United States

Department of

Agriculture

Grain Inspection,

Packers and

Stockyards

Administration

2004 Report

Assessment of the

Cattle, Hog, and Poultry

Industries
Assessment of the Cattle, Hog, and Poultry Industries 

2004 Report 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 

April 2005 
1

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................................... 1 

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations............................................................................................................ 2 

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3 

Section 1: Cattle Industry............................................................................................................................. 4 

General Economic State of the Cattle Industry ............................................................................... 4 

Changing Business Practices in the Cattle Industry ........................................................................ 5 

 Changing Busness Practices as a Result of BSE ............................................................... 5 

 Natural Beef....................................................................................................................... 7 

Section 2: Hog Industry ............................................................................................................................... 8 

General Economic State of the Hog Industry.................................................................................. 8 

Changing Business Practices in the Hog Industry........................................................................... 9 

 Genetic Coordination......................................................................................................... 9 

 Risk Protection Programs .................................................................................................. 9 

 Canada and Live Hog Trade .............................................................................................. 9 

Section 3: Poultry Industry ........................................................................................................................ 10 

General Economic State of the Poultry Industry........................................................................... 10 

Changing Business Practices in the Poultry Industry.................................................................... 11 

 Multi-Year Contracts ....................................................................................................... 11 

 Avian Influenza................................................................................................................ 12 

 Technology ...................................................................................................................... 12 

Section 4: Operations or Activities in the Livestock and Poultry Industries That Raise Concerns 

under the Packers and Stockyards Act........................................................................................................ 13 

 Adequacy of Bonding Formulas for Regulated Entities .................................................. 13 

 Concentration................................................................................................................... 13 

 Industry Reactions to BSE............................................................................................... 13 

 Captive Supply................................................................................................................. 14 

 Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act.......................................................................... 15 

 Formula Pricing ............................................................................................................... 15 

 Joint Livestock Purchasing .............................................................................................. 16 

 Livestock, Meat, and Poultry Evaluation Devices and/or Systems ................................. 16 

 Organization for Competitive Markets Lawsuit .............................................................. 17
2

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 

AMS Agricultural Marketing Service 

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

ASTM ASTM International 

BSE Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy 

cwt Hundredweight (100 pounds) 

ERS Economic Research Service 

FSIS Food Safety and Inspection Service 

GIPSA Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 

HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point 

HPAI Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza 

HHI Herfindahl-Hirschman Index 

LPAI Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza 

NA Not Available 

NAIS National Animal Identification System 

NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

P&S Act Packers and Stockyards Act 

P&SP Packers and Stockyards Programs 

SRM Specified Risk Material 

U.S. United States 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

VMO Veterinary Medical Officer 
3

Executive Summary 

This report has been prepared in response to a requirement in the Grain Standards and Warehouse 

Improvement Act of 2000 (Pub. L. No. 106-472), enacted on November 9, 2000. Specifically, the Grain 

Standards and Warehouse Improvement Act of 2000 states: 

[n]ot later than March 1 of each year, the Secretary [of Agriculture] shall submit to 

Congress and make publicly available a report that— 

(1) assesses the general economic state of the cattle and hog industries; 

(2) describes the changing business practices in those industries; and 

(3) identifies market operations or activities in those industries that appear to raise 

concerns under this [Packers and Stockyards] Act. 

The Secretary of Agriculture is responsible for administering the Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act) 

and delegated that responsibility, through the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, to 

the Administrator of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA). The Packers 

and Stockyards Programs (P&SP), part of GIPSA, administers and enforces the P&S Act and monitors 

competitive, financial, and trade practices in the livestock, meatpacking, and poultry industries. 

This is GIPSA’s fourth report to Congress on the general economic state of the cattle and hog industries, 

changing business practices in those industries, and activities that appear to raise concerns under the 

Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act). This is the second report to include the poultry industry. This 

report also includes responses by the Packers and Stockyards Programs to apparent concerns under the P&S 

Act. The report covers events and data available as of September 30, 2004, the close of the Government’s 

fiscal year (FY).1

In FY 2004, prices reached record levels in the cattle, hog, and poultry industries in the United States 

(U.S.). Meat demand remained strong despite food safety concerns brought on by a positive case of bovine 

spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and the onset of both low pathogenic avian influenza and highly 

pathogenic avian influenza in the U.S. The hog industry, however, did not experience any industry-wide 

food safety concerns. Citing food safety concerns, numerous countries placed import restrictions on U.S. 

beef and poultry. While U.S. producers experienced weaker beef and poultry exports with the closing of 

major international markets, pork exports were strong. 

FY 2004 was characterized by changing business practices in the cattle, hog, and poultry industries. In the 

cattle industry, industry participants throughout the supply chain modified their business practices in 

reaction to the BSE event and ensuing regulatory requirements. In the hog industry, the changing business 

practices relate to genetic coordination, risk protection programs, and changes in live hog trade with 

Canada. In the poultry industry, live poultry dealers and contract and independent growers also modified 

their business practices. 

The report identifies some of the market operations or activities that appear to raise concerns under the 

P&S Act, including adequacy of bonding formulas for regulated entities; industry reaction to BSE; captive 

supply; Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act; poultry contract terms; formula pricing; joint livestock 

purchasing; and livestock, meat, and poultry electronic evaluation devices. The report identifies the 

applicability of the P&S Act to these concerns and GIPSA’s planned response. 

