Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Market Concentration in U.S. Meatpacking: Focus on Cattle & Hog Slaughter, Study notes of Animal husbandry

An analysis of the concentration and consolidation trends in the U.S. meatpacking industry, with a focus on cattle and hog slaughter. Using data from the Census Bureau and the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), the document reveals the dramatic increase in concentration ratios for the four largest firms in cattle and hog slaughter over the past few decades. The document also discusses the emergence of large plants and their impact on industry concentration.

Typology: Study notes

2021/2022

Uploaded on 09/27/2022

claire67
claire67 🇬🇧

4.6

(5)

265 documents

1 / 5

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Concentration in cattle slaughter increased dramatical-
ly in the last two decades, and three firms now domi-
nate the industry. Market concentration in hog, chick-
en, and turkey slaughter is not particularly high when
compared with other manufacturing industries, but has
increased over the years. Large plants now dominate
production in all major slaughter sectors, and consoli-
dation among large plants over the past two decades is
a major cause of increased concentration.
Concentration
The four-firm concentration ratio measures the share
of an industry’s output held by the four largest produc-
ers in the industry.9Changes in four-firm ratios are
widely used as summary indicators of structural
change.
Using Census Bureau data, table 3-1 reports concen-
tration ratios for cattle, hogs, chickens, and turkeys.
The ratios measure the four largest firms’ share of the
dollar value of shipments from plants in each slaughter
class.10
Four-firm concentration in cattle slaughter remained
stable from 1963 through 1977, then rose from 25 per-
cent in 1977 to 71 percent in 1992 (table 3-1). The
Census Bureau publishes four-firm concentration
ratios for about 1,000 different product classes, and
many of the series go back to 1947. The change in cat-
tle slaughter concentration is unique: no other product
class shows as dramatic an increase in any 15-year
period.
Concentration in hog slaughter remained stable from
1963 through 1987, but then increased sharply
between 1987 and 1992. Concentration in chicken
slaughter rose sharply from 1977 to 1987, but has
since remained stable. Similarly, turkey slaughter
became much more concentrated between 1963 and
1972, and then stabilized (table 3-1). Of the four class-
es, only cattle could be described as having unusually
high concentration today, when compared with other
manufacturing classes.11
Census data are subject to two potential problems.
First, they measure concentration as the value of plant
(establishment) shipments. But suppose that a firm
operated a plant that only slaughtered cattle and then
shipped the carcasses to a second plant that both
slaughtered cattle and also cut up carcasses into boxed
beef. The Census approach would count the value of
shipments from both the slaughter-only plant and the
fabrication plant. But since fabrication plant shipments
already include the value of shipments from the
slaughter-only plant, the Census measure double-
counts shipments among slaughter plants, and this
approach may overstate the value of shipments from
the combined firm and thus exaggerate industry con-
centration. Second, Census measures may be too
broad. Cattle plants specialize within species; the
largest plants slaughter only steers and heifers, while
other plants specialize in cows and bulls. Not only do
the plants use different techniques, but the meat out-
puts are not ready substitutes: steer and heifer meat is
AER-785 • Consolidation in U.S. Meatpacking USDA/Economic Research Service • 7
Chapter 3
Concentration and Consolidation
in Livestock Slaughter
9There are many potential concentration measures. The four-firm
ratio is easy for statistical agencies to compute and provides confi-
dentiality to individual firms. For those reasons, the measure has
for several decades been calculated for many industries by Federal
statistical agencies.
10 The classes are defined by the Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC), a hierarchical coding for products and establishments in the
economy. Establishments that primarily process food products are
assigned to the two-digit SIC code “20”; those food processors
that specialize in meat slaughter and processing are assigned to the
three-digit class “201.” Establishments that slaughter any live cat-
tle, hogs, horses, or sheep and lambs are then assigned to the four-
digit industry “2011”(those that process or slaughter poultry are
assigned to “2015”). Finally, slaughter products from these plants
are assigned to five-digit product classes: “20111” for cattle,
“20114” for hogs, “20151” for chickens, and “20153”for turkeys.
Our concentration measures are based on shipments from estab-
lishments assigned to the five-digit slaughter product classes.
11 About 10 percent of U.S. manufacturing industries are more
concentrated than cattle slaughter, while the other three slaughter
classes are close to the mean for manufacturing.
pf3
pf4
pf5

Partial preview of the text

Download Market Concentration in U.S. Meatpacking: Focus on Cattle & Hog Slaughter and more Study notes Animal husbandry in PDF only on Docsity!

Concentration in cattle slaughter increased dramatical-

ly in the last two decades, and three firms now domi-

nate the industry. Market concentration in hog, chick-

en, and turkey slaughter is not particularly high when

compared with other manufacturing industries, but has

increased over the years. Large plants now dominate

production in all major slaughter sectors, and consoli-

dation among large plants over the past two decades is

a major cause of increased concentration.

