyards. That's why we're in the poultry business."








Plant improvements, Dr. McGinnis noted, have potential in animal feeding as
well as for human food. The opaque-2 corn, for example, produces an added growth
in swine that cannot be explained solely from the extra lysine content. The great-
est potential for both animal and human use lies with the leaf proteins like al-
falfa, which can produce 3,000 or 4,000 pounds of protein.per acre in .a year but
which now lack essential growth-inhibiting substances such as saponin.

Scientists should also be alert to improve products like manioc, which he said
offers the "greatest productive potential of a highly digestible carbohydrate of
any plant in the world." Many areas of the world that have difficulty growing
other crops could grow great quantities of manioc but now are producing none. He
suggested that fermentation, which has been used to convert nonprotein nitrogen in
cereal grains into single-cell protein for swine feed, could be used to upgrade
the nutritional value of manioc.

Cyclical Systems

The conference participants' subsequent discussion centered on cyclical systems
in which animal wastes are used as inputs in the production of animal feeds. Exam-
ples mentioned included the traditional Chinese system of pig production, which is
associated with fish in ponds; a similar system in which silkworm droppings ferti-
lize a fish pond; and a sugar enterprise in Taiwan that feeds refinery by-products
to pigs and uses the manure in the cane fields. Dr. Turk added that economically
it makes a difference whether one is considering Taiwan or New York State, since
the labor costs of handling manure are different in each place.










POTENTIAL OF RUMINANTS


Ned S. Raun
International Center of
Tropical Agriculture


Dr. Raun now examined the potential of ruminants in the developing world, es-
pecially in the tropics. His approach, he said, did not take into account physio-
logical aspects such as those treated by Dr. Reid. Rather he wished to give par-
ticular attention to three things: (1) the efficient utilization of the available
resources, including not only feed but the land, what the land produces, what ani-
mals it now supports, and the people who use it, with their traditions and techno-
logy; (2) integrated production systems, which, he said, are less specialized in
less-developed countries than in the United States but nonetheless have a role
there; and (3) practices and systems that are feasible under current economic con-
ditions and producer capabilities as well as in the longer run.

The Resources

Any examination of agricultural potential, Dr. Raun suggested, must recognize
the limits of the available resources. The availability and prices of grains and
roughages affect ruminant production in the less-developed countries just as they
do in the United States. Another economic factor, consumer demand, is not as
sophisticated and specific in Latin American countries, for example, as in the U.S.;
"it's just pretty much for meat" rather than for different grades and cuts, he said.

The vast grasslands of the tropics are of particular interest for ruminant
production, according to Dr. Raun. Many of the South American grasslands with which
he is familiar are unfit for cultivation because of poor rainfall or soil, and
grazing is their most suitable use. Others may be cultivable but lack the roads and
markets necessary for commercial crops; on these, livestock can represent an opening
stage of development, as they did in parts of the American West.

As for numbers, the poor-soil areas amount to about 300 million ha and now
support about 75 million cattle, he estimated. While this is an average of only
one head per 4 ha, it represents half of all the cattle in tropical Latin America.
With native grasses and no fertilizer, these areas produce no more than 1.5 million
metric tons of carcass beef per ha per year, or 5 kg per ha (assuming an extraction







rate of 12 percent and an average slaughter weight of 350 kg). The total produc-
tion for all Latin America, for comparison, was 7 million tons in 1972. If all of
these poor-soil areas were planted in improved grasses (which, by and large, are
native species that have evolved over wide areas under present systems of manage-
ment, including periodic burning), average production would rise to 16 kg per ha
and the total to 4.8 million tons. At the outer limit of productivity--assuming
establishment of a combination of tropical forage legumes and grasses, which would
require the addition of phosphorus to the soil--production might double that. But
these projections represent theoretical potential, not what anyone actually ex-
pects.

Integrated Systems

Dr. Raun next examined the potential for using crop residues as animal feeds
in integrated crop-livestock systems in Latin America. He cited four research
projects that involved feeding various mixtures to native mixed-breed cattle. All
showed promise, especially one which, he said, was simple but highly acceptable to
animals. This mixture produced a very high gain, although the efficiency of con-
version was not high. It included safflower meal (which is high in protein but
also in fiber), molasses, and cottonseed hulls.

An example of an integrated system tested at CIAT, Dr. Raun said, involved in-
tensive grazing on pangola grass to which 500 kg of nitrogen was added per year.
This system produced an annual liveweight gain of 1,358 kg per ha. A colonization
project involving 120 farms of 20 ha each in Guatemala is using a similar system.
Each farm supports 40 to 45 cows representing 70 to 75 animal units. The project
has apparently been quite successful; the farmers show no inclination to convert to
crop production.

Another model tested at CIAT used cultivated forages. Elephant grass (which,
Dr. Raun said, could have been sugar cane) was grown with an application of nitrogen
and with irrigation as necessary, and was fed freshly chopped. This system pro-
duced a carrying capacity of 12 to 15 animal units per ha and an annual liveweight
gain of 2,400 kg per ha.

A still more intensive (especially labor-intensive) system involved feeding
of dairy cattle on a small farm. The milk was sold commercially, and surplus
heifers and male calves were sold for beef.

These model systems are of interest, Dr. Raun said, because as countries and
their agriculture develop, the systems tend to become more intensive. The models







may therefore become more widely adopted in time, assuming that cost-price rela-
tionships are favorable.

What Is Intensive?

The discussion of Dr. Raun's presentation centered on the meaning of "inten-
sive." "In Asia," Dr. Johnston said, "with its high-density population and small
holdings, if intensive is many animals per hectare, Asia is intensive also. But
if intensive means a shift from roughage to grain, Asia isn't." Mr. McMillan said,
"It's management, really." Dr. Raun's explanation was that he meant intensive use
of whatever resources are available.











