Energy minimised v. cost minimised alternatives for the US beef production system

Abstract

A model of the US beef production system has been utilised to project tradeoffs between minimised cost of feeding and minimised fossil energy use to produce amounts of beef similar to 1976 consumption. Cost minimisation approaches the present actual beef production system, but suggests increases in bull feeding and the use of silage and grass finishing of cattle. Energy minimisation indicated energy savings could exceed the equivalent of 240 million barrels of crude oil/year. If energy costs increased three times the 1979 levels, energy and cost minimised solutions appear equivalent. USDA ‘Choice’ grade has been a cost effective strategy, even without consideration of price differentials for the higher quality beef. However, maintenance of current levels of ‘Choice’ beef production does not appear optimal from an energy efficiency standpoint. The model results for energy minimisation suggest an increase in grass finishing and feeding of large bulls, rather than steers, practices which could further reduce fossil fuel inputs, but would result in less ‘Choice’ quality meat. Each increase in energy efficiency in the beef system (other than simple elimination of waste) may be anticipated to have a cost penalty over current practice, given constant or moderately increasing energy costs. However, if energy prices were to reach three times their present level, the model suggests that national cost minimisation would require more energy efficient production systems, and the production of the higher quality beef grades would increase in relative expense. The beef industry does not, at present, minimise energy input because energy's apparent real cost has been low compared with other inputs.