You are on page 1of 18

University of Idaho

Stephen Tamm
March 8, 2015

Page |1
General Overview:
Beef has lost its place as the most sought after meat product in the U.S. A trend toward
alternative dietary protein sources has been occurring for almost 40 years and shows no sign of
relenting (Helming, 2014). After modern commercial cattle production practices became
widespread in the 1940s, beef dominated the marketplace for decades as the primary source of
meat consumed by Americans. Consumers moved away from pork during this era and fueled
massive expansion in the business of beef production. While poultry claimed a much smaller
share of the U.S. consumer market during the 1950s and 1960s, the increase in consumption
during these decades paralleled that of beef. Poultry became the primary meat product of
domestic consumption in 1993, and demand for beef began to plummet (Earth Policy Institute,
2012). The pattern is alarming in regards to the future of domestic beef production. Without an
immediate overhaul in the marketing efforts of beef producers, opportunities simply will not
exist in the beef industry in years to come.

Background:
Early industry growth
Beef production has long been an iconic part of American culture (Helming, 2014). Expansion
into the vast, remote plains regions of the country was driven in large part by the demand for
beef in American cities. Several modern interstate highways follow routes created by cattle
raisers who trailed their animals thousands of miles to pastures and markets during the mid- to
late-1800s. Cattle herds raised in the Western U.S. also provided a stable source of food for
pioneers of developing industries and military expeditions, allowing for new regions to be
settled.
As the American population skyrocketed during the 20th century, cattle producers faced a
daunting challenge in keeping up with demand. The 1940s saw a wave of technology in cattle
feeding which allowed for the pace of beef production to keep up with the flourishing population
of the baby boomer era. Marketing of beef throughout the 1950s was fairly simple as
competition in poultry and pork production was limited and consumer satisfaction was high.

Page |2
Beef was simply a practical choice for Americans, and consumption far exceeded that of other
meat products in the U.S. (Desmond, 1983).
The troubled years
The decades of market dominance and lack of competition that surrounded a rapidly expanding
beef industry seem to have engrained a sort of complacency in producers. As science in poultry
production greatly enhanced efficiency in raising animals, the growth of the poultry industry
began to outpace beef production in the U.S. Throughout the 1960s, consumers had access to a
growing assortment of affordable meat products, and the nature of decision-making became
more and more complex. People began to focus more on health-related issues as availability
became less of a concern (Desmond, 1983).
Poultry gained market strength during this era as poultry was marketed as a lean, healthy
alternative to more fatty beef products. Consumption of poultry in the U.S. increased by 37%
during the 60s, compared to a much more modest 27% increase in beef consumption (Earth
Policy Institute, 2012). Weather patterns and other production-related issues caused beef prices
to soar during the 1970s. During that decade, retail beef prices increased by 126% while poultry
prices increased by only 91% (Desmond, 1983). The economics of consumer decision-making
around this time made poultry a very appealing alternative to beef. This changing dynamic in
consumer behavior placed an imperative need for enhanced marketing efforts on beef producers.
They could no longer rely on consumers to purchase beef based on practicality and satisfaction
alone. However, beef producers failed to grasp the importance of connecting with consumers.
The pinnacle of beef consumption in the U.S. (per capita) came about in 1976 (Earth Policy
Institute, 2012). Domestic consumption has not been matched since that year, and the downward
trend in beef consumption continues. Between 1976 and 2012 beef consumption in the U.S.
decreased by a staggering 43% while poultry consumption during this period nearly doubled
with an increase of 97% (Earth Policy Institute, 2012). Generally speaking, overall meat
consumption per capita in the U.S. has increased consistently between 1912 and 2007. The
pattern seems to have ended then, however, as a new generation of consumers began seeking
alternative sources of protein. This makes beef a commodity with declining market share in an
overall declining market.