ALTERNATIVE USES OF LAND


James Spain
International Center of
Tropical Agriculture


South American Soils

In describing the alternative uses of land and other resources in the humid
and semihumid tropics, Dr. Spain provided more detail on the soil types of South
America and their geological origin. The continent's major land forms, he said,
are the Guyana shield in the north, the Brazilian shield to the east, and the
Andean region. The shields are covered by very deeply weathered soils formed in
place. Between them and the Andes is the enormous sub-Andean depression, which is
filled--in places to a depth of 40,000 feet--by poor sediments washed down from the
mountains. Much of the depression, moreover, is badly drained. The soils of the
entire tropical region are highly acid and infertile, with a cation exchange com-
plex dominated by exchangeable aluminum. The few exceptions, which because of
their rarity are quite important, occur along major drainage ways, where erosion
has rejuvenated the soil, and on outcroppings of basalt, which have given rise to
fertile soils with high base saturation.

Most of the region is characterized by rainfall of between 1,000 and 2,500
mm a year. In some areas it exceeds 10 m, or around 400 in. In the wetter regions
there may be no pronounced dry season, but in drier regions there is usually a
period of extreme drought of up to six months. Three types of tropical vegetation
are dominant: wet evergreen forest, seasonal forest, and savannah.

The tropical population, Dr. Spain said, is concentrated along the coasts and
in the Andean region. The rest of the area he described as a "great fertility
desert," with lack of access routes a second major barrier to development. "Be-
cause of lack of infrastructure," he said, "on-farm costs for inputs such as lime
and fertilizer to modify the unfavorable soil-chemical environment are too high in
most areas to be economically feasible."

Possible Uses

He listed the possible alternatives for future use of the land as forest or
savannah reserves, lumber extraction, grazing of native savannah, perennial tree








crops, grazing of seeded, perennial pastures, subsistence food crops, and commer-
cial production of annual crops. The first alternative, however, is not plausible,
he said, because it would be impossible to prevent "a wave of people from moving
into these areas and using or misusing them." The difficulty in providing neces-
sary inputs ruled out commercial production of annual crops except in places near
markets and sources of lime and fertilizer (especially phosphorus). Here, however,
capital investment can create highly productive soils, as has occurred in the
Campinas-Sao Paulo area.

The best present use of remote savannahs, Dr. Spain said, is for livestock
production. Since the plants they now bear are mostly of low palatability and nu-
tritive value, however, their productivity is low under present management systems.
Replacing these plants with better forage species found elsewhere in the region or
on other similar ecosystems can create dramatic improvements in production, but
despite its apparent simplicity this step does require greater capitalization and
management and a higher level of technology.

Some of these savannahs have soil, topography, and other factors that in the
future could conceivably be used to grow annual crops, Dr. Spain asserted. Until
then, as Dr. Raun had pointed out, beef is a logical first step in their develop-
ment. But other vast areas should never be used for annual crops. An example
cited by Dr. Spain is found in the southern Colombian llanos, where a rolling,
heavily dissected area of 8 or 9 million ha stands in sharp contrast to a smooth,
well-drained plained just to the north. Livestock production is the best available
use for the dissected land.

"The future of the humid tropics of Latin America," Dr. Spain concluded, "de-
pends on many complex factors. The biological potential of the region is great;
but the realization of this potential requires many inputs, including new technol-
ogy, vast amounts of capital, and the training of management at all levels. The
results could mean increased employment, better income distribution, and more food
for the people in the region."











POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVEMENT OF RANGE LANDS


Martin H. Gonzalez
Rancho Experimental La Campana


Dr. Gonzalez began his discussion of range lands--areas producing forage for
animal consumption--with five basic points:

Range lands are a major class occupying about 40 percent of the world's land
area. They include tundra and alpine regions, forests, intramontane valleys,
plains, savannahs, brushy areas, coastal marshes, and deserts.

They are a basic economic resource of many countries. They represent 62 per-
cent of the land area of Mexico (or some 120 million ha) and 54 percent (or 410 mil-
lion ha) of the contiguous 48 states of the U.S. They occur in all parts of the
world, including Africa, the Middle East, South America, Australia, and New Zealand.

They are suitable for grazing, or perhaps for forest products or mining, but
not for cultivation because of such factors as climate, terrain, and soils.

Their productivity is low in many areas, but this is the result of mismanage-
ment, specifically (1) overgrazing, which causes erosion; (2) plowing, which leads
to tremendous soil losses and reduces productivity; and (3) failure to minimize the
risk of adverse weather.

Their potential, nevertheless, is very great, provided they can be properly
managed.

Ranges Under Pressure

Factors that will affect this potential include the changing economic condi-
tions such as the relative prices and demand for meat, cereals, and other foods.
Dr. Gonzalez cited a U.S. Department of Agriculture study that predicted a rise in
the demand for red meat owing to increases in population and income. At the same
time, higher grain prices will result in the diversion of some of the best forage
lands to grain and soybeans. These higher prices will also cause beef to be pro-
duced on more forage and less grain, as is already happening in the U.S. The re-
sult, according to the study, will be strong pressure on the remaining grazing
lands to make up both for the land converted to other crops and for the increased
demand for forage. An increase in range grazing requirements of between 18 and 40

66







percent was projected by 1980, depending on various economic assumptions, followed
by another increase of 6 to 15 percent by 1985. Dr. Gonzalez said he believed
similar trends would appear in other countries as well as in the United States.

Steps Toward Improvement

The most important way to improve range production, Dr. Gonzalez said, is to
stop overgrazing. The proper intensity of grazing must be determined for each area
as well as the best grazing system--continual, rotational, or seasonal. Such prac-
tices as using molasses to increase the palatability of dry, coarse grasses must
also be examined.

Dr. Gonzalez listed several other practices that improve range lands. Among
those that conserve rainfall are the removal of less productive plant species such
as mesquite and construction of water catchments. Reseeding and fertilization,
especially with nitrogen and phosphorus, can also create dramatic improvements. He
estimated that in a grazing area of northern Mexico, good range management prac-
tices could increase forage production by 100 percent in five to seven years and
up to 300 percent in the long run. Combined with improved animal husbandry, these
practices could yield corresponding increases in beef production. And these re-
sults are possible not only for North America but for many other parts of the world.

Dr. Gonzalez closed his presentation with a plea for more research in this
field. "The importance of the range livestock industry to the economy and stability
of our countries depends upon a complete program of research, demonstration, and ex-
tension of range forage plants comparable to that now applied to cultivated crops,"
he said. It is also essential to understand, he stated, that "range lands can be
improved and grazed permanently by domestic stock and at the same time produce high-
quality watersheds, wildlife, recreation, and, where suitable, forest products."

