/ ~/~ 7/7 / / -. 7 I:1ItCl I.AIt 25fll:'1'I11 Eft 1981 1GRICIL['I RAL. FAXPERIlF:N' STATxION At lit RN I NIN IISITY GALL Ai;.iiliii N xN, IRHCTOR Al i iitt RN I~ IIRSITY, ALABA MA ALABAM %it CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY RESULTS -------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- 3 5 --- .........----------------- 6 Types of Plants ------ --- --- 6 Production Capacity ---------------------------Live Animal Supplies ----------- 7 10 ----------------- Source of Supplies ------ ------------------------------- 12 Processing Activities of Packing Plants ----------------------------- 14 Selling Activities of Packing Plants SUMMARY--------- ------------------ 14 16 REFERENCES ....... APPENDIX .......---------- ---------------------------------------------... 18 19 19 19 1--------------- -------------------... SOUTHERN REGIONAL MEAT PACKING SURVEY Questionnaire FIRST PRINTING 3M, OCTOBER 1981 SECOND PRINTING 3M, MAY 1982 Information contained herein is available to all without regard to race, color, sex, or national origin. A benchmark study of the Southern United States meat plant 1 . 1 - GREGORY M. SULLIVAN and JAMES R. SIMPSON** THE UNITED STATES' meat packing industry has undergone considerable structural change in the past two decades due to demographic shifts of consumers, development of a large scale cattle-feeding industry, changes in government legislation, growth of new packing firms, and fluctuations in livestock inventories (Ward, 1980). There is, however, relatively little information published about how the industry functions. There is recognition that the industry is undergoing a relatively rapid transition and, as such, there are demands from researchers, the industry itself, and legislators for more data which can be used in the decisionmaking process. This publication is designed to help meet that need. INTRODUCTION The number of packing plants in the United States has declined over the past 20 years while the number of livestock slaughtered has increased. For example, there were about 1,500 plants filing *This research was conducted under the Southern Regional Livestock Project S-116. **Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, and Associate Professor, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, respectively. annual reports with the Packers and Stockyards Administration in the early 1960's. By the late 1970's the number had dropped to under 1,000 plants (Packers and Stockyards). A reduction in the number of cattle on feed, and a decline in cow slaughter in the late 1970's, have also been responsible for the accelerated closings of plants, or their integration into other activities, such as hog slaughtering and/or further processing of carcasses. The southern United States is a beef and pork deficit region (Liu and West, 1973). A decline in packing plant numbers in that region is seen as a deterrent to an expanded feedlot industry as competition for slaughter animals can be expected to decline, thus discouraging potential feedlot investors. Many conflicts about the industry are difficult to resolve due to a lack of knowledge about its structure. There have been no recent studies which describe either the national or regional meat packing industries (Richards and Biaggi, 1963; Logan, 1968; Stout, 1970; Martin and Danner, 1966; Dietrich and Williams, 1963; Stout, Purcell, and Fishel, 1961; and Dietrich, 1966). There are several statewide studies, some of which are recent, but they are so scattered that it is not possible to draw a composite picture of the southern meat packing industry (Connor, Couvillion, and Hawkins, n.d.; Kuehn, 1974; Dietrich and Farris, 1976; and Schupp and Killen, 1979). The southern United States is undergoing, and is expected to continue to undergo, considerable economic and demographic change which has a wide bearing on the slaughter industry. For example, while the population of the United States is expected to increase from 215 million people in 1970 to 246 million in 1985, the southern population is projected to grow from 29 million to 36 million (20.25 and 22.35 percent changes, respectively) (Boyd, n.d.). Population in some states, such as Florida, are projected to grow more rapidly (42.47 percent from 1970 to 1985) while others, such as Tennessee, will experience much more modest growth (14.47 percent). This study was prompted by the recognition of considerable structural change in the