 

1

 Fiscal Year 2004: October 1, 2003 – September 30, 2004 
4

Section 1: Cattle Industry 

General Economic State of the Cattle Industry 

U.S. cattle demand was strong relative to supply, driving feeder calf and fed cattle prices to record levels in 

the fall of 2003.2

 On December 23, 2003, the discovery of a cow positively identified as having bovine 

spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the State of Washington was announced. The Chicago Mercantile 

Exchange took emergency action to expand daily trading limits in order to allow for liquidation of open 

positions in December live cattle contracts.3

 Some international trading partners immediately imposed bans 

on U.S. beef and live cattle.4 

In 2003, the U.S. exported 2.8 billion pounds of beef and variety meats worth $3.86 billion.5

 In 2003, U.S. 

beef exports of all beef (including live cattle) and beef by-products were worth just under $6 billion.6

 

Trade restrictions caused U.S. beef exports to decrease in 2004. Following the BSE announcement, several 

countries including Japan, Mexico, and Canada restricted the importation of U.S. cattle and beef products. 

By June 2004, the U.S. had exported just 11 percent of the 2003 year to date quantity of beef and veal 

products, and only 30 percent of the 2003 quantity of beef variety meats. 

Leading up to the BSE event, cow-calf operations benefited from high feeder calf prices in the last quarter 

of 2003. In the 4th quarter of 2003, the average cash feeder calf price for Oklahoma City 600-650 pound 

steers was $103.85 per cwt compared to $84.41 per cwt in 2002.7

 After a brief drop in January 2004, 

following the BSE event, feeder cattle futures prices regained and then maintained their high levels, with 

nearby futures prices around $100 per cwt in May 2004, and climbing above $110 per cwt in August 2004, 

enticing some producers to sell calves at lighter weights. 

The record-high prices also acted to move fed cattle at lighter weights from feedlots to slaughter. Fed 

cattle were slaughtered at lower average weights during late 2003 and the first half of 2004. In October 

2003, the average carcass weight of slaughter steers was 807 pounds, 35 pounds lighter than in October 

2002.8 In September and October 2003, 44 percent of the total loads of Choice and Select cuts graded 

Choice, compared to 54 percent in 2002, and 50 percent in 2001.9

 The five-area weighted average direct 

slaughter steer price averaged $83 per cwt for the first 4 months of 2004 and $86 per cwt from May to 

August.10 Breakeven prices for fed cattle were high at approximately $90 per cwt in August 2004.11 In 

March 2004, the weight was 780 pounds, 12 pounds lighter than in 2003 and 26 pounds lighter than in 

2002. Towards the end of the summer, the Choice-Select spread began to narrow and the weekly average 

Choice-Select spread was $6.07 per cwt in August 2004.12

 

2

 “Amazing Market Makes Historic Highs,” Cattle Buyers Weekly, September 15, 2003; “Better Demand Adds Huge Amount of Value.” Cattle 

Buyers Weekly, September 8, 2003. 3

 “Chicago Mercantile Exchange Accelerates Expanded Daily Price Limit Schedule in Cattle Contracts.” Chicago Mercantile Exchange, News 

Releases, December 24, 2003, www.cme.com. 4

 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/trade/bse_trade_ban_status.html 5

 Ibid. 

6

 U.S. Meat Export Federation, Total U.S. Beef Exports, 1994-2003. 7

 USDA, ERS, Red Meat Yearbook, Livestock Prices, 1970-2003. 8

 USDA, AMS, Market News, Meat Production and Actual Liveweight and Dressed Weight, WA_LS711. 9

 USDA, AMS, Market News, National Weekly Boxed Beef Cutout and Boxed Beef Cuts, LM_XB459. 10 USDA, AMS, Market News, 5 Area Weekly Weighted Average Direct Slaughter Cattle, LM_CT150. The five areas are Texas/Oklahoma/New 

Mexico, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, and Iowa/Minnesota. 11 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy, & Poultry Outlook, LDP-M122, August 18, 2004. 12 Ibid. 
5

Acquisition and Concentration 

In 2004, a private equity firm, Hicks, Muse, Tate & Fuse Inc., exercised its option to buy ConAgra Foods 

Inc.’s minority stake in Swift Foods. Swift was created in 2002, when Omaha-based ConAgra sold a 

controlling stake in its fresh beef and pork operations to a group led by Hicks. This was the only major 

acquisition that took place in the cattle industry during FY 2004. 

Concentration of the top four-firm steer and heifer slaughterers increased from 1980 to 2000; however, 

over the last several years it has remained stable, fluctuating between 79 and 82 percent (table 1). The U.S. 

Department of Justice and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission consider markets with HerfindahlHirschman Index (HHI) values below 1,000 to be unconcentrated, and markets with HHI values over 1,800 

to be highly concentrated.13 The HHI value in 1995, for all reporting packers, was 2,036 and declined to 

1,842 in 2002, the most current information available (table 1). 

Table 1.—Concentration of the top four-firm steer and heifer slaughterers and 

HHI for all reporting packers1

 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Four-firm 

 Concentration 

 (percent)2 

35.7 50.2 71.6 80.8 81.4 80.4 79.2 80.3 

HHI3 561 999 1,661 2,036 1,939 1,909 1,842 NA 1 Data for 1980, 1985, and 1990 are based on firms’ fiscal years as reported to P&SP. Data for 1995–2003 are based on 

 calendar year for federally inspected slaughter. 2 Percentage of total commercial slaughter accounted for by the four largest firms. 3 HHI (Herfindahl-Hirschman Index) equals the sum of each firm’s squared percentage share of total commercial slaughter.

