This guest blog written by Allen Williams can be found on the Standard Soil website. In the article, Allen notes that the argument about grassfed beef not being able to scale is completely false. Follow his math below to find out that we have more than enough land to raise more beef cattle on the grasslands and croplands available to us in the U.S. (potentially 50% more cattle could be raised than is currently being produced for a total of almost 53 million head of beef cattle). Not only would the animals be healthier, but the land would be healthier as noted in my previous blog. And the economics of switching from cropland to pasture is even more exciting as he notes that an acre of corn generates $680 gross income. Grass finished beef can generate $3,128 of gross income per acre.
Recently there have been a number of ads published in major agricultural publications that attempt to explain the “myths” of grassfed beef.
In these ads, major companies such as Elanco and Certified Angus Beef (CAB) state that grassfed beef does not have any advantage over grain-fed in terms of nutritive value, that grassfed beef production is more harmful in terms of greenhouse gas production (GHG), and that it will always remain a very small niche in U.S. beef production because we simply cannot produce grassfed beef at scale, as there are not enough acres to do so.
I addressed the nutritive value issue in an article earlier this year, showing that published scientific studies clearly state positive benefits for grassfed in terms of key nutritional components. I will tackle the GHG issue in the future. So let’s look at the “not enough acres” claim.
For years now I have repeatedly heard from many different people in the grain-fed beef sector, university faculty, USDA personnel and even grassfed beef producers that we can grow the grassfed beef market only so much with domestic production because we do not have enough grassland acres available to finish at scale.
Let’s take a look at the facts. First, what does it take to finish and animal on grass? To compare apples to apples, we need to define the finishing phase. I define it as the phase where an animal has stopped growing significant bone and muscle and is transitioning to fattening, with deposition of backfat, seam fat, KPH and marbling.
That starts at around 800 lbs. for moderate-frame cattle. If we want our cattle to be well-finished, we need to take them to an average of 1,200 lbs. So 400 lbs. of weight have to be added in the finishing phase. If the cattle are gaining a modest 2.1 lbs./day during the finishing phase, it will take 190 days to gain that weight and get to 1,200 lbs.
Their average weight during that 190 days will be 1,000 lbs. To achieve minimum average daily gains of 2.1 lbs., each animal will need to consume a minimum of 3.2% forage dry matter (DM) of body weight per day, which translates into 32 lbs. of DM. This equals 6,080 lbs. of forage DM consumed during the finishing phase, or roughly three tons.
Soils with modest or better health profiles will produce anywhere from three to eight tons of forage DM per acre, and sometimes more. This means an acre or less is needed annually to grass-finish a beef steer.
The main roadblock thrown up by many within and outside the beef industry is that there are simply not enough acres in the U.S. to grass finish in significant numbers. Let’s do that analysis.
Over the past three to four years, grain-fed beef production in the U.S. has been averaging around 29 million head annually, which is our total grain-finished beef supply for both domestic and export markets. Current beef cow numbers will not support more production.
How many potential acres do we have available in the U.S. for grass finishing? Every state in the lower 48 has a minimum of 200,000 acres of unused or underutilized grassland. Many states have a million or more acres of such grassland. These acres are not enrolled in a conservation set-aside program such as the CRP, are not in crop production, are not in cow/calf or stocker production, and are not comprised of public lands. They are simply idle grassland acres.
Altogether, the minimum estimate for idle grassland in the U.S. is 15-20 million acres. At an average annual production of three tons of forage DM per acre, with proper grazing and forage management those idle acres can finish at least 10 million head of grass-fats annually. These idle acres alone could produce a third of the total U.S. fat cattle production.
Next, let’s consider the acreage required to grow the corn, soybeans and wheat necessary to finish cattle in the feedlot. My friend Jim Gerrish, a consultant and former University of Missouri grazing researcher, looked at the acreage dedicated to growing feedstuffs for grain-finishing cattle.