Page |3

Efforts at improved marketing


The most drastic measure taken by beef producers collectively toward improved marketing came
with the Beef Research and Information Act of 1985. This legislation was a component of the
USDA Farm Bill passed that year and created the Beef Checkoff Program, which is still a part of
the industry today (Beef Research and Information Act, 1985). Under the Beef Checkoff
Program, $1 per head is collected on every live cattle transaction and set aside for the purpose of
improving the marketability of beef through ad campaigns, research, public relations, and other
communication programs (NCBA, 2014). In 1992 the well-known Beef: its whats for dinner
campaign was funded using checkoff funds. These popular TV advertisements received a digital
counterpart in 2014 when the Cattlemens Beef Board (CBB) and the National Cattlemens Beef
Association (NCBA) collaborated to form www.beefitswhatsfordinner.com using Beef Checkoff
dollars. The website is part of an effort to modernize beef marketing and appeal to younger
generations of consumers.
Aside from the advertising that has become familiar in American households, funding for
scientific advancements in cattle production have also come from Beef Checkoff funds. State
organizations and the USDA regularly award grants for research aimed at improving the
efficiency and consumer appeal of beef. This can be very challenging though, as efficiency and
consumer appeal generally tend to have an inverse correlation (Desmond, 1983). As cattle are
raised with increasing efficiency, they tend to be removed increasingly further from their natural
state. This often leads to consumer concern and a decrease in marketability. Raising cattle to
have more consumer appeal, on the other hand, is often associated with decreasing efficiency and
higher input costs. This leads to higher consumer costs, which become mixed with other
socioeconomic factors in determining overall demand for beef.
Though advertising efforts have been generally successful in terms of familiarizing consumers
with product identity, overall demand for beef has failed to reverse its negative trend. For the
period 1985-2012, following implementation of the Beef Checkoff program, per capita beef

Page |4
consumption in the U.S. declined by 32% (Earth Policy Institute, 2012). This indicates a failure
on the part of beef producers to effectively create demand.

Page |5

U.S. Meat Consumption per Person by Type, 1909-2012


100
Poultry

Beef

Pork

Earth Policy Institute - www.earth-policy.org

Pounds (Boneless Weight Equivalent)

90
80
70
60

50
40
30
20
10
0
1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

Source: EPI from USDA, U.S. Census

Figure 1 Consumption trends in the U.S. for poultry, beef, and since the USDA began tracking
consumer trends in 1909. Although pork consumption has remained relatively consistent for the
duration of the period in measure, beef and poultry have actively shifted in per capita
consumption. Notice the divergence that began in 1976 with a decline in beef consumption and
continued increase in poultry consumption. Since 2000, beef consumption has declined sharply
indicating a continued decrease in demand (Earth Policy Institute, 2012).

Page |6
Scope and Urgency:
Beef industry basics
The beef industry is a vital component of the U.S. economy as well as a key contributor to
domestic food production. Total employment in positions related to cattle production and beef
processing in the U.S. was estimated at over 1.4 million in 2000. These positions encompass the
entire nation as cattle production is ubiquitous amongst all 50 states (Otto, 2001). Aside from
production for domestic consumption, the U.S. beef industry is a key exporter of meat for
countries worldwide (USDA, 2015, 2).
Impact of declining demand
The impact of a continued decline in domestic beef demand will undoubtedly begin with a
reduction in the number of cattle production facilities throughout the country. As the consumer
market is directly linked to beef packing operations, these would be the first industry operations
to scale back. Evidence that this is already occurring exists with the closure of several key beef
packing plants over the past decade. In 2008 Tyson Foods, Inc., the largest beef packer in the
U.S., ceased beef slaughter operations in Emporia, KS resulting in the loss of 2,400 jobs (Tyson,
2008). This was followed in 2013 by the closure of Cargill Meat Solutions beef packing facility
in Plainview, TX resulting in the loss of 2,000 jobs (Cargill, 2013). Cargill is the third largest
beef packer in the U.S. National Beef Packing Company, LLC (NBPC), the fourth largest U.S.
beef packer, was the next to follow suit with the closure of its Brawley, CA plant in 2014. The
Brawley plant closure resulted in the layoff of 1,400 of NBPCs 8,900 employees (National
Beef, 2014). Shortly thereafter Cargill closed another beef packing facility in Milwaukee, WI
and took 600 jobs with it (Cargill, 2014). In the same month as the Milwaukee plant closure,
L&H Packing Co. in San Antonio, TX went belly up after 51 years in business, adding 325 to the
unemployment rolls (Bailey, 2014).
The economic impact of these plant closures is felt by the families of employees who are left
without work as well as by local communities. Packing facilities are typically located in rural
areas; close proximity to cattle feeding is fundamentally important. These large-scale operations
are often the primary employer for a city or county and typically attract employees to the area.