Changing Business Practices in the Cattle Industry 

Changing Business Practices as a Result of BSE 

The BSE discovery led to many changes in business practices in the cattle industry. Many of the changes 

were results of actions taken by the industry to comply with policies published by USDA’s Food Safety and 

Inspection Service (FSIS). 

Distinguishing Cattle 30 Months of Age and Older

The FSIS notice, “Interim Guidance for Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle and Age Determination” (FSIS 

Notice 5-04), provides veterinary medical officers (VMO) guidance on distinguishing cattle 30 months of 

age and older from younger cattle. VMOs are to use records to determine cattle age or if the VMOs find 

significant reason to question the validity of the records, they are to verify age through dental examination 

(dentition). 

P&SP observed packers utilizing dentition to determine the age of cattle. Packers initiated training 

programs and hired additional personnel to perform dentition. Packers have procedures in place so that in 

the event dentition determines the cattle to be over 30 months of age, the carcass can be identified for 

special handling on the kill floor and segregated in the cooler. 

 

13 “Mergers producing an increase in the HHI of less than 50 points, even in highly concentrated markets post-merger, are unlikely to have adverse 

competitive consequences and ordinarily require no further analysis. Mergers producing an increase in the HHI of more than 50 points in highly 

concentrated markets post-merger potentially raise significant competitive concerns, depending on the factors set forth in Sections 2-5 of the 

Guidelines.” Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, Horizontal Merger Guidelines, 

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/horiz_book/15.html, April 2, 1992 (as amended April 8, 1997). 
6

P&SP verified that some packers are discounting the price paid for cattle determined to be 30 months of 

age or older. A packer also reported the loss of a contract to deliver hamburger since the packer could not 

verify that the entire product came from animals younger than 30 months of age. 

Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle

FSIS issued a regulation that defined “downers” as non-ambulatory disabled livestock; these livestock, 

including cattle, cannot rise from a recumbent position or cannot walk, and include, but are not limited to, 

those with broken appendages, severed tendons or ligaments, nerve paralysis, fractured vertebral column or 

metabolic conditions. This regulation requires that non-ambulatory disabled cattle be condemned. 

Consequently, these cattle cannot enter the slaughter establishment.14 

Prior to the discovery of BSE in the U.S., some packers’ primary business was the slaughter of nonambulatory cattle. Non-ambulatory cattle are often healthy animals, just injured. These packers reported to 

P&SP that their slaughter numbers have significantly declined; they have had to reduce their employee 

numbers and are considering shutting down operations. P&SP found that a few packers who formerly 

processed non-ambulatory cattle have changed the species or the class of livestock that they slaughter. 

Most auction markets are no longer allowing the unloading or consignment of non-ambulatory cattle. 

Some dealers report that they have discontinued buying slow or weak cattle for fear that these cattle may 

result in non-ambulatory cattle. 

Removal of Specified Risk Material

FSIS Notice 9-04, “Verification Instructions for the Interim Final Rule Regarding Specified Risk Materials 

(SRM) in Cattle”, provides VMOs with the methodology to use when verifying that an establishment has 

properly designed procedures to meet requirements for the removal, segregation, and disposition of SRM.15 

In BSE-infected cattle, specified risk materials may contain the agent that may transmit the disease. Often, 

in diseased animals, the infective agent is concentrated in tissues identified as SRM. Also, this FSIS Notice 

provides inspection program personnel with instructions for verifying that an establishment is executing its 

programs so that there is proper removal, segregation, and disposal of SRM. SRM are defined as: 

“(1) the brain, skull, eyes, trigeminal ganglia, spinal cord, vertebral column (excluding the vertebrae of 

the tail, the transverse processes of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, and the wings of the sacrum), 

and dorsal root ganglia (DRG) of cattle 30 months of age and older, and 

(2) the tonsils and the distal ileum (for which removal of the distal ileum must be achieved by 

disposing of the entire small intestine) of all cattle.” 

Along with the additional processes of age identification and SRM removal, P&SP witnessed a reduction in 

chain speeds in plants to accommodate the additional processes. Many packers are reporting to P&SP that 

the SRM removal policy has led to an increase in rendering fees due to the increased volume of inedible 

product. Some packers who previously harvested SRM for sale from animals over 30 months of age stated 

that they will no longer harvest the materials from any animals because it is not cost effective to separate 

the SRM from cattle over and under 30 months of age. 

 

14 USDA, FSIS, http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Frame/FrameRedirect.asp?main=http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FSISNotices/5-04.htm 15 USDA, FSIS, http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Frame/FrameRedirect.asp?main=http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FSISNotices/9-04.htm 
7

Natural Beef 

Natural is defined by FSIS as follows: “A product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is 

only minimally processed (a process which does not fundamentally alter the raw product) may be labeled 

as natural.” Natural Beef is often advertised as containing no hormones or antibiotics.16 Natural Beef 

packers are reporting an increase in business as a result of the discovery of BSE. One packer publicly 

announced that it is increasing the premium offered for natural cattle from $5 per cwt to $10 per cwt. The 

premium is available for all “natural” cattle finished in its licensed feedlots.17 

In conclusion, the BSE discovery set in motion many changes in business practices throughout the cattle 

industry. Meat demand remained strong despite food safety concerns brought on by the BSE discovery. 