Concentration

The four-firm concentration ratio measures the share

of an industry’s output held by the four largest produc-

ers in the industry.^9 Changes in four-firm ratios are

widely used as summary indicators of structural

change.

Using Census Bureau data, table 3-1 reports concen-

tration ratios for cattle, hogs, chickens, and turkeys.

The ratios measure the four largest firms’ share of the

dollar value of shipments from plants in each slaughter

class.^10

Four-firm concentration in cattle slaughter remained

stable from 1963 through 1977, then rose from 25 per-

cent in 1977 to 71 percent in 1992 (table 3-1). The

Census Bureau publishes four-firm concentration

ratios for about 1,000 different product classes, and

many of the series go back to 1947. The change in cat-

tle slaughter concentration is unique: no other product

class shows as dramatic an increase in any 15-year

period.

Concentration in hog slaughter remained stable from

1963 through 1987, but then increased sharply

between 1987 and 1992. Concentration in chicken

slaughter rose sharply from 1977 to 1987, but has

since remained stable. Similarly, turkey slaughter

became much more concentrated between 1963 and

1972, and then stabilized (table 3-1). Of the four class-

es, only cattle could be described as having unusually

high concentration today, when compared with other

manufacturing classes.^11

Census data are subject to two potential problems.

First, they measure concentration as the value of plant

(establishment) shipments. But suppose that a firm

operated a plant that only slaughtered cattle and then

shipped the carcasses to a second plant that both

slaughtered cattle and also cut up carcasses into boxed

beef. The Census approach would count the value of

shipments from both the slaughter-only plant and the

fabrication plant. But since fabrication plant shipments

already include the value of shipments from the

slaughter-only plant, the Census measure double-

counts shipments among slaughter plants, and this

approach may overstate the value of shipments from

the combined firm and thus exaggerate industry con-

centration. Second, Census measures may be too

broad. Cattle plants specialize within species; the

largest plants slaughter only steers and heifers, while

other plants specialize in cows and bulls. Not only do

the plants use different techniques, but the meat out-

puts are not ready substitutes: steer and heifer meat is

AER-785 • Consolidation in U.S. Meatpacking USDA/Economic Research Service • 7

Chapter 3

Concentration and Consolidation

in Livestock Slaughter

(^9) There are many potential concentration measures. The four-firm

ratio is easy for statistical agencies to compute and provides confi- dentiality to individual firms. For those reasons, the measure has for several decades been calculated for many industries by Federal statistical agencies.

(^10) The classes are defined by the Standard Industrial Classification

(SIC), a hierarchical coding for products and establishments in the economy. Establishments that primarily process food products are assigned to the two-digit SIC code “20”; those food processors that specialize in meat slaughter and processing are assigned to the three-digit class “201.” Establishments that slaughter any live cat- tle, hogs, horses, or sheep and lambs are then assigned to the four- digit industry “2011”(those that process or slaughter poultry are assigned to “2015”). Finally, slaughter products from these plants are assigned to five-digit product classes: “20111” for cattle, “20114” for hogs, “20151” for chickens, and “20153”for turkeys. Our concentration measures are based on shipments from estab- lishments assigned to the five-digit slaughter product classes.

(^11) About 10 percent of U.S. manufacturing industries are more concentrated than cattle slaughter, while the other three slaughter classes are close to the mean for manufacturing.

used in steaks and roasts while leaner cow meat is

more often combined with steer trimmings to make

ground beef. It may be useful to measure concentra-

tion on a narrower basis.

Table 3-2 provides a check on the Census Bureau data,

with data collected by USDA’s Grain Inspection,

Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA). That

agency reports data for some precisely defined slaugh-

ter classes, such as steers and heifers, and for one pre-

cisely defined steer and heifer slaughter product—

boxed fed beef. The GIPSA data are calculated on a

quantity basis, the share of animals procured for

slaughter by the largest firms (for boxed beef, the

measure is the share of boxed beef output). The timing

also differs from Census; GIPSA measures begin in

1980, but are produced in each year, and the most

recent as of this writing was 1997. The GIPSA data

are in some cases more direct measures than the

Census concepts, and the two series provide checks on

each other.

GIPSA and Census data tell the same story.

Concentration in GIPSA cattle slaughter measures

increased dramatically, more than doubling after 1980

(table 3-2). Concentration is especially high in steer

and heifer slaughter, and shows the most dramatic

increase there. And concentration in boxed beef pro-

duction is equally dominated by the four largest steer

and heifer slaughter firms (83 percent of output).