Page |7
When the doors close on a packing plant, local businesses feel the impact as out-of-work
employees must relocate to find new jobs. All of this has a negative impact on the local tax base,
property values, and overall economic well-being in the region (Allen, 2014). In the case of the
Plainview, TX plant, estimated total losses attributable to closure in Hale County alone are $1
billion in gross sales and 600 full-time jobs on top of the 2,000 layoffs directly associated with
the plant. Loss of contribution to gross regional product in Hale County is estimated at $285.9
million, and labor income loss is estimated at $97.1 million (Dudensing, 2013). The ultimate
effect on property values and economic indicators in Hale County, TX is yet to be determined as
this case is relatively recent, but it is probably safe to say that the immediate financial impact on
the area has been staggering.
When beef packing facilities are forced to shut down because people arent buying beef, the
feedlots that supply fed cattle for beef production are directly impacted. Without a market for
their cattle, producers are forced to absorb massive losses in revenue or close down. Feedlots
generally exist in rural areas and serve as economic drivers for what would otherwise be desolate
places. Feedlots provide employment which draws people to the area and creates a need for
supporting businesses nearby. When a feedlot is forced to shut the gates for good, the entire
community is likely to be considerably affected. This impact has been felt in communities
around the country for years and continues today. In the past ten years, 212 major U.S. feedlots
(capacity for 1000+ head of cattle) have ceased operations (USDA, 2015, 1). One example that
demonstrates this type of direct impact of the Cargill packing plant closure in Plainview, TX is
the closure of Cargills own cattle feeding facility in nearby Lockney, TX. In October 2013,
nine months after the packing plant was shut down, Cargill notified employees that feeding
operations would cease at the feedlot (Stebbins, 2013). This was a major blow to the community
as the feedlot was a critical part of the local economy. Of the 45 employees left searching for
work, even the mayor of Lockney, TX was an employee of the Cargill feedlot (Musico, 2013).
Without doubt the businesses, schools, and organizations of the local community will feel the
loss.
All of this hits right at home with residents and employees of ranching operations throughout the
U.S. and neighboring countries that rely on feedlots for cattle marketing. The trickle-down
effect of dwindling beef demand ultimately impacts the ranches and ranching communities as

Page |8
they are forced to find new markets for the calves they supply where they are likely to face
increased competition. These operations have traditionally been family-based and play a huge
role in shaping the rural U.S. The pressure placed on ranchers to deal with a dying consumer
market makes the prospect of passing a family business from one generation to the next less and
less appealing. Even efforts to modify cattle raising in line with trends in consumer appeal, such
as organic and natural marketing, are futile if the overall trend in consumption remains negative.
Beef cows serve as a key economic marker of ranching operations as the number of cows on a
ranch determines the number of calves that can be sold and, therefore, the ultimate potential for
that operation. The total U.S. beef cow inventory and number of beef cow operations are in line
historically with the trend in demand for beef. Since 1994, the number of beef cows in the U.S.
has dropped by over 16% (USDA-NASS, 2014) [Fig.2], while the total cattle inventory in the
U.S. has receded to levels not seen in over 60 years (University of Florida Extension Service,
2012) [Fig. 3].

Page |9
Figure 2 Historical beef cow inventory in the U.S. since 1994 showing a persistent pattern of
liquidation by ranchers. Source: USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service
(http://nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Cattle/jul_bcow.asp)

Figure 3 Historical cattle inventory in the U.S. since 1955. Notice that the U.S. cattle herd has
recently reached 60-year lows. Source: Livestock Marketing Information Center
(http://www.lmic.info/sites/default/files/publicfiles/c-n-01.pdf)
Outcomes of a persistent decline in beef demand
The shrinking size of the beef industry as evidenced through closures of packing facilities and
feedlots alongside the diminishing domestic cattle inventory has already caused a substantial
negative impact on many lives as opportunities in the beef production industry have disappeared.
If changes are not made immediately to generate market appeal for beef on a large-scale level,