Land Distribution

In the subsequent conversation, responding to a question from Martin Abel,
Dr. Gonzalez discussed the effects of pressures for agrarian reform, specifically
land redistribution for dry land farming on range lands. "This is all right where
climatic and soil conditions permit," he said. "You can have a small unit produc-
ing enough for a farmer to make a good living. But in areas with low rainfall,
people cannot make a living ranching, and they start plowing it." He cited the
program in the State of Zacatecas, Mexico, where reseeding unproductive small
farms into native and adapted introduced grass had had wonderful results. Dr. Abel
commented that while one way to improve range management is to increase the size of








the holding, control of public or communal lands is a major problem. Dr. Pino
agreed that security of ownership would create an interest in conservation of in-
puts, sustained production, and the like. On the size question, however, Dr. Raun
and Dr. Spain noted that much of the productive capacity of the Venezuelan and
Colombian llanos was unused, not because the units were too small but because they
were too large.










SUMMARIES AND CONCLUDING REMARKS


"No Need to Worry"

William McMillan, discussing the issues raised at the conference, said he had
reached one major conclusion: "I really see no need for the U.S. consumers, and
maybe other consumers of the world, to have to worry about sacrifice when it comes
to proper nutrition." Protein and other nutrients are abundant in the United
States, he explained. As far as he could see no basic change would be necessary
for the country's agriculture to meet its future requirements both at home and in
worldwide humanitarian aid.

Mr. McMillan nevertheless thought that grain would never again be cheap enough
in the U.S. both to grow out and to finish cattle. He attributed the overcapacity
of large Western feedlots to the recently adopted practice of taking cattle in at
heavier weights and feeding them for shorter periods. A major factor in the pres-
ent difficulties of the beef industry, he said, is the reverberations from the
1972-73 ceilings on beef prices. He warned that the importance of livestock, from
which almost half of the U.S. farm income is derived, means that serious repercus-
sions would follow any changes that might be forced on it by political or other
pressures.

As for the world food outlook, however, he said he was "very much encouraged."
This was because of what he saw as its "obvious gearing" because of climatic condi-
tions, soil types, and the like to the ruminant type of animal. He was concerned,
however, by the huge capital investment that would be necessary to improve grazing
lands and technology. He said: "The U.S. has been fortunate in the availability of
capital and management know-how. We have the capacity to employ the know-how else-
where in the world--but not necessarily the capital."

On the question of the U.S. contribution toward easing hunger in the rest of
the world, Mr. McMillan called for more study. "Inevitably we think about the
United States exporting cereal or vegetable type protein," he said. "But I believe
we have to develop more meaningful information on per-unit costs of food, whether
it be animal or vegetable protein. We should crank in the possibility of shipping,
as part of our humanitarian commitments, animal protein which can be combined to
give the proper amount of calories needed in a balanced diet."







Land Use Issues

He also called for a reexamination of priorities regarding land use policies
and protection of the environment, both in the United States and abroad. "We've
got to consider which is most important," he declared. "Do we protect land, wild-
life, and what have you for esthetic purposes, or do we try to gear it to some use-
ful purpose, whether it be economic or humanitarian in nature?" He also attacked
environmentalist actions such as steps to control "non-point-source discharge" of
water pollutants by fencing cattle from open streams in the mountains.

Need for Stability

Dr. Abel, the final speaker of the conference, raised as his first issue the
need for policies that will stabilize the supplies and prices of basic commodities.
Many of the U.S. livestock industry's current problems, he said, stem from "the
most rapid and dramatic change in grain prices in this century" over the past two
years. If the changes had been gradual and more predictable they would have been
absorbed more easily by the livestock industry.

But if there is steady improvement in the worldwide standard of living, the de-
mand for animal products will inevitably grow. This conclusion was based on evidence
from many countries. "The same forces are at work in the United States that work in
just about every other country," he said. But he added, that it is true that tastes
and preferences for particular products--milk, for example--change over time and
that changes in relative prices will also influence the levels of consumption of
different commodities around the world.

Development vs. Aid

As for feeding the world's hungry people, Dr. Abel saw two issues. One was the
role of livestock in the growth and development of a national economy. The other
was inadequacy of personal income, which poses the problem for potential donor
countries of how much to offer in the way of assistance.

One feature of the conference that had impressed him, he said, was the evidence
it had provided of the great variety of roles that livestock play in different econo-
mies and societies of the world. This realization provoked in him a sense of cau-
tion. "I don't think we know enough about how livestock is now produced and how it
fits into the total farming operations in developing countries," he said. "I would
suggest that there might be a great return to finding out more about this before we
make any radical recommendation or invest huge sums in trying to bring about im-
provements."







He believed that any improvement in the use of resources would occur step by
step rather than suddenly because of various factors, including the lack of manage-
ment skills, the question of income distribution, and strongly held convictions re-
garding common property rights and agrarian reform in various parts of the world.

Need for Research

Other issues Dr. Abel listed as meriting intensive research included:

Animal diseases. They not only limit production but prevent countries from
benefiting from the growing importance of animal products in world trade.

Livestock production as part of systems that also include crops. "Many times
you cannot bring about much improvement in efficiency of livestock production or in
total output without also bringing about radical changes in the whole cropping sys-
tem," he asserted. "But this involves very difficult issues of management skills,
education, infrastructure, markets--the whole works."

-"Unfavorable externalities" such as policies that lead to overexploitation of
both range and crop lands. He cited the abuse of resources in hill areas of Pakis-
tan, India, Nepal, and other places. "Free and open use of these resources by man
and all his animals won't do. But here again we get into the very difficult insti-
tutional and political problems."

Improving feed supplies. Because the conference had discussed this issue at
great length, he said, he would say no more about it.

The implications for income distribution of alternative forms of increasing
livestock production. Much of this production in Asia is performed by smallholders,
but in many other areas the large producers are heavily dominant. He asked: "What
are the possibilities for increasing production efficiently on the smaller farm?
And what are the policies that would be required to support this kind of development
if it makes sense?"