He found that 15% of the total corn crop typically goes to finish 29 million head of fed cattle on grain. The other 85% is used to produce livestock feed and ethanol.
USDA estimates 2016 corn acreage at 94.1 million acres. If we take the 15% currently used to grow corn for grain finishing beef cattle and transition them into grass finishing, we would have roughly 14 million acres available.
A basic rule of thumb says that for every 30 bushels of corn an acre will produce, that acre will produce one ton of forage DM. The national average corn yield is near 170 bushels per acre, so the average forage production on those same acres would be 5.7 tons of forage annually — enough to finish 1.88 animals per acre. (See note at the end of this article.)
Soybean, wheat and other small grains are also part of feedlot rations, with the production from about 3.5 million acres typically required. Add those 3.5 million acres to the 14 million acres of corn, and we have 17.5 million acres of former cropland available for grass-finished beef production if there was no grain finishing in feedlots.
At a minimum production of 5.7 tons of forage DM per acre annually, we have enough acreage to finish 32.9 million head of cattle on transitioned row crop acres (17.5 million acres times 1.88 steers per acre). Add these to the 10 million head we can finish annually on the idle grassland acres, and we are up to 42.9 million head of grass-fats. That exceeds current fat cattle production in the U.S. by 13.9 million head.
Now let’s look at the more than 20 million acres enrolled in the USDA CRP program at the end of 2015. If we could take just 30% of these CRP acres and transition to grass-finished beef production, we would have an additional 6 million acres of available grassland.
Having been in CRP production, that land will not be as productive initially. If we assume these acres will produce just two tons of forage DM annually, we can finish 0.67 head annually per acre, or a total of 4 million head. Now we are up to 33.5 million acres and 46.9 million head of grass-fats annually.
Finally, Jim Gerrish estimates there are approximately 12 million acres of irrigated grassland in the intermountain region of the U.S., an area comprised of Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington. These irrigated meadows will produce at least five tons of forage DM annually.
If we take just 30% of those acres — 3.6 million — and transition them to grass-finished beef production, we can finish an additional 6 million head annually (3.6 million acres times 1.67 head/acre). Now we are up to 52.9 million head of grass-fats annually. That is 1.8 times the current annual production of grain-finished cattle in the U.S. on a per-head basis.
Yes, we do have to account for weight differences at harvest, as the typical grain-finished steer produces 1.2 times the hot carcass weight of a grass-finished steer. The typical grain-fed steer weighs an average of 1,350 lbs. with a 64% dressed weight, putting the hot carcass weight at 864 lbs. A well-finished grassfed steer will weigh 1,200 lbs. and dress 59%, putting its hot carcass weight at 708 lbs. That is a difference of 156 lbs. per head harvested.
About 34.8 million grass-finished cattle would be needed to equal the hot carcass weight production of 29 million head of grain-finished cattle. That’s still far below the 52.9 million head potential as explained above. (See Note 2.)
Not enough acres to significantly grow the grass-finished beef market in the U.S.? You be the judge.
Will we move to grass finishing 100% of U.S. beef production? No. We will continue to produce significant pounds of grain-finished beef.
But it is a false argument that we cannot significantly expand grassfed beef production in this country. Let’s say we produced only 15 million grass-fats annually, with the rest of the beef industry remaining grain-fed.
In this case we would need about 10 million acres of grassland, or roughly one-fourth the more than 37 million acres of grassland available for protein production in the U.S. calculated above. Thus there is the potential to have about 27 million acres available for expanding production of grassfed dairy, small ruminants, pastured pork and pastured poultry.
It is worth noting that we are still learning how to build soil health, manage forage and grazing, and adjust genetics for optimum grass finishing. We have come a long way in this regard in the past 15 years, but we still have some learning to do. As we learn, we will become increasingly more efficient and effective at grass finishing. We have to remember that it took at least a couple of decades for the feedlot industry to hit its stride.