P a g e | 10
these opportunities will continue to dwindle. Industry experts and employees who have invested
a lifetime into beef production positions will be forced to search for work with a relatively
useless background. Families that have turned over business matters from one generation to the
next will be forced to leave traditions behind and take on a new way of life. As these unfortunate
events are already playing out in the U.S. today, the urgency with which beef producers must
enhance marketability cannot be overstated.
Target Population Data
Specific population
At the crux of the problem with beef demand in the U.S. is the disconnect that exists between
producers and consumers. Beef producers, whether they be involved with cow/calf ranching,
cattle feeding, or beef packing, predominately live and operate within rural regions of the
country. Producers in this regard are physically far-removed from highly populated city centers
and metropolitan regions of the country. Vast sociological and lifestyle differences exist
between rural and urban inhabitants and these differences have a considerable impact on lifestyle
choices. Beef producers must recognize and overcome these cultural distinctions in order to
more effectively reach out to the large consumer population.
The dilemma is complicated even further by a vague identification of who is ultimately
responsible for marketing objectives. Marketing campaigns funded by Beef Checkoff funds are
carried out primarily by organizations such as the NCBA which are governed predominately by
individuals with backgrounds in beef production (NCBA, 2014). Beef producers on an
individual level typically do very little to listen to consumer concerns or to reach out to people
from highly-populated urban centers (Helming, 2014). The general consensus amongst beef
producers is that money allocated through the Beef Checkoff program pays for somebody to
reach out for them. When certain producers reach a point in their career that they become called
upon to serve as leaders in organizations such as NCBA, they are entirely too far removed from
target market populations in a cultural sense to be effective campaign directors.
To overcome the disconnect between beef producers and shoppers in urban-based consumer
markets, producers must take an immediate and genuine interest in the lifestyles of urban

P a g e | 11
populations. Beef producers have historically created the American cowboy image and
generally take pride in identifying with that label, even today. Included with this sort of labeling
is everything from fashion to music to dialect and tone as well as political and behavioral
considerations. So strong is this connection that the familiar voice of the Beef: its whats for
dinner campaign comes from the well-known western actor, Sam Elliot. Using a silver screen
cowboy to spread the message strengthens the association of that label with beef. The
conservative mentality is emphasized highly in this characterization, and traditional values are
typically held in high esteem. Decision-making is often carried out on the simple premise of
doing things the way they have been done in the past.
The problem with holding this sort of traditional, conservative lifestyle in such high regard is that
the larger populations that exist as potential consumers today do not always share these values.
Continued emphasis on beef producers unique cultural traits only strengthens the disconnect
between producers and consumers. This often leads to a sort of quandary in which beef
producers judge the overall consumer appeal for beef as positive based on what they see in their
own isolated societies.
A consulting nutritionist for cattle feedlots may drive 300 miles on any given day to reach out to
different clients in a highly concentrated cattle feeding region. That nutritionist may pass dozens
of billboards promoting beef, see dozens of bumper stickers on vehicles promoting beef, and eat
lunch at a caf in a town of 1,500 where steaks are served on every table. That nutritionist may
discuss cattle prices or other beef news with a stranger at a gas pump or standing in line at a
convenience store. Given the events of the day and immediate surroundings, that nutritionist
may feel confident that the entire U.S. is content with beef production practices and that demand
is acceptably high.
However, the rural towns and isolated communities surrounding beef production have very little
impact on the overall demand for beef. The numbers are shaped by consumers living in the
population centers of urban America. When beef producers concern themselves only with their
immediate surroundings, they lose sight of what is happening in more populated regions of the
U.S. Being disconnected from potential consumers, or worse, showing a stubborn aversion to
consumer culture, leads to distrust of the consumer market. Trust is a critical part of the