Regressive price and other agricultural policies at the national level and
their effects on international trade. "The price of beef, for example, has been
kept artificially low in Colombia, Argentina, and a number of other countries," he
said. "And I suspect that because of this there is little incentive for private
producers to adopt improved methods, although such investments might be socially
profitable."

Complementarity (or joint production) in output. Examples are beef and
dairy products, mutton and wool, and meat and leather. Each of these relationships,








and others, presents problems or opportunities in different countries.

Processing and marketing of livestock products. As an example of the impor-
portance of this aspect, Dr. Abel cited a cooperative dairy in the Indian state of
Gujarat. There, an intelligent, energetic manager has organized thousands of pro-
ducers, each with only one or two lactating buffalo, much to everyone's benefit.
But such achievements are difficult to duplicate, and more knowledge of the subject
is needed, especially as it affects small-scale producers of perishable products.

Markets, that is, the linkages between the producer and the ultimate con-
sumer, both domestic and international.

The substitution between animal and vegetable sources of proteins. "I feel
very uncomfortable about making any predictions in this area," he said. "I find
that when we buy imitation meat products made with soybeans they're awfully expen-
sive. Now is that an error in the technology? Is the market not big enough?

Economic features of consumption outside the industrial economies. "As
economists, when we get beyond the United States and a few other countries, we
really don't know the quantitative effects of price changes on substitution among
foods, and we're not even so sure about what the income elasticities of demand are.
This is a big, empty box on our shelf of knowledge that needs filling."

Finally, what all the implications of potential technological changes amount
to in total. "We talked about separate pieces," Dr. Abel concluded. "But is it
possible, at least with respect to certain environments, to begin to say something
about what would be the total impact of a whole set of technological changes that
we could try to bring about? If we could, we could get a sharper focus on where the
trends of world food production, both crops and livestock, might go."

The Broad View

Other participants in the conference now commented on points made by Dr.Abel
or Mr. McMillan. The chairman, Dr. Pino, agreed with Dr. Abel's last point. "I
feel we don't have enough thought being given today to the total implications of
things," he said. "How do we manage everything? Who is to manage everything? And
on what basis should that management take place?" Moreover, policy makers, he said,
need the issues of livestock development laid out so they can at least know what
problems they should be thinking about and what the implications of various policy
choices are.

"What we are all trying to do," he added, "is learn ways to utilize resources
in economic fashion to meet the needs of people." An absolute equalization of food

72







consumption around the world, however, is not possible. The problem, he said, is
to utilize available resources "where it makes the most sense economically, poli-
tically, or whatever."

On Mr. McMillan's point about the tension between food production and environ-
mental protection, Dr. Pino said: "Maybe we can accomplish both. There may be some
cost some other adjustments involved. But I think we need to think about
those."

Dr. Schertz entered the discussion on the question of international trade in
livestock products. He pointed out that the United States was the world's only
market for foreign beef, and this with some restrictions. The European Common Mar-
ket and Japan used to import the product but are now not doing so.

Neglected Topics

Two other participants addressed themes that they believed had received inade-
quate attention in the discussions. Dr. Nesheim, pointing to the title of the con-
ference, commented: "I'm not sure we really came to grips with the future very
well." The short-term projections for grain call for substantial exports by the
United States on the basis of steadily rising production. Yet the inputs of fuels
and other resources necessary to achieve this result are becoming more and more
scarce. It may not be possible to draw a conclusion on this point now, but it is
at least a gnawing worry.

Dr. Nesheim also suggested that the United States would receive increasing
moral and political pressure over its grain policies and that the world's population
and food problems would come to influence the domestic scene in unprecedented ways.
He wondered whether the questions of relative efficiency of feed conversion dis-
cussed by Dr. Reid might not become matters of serious policy concern.

Dr. Turk, for his part, asserted that the dairy cow was very important but had
been passed over lightly. It is the most efficient animal--two or three times as
efficient as the beef steer--in the utilization of both roughage and concentrates.
In New York State it accounts for more than half the gross farm income, and its po-
tential in other parts of the world is tremendous.

In reply to a question by Dr. McGinnis, Dr. Reid explained that the dairy cow
was so efficient because its product had no bones or other waste and because it
would eat as much as four times its maintenance requirement.

Another oversight mentioned by Dr. Turk was the lack of examination of the








comparative efficiency of different crops like the cereal grains, the oil seeds,
and the millets. "I suspect there's as much difference in yields of nutrients
among different crops as there is among animals, maybe more," he said.

More Research Needs

The final focus of the conference was on one of the last speakers' themes,
the general need for research and which areas required it. Dr. Byerly revived the
subject with a summary of studies that showed the returns to investments in agri-
cultural research were quite high. On this basis, he said, such research receives
perhaps one-tenth of the investment it deserves. A recent survey found evidence,
however, that these returns had begun to decline. "And I think it's time we did
something about it," he concluded.

Dr. Turk expressed the belief that animal research is supported much more
poorly than crop research. Dr. Schertz noted that the subjects selected for re-
search had "tremendous implications" for income distribution, which should influence
decisions on how to increase research funds.

"Who," asked Dr. Butcher, "is making decisions on the allocation of research
in the world?"

Dr. Abel replied that much of the research is sponsored by governments but that
in the United States as much as half the total was undertaken by private industry
with little in the way of published information on how much is being spent and on
what kinds of research. In some countries the perverse economic policies he had
discussed serve to discourage research as well as investment in certain areas. In-
ternationally, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research has
come to play a major role in allocating resources to the international research
centers.

Why the agricultural research sector should suffer from underinvestment is un-
clear, Dr. Abel continued. Possible factors are low national priorities for agri-
culture, bureaucratic inertia, the failure of economists to take all relevant fac-
tors into account in measuring the returns, and other measurement problems.

Dr. Abel concluded with an explanation of why the problem of allocating re-
search funds is difficult. In areas such as Asia, he said, the problem is rela-
tively easy because an increase in the yield of rice will obviously affect many
people. "But in a more diversified crop agriculture it's less obvious how one
allocates resources, let alone what the total amount of resources should be. Cer-
tainly for livestock, with their complex interrelationships with crops and with







other livestock, it is unclear how to assess what is important, where funds
should be allocated."