GIPSA data, like Census, show the same recent

increase in hog concentration, as well as a high level

of concentration in sheep and lamb slaughter, with a

sharp increase between 1982 and 1987 (we gathered

no Census data on sheep and lamb slaughter).

Census and GIPSA concentration measures are similar

for hog slaughter, but GIPSA cattle concentration falls

consistently below the Census measures. GIPSA cattle

concentration should be lower, partly because of

Census double-counting, but also because the four

largest firms receive higher prices for their meat prod-

ucts than other firms do and therefore hold higher

shares of (value of) shipments than of animals.

Smaller firms are more likely to slaughter lower val-

ued cows, and less likely to slaughter higher valued

steers and heifers; higher animal prices lead to higher

meat prices. Moreover, large plants also do more in-

plant fabrication, breaking carcasses down into boxed

beef and fetching higher product prices.

Consolidation Into Large Plants

Concentration could increase because of mergers among

many independent firms, or because plants become larg-

er. Over the last 25 years, large plants have become

vastly more important in slaughter industries, as evi-

denced by two different measurement bases.

GIPSA data sort cattle slaughter plants by size; the

largest slaughter more than half a million cattle in a

year, while large hog plants slaughter more than a mil-

8 • USDA/Economic Research Service Consolidation in U.S. Meatpacking • AER-

Table 3-1—Four-firm concentration ratios,

shipments basis, in four slaughter industries

Slaughter industry

Census year Cattle Hogs Chickens Turkeys

1963 26 33 14 23 1967 26 30 23 28 1972 30 32 18 41 1977 25 31 22 41 1982 44 31 32 40 1987 58 30 42 38 1992 71 43 41 45

Source: Longitudinal Research Database, U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Table 3-2—Four-firm concentration ratios, animal input basis, in slaughter classes

Slaughter class Cattle Boxed fed Hogs Sheep and Year (^) Cows/bulls Steers/heifers All beef lambs

Ratio 1980 10 36 28 53 34 56 1982 9 41 32 59 36 44 1987 20 67 54 80 37 75 1992 22 78 64 81 44 78 1997 31 80 70 83 54 62

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (1999).

flat. When combined with modest export and popula-

tion growth, the cattle slaughter industry has faced

very slow to declining demand growth. When set

against shifts to large plants, the results should be

increased concentration.

Appendix 3A: Sources of Establishment Data for Livestock Slaughter

Three Federal agencies—USDA's Grain Inspection,

Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) and

Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), and the

Bureau of the Census (U.S. Department of

Commerce)—report data on animal slaughter. Each

has different goals, which lead to different methods of

data collection. In general, the three agencies report

data from the same set of large and medium-sized

plants, but differ substantially in their coverage of very

small plants.

GIPSA is a regulatory agency whose mission is to

guard against anticompetitive, deceptive, and fraudu-

lent practices in the pricing and movement of livestock

and meat products. FSIS is also a regulatory agency,

whose primary activity is inspection of meat and poul-

try sold in interstate commerce, primarily to ensure

animal and human health. The Census Bureau, as part

of its census of manufactures, aims to measure the

economic characteristics—such as sales, costs, and

employment—of meat and poultry industries.

Different agency missions lead to different reporting

requirements.

GIPSA data are based on reports from slaughtering

meatpackers operating in commerce in the United

States. Small packers (who purchase $500,000 or less

of livestock annually) are exempt from GIPSA report-

ing requirements. We can assume that plants that

slaughter fewer than 10 steers or 90 hogs a week

(roughly) are omitted from GIPSA reports, as are

plants that do not purchase livestock for slaughter but

instead perform custom slaughter services for live-

stock owners. For reporting plants, GIPSA obtains

data on livestock volumes by plant, species, and loca-

tion of seller.

All plants that slaughter or process meat to be sold in

interstate commerce are subject to Federal safety

inspection. FSIS reports therefore cover a wide range

of plant sizes, but do not cover plants that sell only

within States, exempting many very small plants but

still capturing more small plants than GIPSA. In sup-

port of its regulatory responsibilities, FSIS obtains

useful summary data on livestock volumes by plant

and species.

The census of manufactures reports data from all plants

whose primary business is manufacturing. As a result,

facilities that do some animal slaughter, but that are

primarily in retailing or wholesaling or other nonmanu-

facturing activities, are not reported in the census of

manufactures. Of those whose primary business is

manufacturing, the Bureau assigns all plants that do

any red meat slaughter to SIC code 2011, meatpacking,

even if they are primarily active in meat processing.

Plants that only process meat, conducting no slaughter

on premises, are assigned to SIC code 2013, meat pro-

cessing. The Bureau has an additional small business

exemption for some data: plants with fewer than 20

employees are not required to make detailed reports.

The Census Bureau counts those plants, but does not

obtain detailed information on slaughter volume from

them. Thus, Census procedures likely count more small

plants than GIPSA, but exempt more volume.