P a g e | 12
decision-making process regarding food choices. As such, individuals involved with beef
production at all levels must make an effort to appeal to the growing and evolving modern
consumer market. If this is not achieved immediately, consumers will continue to move away
from beef.
Available Resources
Mass Media
Mass media in the U.S. has long been an antagonist to beef demand. Despite the relative success
(as determined by familiarity) of the Beef: its whats for dinner marketing campaign, media
icons have demonstrated distaste for beef on various levels. Of these, Oprah Winfrey is probably
the most familiar. Oprah Winfrey was sued by Texas beef producer Paul Engler over comments
aired on her talk show in 1996, and the ensuing trial became a media spectacle (Livestock
Weekly, 1998). Other mass media outlets have also made good on opportunities to give beef a
bad image, albeit for debatable reasons. The fundamental basis for the significant amount of
negative press on beef is likely a result of the sociological disconnect mentioned previously.
Television networks evolve in a manner that is driven by sociological trends of large
populations. The vast number of television networks in existence allows people the choice of
patronizing networks that tell them what they want to hear. The networks that are most aligned
with the cultural trends of large populations become most successful. As beef producers have
worked hard to create their own isolated culture, they are naturally represented with distrust by
mainstream media networks. Simply by demonstrating an interest in the concerns of mainstream
culture, beef producers could make strides in overcoming this negative press.
Social Media
Social media is ubiquitous in American society. The effectiveness of reaching a target audience
through social media is debatable, though. An outbreak has occurred in social media advertising
that leaves social media users very wary (Castronovo, 2012). Thus, the ability to successfully
utilize social media to deliver a message could be a real challenge for the beef industry.
Advertisements in the form of links and banners are typically just an annoyance for social media

P a g e | 13
users and could do as much harm as good for beef producers. Having a physical presence in the
societies of target markets will have a much greater impact than buying an e-presence.
Other forms of media
The greatest potential for creating demand outside of cultural consumer connections is through
image appeal. Consumers tend to believe what they see. Beef producers need to be aware of this
and capitalize on the need to place beef in front of people in a good way. This could be done by
paying for air time that interjects beef into scenes depicting daily life of the characters that
consumers idolize. For example, a sitcom could have a scene in which characters were grilling
and enjoying beef. This sort of media could be much more powerful than commercial spots
(Stewart, 2012).
Funding
Available and potential resources
The Beef Checkoff program, as previously indicated, was created in 1985 with the intent of
funding improvements in beef marketing (Beef Research and Information Act, 1985). The
reduced cattle inventory coupled with 30 years of inflation make the $1/head/transaction
inadequate today. Beef Checkoff funding should be re-examined so that it could serve as a
realistic source of marketing funds. However, this pool is the best available resource for funding
a comprehensive review and overhaul of the current marketing strategy.
Other sources of funding could potentially include state and local checkoff programs if these
were to be implemented. Although this may place a short-term strain on the balance sheets of
producers, the reinvestment into the future of the industry is critical for long-term stability.
Summary
The pattern of U.S. consumers moving away from beef has been occurring for decades without
any signs of letting up. The future of beef production has been severely jeopardized by the
inability of producers to connect with new generations of consumers. Without immediate action
family businesses that have lasted for decades will undoubtedly fail, and the generations to come
will be forced into other realms of business. Additionally, subsidiary businesses that have

P a g e | 14
evolved to support beef production will fail, and the work experience of employees will be
effectively worthless.
Beef producers in every aspect of the industry must unite and create a new approach to
marketing in order to avoid a total collapse in the industry. By utilizing the money set aside by
the Beef Checkoff program, national, state, and local beef organizations can collectively invest in
market research and efforts to overhaul the existing approach. Acknowledging complacency and
moving towards modernization are imperative.

P a g e | 15
References:
Allen, Katie (2014). History Lesson in Packing Plant Closures. K-State Research & Extension
News. http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/news/story/plant_closures081214.aspx
Bailey, W.S. (2014, August 5). San Antonios L&H Packing Co. to close after 50 years, layingoff 325 workers. San Antonio Business Journal. Retrieved from
www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/blog/2014/08/san-antonio-s-l-h-packing-co-to-close-after50.html
Beef Research and Information Act (Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985), 7 U.S.C.
2901-2911 (1985).
Cargill (2013, January 17). Cargill to idle Plainview, Texas, beef processing plant; dwindling
cattle supply cited [Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.cargill.com/news/releases/2013/NA3070552.jsp
Cargill (2014, July 30). Cargill to close Milwaukee beef harvest facility; diminished cattle supply
cited [Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.cargill.com/news/releases/2014/NA31669068.jsp
Castronovo, C., & Huang, L. (2012). Social media in an alternative marketing communication
model. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 6(1), 117-134.
Daniel, C. R., Cross, A. J., Koebnick, C., & Sinha, R. (2011). Trends in meat consumption in the
USA. Public health nutrition, 14(04), 575-583.
Darian, J. C., & Tucci, L. (2011). Perceived health benefits and food purchasing decisions.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(6), 421-428.
Desmond, J. A. (1983). Reasons for the decline in beef consumption. California Agriculture
37(5):14-15
Dudensing , R., Cross, G.W., Sageser, D.L., Amosson, S., Guerrero, B. (2013). Impacts of the
Cargill packing plant closure: Economic impacts on the Plainview and regional economies.