In summary, Dr. Pino admitted that the subject of the conference was big and
unwieldy. "But we felt we had to begin to get some feel for what the shape of this
elephant is," he explained. He thanked the participants for their help in tracing
the subject's main features.
















TOTAL PROTEIN SUPPLIED BY FOOD CROPS, 1959-1961 AVERAGE
(Millions of Metric Tons)


Population
Millions


Wheat Rice Other Total
Cereals Cereals


Pulses
& Nuts


Animal Other Total
Protein


Countries
with adequate
diets


Countries
with defi-
cit diets

Latin
America

Africa

Communist
Asia

India

Other
Asia

Subtotal


Total World


1,089


8.6 1.1 2.8 12.4


84 0.3 0.1 0.3


242


713

432


452


1,923


3,012


0.6 0.2 1.9


2.1 3.9 2.4

1.2 2.0 1.8


1.8 2.7 0.7


6.1 8.9 7.2 22.1


14.6 10.0 9.9 34.5


1.9


0.2

0.7


1.8

2.3


1.0

6.0


7.9


15.4 3.2 33.0


0.6 0.2 1.7

1.0 0.9 5.3


0.8 1.4 12.4

1.1 0.4 8.8


1.5 0.8 8.6

5.0 3.6 36.7


20.5 6.9 69.8


Source: Derived from Quentin M. West, "The Quantitative Role of Cereals


as Supplies of Dietary Protein," in Protein:


Foods for World Needs, ed., Max Milner.
of Cereal Chemists, 1969.)


Enriched Cereal


(American Association


Table 1


Subregion







Table 2 /


TOTAL GRAIN PRODUCTION
Million Tons
619

378 ........... ... 356


X-U
1948-52 1966-70 1948-52 1966-70
AVERAGE AVERAGE



!I GRAIN YIELDS
Tons per Hectare







1948-52 1966-70 1948-52 1966-70
AVERAGE AVERAGE


GRAIN AREA
Million Hectares
293 293 294

218



1948-52 1966-70 1948-52 1966-70
ii AVERAGE AVERAGE

Developed Countries Less Developed Countries
(Excluding China)







Table 3 /

WORLD CEREAL CONSUMPTION,
AS FOOD AND FEED


Metric Tons (Millions)
400
Developed Developing
Countries Countries





300







200

U.S. U.S.S.R.





100






0
'66 '69 '72 '75 '66 '69 '72 '75 '66 '69 '72 '75 '66 -69 '72 '75
Crop Year Ending

FOOD F

1lilll 111 FEED








Table 4


MEAT PRODUCTION: BEEF AND

BUFFALO, PORK, POULTRY

Metric Tons (Millions)


50 50



-..X
o : --iiiiiiiiii-iii
















10 1
0. 0
.X. *. .. ............





















1961-65 .
S::Average ::::
...... .ii





X. :.:: : X:.:::::::::::::












Average iiiiiiiiiii 1972





Table 5
CATTLE AND BUFFALO, NUMBERS
AND PRODUCTION, 1972


Percent of World
60

MEAT
MILK


40 --
SHIDES (cuero,p les)


NUMBERS


Developed


U.S.
U.S.


-1
Centrally
Planned


U.S.S.R. Developing Latin
America


- -


Asia


U111~111



















Table 6 WORLD MEAT TRADE
(Millions/Metric Tons)


Countries 1968 1973

Exports

Developed 2.6 3.9

Centrally planned .5 .6

Developing .7 1.0

World 3.8 5.5


Imports

Developed 3.3 4.8

Centrally planned .3 .4

Developing .3 .4

World 3.9 5.6







Table 7 ANIMAL


Country

Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Brunei
Burma
China
Cyprus
Hong Kong and Macau
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Japan
Jordan
Khmer
Korea (N)
Korea (S)
Kuwait
Laos
Lebanon
Malaysia
Mongolia
Nepal
Pakistan
Philippines
Portuguese Timor
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Sri Lanka
Syria
Thailand
Turkey
Vietnam (N)
Vietnam (S)
Yemen (AR)
Yemen (Dem)

Total

Percent of change
from 1961-1965

Percent of world


Source: FAO, Production Yearbook, vol. 26 (1972).


Cattle

3,750
26,000
3
7,200
63,295
33
12
176,750
6,200
5,516
2,000
263
3,597
36
2,100
750
1,250
7
435
86
357
2,176
6,400
20,170
1,933
75
330
8
1,650
570
4,800
12,653
880
898
1,400
93

353,675


Buffalo

35
700
18
1,620
29,680

1
54,800
2,850
434
290



800



950

306

3,500
12,720
4,711
130

3
710
2
5,800
1,062
1,700
560



123,382


Camel

300



17


1,100

110
300
10

9



6



670

850


570


7

29


60
40

4,079


Sheep

23,000
730

180
71,300
468

43,000
3,500
36,000
16,000
184
27
750
2
195
3
85

220
41
13,420
2,220
16,720
29
45
3,400

24
6,500
45
36,760

13
3,751
220

278,832


+20







NUMBERS IN ASIA 1972
(xlO00)


Human
Goats Pigs Chickens Ducks Turkeys Population

3,300 18,500 17,878
11,900 28,500 5,000 80,339
1 510 27 151
600 15,835 3,680 4 29,073
58,174 231,079 1,196,752 7,303 550 800,708
368 102 3,750 3 55 -
2 650 6,100 510 4,696
68,500 4,780 117,500 562,995
7,500 4,225 67,000 16,500 129,752
14,700 45 31,000 143 30,158
2,500 6,600 10,393
134 64 11,439 2,000 3,041
157 7,245 222,300 343 18 107,055
400 2,600 22 2,475
1 1,100 4,000 2,000 7,554
175 1,400 15,800 14,680
95 1,450 24,000 160 33,686
65 837
36 1,200 12,500 190 3,144
300 14 6,100 2,963
379 1,080 30,100 187 11,419
4,195 11 80 1,367
2,300 300 19,000 11,776
9,060 90 14,280 2,150 66,220
1,083 7,742 50,103 2,600 135 40,797
215 225 626
2,100 5,200 8,199
2 1,140 12,500 490 2,206
570 112 8,000 26 8 13,227
770 3,700 20 270 6,613
30 5,200 37,000 13,500 38,612
18,863 18 32,800 2,000 37,562
6,900 28,000 18,000 22,038
44 4,072 23,300 18,200 18,683
8,849 2,931 6,074
885 1,357