meat packing and livestock industry, continued demographic changes in the U.S. population, and the need to better understand the meat packing industry as policy decisions are made. The main objective was to describe the current industry situation and establish a benchmark for further studies. [4] The respective states and plants surveyed in the Southern United States for 1979. METHODOLOGY Fourteen Southern States were included in the survey which covers the calendar year 1979. These are: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia, see figure. Packing plants in Virginia were not surveyed. This omission does not affect the results in the aggregate for the 14 states. Because plants in Texas and Oklahoma are larger in size, these two states were reported separately as the Southwest and the other 12 states as the Southeast. There were 2,240 plants identified in the 14 states. The list was compiled from state agencies and The Meat and Poultry Inspection Directory (USDA, 1980). As a result, the survey population included federally inspected plants, state inspected plants, and small custom-type operations (which fall under state jurisdiction, but do not-have a full-time inspector). An initial mail questionnaire was sent to the 2,240 plants in June of 1980, and a follow-up sent in October, 1980 to the plants which did not respond. The questionnaire is provided as Appendix I. [5] TABLE 1. TYPES OF PLANTS RESPONDING TO THE MEAT PACKING QUESTIONNAIRE, 1979 Type of response No. Respondents Pct. Commercial packing plants Custom plants Plants out of business No response to questions 320a 152 63 39 45 20 9 6 Did not slaughter - processing only Total response 139 709 20 100 Responses from cus- a Only results from commercial packing plants were analyzed. tom plants were unreliable. RESULTS Types of Plants A breakdown of plants responding to the questionnaire is provided in table 1. Total response to the mail out questionnaire was 32 percent. Approximately 65 percent of the responses were from commercial packing and custom plants. The other respondents were either not in operation, did not slaughter, or returned unusable questionnaires. Approximately 9 percent of the respondents replied that they had gone out of business, primarily because of the owner's death or because enforced government regulations made it unprofitable to stay in business. Also included in this percentage were plant operators whose questionnaires were returned because of unknown address, implying a closed plant. Approximately 20 percent of the plants did not slaughter and were thus excluded. The commercial plants were divided into three types: plants slaughtering only cattle, slaughtering only hogs, or slaughtering both cattle and hogs. The majority of commercial packing plants (67 percent) had dual slaughter facilities for both cattle and hogs, table 2. The predominance of plants with facilities for handling two animal products is an indication of management's need for flexibility. Dual slaughter plants are better able to utilize their available plant capacity given these seasonality and cyclical trends in supplies of livestock. Furthermore, commercial packing plants can spread their fixed costs by having a higher throughput of animals. Texas had the greatest response to the survey, with 18 percent of its 472 plants replying, table 2. The next largest responses came from Tennessee, North Carolina, and Georgia. There were no responses from cattle slaughter only plants in Georgia, West Virginia, or South Carolina. [6] TABLE 2. NUMBFR OF SLAUGHTER PLANTS RESPONDING BY STATES IN THE SOUTHERN UNITED STATES, 1979 State Alabama Arkansas Florida ................... Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Cattle only No. 1 3 3 0 1 4 Hogs only No. 6 1 4 7 5 2 Cattle and hogs No. 15 20 12 21 4 25 Custom plant No. 14 14 6 23 2 10 Total plants No. 36 38 25 51 12 41 Pct. 8 8 5 10 3 9 Maryland Mississippi ._____.. . 