Think of the possibilities. Think of the impact millions of acres of additional grass-based agriculture would have on the rural economy and the small towns all over the U.S. The acreage is available. We just have to use it wisely.
_______________________________________
Note 1: At $4.00 per bushel, an acre of corn producing 170 bushels generates $680 of gross income. The same acre devoted to grass finishing will generate $3,128 [(708 lbs. hot carcass weight/steer X $2.35/lb.) X 1.88 animals/acre].
Note 2: The argument has been made that grain-finishing is more efficient, and that fewer animals are thus required to produce a certain amount of beef. Fewer cattle supposedly create fewer GHGs. However, there is a major hole in that argument that I will address in the future. In any event, is it really in the best interest of beef producers — and agriculture as a whole — to reduce both beef and farmer/rancher numbers? Which of you wants to get out of the beef business simply because we no longer need you?
Make a Monthly Gift to HMI
For $25.00 a month or only .83 cents per day, you can help us heal 20 million acres of land by 2020. For $50.00 or only $1.67 per day, you can help us educate 25,000 people by 2020.
With easy, secure automatic payments, please consider your monthly gift today.
Adelene is a resident of Arkansas and loves exploring the state’s natural trails. Her passion for education and technology led her to earn a master’s in learning systems technology from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. With her professional experience managing student/client databases and instructional design, Adelene will bring skill and understanding to her role as Office Manager & Instructional Designer at HMI. Her focus on making education more accessible to diverse communities is evident through her volunteer work as an board member for a scholarship program. Adelene is devoted to creating educational opportunities that align with HMI’s mission to promote healthy, resilient lands and thriving communities.
Seth Wilner has been a Holistic Management International Certified Educator since 2005. For 22 years he has worked as an agent educator with University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension where he specializes in farm business management with an emphasis on whole farm planning.
Dana was first introduced to Holistic Management in the 1990s while working in the Texas Hill Country. She strongly believes that Holistic Management can positively impact families that are on the land, the communities they are a part of, and larger landscape resource regeneration efforts.
Sarah Robertson grew up in Taos, New Mexico and has always been passionate about land stewardship, growing things, and nurturing others. After completing a BA in Communication from the University of New Mexico and working with local non-profits, she started her journey as a first-generation farmer. Since 2015, she has been learning and growing alongside her husband on various leased properties in Albuquerque, NM and running a small market farm with goats, chickens, and a CSA. In her role as Programs Assistant at HMI, Sarah brings her enthusiasm for regenerative agriculture, devotion to supporting others, and drive for lifelong learning and growing.
Jozua Lambrecht is from South Africa and divides his time between their home in Somerset West and their family farm in Sutherland, one of the coldest places in South Africa, where they farm with sheep. He is married to his wife Therese and they have two daughters.
Alejandro Carrillo is a fourth-generation rancher, and he is quite familiar with the challenges of running a profitable cattle ranch in the Chihuahuan desert. Because annual precipitation seldom exceeds nine inches, every drop counts when it comes to growing more grasses. Grazing year-round with only sea salt as an input, he is not willing to waste any water in such a brittle environment.
Jared L Talley was born and raised in Southwestern Idaho and now seeks to help rural communities adapt and thrive in a rapidly changing world. He is an Assistant Professor in the School of Public Service at Boise State University, earning his PhD in Philosophy from Michigan State University and his MPA in Environmental Policy and Natural Resource Management from Boise State University. An environmental philosopher by training and an interdisciplinary scholar in practice, he seeks to better understand how communities relate to the land and how this relationship poses obstacles and opportunities for collaboration and governance. In doing so, he studies the role of science in collaborative policy, the role of place in environmental identity, and the role of the imagination in mediating both. Specifically, he studies grazing management and public land permitting, community-led conservation programs, rural education and entrepreneurship, place-based environmental governance, and the imaginative experience of our natural and built environments — all in the contexts of the intermountain American West.