218,251 281,857 2,057,780 93,032 3,061 2,128,987


+6 +20 +25 +45 +23 +27

55 41 37 65 4 57







MEAT PRODUCTION FROM INDIGENOUS ANIMALS IN ASIA 1972


(x 1000 Metric Tons)


Country Beef & Mutton Pork Poultry Total Imports Exports
Buffalo & Goat Meat

Afghanistan 41 107 7 167
Bangladesh 155 49 31 235 -
Brunei 0.370 0.140
Burma 83 4 62 18 166 -
China 1,970 583 9,284 2,896 14,618 0.210 216.015
Cyprus 3 9 10 11 33 3.788
Hongkong & Macau 1 26 13 189 71.308 0.394
India 182 377 52 90 781 2.020
Indonesia 243 40 109 66 447 0.160 -
Iran 81 226 1 31 356 7.020
Iraq 54 92 9 162 -
Israel 20 4 6 117 146 18.500 0.350
Japan 317 1 885 420 1,632 369.034 3.879
Jordan 1 7 4 14 2.840 0.100
Khmer 24 37 14 76 --
Korea (N) 20 2 70 17 108 -
Korea (S) 46 81 44 174 1.419 4.642
Kuwait -- 13.000 1.706
Laos 14 29 11 55 0.225
Lebanon 2 7 20 53 3.691 0.127
Malaysia 17 8 68 36 124 5.870 0.031
Mongolia 60 110 186 30.000
Nepal 16 16 2 15 56 -
Pakistan 216 79 16 310 0.100 0.080
Philippines 14 4 334 88 541 2.010
Portuguese Timor -
Saudi Arabia 4 22 4 74 8.980
Singapore 1 31 18 55 15.930 3.300
Sri Lanka 23 1 2 9 35 0.021
Syria 15 52 9 66 0.350 0.242
Thailand 147 1 191 94 425 0.036 0.001
Turkey 190 197 35 416 5.740
Vietnam (N) 51 235 43 329 -
Vietnam (S) 40 143 36 218 -
Yemen (AR) 13 54 1 69 -
Yemen (Dem) 1 6 11 0.217 0.065


Total 4,162 2,051 11,657 4,224 22,327 525.079 268.826


Percent change
from 1961-1965 +16 +15 +28 +61 +29 -

Percent of world 10 29 29 22 20 10 5


Source: FAO, Production Yearbook, vol. 26 (1972).


TABLE 8







PRODUCTION OF MILK, CHEESE, BUTTER, AND EGGS IN ASIA 1972


Milk
(x1000 MT)


Country


Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Brunei
Burma
China
Cyprus
Hongkong & Macau
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Japan
Jordan
Khmer
Korea (N)
Korea (S)
Kuwait
Laos
Lebanon
Malaysia
Mongolia
Nepal
Pakistan
Philippines
Portuguese Timor
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Sri Lanka
Syria
Thailand
Turkey
Vietnam (N)
Vietnam (S)
Yemen (AR)
Yemen (Dem)


Cow Buffalo


323
3,582

325
3,369
21
7
8,100
48
980
250
480
4,939
8
17
18
70

5
67
28
155
220
2,841
14

30
1
135
210
4
2,350
12


3
420

32
1,008


15,000

48
35









7

420
7,680
15



32
1
6
270
28


Sheep Goat

278 66
13 13


426
25



540
288
18

20





12

48

293


54


190

870


53
8


4
270
34

650

221
60
28
4
12


18

38
29
398


46

5
52

566


139
47


Cheese
(MT)


Cow &
Buffalo


Sheep Goat


Butter & Eggs
Cheese (MT)(xl000/MT


8,840 4,000 6,63
524 33,02


20,378
77,411
680

1,459,900


7,551
34,500
45,000


5,696


34,800






7,000

95,000


59,640
10,000


27,7S


2,25


1,200

2,880







11,200


37,800


7,15
77,02


-- -
438,00

27,618 45,64
79 7,500 9,85
3,10
48,30
50


1,080









4,000


5,42
9,36
290,68


1,20

32
14,4C

111,OC


0 13
!9 23
1
0 65
4 3,382
6
13
0 80
132
3 56
;5 11
0 82
)0 1,795
7
4
60
151
- i6
16
31
- 42
5
i3 12
i7 12
- 104
- -o

)5 6
- 19
!6 23
)0 20
- 128
)0 110
- 68
30
2
6


28,682 25,004 3,134 3,218 1,787,916 123,809 81,998 1,101,137


Percent change
from 1961-1965

Percent of world


+32 +18 +8


8 96 45 46


20 36 74


Source: FAO, Production Yearbook, vol.


Total


6,507


Table 9


26 (1972).










TRADE IN CEREALS


Country


Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Brunei
Burma
China
Cyprus
Hongkong and Macau
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Japan
Jordan
Khmer
Korea (N)
Korea (S)
Kuwait
Laos
Lebanon
Malaysia
Mongolia
Nepal
Pakistan
Philippines
Portuguese Timor
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Sri Lanka
Syria
Thailand
Turkey
Vietnam (N)
Vietnam (S)
Yemen (AR)
Yemen (Dem)


Total

Net Regional


Source: FAO, Production Yearbook, vol. 26 (1972).