7 1 1 3 8 1 1 1 17 6 4 1 North Carolina Oklahoma South Carolina Tennessee Texas West Virginia TOTAL 1 4 0 4 16 0 45 9 2 2 14 6 0 62 23 22 11 14 36 1 213 21 13 1 20 26 0 152 54 41 14 52 84 1 472 11 9 4 11 18 100a a Total exceeds 100 percent due to rounding. Production Capacity For the Southeastern States, total annual production, production per hour, and use of capacity by type of plant are given in table 3. The 25 plants which handled only cattle slaughtered an average of 17,192 head annually per plant. The average kill for cattle slaughter only plants was 15 head per hour. These plants operated at 74 percent of their estimated capacity in 1979. For the Texas and Oklahoma region, average annual production increased to 38,199 head, over twice the amount slaughtered in the twelve Southeastern States, table 4. Production per hour increased to 144 head with capacity used about the same as the Southeast's plants. Average annual production of hog kill only plants in the Southeast was 72,270 head per year. These plants slaughtered 55 head per hour, and operated at 81 percent of capacity. Hog slaughter plants in the Southwest were larger than the Southeast's plants killing 142,216 head per year. Production per hour was 96 head, but the Southwest's plant had lower used capacity in 1979. The dual purpose plants in the Southeast comprising the largest segment of the responses, slaughtered on the average 17,288 hogs and 3,138 cattle annually. Their production averaged 26 and 7 head per hour of hogs and cattle, respectively. In the Southwest, dual slaughter plants were smaller in number and size compared to the Southeast. Average annual production was 1,232 hogs and [7] TABLE 3. PRODUCTION CHARACTERISTICS FOR PACKING PLANTS IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES, 1979 AND) IN SOUTHERN REGION Southeastern plants slaughtering Cattle only Item Hogs Annual production (number or head) Number responding Average production Hogs only Number responding Average production Cattle and hogs Number responding Average production Southern region Number responding Average production - 53 50 72,270 55 81 156 17,288 272 252 205 27,691 23 61 Production per hour L- (number of head) Use of capacity --- - 146 118 26 58 (number or percent) - s41 Cattle Annual production (number or head)--- 25 24 19 17,192 15 - - 156 3,138 258 238 196 7,161 15 Production per hour (number or head)--- 147 120 7 49 Use of capacity (number or percent) r ~r\ r\dr AI 74 a Includes packing plants in Texas and Oklahoma. TABLE 4. PRODUCTION CHARACTERISTICS FOR PACKING PLANTS IN TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1979 Plants slaughtering Cattle only Item Hogs Annual production (number per head) Production per hour S (number or head) ....... Use of capacity (number or percent) Cattle Annual production (number or head) Production per hour (number or head) Use of capacity (number or percent) ..... Number responding Average production Hogs only Number responding Average production Cattle and hogs Number responding Average production - 9 142,216 96 57 49 40 1,232 74 50 20 17 ----- ---14 38,199 57 50 - 2,540 144 69 rA /______~_ 1_---1\ 43 60 2,540 cattle. Production per hour for hogs was only 6 head in the Southwest compared to 26 head in the Southeast. Production per hour for cattle was low in both regions for cattle. The Southeast's plants which are dual plants rely primarily on hog slaughter. Average annual production for the 14 Southern States with plants in the survey was 27,691 hogs and 7,161 cattle. Hourly average production was 23 hogs and 15 cattle. Overall, plants slaughtering hogs operated at 61 percent of capacity while facilities slaughtering cattle operated at 55 percent of capacity. The average size of dual purpose plants in both Southeast and Southwest was much smaller than single purpose operations. In addition, single purpose plants operated at a much higher percent of capacity than dual product plants in both regions. The data show that plants in the South, to the extent that the survey is representative of the region, operated on the average between 50 and 60 percent of capacity in 1979. Live Animal Supplies Plant survey data are presented in tables 5 and 6 for the types of animal reported slaughtered. Slaughter of the cattle only plants in the Southeast consisted of 65 percent cows, 10 percent heavy steers, 10 percent heifers, and 15 percent lightweight cattle. Their average annual slaughter was 16,317 head. The large percent of cows slaughtered is indicative of the size of the cow inventory in the region. Plants processing both cattle and hogs slaughtered also a larger percentage of cows (51 percent). Other types of cattle slaughtered were similar to the single purpose plants, but plants did report twice the percent of heavy heifers slaughtered (20 percent versus 10). Their annual kill (2,615 head) was only about one-sixth that of the single purpose plants. For the Southwest, heavy steers were 56 percent