Thanks for this article. It addresses the main objection I’ve always had in the back of my head regarding grass-fed beef. I have one question: Does the estimate of 15-20 million acres of idle grassland include land that was once grassland but has been desertified but could return to grassland through holistic grazing?
Allen Williams writes:
It does not. That would be on top of what I have estimated. The “Idle grassland acres” that I have listed are actually acres that could be put immediately into productive grazing with some fencing improvement and maybe water improvement. They are not already desertified acres. If we add in desertified acres, we actually increase significantly the estimate of acres available for grass finishing.
The real bottom line is that we DO NOT have a deficiency in grazing acres available to finish 15 million, 20 million, or even over 30 million head of grass fats annually. That is not our issue. The bigger issues are:
1. The fact that more than 80% of all grass fed beef currently sold to consumers in the U.S. under an USDA FSIS “Grass Fed Label” is imported grass fed beef labeled “Product of USA”.
2. There is a significant amount of feedlot produced “Grass Fed Beef” being sold in the U.S. Cattle that are finished on “forage” TMR’s and are in a feedlot situation.
3. The lack of skilled expertise in grass finishing. We do not have many producers who are highly skilled at uniform, consistent grass finishing, especially on a year-round basis.
So, lack of acres is not the main issue with scaling grass fed beef in the U.S. The other items are far larger challenges.
Much less food per acre if convert from corn to beef. Using the numbers provided in the article we 708 lbs/steer x 1.88 animals/acre on cropland provides 1,331 pounds of steer per acre. Meanwhile 170 bushes of corn at 56 pounds per bushel of 9,520 pounds of corn. Thus switching from cropland to grazing results in 7 times less food per acre. At the national and global scales it is thus impossible to convert much cropland to grazing without greatly reducing demand or clearing forest for more farmland (with attendant emissions).
I agree that more grazing land is available, and that grazing plays an important role in sequestering carbon and providing other benefits, but to say that we should be converting much cropland to grazing is very problematic from a larger scale land use perspective.
Much less food per acre if convert from corn to beef. Using the numbers provided in the article we 708 lbs/steer x 1.88 animals/acre on cropland provides 1,331 pounds of steer per acre. Meanwhile 170 bushes of corn at 56 pounds per bushel of 9,520 pounds of corn. Thus switching from cropland to grazing results in 7 times less food per acre. At the national and global scales it is thus impossible to convert much cropland to grazing without greatly reducing demand or clearing forest for more farmland (with attendant emissions).
I agree that more grazing land is available, and that grazing plays an important role in sequestering carbon and providing other benefits, but to say that we should be converting much cropland to grazing is very problematic from a larger scale land use perspective.
Allen notes:
First of all, we are talking gross income per acre comparing the grass fed beef production to the corn production. No comparison. The 170 Bu corn would gross $612/ac if corn were priced at $3.50/bu. The two steers would gross $4650+/ac on a retail basis. Huge difference.
Secondly, the 9520 lbs of corn is not human food. Never will be. It is used for ethanol and livestock feed. Now take the 9520 lbs of corn and convert back to lbs of protein produced and see what you get in end product for human consumption.
In my example, I specifically stated that were converting ONLY those cropland acres that were currently being used to grow corn for beef feedlots.
If we are looking at net profit per acre on the beef, that will depend heavily on how they market. If direct marketing, they will realize net margins of between $800 – $1200/acre. If marketing to a branded program, then net margins are in the range of $350 – $600/acre. That is also within the range of what Jason Rowntree found in his trials at Michigan State University. It is what we experience in the grassfed sector with good producers.
Contrast that with net margins of less than $40/acre to negative net margins this year for the majority of corn farmers. Why are we growing corn just to grow corn? It makes zero sense and that corn is NOT feeding the world.
No argument on increased profitability for the farmer/grazier, just trying to point out that widespread conversion of cropland to grazing land, as I am often hearing advocated these days, is problematic from a total global food production perspective. I’d add that much cropland is too steep or otherwise not suited to crop production and should be converted to grazing, silvopasture, tree intercropping, terracing, perennial crops, or other practices suited to degraded or at-risk soils.