How do the three sources compare? In general, aggre-

gated numbers are quite similar, because the three

sources cover a common set of large plants. For exam-

ple, appendix table 3-1 compares total slaughter vol-

umes for 1992. USDA's National Agricultural

Statistics Service (NASS) estimates the total commer-

cial slaughter of cattle and hogs. Federally inspected

slaughter totals (FSIS) account for 97.6 percent of

total commercial cattle and hog slaughter—the differ-

ence presumably slaughter in State-inspected plants.

GIPSA totals sum to 94.9 percent of total commercial

cattle slaughter, and 96.5 percent of total commercial

hog slaughter, with the differences reflecting slaughter

by exempt entities—very small plants. Finally, Census

totals, which exempt establishments primarily outside

of manufacturing and exempt very small plants from

detailed reporting of species volume, capture 94.5 per-

cent of commercial cattle slaughter and 91 percent of

hog slaughter.

The three series can disagree widely on plant counts,

because very small plants make up substantial shares

of any plant count. For example, all three agencies

report substantial declines in plant numbers between

1977 and 1992 (appendix table 3-2): Census red meat

slaughter plants declined by 46.4 percent, GIPSA by

10 • USDA/Economic Research Service Consolidation in U. S. Meatpacking • AER-

43.1 percent, and FSIS by 33.1 percent. But the

absolute levels differ sharply. The Census reports over

twice as many plants as GIPSA does, and is mostly

higher than FSIS counts. This is because the Census

approach counts more small plants than GIPSA does

while its exempt plants (those outside of manufactur-

ing that may do some slaughter) may overlap with the

plants that FSIS does not count (those that slaughter

but do not sell in interstate commerce).

Comparisons are more difficult at the species level.

GIPSA and FSIS count plants as cattle slaughter facili-

ties if they slaughter any cattle, even if they primarily

slaughter other species such as hogs. They then report

the same facilities as hog slaughter plants if they

slaughter any hogs. Census counts exempt very small

plants from reporting livestock volumes, so they are

not captured in counts of cattle or hog slaughter plants.

Furthermore, for purposes of counting plants, we

count a plant as a cattle (hog) slaughter plant only if

its primary activity is cattle (hog) slaughter. That is,

we count Census plants only once, while GIPSA and

FSIS plants may be counted several times when sum-

ming slaughterers of particular species.

Thus, Census reports the fewest plants (appendix table

3-3) because it does not count very small plants and

because we assign a plant to one species only. GIPSA

counts are higher because that agency assigns plants to

more than one category and because it probably counts

more very small plants. Finally, FSIS reports on more

very small plants, for these purposes, than either of the

other agencies, and also assigns plants to more than

one species category. Still, the three sources all show

large declines in the number of slaughter plants over

time.

The empirical analyses in this report are primarily

based on data reported by the Census Bureau estab-

lishments in appendix table 3-3 (exceptions are some

aggregated data from GIPSA records). We hence omit

many very small establishments. However, those

establishments account for very small shares of indus-

try production.

AER-785 • Consolidation in U.S. Meatpacking USDA/Economic Research Service • 11

Appendix table 3-1—Slaughter volumes, by reporting system (1992)

Cattle Hogs

Plant category Number Percent of commercial Number Percent of commercial

All commercial plants 32,874 100.0 94,889 100. Federally inspected 32,094 97.6 92,611 97. Reporting to GIPSA 31,200 94.9 91,550 96. Census, SIC 2011 31,068 94.5 86,308 91.

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture (1997), and Longitudinal Research Database, U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Appendix table 3-2—Livestock slaughter establish-

ments, by reporting system, 1977-

Reporting system

Year GIPSA Federally Census, inspected SIC 2011 Number

1977 1,000 1,682 2, 1982 884 1,688 1, 1987 722 1,483 1, 1992 569 1,125 1, 1996 418 988 nr

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture (1997), and Longitudinal Research Database, U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Appendix table 3-3—Slaughter plants, by species

and by reporting system

Cattle Hogs Year Census GIPSA FSIS Census GIPSA FSIS

Number 1963 1,817 nr nr 1,410 nr nr 1967 1,031 nr nr 797 nr nr 1972 782 920 nr 575 594 nr 1977 598 814 1,568 404 469 1, 1982 391 632 1,506 325 466 1, 1987 265 474 1,317 214 352 1, 1992 215 342 971 182 300 921 1996 nr 274 812 nr 232 770

nr = not reported Census refers to Census of Manufactures (“cattle” covers plants pri- marily producing in SIC 20111, while “hogs” covers plants primarily producing in SIC 20114). Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture (1997), and Longitudinal Research Database, U.S. Bureau of the Census.