of the slaughter in cattle only plants. Cows represented only 15 percent of the slaughter. In the dual product plants in the Southwest cow slaughter was 59 percent, similar to that reported by plants in the Southeast. In the Southern region, cows and heavy steers were the predominate types of cattle slaughtered. The results in tables 5 and 6 provide information on the average slaughter of each type of cattle for the region whether the plants actually slaughtered that type of cattle or not. Only results from plants which actually slaughtered a particular type of cattle are included in table 7. For example, of the 25 cattle slaughter [10] TlABLE 5. TYPES AND AVERAGE NUMBERS OF CATTLE SLAUGHTERED BY PACKING PLANTS RESPONDING 10 THE SURVEY, SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES, 1979a AND IN SOUTHERN REGION Plants slaughtering Cattle only Average annual slaughter 10,639 1,666 1,599 2,413 16,317 Cattle and hogs Percen t of total 65 10 10 15 100 No. of plants Average annual slaughter Percent Southern region Average - Type No. of plants 25 25 25 25 25 Z Cows Heavy -----------heifers Heavy steers---- ---- Lightweight cattle T otal -------- -- 156 156 156 156 156 1,335 334 538 408 2,615 of total 51 13 20 16 100 No. of plants 258 258 258 258 258 annual slaughter 2,577 2,058 778 1,208 6,621 Percent of total 39 31 12 18 100 aIncludes all commercial packing plants in the survey. Total average annual slaughter does no cause not all plants slaughtered a particular category of animals. TABLE 6. TYPES AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF CATTLE SLAUGHTERED BY PACKING PLANTS IN TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, 1979a Plants slaughtering Cattle only Av. Cattle and hogs Av. Type Cows Heavy steers Heavy heifers Lightweight Number of plants 20 20 20 annual slaughter 5,753 21,600 3,280 Percent of total 15 56 9 Number annual of plants slaughter 57 57 57 1,325 90 199 Percent of total 59 4 9 cattle . ...... Total 20 20 7,565 38,197 20 100 57 57 641 2,255 28 100 a Includes all commercial packing plants in the survey. Total average annual slaughter does not equal total production in table 3 because not all plants slaughtered a particular category of animals. only plants in the Southeast, 17 plants slaughtered cows and 10 slaughtered heavy steers. Because table 7 only includes the plants which actually processed the type of animal listed, annual throughput averages for each type are higher than in tables 5 and 6. The majority of both single and dual plants in the Southeast reported slaughtering cows. Lightweight cattle were reported by 48 percent of the cattle only slaughter plants. In the Southwest, more dual product plants slaughtered cows (60 percent) than any other type of cattle. Cattle only slaughter plants reported killing an average of 72,000 heavy steers annually. This was larger than any other type of cattle being slaughtered in either region because of the concentration of feedlots in the Southwest. Dual purpose plants in the Southeast slaughtered more annually of each type of cattle except lightweights than did Southwestern plants. Just the opposite was true for cattle only slaughtering plants except for COWS. Source of Supplies Percentages of live animal supplies obtained within 300 miles of the packing plants are given in table 8. For all categories of packing plants except cattle only slaughtering in the Southwest, more than 80 percent of the livestock was purchased within 300 miles of the plant. In the case of cattle only slaughtering plants, plants reported receiving approximately 65 percent within 300 miles. Because of the large size of packing plants in the Southwest, the requirements for regular supplies of heavy steers and heifers are high. For plants in the Southeast, 100 percent of cattle [12] TABLE,7. TYPES AND AVERAGE NUMBERS OF CATTLE SLAUGHTERED BY PLANTS SPECIALIZING IN ONE TYPE OF CATLE, SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES, 1979a Southeast plants slaughtering Cattle only Type of cattle r , Cow s -----------SHeavy steers _____ LJHeavy heifers Lightweight cattle Cow s -----------No. of plants 17 10 8 12 8 6 5 11 Percent of total plants 68 40 32 48 40 30 25 55 Average annual slaughter 15,646 4,166 4,997 5,027 No. of plants 86 66 59 55 Cattle and hogs Percent of total plants 55 42 38 35 60 47 40. 