There also are many other things we could use from the 1/3 of cropland that is used to produce livestock feed today besides more meat – like raw materials for biobased industry for example. And as global population increases, more food will be needed. I’d be interested to see numbers on changes in total meat availability from conversion of all beef feed cropland to grazing – I suspect we’d still see a reduction in beef availability from that land, not that that’s necessarily a problem.
And – regardless of what corn is used for today, I think you have to compare grazing yield with crop yield. And grazing yields are lower than crop yields on cropland, as the numbers in the article show. Soybeans and other legumes can produce more protein per acre – not that is 100% comparable nutritionally speaking (or as tasty!). The “livestock on leftovers” platform (which I advocate for) is that cropland is used for crops (perhaps with livestock integration), and livestock can have the grasslands, crop residues, and food waste. This article, by the way, is a great contribution to that platform by expanding our perspective on how much grazing land is available in the US.
From Allen Williams in reply:
I was pretty clear in the article that I was talking about converting ONLY 15% of the current corn ground. That was it. I was in no way advocating or promoting widespread conversion of farmland to grazing. However, are you aware that a significant portion of currently farmed land in the U.S. is very marginal for farming and should be in grazing instead? Also, are you aware that we produced enough food in the world last year to feed 10.5 billion people and that about 40% of all food produced in the U.S. is wasted annually, and that we waste several trillion lbs of food globally on an annual basis? We do not have a food shortage in the world. We have a food waste and political issue problem.
If instead of weight you measure available calories, the difference shrinks to 2.5 times due to the calorie density of meat.
This piece has been criticized for implying that 100% of the DM yield on the average underutilized acre considered could be used toward finishing. In reading your piece, that criticism seems valid:
“This equals 6,080 lbs. of forage DM consumed during the finishing phase, or roughly three tons. Soils with modest or better health profiles will produce anywhere from three to eight tons of forage DM per acre, and sometimes more. This means an acre or less is needed annually to grass-finish a beef steer.”
If grazed in the best, thoughtful, and managed ways, wouldn’t harvested forage max out at 60-70% of total forage production? Have I misunderstood? If so, can you please clarify?
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for the question! I reached out to Allen and here is his reply:
We always leave at least 50% of total available DM as residue and cover and do not take more than that in any one grazing event. If we use half the estimate [of land available and DM/acre] that is still more than 20 million head of cattle fattened on grass annually without putting a dent in other ag production. That is 2/3rds of the total fat cattle harvested each year.
However, our estimates of available grassland acres were very conservative. There are actually quite a bit more than that. If you take that into account, plus reducing corn acres more than the mere 15%, then we can easily supplant feedlot production IF we so desire. It will not happen in the near term as there is too much infrastructure existing, but it could happen if the demand shifts strongly in that direction.
Allen also noted:
In reviewing the original paper that I wrote, my estimates of forage DM production were for the DM that the cattle would consume, not the total DM produced. I should have been clear about that in the original article. For instance, our pastures on our farms in Alabama and Mississippi produce between 8 and 12 tons annually TOTAL DM. Therefore, the three tons that is required for consumption is less than 50% of total forage DM production.
That certainly makes more sense! Perhaps someday our pastures will produce at that level, but we’re not there yet. Thanks for your work and take care.
Thank you for sharing this wonderful article, it clears me with the nutrients and other concepts of grass fed beef.
You seem to be ignoring that farm animals out number other animal species, yet you want to increase cattle on even more land?! Native animals like wolves are killed too much already by cattle ranchers because their cattle have intruded on their land! 😠
By holistically managing grassland for beef cattle all chemicals are eliminated and we stop poisoning ourselves. Current crop production poisons the land, air water and us. 100% grass fed beef is way healthier, the land, air and water are cleaner, all said the world is way better off. Eating nutrient deficient plants that use poison and erode the soil is a death sentence for the world.