 

16 USDA, FSIS, Meat and Poultry Labeling Terms, www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/lablterm.htm. FSIS defines “no hormones” in beef products as, 

“The term "no hormones administered" may be approved for use on the label of beef products if sufficient documentation is provided to the 

Agency by the producer showing no hormones have been used in raising the animals” and the term “no antibiotics” in red meat and poultry as, 

“The terms "no antibiotics added" may be used on labels for meat or poultry products if sufficient documentation is provided by the producer to 

the Agency demonstrating that the animals were raised without antibiotics.” 17 Drovers Alert: CAB Natural packer raises premiums, July 27, 2004. 
8

Section 2: Hog Industry 

General Economic State of the Hog Industry 

Prices received by hog producers increased in the fall of 2003 and continued to increase through the spring 

of 2004. The United States average 51-52 percent lean equivalent carcass base price averaged $49 per 

cwt18 during the October through December period. By early February, the market surpassed $60 per cwt 

and by May approached $80 per cwt before stabilizing in the upper $70’s per cwt through July and most of 

August 2004. 

While domestic retail pork prices remained similar to 2003,19 wholesale cutout prices and market hog 

prices achieved gains in spite of weekly hog slaughter and pork production running 3 to 4 percent ahead of 

the previous year.20 Higher prices also returned profitability to hog production. Estimates show positive 

returns to farrow-finish producers beginning in February 2004, after showing losses on hogs marketed in 20 

of the previous 24 months.21 

Total exports grew at an annual average rate of 11.6 percent between 2000 and 2003. During the first 

months of 2004, pork exports were up 26 percent from the same period the year before. Mexico emerged 

as the leading growth market in late 2003. From September 2003 to July 2004, exports to Mexico grew 65 

percent over the same period the year before.22

Early in 2004, USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) surveys reported renewed breeding 

herd liquidation, yet modest growth in the market hog inventory.23 In December 2003, the breeding herd 

inventory was down 1.5 percent and the market hog inventory up 1.7 percent. The March and June 2004 

inventory surveys both reported the rate of breeding herd liquidation remaining in the 1.5 to 2.0 percent 

range and the market hog inventory up 2.4 and 1.1 percent, respectively. The September 2004 quarterly 

survey, however, offered evidence that the industry may finally be expanding. The September 1 breeding 

herd inventory rose 1.1 percent while the market hog inventory grew 0.9 percent.24

Acquisition and Concentration 

In 2003, Smithfield Foods, Inc. (Smithfield) acquired Farmland Foods, Inc., raising Smithfield’s slaughter 

capacity to more than 100,000 hogs per day. The acquisition, valued at $480 million, increased 

Smithfield’s market share to 27 percent, rivaling Tyson Foods, Inc., market share of 18 percent.25 

Concentration of the top four-firm hog slaughterers increased by 9.1 percent, from 55.4 percent in 2002 to 

64.5 percent in 2003. The HHI value, for all reporting packers, increased from 436 in 1980 to 1,033 in 

2000, however, the HHI value decreased from 1,035 in 2001 to 1,005 in 2002, the most current information 

available (table 2). 

 

18 USDA, AMS, National Direct Lean Hog Prices, Prior Day Slaughter National.xls, LM_HG201. 19 USDA, ERS, Retail Meat Scanner Prices. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Meatscanner/. 20 USDA, AMS, Livestock Meat & Wool Summary Statistics, various issues, 2004. 21 Lawrence, John. Estimated Returns for Farrowing and Finishing Hogs or Producing Feeder Pigs in Iowa, Addendum to M-1284b Cooperative 

Extension Service, Iowa State University. 22 USDA, ERS, Monthly US Meat and Livestock Trade, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/AnimalProducts/Data/MonthlyLivestockTable.xls. 23 USDA, NASS, Quarterly Hogs and Pigs Report, September 2003, December 2003, March 2004, and June 2004. 24 USDA, NASS, Quarterly Hogs and Pigs Report, September 2004. 25 Cattle Buyers Weekly: Marketing and Business News for the Beef Industry, 2003. 
9

Table 2.—Concentration of the top four-firm hog slaughterers and HHI for all reporting packers1

 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Four-firm 

 Concentration 

 (percent)2 

33.6 32.2 40.3 45.7 56.4 56.7 55.4 64.5 

HHI3 436 456 593 769 1,033 1,035 1,005 NA 1 Data for 1980, 1985, and 1990 are based on firms’ fiscal years as reported to P&SP. Data for 1995–2003 are based on 

 calendar year for federally inspected slaughter.

2 Percentage of total commercial slaughter accounted for by the four largest firms. 3 HHI (Herfindahl-Hirschman Index) equals the sum of each firm’s squared percentage share of total commercial slaughter.

Changing Business Practices in the Hog Industry 

Genetic Coordination 

In FY 2004, hog packers continued to work with genetic breeding companies to ensure product traceability 

and to better meet consumer preferences. By aligning with a genetic company, a hog packer can control 

development of a high-quality consistent product. Access to particular genetic lines provides a packer with 

the ability to introduce branded products. For decades, individual ear tags, skin tattoos, ear notching, and 

other individual identifying markers have been used as a means of traceability; however, no generally 

accepted method of unique identification of each individual animal from farm to retail has been adopted. 

Hog packers stated that aligning with genetic firms improves the potential for traceability and provides 

them the ability to produce high-quality pork products that meet the highest standard for food safety. 

Risk Protection Programs 

Some pork packers have begun offering their own risk protection programs to livestock producers instead 

of relying on private insurance companies to provide coverage. Generally, coverage offered by packers is 

for animals which die in transit. Not included in the coverage is loss due to mishandling and trucker 

negligence. 