47 Average annual slaughter 2,422 789 1,421 1,156 2,222 191 493 1,353 Heavy steers Heavy heifers cattle ----- Lightweight ---- Southwest plants slaughtering 14,382 34 72,000 27 13,120 23 13,755 27 a Only includes plants specializing in the type of cattle shown. TABLE 8. PERCENT OF LIVE ANIMAL SUPPLIES WITHIN 300 MILES OF PACKING PLANTS IN SOUTHEASTERN AND SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES, 1979 Southeast plants slaughtering Live animal type Hogs ................ ..------... . Cows -.. ............-..-.....-- .. _ Southwest plants slaughtering Cattle only - Cattle only -94 Hogs Cattle only and hogs Pct. 87 93 96 Hogs Cattle only and hogs 80 96 98 95 Heavy steers ......--Heavy heifers - -............... 100 98 -- 100 - 94 93 63 67 94 86 __ Lightweights .... ......... - 92 88 94 only slaughtering plants reported receiving heavy steers and heifers within 300 miles. The percentages of all types of cattle slaughtered were similar for dual purpose plants in both the Southeast and Southwest. The results indicate that slaughter cattle and hogs do not move long distances to be killed because of the high transportation costs. Processing Activities of Packing Plants All groups of packing plants reported selling a majority of their products in processed form, table 9. Most plants specializing in hogs did further processing of the carcass in the Southeast and Southwest (94 and 99 percent). In contrast, about 66 and 55 percent respectively of the Southeast's and Southwest's cattle slaughter only plants were engaged in further processing. Dual purpose plants in the Southeast and Southwest are in the intermediate range between the two types of specialized plants with 84 and 89 percent, respectively, of the dual purpose plants processing hogs with 79 and 71 percent respectively processing cattle. Processing as an additional activity in a plant allows for greater value-added to the product before its distribution. Selling Activities of Packing Plants Plant managers indicated the type of selling activities they performed, table 10. A higher proportion of dual product plants sold box beef than did single purpose plants in both regions: in the Southeast (38 versus 33 percent) and in the Southwest (44 versus 33 percent). Dual product plants in both regions sold more processed products than did cattle only plants. In contrast, cattle only slaughter plants sold a larger percentage of beef as primals and subprimals than did the dual purpose plants. [14] TABLE 9. FORM OF PRODUCT SOLD BY PACKING PLANTS IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES, 1979 Southeast plants slaughtering Animal type Hogs Cattle Cattle only Carcass Processa 34 66 Hogs only Carcass Processa 6 94 Cattle and hogs Carcass Processa 16 21 84 79 Southern region Carcass Processa 14 27 86 73 Hogs Cattle 45 55 Southwest plants slaughtering 1 99 - 11 29 89 71 TABLE 10. ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY PACKING PLANTS IN THE SOUTHEASTERN AND SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES, 1979 Southeast plants slaughtering Cattle and hogs Cattle only Yes Sell Sell Sell Sell Sell carcasses primals sub-primals processed box beefa 71 43 43 72 33 No 29 57 57 28 67 Hogs only Yes 29 55 54 100 N/A No 71 45 56 0 N/A Cattle Yes 64 34 34 93 38 No 36 66 66 7 62 Hogs Yes 58 42 37 96 N/A No 42 58 63 4 N/A Cattle only Yes 79 58 36 73 33 No 21 42 67 27 67 Southwest plants slaughtering Cattle and hogs Hogs only Yes 50 67 67 100 N/A No 50 33 33 0 N/A Cattle Yes 73 46 32 92 44 No 27 54 68 8 56 Hogs Yes 56 41 38 89 N/A No 44 59 62 11 N/A a Includes only the purchasing, processing, and reselling of box beef. Plants specializing in hog slaughter also sold more processed product than did dual purpose plants. For example, 71 percent of the hog slaughter only plants did not sell carcasses versus 42 percent of the dual purpose plants in the Southeast. All of the single purpose hog plants in both regions sold processed products compared with 96 and 89 percent respectively in the Southeast and Southwest for the dual purpose plants. A much higher percentage of the single purpose hog plants also sold a greater percentage of primals and subprimals in both regions than dual purpose plants. Processing has become an important additional activity for packing plants specially for hog slaughter plants. The purchase of box beef for cattle only slaughter plants is approximately the same in both regions; however, multi-product plants have a slightly higher proportion of purchases for either resell or use in their processing