Imports


Rice


347,500
12,000

5,001
2,883
388,702
539,616
494,000
60,490
96,725
38,673
12,743
24,076


1,007,447
55,295
80,000
24,933
250,426
6,000

20
436,804

220,000
276,986
340,157
49,493

2,200
30,000
137,200
5,199
21,909


4,966,478


Exports


810,480
938,290

15,227
15,854

175


912,091

35,000
103,000

13,388

440
4,175

227,500
177,000
5
1

46,677

84
1,576,142

20,000


2,483


4,898,012


68,466


Table 10









IN ASIA 1971 (Metric Tons)


Wheat Barley
Imports Exports Imports Exports

90,000 -
816,525 -
2,778 -
42,481 9 -
5,018,214 1,518 321,308 500
36,821 138 44,156 1,852
175,829 18,022 1,271 24
1,916,078 5,162 64 3
1,133,463 -
993,391 2,778 191,862
955,008 -
298,639 149,485
4,872,266 45,051 865,255
131,520 5,876 7,889 287
21,530 -
250,000 -
1,825,918 60,708
111,654 12,008 47,142 5,070
4,134 -
326,369 4,284 84,042 2,885
330,913 4,590 976
22,363 1,200
265 3,690
314,337 11,000
611,159 3,409
3,014 -
324,460 40,000
178,976 95,676 6,783 4,921
499,373 80
748,754 335 76,414 50
63,706 418 12
597,266 913 6,700
418,506 -
249,937 -7,000
82,390 -
64,027 4,344 -


18,960,656 213,480 1,913,113 22,292

18,747,176 1,890,821








Table 11 POPULATION, LIVESTOCK NUMBERS, AND


Beef Cattle


Human
Population Number
Country (x1000) (xlOOO)


Total Beef
Production
(1000 tons)


Total Beef
Consumption
(1000 tons)


Swine Sheep/
Total Pork
Number Production Number
(xl000) (1000 tons) (xl000)


Mexico

Central
America
Guatemala
El Salvador
Honduras
Nicaragua
Costa Rica
Panama


Caribbean
Cuba
Dominican
Republic
Haiti
Puerto Rico
Jamaica
Others


Andean
Guyana
Surinam
Venezuela
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru
Bolivia


Brazil

Southern
South
America
Paraguay
Uruguay
Argentina
Chile
Other


54,336 25,827


5,409
3,698
2,896
2,150
1,941
1,569
17,663


8,860

4,602
5,502
2,786
2,079
3,222
27,051


800
419
11,510
22,913
6,511
14,456
61,50
61,500


1,660
1,265
1,710
2,670
1,630
1,296
10,231


7,300

1,423
727
542
270
318
10,580


254
46
8,549
22,400
2,572
4,310
2,300
40,431


626



60
22
37
63
56
42
280


188

37
17
15
12
7
276


4
1
195
704
57
90

1,100


98,444 98,500 1,978


2,581
2,955
25,005
10,229
46
40,816


5,950
9,309
54,000
3,125
13
72,397


TOTALS 299,810 257,968


115
287
2,213
86
3
2,704

6,963


516



63
26
35
63
56
42
285


186

37
17
15
12
7
274


4
1
212
658
58
100
49
1,082

1,970


128
275
2,203
118

2,724

6,851


12,307



941
429
730
645
190
147
3,082


1,450

1,200
1,602
210
200
262
4,924


82
12
1,691
1,540
1,390
2,071
1.000
7,786

67,000


540
470
4,350
1,180
5
6,545


16
22
10
2
7
94


2

46
70
35
54
17
224

816


22
27
250
51

350


101,642 1,948


13,543


711
15
67
10
3
5
811


846
1,327
25
367
417
3,365


126
9
1,496
2,696
2,172
18,864
9,500
34,863

38,900


395
15,626
47,250
7,750
630
71,651

163,139







PRODUCTION OF ANIMAL PRODUCTS IN LATIN AMERICA 1972


Goats
Total Meat
Production
(1000 tons)


Poultrya Totals
Total Poultry Total Meat Total Meat
Number Production Production/yr. Production per
(xlOO0) (1000 tons) (xlO tons) Capita/yr., kg.


Dairy Cattle
Total Milk
Number Production
(xlOO0) (1000 tons)


Eggs
Total
Production
(1000 tons)


34 144,882 128


3





3


1


4

2
1
8


1

7
12
35
19
58
132

1




1
36
192
22

251

433


9,900
8,100
7,300
3,200
4,200
3,951
36,651


13,500

7,743
3,313
4,501
3,500
8,457
41,014


8,147
483
20,295
33,515
5,610
24,363
3,645
96,058

312,850




6,630
6,735
35,300
18,000
50
66,715


698,169 1,117


9
6
5
3
5
9
37


33

25
2
14
18
18
110


4
4
91
50
8
60
4
221

358




7
18
190
50

265


1,097



89
39
53
74
66
54
375


258

78
50
39
40
33
498


11
5
356
782
116
287
104
1,661

3,254




167
356
2,914
248

3,685

10,569


3,300 3,300


20.2



16.5
10.5
18.3
34.4
34.0
34.4
21.2


29.1

16.9
9.1
14.0
19.2
10.2
18.4


13.8
11.9
30.9
34.1
17.8
19.9
21.3
27.0

33.1




64.7
120.5
116.5
24.2

90.3

35.3b


310
221
350
400
216
75
1,572


588

312
120
187
45
72
1,324


22
22
1,310
3,584
510
678
22
6,148

9,870




476
545
2,530
560
1
4,112


280
193
190
220
255
70
1,208


500

315
38
390
51
72
1,366


17
12
850
2,450
560
930
27
4,846

8,100




95
726
5,000
1,116
1
6,938


26,025 25,757' 1,696


a. Includes chickens, ducks, and turkeys
b. Average
c. In addition to this amount, milk production
sheep in Latin America totals 379,000 tons.


from goats and


339



31
26
17
13
14
10
111


71

20
14
15
13
13
146


2
2
85
107
10
31
11
248

504




13
16
190
70

289


















PRODUCTION OF ANIMAL AND PLANT PRODUCTS IN LATIN AMERICA
IN 1972, AND CALCULATED PRODUCTION OF PROTEIN


Total
Production


Crude Digestible
Protein Protein
x 1000 tons


Digestible
Protein
Retained


Animal Products
Meat
Milk
Eggs


Plant products
Cereals
Pulses, nuts
Vegetables, fruits
and root crops


10,569
26,136
1,696



66,540
4,780
107,760


1,691
810
220
2,721


5,390
1,195
1,102

7,687


1,505
786
198
2,489


4,204
980
650

5,834


1,144
707
198
2,049


2,438
735
325

3,498


a. Source: FAO, Production Yearbook, vol. 26 (1972).

b. Percentages of crude protein in "as fed" foodstuffs, percent
digestibility of crude protein and percent of digestible
(absorbed) protein retained are (%): meat 16.0, 89.0, 76.0;
milk 3.1, 97.0, 90.0; eggs 13.0, 90.0, 100.0; cereals -
8.1, 78.0, 58.0; pulses, nuts 25.0, 82.0, 75.0; vegetables,
fruits, root crops 1.1, 59.0, 50.0.