P a g e | 16
Texas A&M Agrilife Extension. http://agecoext.tamu.edu/files/2013/08/Economic-Impact-ofCargill-Plant-Feb-21-13.pdf
Earth Policy Institute. (2012). Meat Consumption in the United States, 1909-2012. Retrieved
from http://www.earth-policy.org/data_center/C24
Helming, Bill (2014). A Major Wake Up Call for the U.S. and Canadian Beef Industries. For
Your Careful Review, Special Report No. 2 (SR2-14), 1-10. Retrieved from
http://www.beefproducer.com/mdfm/Fares1/author/252/2014/4/Beef-Producer-Helming-on-beefconsumption.pdf
Livestock Marketing Information Center. (2015). January 1 Total Cattle Inventory. Retrieved
from http://www.lmic.info/sites/default/files/publicfiles/c-n-01.pdf
Livestock Weekly. (1998). Oprah Seeks to Move Second Beef Lawsuit. Retrieved from
http://www.livestockweekly.com/papers/98/04/30/whlbow8.asp
Musico, Josie (2013). Lockney concerned with feedlot closing. Amarillo Globe News (online).
Retrieved from http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2013-10-17/lockney-concerned-feedlotclosing.
National Beef (2014, January 31). National Beef Announces Plan to Close Brawley Facilty
[Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.nationalbeef.com/About/News/Pages/National-Beefto-Close-Brawley.aspx
NCBA (2014). Directions: 2014 Statistics. National Cattlemen.
http://www.beefusa.org/CMDocs/BeefUSA/Producer%20Ed/Directions_2014_Statistics.pdf
Otto, D., & Lawrence, J. D. (2001). Economic impact of the United States beef industry. Iowa
State University, Department of Economics.
Producer, B. (2014, December 23). Consumers say they will choose chicken over beef. Beef
Magazine. Retrieved from http://beefmagazine.com/retail/consumers-say-they-will-choosechicken-over-beef

P a g e | 17
Stebbins, Christine (2013). Cargill to close Lockney, Texas, cattle feedlot in summer 2014.
Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/17/cargill-beef-closingidUSL1N0I72IU20131017
Stewart, D. W., & Pavlou, P. A. (2002). From consumer response to active consumer: Measuring
the effectiveness of interactive media. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(4), 376396.
Tyson Foods, Inc. (2008). Tyson to Restructure Beef Operations at Emporia, Kansas [Press
release]. Retrieved from http://globenewswire.com/newsrelease/2008/01/25/372171/135047/en/Tysonto-Restructure-Beef-Operations-At-EmporiaKansas.html
University of Florida Extension Service. (2012). Smallest US cattle inventory since 1952 means
higher cattle prices. Retrieved from http://bay.ifas.ufl.edu/newsletters/2012/06/07/smallest-uscattle-inventory-since-1952-means-higher-cattle-prices/
USDA. (2015). USDA Long Term Projections: U.S. Livestock. Retrieved from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1776021/oce151e.pdf
USDA. (2015). Meat and livestock annual cumulative year-to-date U.S. trade. Retrieved from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/datafiles/Livestock__Meat_International_Trade_Data/Annual_and_Cu
mulative_YeartoDate_US_Livestock_and_Meat_Trade_by_Country/LivestockMeat_Yearly.pdf.
USDA-NASS. (2006). Cattle on Feed: February 2006. Retrieved from
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CattOnFe//2000s/2006/CattOnFe-02-24-2006.pdf
USDA-NASS. (2014). Cattle. Retrieved from
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Catt//2010s/2014/Catt-07-25-2014.pdf
USDA-NASS. (2015). Cattle on Feed: February 2015. Retrieved from
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CattOnFe//2010s/2015/CattOnFe-02-20-2015.pdf

You might also like