activities. SUMMARY A mail questionnaire was sent to 2,240 meat packing plants in 14 Southern States in 1980. The survey was for the period of 1979. There were 709 responses of which 320 were identified as commercial meat packing plants, and provided usable responses. These slaughter plants were broken down into three classes by type of slaughter: single purpose cattle, single purpose hogs, and dual purpose (i.e., plants slaughtering both cattle and hogs). The survey revealed considerable unused capacity in 1979 in the Southern region, with only 61 percent of hog capacity and 55 percent of cattle capacity being used. A weighted average of all plants of used capacity for cattle was higher in the Southwest (62 percent) compared to the Southeast (52 percent). The situation was reversed for hog slaughter with a weighted average of 64 percent of used capacity in the Southeast and 53 percent in the Southwest. Relative numbers of cattle and hogs in the inventory within these two regions would explain differences in used capacity in 1979. Cattle only slaughter plants in the Southeast slaughtered more cows than any other plants in the Southern region. Heavy steers were the predominate type of cattle slaughtered in the Southwest. For dual purpose plants, composition of slaughter cattle was similar with plants in the southern United States killing an average of approximately 2,400 head annually. [16] The majority of all plants in the Southern region obtained their supply of livestock within 300 miles of the plant. In the Southwest, a slightly higher percentage of hog only slaughter plants went further than 300 miles. This is because the Southwest is more deficit in hog production than the Southeast. A larger percentage of the Southwest's plants also obtained their supplies of heavy steers and heifers further than 300 miles. Virtually all plants in the Southern region specializing in hogs further processed their products. In contrast, only 60 percent of cattle slaughter only plants processed their products. Dual purpose plants in the Southern region reported a higher percentage of hogs processed than cattle, but all percentages were higher than the cattle only slaughter plants. Boxed beef was sold by one-third of the cattle only slaughter plants in the Southern region. Dual purpose plants purchased a higher percentage of boxed beef possibly because of the higher incidence of processing by these plants compared to cattle only slaughter plants. Single purpose cattle and hog plants sold a larger proportion of their output as primals and subprimals than did dual purpose plants. A major implication of this benchmark study is that slaughter capacity is not a constraint if more cattle feeding should occur in the region in the future. With rising transportation costs and higher prices for grain, the opportunities for finishing cattle in the Southeast in feedlots or on forage could increase. Slaughter capacity is available if and when this adjustment should take place. With possible adjustments in demand for beef to more lean meat and hamburger, plants in the Southern region have access to a large supply of cows for processed beef. The large number of dual purpose plants in the Southeast is an indication of the need to minimize risks due to supply fluctuations and meet processing requirements. [17] REFERENCES BOYD, LEWIS J. Projected Beef Production - in Georgia - 1985. Coop. Ext. Service. University of Georgia. n.d. CONNER, J. RICHARD, WARREN C. COUVILLION, GEORGE L. HAWKINS. The Structure, Procurement and Marketing Practices of the Mississippi Meat Packing Industry. Dept. of Agr. Econ. Mississippi State University. Starkville. n.d. DIETRICH, RAYMOND A., AND DONALD E. FARRIS. March 1976. The Texas Meat Packing Industry - Structure, Operational Characteristics and Competitive Practices. Agr. Exp. Station B-1164. Texas A&M University. College Station. . 1966. Market Structure Changes in the Livestock and Meat Industry with Special Reference to Texas and Oklahoma. Dept. of Agr. Econ. and Sociology. Dept. Info. Rpt. No. 66-10. Texas ARcM University, College Station. . WILLARD F. WILLIAMS AND JARVIS E. MILLER. 1963. The Texas-Oklahoma Meat Industry. AER No. 39. U.S. Dept. of Agr. Washington. JACKSON, HILLIARD, AND LEWIS D. MALPHRUS. 