Canada and Live Hog Trade 

Imports partially offset the downward trend in the U.S. breeding herd inventory. Since 1994, Canada’s 

breeding herd has grown an average of 3.6 percent per year and has not posted a back-to-back yearly 

decline since 1996.26 Canada’s pig crop has grown at a rate considerably faster than its breeding herd, 

posting a 6.0 percent average growth rate.27 

With the growth in the breeding herd inventory, Canada has become a major source of feeder pigs for the 

Eastern and Western Corn Belt regions of the U.S. In 2000, feeder pig imports averaged 44,000 head per 

week to the Eastern and Western Corn Belt Regions.28 By 2003, the figure had climbed to 93,000 head per 

week, an average growth rate of 29 percent per year. 29 From January through September 2004 imports 

were up 19 percent from the same period last year. 30

In conclusion, in FY 2004 prices reached record levels in the hog industry. The hog industry, however, did 

not experience any industry-wide food safety concerns. 

 

26 Statistics Canada, Hog Statistics, http://www.statcan.ca:8096/bsolc/english/bsolc?catno=23-010-X. 27 Ibid. 

28 USDA, APHIS, Canadian Live Animal Imports into US by Destination, WA_LS637. 29 Ibid. 

30 Ibid. 
10

Section 3: Poultry Industry 

General Economic State of the Poultry Industry 

Broiler prices increased throughout FY 2004, reaching a peak by midyear. Retail prices increased 

throughout the year, the retail broiler composite price in September was $1.67 per pound.31 In September, 

prices for whole birds were higher than the previous year, but prices for boneless/skinless breasts dropped 

and in August averaged less than the previous year. 

Turkey prices declined during the first part of 2004, but during the second half turned around and increased 

to reach levels 10 to 15 percent higher than 2003. Stronger prices can be explained, in part, by strong 

domestic demand and restraints in the number of placements of chicks (young broilers) and poults (young 

turkeys).32

The United States is the world's largest exporter of broilers.33 In 2003, U.S. broiler exports totaled 4.93 

billion pounds (15 percent of total U.S. production), valued at $1.5 billion. Demand for U.S. broiler 

products fluctuated over the last several years due to changing economic conditions and currency exchange 

rates in other major exporting countries. Poultry exports decreased by nearly 14 percent in 2004 compared 

to the previous year. In FY 2004, key U.S. export markets closed, primarily Asian, due to the discovery of 

avian influenza in the U.S. Prior to the avian influenza outbreak, exports to China had made up 10-12 

percent of U.S. broiler meat exports and the U.S. supplied 90 percent of the broiler meat imported by 

China. Following the import bans, total U.S. broiler export volume fell by 6.6 percent in the first 10 

months of 2004 compared to the same time period the previous year. Much of the decrease in exports to 

China was made up by increased exports to Eastern Europe and countries of the former Soviet Union. 

In 2004, broiler production was higher in the third quarter, 8.8 billion pounds, compared to 8.4 billion 

pounds in 2003. Production is expected to reach 34.0 billion pounds in 2004, representing an increase of 4 

percent over 2003. Turkey production is estimated to be 5.4 billion pounds, which is 5 percent below 

previous year’s level. U.S. turkey production totaled 3.13 billion pounds during the first 7 months of 2004, 

down 5.5 percent from the same period in 2003.34

While 2005 U.S. broiler production is forecast at 35.13 billion pounds, a 3.1 percent increase from the 

previous year, placements in the first quarter of 2005 are predicted to slow from recent months. Domestic 

U.S. broiler meat consumption is also forecast to increase 3 percent in 2005. 

Acquisitions and Concentration 

Acquisitions and consolidations among broiler processors contributed to a higher level of concentration in 

2003 compared to previous years. The four-firm concentration ratio in broiler slaughter rose from 48 

percent in the years 2001 and 2002 to 55 percent in 2003 (table 3). The turkey slaughter concentration 

ratios did not change between 2002 and 2003 (table 4). 

 

31 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook. LDP-M-123 32 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook. LDP-M-115 to LDP-M-122. These series were only designed to show the net returns to 

broiler or turkey producers for specific products. In both cases the products covered were whole birds and the net returns are not appropriate for 

the full range of products sold. ERS has since modified this series to reflect that feed prices were the drivers of costs, and ERS no longer 

calculates overall net returns for poultry. 33 The U.S. Poultry and Egg Association defines a broiler as a young chicken raised for meat and meat products. Broilers weigh 4 to 5 pounds. 

Broilers are considered mature at 42 to 49 days old. The terms “broiler” and “fryer” are sometimes used interchangeably. 34 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook. LDP-M-123 
11

Table 3.—Concentration of the top four-firm broiler slaughterers and HHI for all reporting packers1

1985 1990 1995 1997 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Four-firm 

 Concentration 

 (percent)2

34 41 46 44 49 48 48 55 

HHI NA NA NA 611 772 728 722 897 

1 Based on pounds of ready to cook production reported in Watt Poultry USA Rankings, various years. 2 Percent of total commercial slaughter accounted for by the four largest firms. 

Table 4.—Concentration of the top four-firm turkey slaughterers and HHI for all reporting packers1

1982 1987 1992 1997 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Four-firm 

 Concentration 

 (percent)2

40 38 45 41 41 55 54 54 

HHI NA NA NA 496 437 812 783 746 

1 Data for 1997 and after from Watt Poultry USA. “WATT Poultry USA Rankings,” various years. Earlier data from 

 Ollinger, M.; J. MacDonald; and M. Madison. 2000. “Structural Change in U.S. Chicken and Turkey Slaughter,” 

 Economic Research Service, USDA, Agricultural Economic Report No. 787, Washington, D.C. 

