If all feedyards were required to be less than 1,000 head capacity, at the current marketing pace for those feedyards, [Booker’s] legislation would mean the United States would need nearly 175,000 new [feedyard] operations to offset the loss of CAFOs.

Nevil Speer

December 26, 2019

2 Min Read
Here's why modern feedyards are vital to producing beef
Nevil Speer

I doubt many readers missed it. But in the event you did, or need a refresher, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) recently announced his intention to overhaul the meat industry. That would result from legislation he’s planning on introducing (apparently in the next session) that would include restoration of mandatory country-of-origin labeling (mCOOL), revision of the Packers and Stockyards Act and elimination of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) by 2040.  

EPA defines CAFOs as those with 700 or more mature dairy cattle or 1,000 or more cattle (or cow/calf pairs). Accordingly, this week’s Industry At A Glance provides some perspective on what that would really mean for the U.S. beef industry. That is, it depicts cumulative number of feedyards and marketings across all categories, from largest to smallest. Therefore, it answers the question of, “What if we changed that number from 1,000 head to 2,000? What would be the subsequent impact?”  

Here's why modern feedyards are vital to producing beef

Nevertheless, if we stick to EPA definitions, Booker’s legislation would mean the elimination of 2,160 feedyards and impact the production of nearly 22.5 million head of fed cattle marketed annually. As a side note, based on USDA data, there are 26,000 feedyards in the U.S. that market only 3.3 million head annually – or an average of 127.5 head per feedyard. If all feedyards were required to be less than 1,000 head capacity, at the current marketing pace for those feedyards, the senator’s legislation would mean the United States would need nearly 175,000 new operations to offset the loss of CAFOs.  

Related:Thanks to bipartisan legislation, fake meat must go by a new name in Missouri

That’s an impossible task. Not to mention it would dramatically reduce efficiency and clearly is not a workable solution. Finally, it’s also an additional 175,000 feedyards that would require individual state oversight from an environmental perspective. Hang on to your hats, 2020 will be an interesting year!

Speer serves as an industry consultant and is based in Bowling Green, Ky. Contact him at [email protected]

About the Author(s)

Nevil Speer

Nevil Speer serves as an industry consultant and is based in Bowling Green, KY.

Nevil Speer has extensive experience and involvement with the livestock and food industry including various service and consultation projects spanning such issues as market competition, business and economic implications of agroterrorism, animal identification, assessment of price risk and market volatility on the producer segment, and usage of antibiotics in animal agriculture.
 
Dr. Speer writes about many aspects regarding agriculture and the food industry with regular contribution to BEEF and Feedstuffs.  He’s also written several influential industry white papers dealing with issues such as changing business dynamics in the beef complex, producer decision-making, and country-of-origin labeling.
 
He serves as a member of the Board of Directors for the National Institute for Animal Agriculture.
 
Dr. Speer holds both a PhD in Animal Science and a Master’s degree in Business Administration.

Contact him at [email protected].

Subscribe to Our Newsletters
BEEF Magazine is the source for beef production, management and market news.

You May Also Like