1973. The South's Hog-Pork In- dustry and Vertical Coordination. Sou. Coop. Series Bull. 179. University of Arkansas. Fayetteville. KUEHN, JOHN P. 1974. A Survey of Meat Slaughtering and Meat Processing in West Virginia. Bull. 631. Agr. Exp. Station. West Virginia University. Liu, CHARLES Y., AND DONALD A. WEST. 1973. A Spatial Analysis of Beef Feed- ing and Slaughtering with Emphasis on the South. Bull. No. 177. Sou. Coop. Series. LOGAN, S. H. 1968. Economic Structure of Cattle Slaughtering in Western U.S. Bull. 836. Calif. Agr. Exp. Station. University of California. MARTIN, JERRY M., AND M. J. DANNER. 1966. The Alabama Slaughter Cattle. Bull. 365. Ala. Agr. Exp. Station. Auburn University, Ala. PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS. Resume. Statistical Issue. U.S. Dept. of Agr. Wash- ington. Various issues. RICHARDS, ALLEN B., AND PERRY J. BIAGGI. 1963. California and United States Meat Packing Industry. Circular 518. Agr. Exp. Station Ext. Service. University of California. SCHUPP, ALVIN, AND LOGAN KILLEN. 1979. The Louisiana Slaughter Industry: Structure, Model Plant Development and Future Direction. D.A.E. Res. Rpt. No. 561. Dept. of Agr. Econ. and Agribusiness. Louisiana Agr. Exp. Station. Louisiana. STOUT, Roy G., J. C. PURCELL, AND W. L. FISHEL. 1961. Marketings, Slaughter and Consumption of Livestock and Meats in the South. Bull. No. 66. Sou. Coop. Series. STOUT, THOMAS T. (ed.) 1970. Long-Run Adjustments in the Livestock and Meat Industry: Implications and Alternatives. Res. Bull. 1037. Ohio Agr. Res. and Dev. Center. Wooster, Ohio. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 1980. Meat and Poultry Inspection Direc- tory. Washington, D.C. WARD, CLEMENT E. 1979. Slaughter-Cattle Pricing and Procurement Practices of Meat Packers. Agr. Info. Bull. No. 432. U.S. Dept. of Agr. Washington. WARD, CLEMENT E. February 1980. Structural Changes and Market Power in Cattle Feeding and Meat Packing. Dept. of Agr. Econ. Paper AE-8007. [18] APPENDIX Identification No. ___ SOUTHERN REGIONAL MEAT PACKING SURVEY Questionnaire Plant name Address Telephone number Manager Plant capacity (slaughter rate) Number of hogs per hour ______ or hogs per day. Number of cattle per hour, or cattle per day. Percentage of capacity at which Hogs ___ Cattle_______ The plant operated in 1979 Number of days in week the plant normally operated in 1979,___________ Quantity and type of livestock slaughtered in 1979 (Fill in either quantity, percent or both but, fill in total quantity. Percent Quantity (head) Total Total Cows Heavy steers (greater than 800 lb.) Heavy heifers (greater than 800 lb.) Lightweight cattle Total (hogs & cattle) Source of live animal supply Hogs Cows Heavy steers (greater than 800 lb.) Heavy heifers (greater than 800 lb.) Lightweight Total Percentage of animal sold as: Carcass_________ Less than 300 miles away More than 300 miles away Percent Total =100 -100 -100 -100 =100 100 Cattle Percent _________ 100 Hogs Further processed Total 100 100 Packing plant activities (Mark those items that apply with [Y] for yes and [N] for no) Cattle Hogs Slaughter only Carcass Primals Subprimals Processed Further processing of purchased boxed beef [19] AUBURN UNIVERSITY \X ith an at~ricul-ii turii rcjsec h unit in Atuhurn t'niX (tsit\ secrs- thtc nct.ds ttf fielid ctp, liX tcicI, int~ etch It gion)t in \Iihinli. I X crX iIti Zen (ii the State has, stake° ini tis rescxtrc I 1)1,1 )Lran1. sincet ,ttiv adsvaittage fttnt ncXX Ica ii XX is ( o )t httdu)ct handlIing ittL atnd 10, tartn h c pi xLuc ts di- rectix Itenelits the ctnscinling; txlir. ® Main Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn. E. V. Smith Research Center, Shorter. 1.Tennessee Valley Substation, Belle Mina. 2. Sand Mountain Substation, Crossville. 3 North Alabama Horticulture Substation, Cullman. 4. Upper Coastal Plain Substation, Winfield. 5. Forestry Unit, Fayette County. 6. Foundation Seed Stocks Farm, Thorsby. 7. Chilton Area Horticulture Substation, Clanton. 8. Forestry Unit, Coosa County. 9. Piedmont Substation. Camp Hill. 10 Plant Breeding Unit, Tallassee. 11 Forestry Unit, Autauga County. 12 Prattville Experiment Field, Prattville. 13. Black Belt Substation. Marion Junction. 14. The Turnipseed-Ikenberry Place. Union Springs. 15. Lower Coastal Plain Substation, Camden. 16 Forestry Unit, Barbour County. 17. Monroeville Experiment Field, Monroeville. 18 Wiregrass Substation, Headland. 19. Brewton Experiment Field, Brewton. 20. Solon Dixon Forestry Education Center, Covington and Escambia counties. 21. Ornamental Horticulture Field Station, Spring Hill. 22. Gulf Coast Substation, Fairhope.