2 Percent of total commercial slaughter accounted for by the four largest firms. 

Following a trend established over the past four decades, expansion has continued among several broiler 

processing companies mainly through acquisitions, although a few companies have expanded by increasing 

existing capacity or by building new facilities. 35 Further processing, also known as value-added 

processing, continues to be one of the most important profit sources for the poultry industry. 

Among broiler processors, the most significant acquisitions in FY 2004 were: 

3⁄4 Empire Kosher Poultry, Inc. was purchased by E.K. Holdings, Inc., which is owned by a group of 

private investors led by Palisades Associates, Inc. of Bethesda, Maryland. 

3⁄4 Perdue Farms, Inc. purchased the Cagle’s, Inc. processing complex in Perry, Georgia. The $45 

million purchase included a 500,000-square-foot broiler processing plant, a feed mill, and a 

hatchery in Forsyth, Georgia. 

3⁄4 Keystone Foods, LLC purchased a plant in Barbour County, Alabama, from Charoen Pokphand 

USA, Inc. 

No significant expansions, consolidations, mergers, or acquisitions occurred in the turkey industry during 

FY 2004. 

Changing Business Practices in the Poultry Industry 

Multi-Year Contracts 

As poultry processors build new processing plants and update older facilities, they are offering incentives 

to growers such as multi-year contracts. A recent example is a live poultry dealer in Mississippi, who 

currently is constructing a new fully integrated poultry processing plant in southern Georgia. In several 

articles published in March and April of 2004 in area newspapers, company officials announced they would 

be looking for approximately 420 broiler houses, 48 broiler breeder houses, and 24 pullet houses. In an 

 

35 Watt Publishing Company, 2003 and 2004, Watt Poultry USA, multiple issues, and www.meatingplace.com, daily news, December 2003 to 

September 2004 and ConAgra Foods, Inc. and Subsidiaries, SEC filing 10Q, “Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for the 

Thirteen Weeks ended August 29, 2004.” Chicken Business Divestiture.
12

effort to secure growers needed to satisfy processing capacity, company officials stated they would offer 

15-year contracts to potential growers in order to entice growers to grow broilers for the company.

Three of the four largest broiler processing companies currently offer multi-year (3 and 5 year) contracts 

depending on the type of housing that the individual grower is presently using to grow broilers. These 

contracts are part of the incentive companies use to encourage contract poultry growers to upgrade broiler 

production housing. At least seven other poultry (broiler and turkey) processing companies also offer 

multi-year contracts. 

Avian Influenza 

Outbreaks of avian influenza were reported in several countries in 2004. A highly pathogenic avian 

influenza (HPAI) virus was reported in Asia in December 2003, immediately resulting in restrictions on 

imports to the U.S. from the region.36 In FY 2004, the presence of low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) 

and HPAI was detected in the U.S. Testing was conducted systematically on farms located within a 6-mile 

range around the farms where infected flocks were located. Test samples were sent to nearby laboratories 

for preliminary analysis and to the APHIS National Veterinary Services Laboratory (NVSL) in Ames, Iowa 

for final confirmation of the presence and strain of the virus. Changing business practices associated with 

the outbreaks included quarantines, restricted mobility among farms and production centers, and 

transportation prohibition. Public events and meetings were also cancelled as a result of the outbreaks. 

Technology 

Poultry houses are traditionally 40 to 42 feet wide and approximately 500 feet long, yielding an 

approximate 20,000 square feet per house. To lower construction and production operating costs, many 

companies are opting for new poultry houses approaching or even exceeding 60 feet in width.37 With the 

efficiency issues of tunnel ventilation satisfied by the extension of poultry houses from 200 to 300 feet in 

length to 500 feet, the movement to 60 plus feet wide housing is now addressing construction cost and 

labor efficiency concerns. Changes in construction materials are also allowing producers to move to wider 

poultry houses. With traditional wood pre-constructed trusses, 50 feet was the outer limit in the width of 

housing. The advent of affordable steel trusses are allowing poultry houses to be constructed at widths of 

60 to 66 feet. 

 

 

36 USDA, APHIS, www.aphis.usda.gov. 

37 The Poultry Engineering, Economics & Management Newsletter, Auburn University in cooperation with the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association, 

Issue No. 27, January 2004. Simpson, Gene and Jim Donald. Poultry Times, August 16, 2004, Simpson, Gene and Jim Donald. 
13

Section 4: Operations or Activities in the Livestock and Poultry Industries That Raise 

Concerns under the Packers and Stockyards Act 

Adequacy of Bonding Formulas for Regulated Entities 

P&SP prescribes bond requirements and bonding formulas through regulations promulgated under the P&S 

Act. Market agencies buying or selling on commission, or acting as clearing agencies, and dealers and 

packers purchasing over $500,000 of livestock annually, must execute and maintain bonding equivalents 

for the benefit of livestock sellers. 

The existing bonding formulas do not provide full coverage to livestock sellers when bonded entities fail 

financially. Between FY 2000 and FY 2003 sellers who were not paid as a result of financial failures by 

market agencies selling on commission recovered 31–47 percent of their total claim amounts each year. 

During the same period, the recovery rate was 15–28 percent for dealers and market agencies buying on 

commission that failed financially. 

GIPSA Response: In FY 2004, P&SP formed an internal bond task force to evaluate the effectiveness of 

P&SP’s bond requirements in today’s regulated industries. After reviewing the task force’s 

recommendations, P&SP will initiate appropriate action. 

Concentration 

The level of concentration throughout the industries regulated by P&SP is often raised as a concern. 