Table 12














Table 13 VALUE OF GRAIN-FED AND GRASS-FED CATTLE


Grain Fed Grass Fed
1,000 lbs. 1,000 lbs.


Yield 61.5% 54.0%

Carcass (lbs.) 615 540

Cooler and processing
shrink 3% 5%

Carcass sale (lbs.) 596.5 513.0








$ Value/lb. (November 5, 1974) 0.68 0.45

$ Value carcass 405.62 230.85

Live value/lb. 40.6 23.1

Spread $ .175










Table 14 FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE OF STEERS FED GRAIN (A) OR PELLETED ALFALFA (B)


A B

Daily feed intake, kg. 7.26 10.59

Daily gain, kg. 1.27 1.05

Feed gain ratio 5.71 10.06

Carcass grade Med. ch. Low ch.

Dressing percent 59.90 55.40

Rib eye area, cm. 68.50 71.10

Marbling score 11.20 12.50

Fat in rib eye percent 4.60 3.60

Final weight, lbs. 997 997

Feed/day, lbs. 16.0 23.3

Days on feed 168 203

Total, tons fed 1.34 2.37

Ingredient cost/ton 127.00 62.50

Add-on margin 13.00 17.00

Cost of rations fed
January 14, 1975/ton 140.00 79.50

Feedlot cost 188.16 188.42

Carcass weight percent 597.2 552.3

Price (January 14, 1975) $0.68 $0.68

Carcass value 406.10 375.56

Added return 30.54 -



Source: Adapted from R. P. Oltjen et al., "All-Forage Diets For
Finishing Beef Cattle," Journal of Animal Science 32
(1971): 327.

























Table 15 DISTRIBUTION OF GRAINS IN U.S.
(Percent)


Maize Milo Barley Oats Wheat

Seed 0.3 % 0.8 % 4.0 % 6.0 % 4.0 %

Food and
Industrial 7.0 0.2 29.0 5.5 36.0

Export 11-18 15-30 5-15 1.3 50-52

Animal feed 75-82 69-84 52-62 86-88 8-10

















Table 16 CONTROL OF BEEF BUSINESS


2 MILLION
BEEF COW OWNERS

Range Farm


x


Dollars

180
Billion
Invested


3,000 FEEDING 7.5
FEEDLOTS 70% OF Billion
ALL BEEF Invested


S--------750 PACKERS 3.8
Billion
Invested



0 -------250 FOOD CHAINS 50
Billion
Invested



200 MILLION
CONSUMERS


Source: Progressive Farmer, May 1973.
























Table 17 FEEDING RESULTS AT T & C FEEDLOT,
MARICOPA, ARIZONA


Lot Number 1 2 3 4 5

In weight 316 345 519 705 697

Finish weight 1,129 1,080 1,096 1,127 1,043

Pound gain 813 735 577 422 346

Feed/day 17.1 17.3 22.5 24.3 21.6

Conversion 7.69 7.40 7.42 8.19 8.30

Percent gain 70.5 71.7 74.3 76.0 71.5

Conversion (grain) 5.42 5.30 5.51 6.22 5.93

Pound grain/pound 3.90 3.61 2.90 2.33 1.97
beef








Table 18


PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN MARBLING, MATURITY AND QUALITY GRADE

9 30 42
m nntho months months


DEGREES OF MARBLING


Area which would be changed Areas which would be included
from Good to Standard. in the next higher grade.
SOURCE: Federal Register Vol. 39, No. 177 (September 11, 1974)








Table 19 PRODUCTION AND DISPOSITION OF U.S. HARVESTED CROPS 1972


Crop


Food Grains

Feed Grains

Total
Grains

Oil seeds

Cotton lint

Tobacco

Sugar crops

Potatoes

Other vege-
tables

Fruits

Planted
nuts

Dry beans
and peas

Seed and
miscella-
neous

Hay

Other har-
vested
roughage


Area (thousands/Ha.) Produc-
tion
For For Total (thousand
Domes- Export metric
tic Use tons)

5,394 14,591 19,985 46,716

30,748 7,330 38,078 180,665


36,142

13,788

1,578

290

780

506


1,327

1,104


21,921

8,390

1,050

50


58,063

22,178

2,628

340

780

506


1,327

46 1,150


157


458



804

24,190


610



876

24,200


4,900


227,381

40,937

2,535

800

7,605

13,500


22,059

18,650


Disposition (thousands /metric tons)


Seed



1,748

1,387


3,135

917







360


Feed Food


7,952

134,180


142,132

14,746





2,260

280


278


830



489

116,800


4,900 114,000


15,128

5,140


20,268

3,040





10,462

11,200


22,412

17,673


325


230


Alco- Indus-
hol try


326

2,903


6,630


3,229 6,630

1,602

1,447

685

43


140


191


-47


4 9


116,750



114,000


86,024 31,691 117,715


Export



33,680

37,050


70,730

16,572

1,088

115

-5,160


-355

786


TOTAL














Table 20 PROJECTIONS OF FOOD DEMAND: 1969-1971 to 1985

(Medium Population Variant)


Developed countries

Market economies
Eastern Europe and
the Soviet Union

Developing market
economies

Africa
Far East
Latin America
Near East

Asian centrally
planned economies

All developing
countries

World


Compound Growth Rates

"Zero" "Trend" "High"
Income Income Income

(percent per annum)

0.9 1.5

0.9 1.4 -

0.9 1.7


2.7

2.9
2.6
2.8
2.9


1.6


2.4

2.0


4.0

4.1
4.0
3.8
4.2


3.5


3.8

(2.7)


Total Volume of

"Zero" "Trend"
Income Income

(1969-1971 =

115 126

114 124

115 130


150

153
148
151
154


127


143

134


Source: United Nations, Assessment of
and Future (1974).


the World Food Situation, Present


Demand

"High"
Income

100)








180

183
180
175
186


168


176

(148)




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs