It seems that nearly every article written about beef production in the U.S. mentions that at 27.9 million head of beef cows, we are at the lowest number since 1960. That was 65 years ago! In 1960, the U.S. produced 17.6 billion pounds of beef and in 2024 we produced 27 billion pounds. How did we achieve a 53 percent increase in productivity over these 65 years?

Our genetics have improved, our nutrition has improved, and we have used science and technology like nearly every other business.

Since only 1.3 percent of the U.S. population is directly involved in production agriculture, it is our responsibility to help our ‘city friends’ understand what modern beef production is about.

Several years ago, I was walking through the airport in Dallas and another passenger saw my briefcase, which said “Bovine Veterinarian magazine” on the side. These were given away at a previous cattle veterinary conference. He asked if I was a cattle doctor and I said, “Yes, I am.” He asked if I had time to answer a few questions as he was conflicted about what he had read and heard about how we raise cattle in the U.S. I had a three-hour layover, so I let him know I had plenty of time.

He explained that he and his wife used to eat beef but quit a few years earlier because of “all the hormones and antibiotics being pumped into cattle to make them grow faster.” I smiled as I anticipated dispelling the myths that he had heard.

I explained that yes, in the U.S., about 90 percent of all feedlot cattle receive a hormonal growth implant. He was shocked. I then explained that in a 3-ounce serving of beef from a steer that had been given a growth implant, there is 1.9 nanograms (one billionth of a gram) and in 3 ounces of beef from a steer that was not given an implant, there is 1.3ng of estrogen. So, the beef from the steer that had the hormonal growth implant has a whopping 0.6ng more estrogen/3 oz. than the non-implanted beef. To put this amount of estrogen into perspective, 3 ounces of tofu has 19 million nanograms of estrogen and 3 ounces of raw spinach has 975,000ng. An adult woman produces 513,000ng of estrogen/day and the average man produces 136,000ng/day. The term “insignificant” seems not nearly strong enough when debunking the myth that we are “pumping our cattle full of hormones.”

So, what does a growth implant do? The implants mimic or enhance natural hormone functions in the animal’s body. These hormones increase protein synthesis (building) in muscle tissue, leading to faster growth and improved feed efficiency. The cattle convert more of their feed into lean muscle instead of fat, improving weight gain. They also produce less manure and urine/pound of weight gain.

I explain to my non-agriculture friends that the implanted cattle “squeeze more energy and protein out of every bite they eat.” More feed goes to making muscle and less goes to making fat. Also, because implanted cattle convert feed to muscle more efficiently, these cattle produce less methane over their lifetime. Hormonal growth implants are a very “green” technology for the environment.

I carry a card in my wallet that has estrogen levels of various foods listed along with implanted and non-implanted beef. You can find numerous charts on the web, and I encourage you to have this information handy when you get questions about hormonal growth implants.

The antibiotic question is also one that needs explanation. I always explain to people that the meat they buy in the U.S. is among the safest in the world and the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service regularly tests beef for antibiotic residues. These tolerances range from 0.05- 0.2 parts per million depending on the antibiotic. To put these numbers in perspective, this would be 1 teaspoon in 6,600-26,400 gallons. In a round swimming pool that is 15 feet across and 5 feet deep, there are 6,600 gallons. Think of 1 teaspoonful of salt in that 6,600-gallon pool. That is the antibiotic tolerance for tylosin, which is fed to about 50 percent of the feedlot cattle in the U.S. to prevent liver abscesses. Tylosin is very poorly absorbed from the GI tract and that is a good thing because the bacteria that cause liver abscesses are in the gut. So, even though many cattle are fed this antibiotic, it does not accumulate in the meat.

Ionophores like Rumensin and Bovatec are also classified as antibiotics because they kill or inhibit bacteria, specifically gram-positive bacteria. Ionophores are classified as “non-medically important antibiotics” because they have no use in human medicine. About 90 percent of all feedlot cattle consume ionophores and they work by changing the volatile fatty acid profile in the rumen so the rumen bacteria produce more energy. Ionophores also directly reduce methane production. Ionophores allow animals to gain the same amount of weight while eating 5-10 percent less feed. Like hormonal growth implants, ionophores “squeeze more energy and protein out of every bite they eat” and are a very “green” technology for the environment.

After about 30 minutes of discussion with the fellow passenger in the Dallas airport, he was convinced that the information he was “fed” about how beef was bad for him was false. He thanked me for my time, shook my hand and said, “I haven’t had a ribeye in over three years. It was always my favorite cut of meat, and I am going to call the butcher where we used to get our beef as soon as I get to my car. I am going to tell him to set out the two biggest, most expensive ribeyes he has in his store and I’m going to pick them up on my drive home. Then I’m going to call my wife and let her know that we are going to go back to eating beef on a regular basis. I can hardly wait to put those steaks on the grill when I get home.”

Remember we are 1.3 percent of the population that has firsthand knowledge of production agriculture. When your city friends have questions, be ready with the facts. You never know, you may have a friend that goes back to eating beef because of your help.