GIPSA Response: Concentration is not a violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act. Concentration, 

vertical integration, and other changes in industry structure may cause heightened interest among industry 

participants leading GIPSA to focus more attention on particular firms or behavior but these industry 

changes, in and of themselves, are not prohibited by the P&S Act. GIPSA cooperates regularly with, and 

lends its industry expertise to, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) as it reviews mergers in the livestock, 

meatpacking, and poultry industries. 

Congress appropriated $4.5 million to GIPSA in the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill to study issues 

surrounding a ban on meat packer ownership of animals. Because packer use of various marketing 

arrangements is intertwined with marketing arrangements at other stages of the supply chain, the study will 

examine a broad range of marketing arrangements throughout the cattle, hog, and lamb supply chains. 

Industry Reactions to BSE 

On December 23, 2003, a positive case of BSE, in an animal of Canadian origin, was discovered in a cow 

located in the State of Washington.38 Industry participants and P&SP were concerned about fair and open 

competition, fair trade practices, and financial protection issues that may develop after the discovery of a 

presumptive positive of BSE. 

GIPSA Response: P&SP acted quickly in order to ensure fair and open competition, fair trade practices, 

and financial protections in the livestock and meat packing industries after the BSE announcement. P&SP 

created Competition, Financial Protection, and Trade Practices Task Forces to monitor and respond to 

concerns that developed from the BSE announcement. 

 

38 USDA, Veneman Announces Additional Protection Measures to Guard Against BSE, http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2003/12/0449.htm. 
14

In FY 2004, the Competition Task Force completed 22 investigations, including 16 undue price preference 

investigations in the fed cattle markets, one collusion investigation, one price manipulation investigation, 

and four investigations of apportionment of territory. P&SP found no evidence of any violations. 

The Financial Task Force completed 56 investigations, including payment investigations of packers, 

auction markets, and dealers in FY 2004. Several apparent violations of the P&S Act were detected, and 

appropriate corrective action is being taken. 

The Trade Practices Task Force completed 10 investigations in FY 2004. Some of the investigations 

involved contract changes made after the BSE announcement. One investigation was closed after P&SP 

negotiated a settlement that was accepted by the parties involved. One investigation involved multiple 

complaints about contract changes from livestock sellers. This investigation was closed when the packer 

ceased operations. 

P&SP continues to work informally with the regulated industries to promote compliance with the P&S Act 

as they institute changes necessitated by the BSE announcement. 

Captive Supply 

Packer use of captive supply continues to concern many industry participants. There is much confusion 

about what the term “captive supply” means. Some define captive supply in terms of procurement; some 

define captive supply in terms of pricing. Those who define captive supply in terms of procurement focus 

on whether the livestock are committed to a packer prior to the time the livestock are ready for slaughter. 

Using this definition, some industry participants believe that any livestock procured by a packer 7, 10, or 

14 days (depending on the industry participant) prior to slaughter is captive supply. Those who define 

captive supply in terms of pricing focus on whether the price is known at the time of purchase. If the final 

purchase price is unknown, the livestock are considered captive supply. P&SP considers captive supply to 

be livestock that a packer owns or has an agreement to purchase before the animals are ready for slaughter. 

More specifically, P&SP defines captive supply as: 1) livestock owned or fed by a packer more than 14 

days prior to slaughter; 2) livestock procured by a packer through a contract or marketing agreement that 

has been in place for more than 14 days; or 3) livestock otherwise committed to a packer more than 14 days 

prior to slaughter. 

GIPSA Response: In FY 2004, GIPSA awarded RTI International (RTI) a contract to conduct the 

Livestock and Meat Marketing Study. 39 The study was funded by Congress in the FY 2003 Omnibus 

Appropriations Bill. USDA awarded a single contract to RTI for $4,319,373 to study the cattle, hog, and 

lamb industries. RTI is a nonprofit corporation that conducts business in scientific research and technology 

development. It specializes in bringing a multidisciplinary approach to research projects. RTI developed a 

coalition of researchers, with representatives from: Colorado State University, Iowa State University, 

Montana State University, North Carolina State University, and The Wharton School at the University of 

Pennsylvania. 

The study will address many questions and concerns that have been raised about changes in the structure 

and business practices in the livestock and meat industries, including captive supply issues. The study is 

designed to provide an objective analysis of the costs and benefits to industry participants of alternative 

types of marketing arrangements. The information is needed to develop foundation information needed to 

understand what economic changes are occurring, why they are occurring, what changes are likely to occur 

 

39 For more information on the Livestock and Meat Marketing Study, please visit our website at 

http://www.usda.gov/gipsa/psp/issues/livemarketstudy/livestock_marketing_study.htm. 
15

in the future, and their implications for market participants and the structure of the livestock and meat 

industries. 

RTI is scheduled to complete two reports that will each address specific project objectives. The first 

(interim) report will include descriptive findings that will meet the objectives to: (1) identify the types of 

marketing arrangements that are used; (2) describe their terms and availability; and (3) describe the reasons 

market participants give for their use. The first report is scheduled to be completed in FY 2005. The 

second report will present the results of economic analysis that address the objectives to (1) determine the 

extent of use of different arrangements; (2) examine price differences among types of marketing 

arrangements; (3) assess relationships between advance procurement arrangements and short run spot 

market prices; (4) measure differences in costs, efficiencies, livestock and meat quality, and risk levels 

associated with different types of marketing arrangements; and (5) assess the implications of future 

changes in the use of various types of marketing arrangements. The second report is scheduled to be 

completed in FY 2006. 

Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act 

The Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act,40 Check 21, is a Federal law that became effective October 

28, 2004. The Federal Reserve Board’s July 26, 2004, press release indicates the purpose of Check 21 is to 

“facilitate . . . electronic check exchange . . .” by U.S. banks. An outcome of Check 21 is a reduction in the 

time required for checks to clear. According to a letter from the American Bankers Association, for those 

banks using electronic imaging the float may shrink for out-of-town checks, but local checks will clear in 

virtually the same time as they do today. 

Check 21’s effect on the livestock, meat and poultry industries cannot be known with certainty prior to 

implementation. In some cases, Check 21 could provide both benefits and hardships to businesses’ 

financial operations by accelerating the payment of checks issued and checks deposited. Auction markets 

may experience a reduction in “float” time for its checks issued to livestock sellers without reducing the 

time required for the auction markets to collect funds from their livestock buyers. As of September 30, 

2004, P&SP was aware of at least one auction market that had already notified its buyers of accelerated 

payment requirements. 

GIPSA Response: P&SP has been actively engaged in educational activities and discussions with 

regulated industry leaders, organizations, and businesses leading up to the October 28, 2004, effective date 

of Check 21 and beyond. Businesses are encouraged to contact P&SP with questions or concerns about the 

impact of Check 21 on P&SP statutory and regulatory requirements, as well as their respective banks and 

trade associations. P&SP will handle concerns or complaints with Check 21 implications on a high-priority 

basis. 

Formula Pricing 

Slaughtering cattle packers are increasingly using formula-based procurement methods with price 

discovery processes that are more complex. The formulas establish a base price and incorporate premiums 

or discounts in computing the final payment amount. The base price may be a stated index value or be an 

in-house plant average figure. The livestock seller may have the ability to discover the applicable base 

price amount by viewing a publicly available report. In other cases, the seller has no means to determine 

the base price value. 

GIPSA Response: P&SP engages in compliance investigations in which P&SP investigators sample each 

type of purchase made by a packer. The investigators independently recalculate the payment amount due 

 

40 Pub. L. 108-100, approved October 28, 2003. 
16

the livestock sellers under each of the purchase types and confirm the correct amount was paid. In the 

replication process, investigators verify the data used as variables in the formulas are accurately transferred 

into the formulas, and that computations are handled properly. The investigators also confirm that the 

factors used to determine the final payment amounts are clearly disclosed on the sellers’ settlements and 

that any adjustments are explained in an appropriate manner. 

Joint Livestock Purchasing 

P&SP is aware of several situations in which two packers have used the same agent to procure livestock of 

similar type and quality, packers have bought livestock of similar type and quality for each other, and 

dealers and order buyers have orders from multiple packers for similar type and quality of livestock. These 

are potential violations of the P&S Act. 

GIPSA Response: P&SP investigates all complaints about the use of shared agents, packers buying 

livestock for each other, and dealers or order buyers having orders from multiple packers for the same type 

and quality of livestock. Whether the P&S Act is violated depends on the circumstances of each case. 

Regulation §201.69 prohibits packers, dealers, and market agencies from furnishing information to 

competitor buyers for certain purposes. Regulation §201.70 requires every packer and dealer to conduct his 

or her buyer operations in competition with and independently from other packers and dealers similarly 

engaged. 

Livestock, Meat, and Poultry Evaluation Devices and/or Systems 

In the livestock and meatpacking industries, packers and producers are expanding beyond USDA grading to 

determine the value and appropriate prices to pay for livestock purchased on a carcass merit basis. The 

industries are developing sophisticated electronic evaluation devices and/or systems to measure live or 

carcass merit characteristics on which payment is based. Before 2003, there was no accredited (by the 

government or any other organization) procedure to evaluate the accuracy of electronic devices and/or 

systems used to evaluate beef or pork carcasses. 

In the pork industry, packers pay most producers based on the lean percent of their hogs, estimated by 

formulas using measurements taken by electronic carcass evaluation devices. Many forms of evaluation 

devices and/or systems and in-house graders have taken the place of USDA graders. Due to the lack of 

performance standards for evaluation devices and/or systems, producers receive information from packers 

that is not comparable when marketing to multiple packers that use different evaluation devices for lean 

measurement. 

In the beef industry, at least 50 percent of market ready slaughter cattle are sold on a value-based marketing 

grid, meaning that premiums and discounts are paid for carcass attributes that affect the total value of the 

products derived from that carcass. In contrast to the pork industry, these evaluations are based on visual 

appraisals from USDA graders alone or in combination with information garnered from the evaluation 

devices and/or systems. 

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is involved in developing standards for approval of 

evaluation devices. In 2003, for example, AMS developed a standard for approval of a vision-based system 

for evaluating the size of a beef ribeye, one of the most important factors in determining the estimated yield 

of boneless beef product. These standards establish the level of accuracy that systems must meet in order 

to be certified by USDA. 
17

GIPSA Response: The ASTM F10 Committee on Carcass Evaluation Systems was formally created in 

November 2001 when P&SP and a diverse group of stakeholders41 voted to create a committee to “develop 

standards for carcass evaluation systems for livestock.” While developing these standards, the committee 

changed its name from Carcass Evaluating Systems to Livestock, Meat and Poultry Electronic Evaluating 

Systems to reflect the different types of evaluating equipment being used in the livestock, meat, and poultry 

industries. 

Because there were no standards governing the use or accuracy of electronic evaluation devices in the 

livestock and meatpacking industries, P&SP developed a task force to develop voluntary industry 

standards. Over the last four years, the P&SP Task Force, with assistance from the National Institute of 

Science and Technology (NIST), AMS, personnel from State Weights and Measure departments, 

equipment manufacturers, academicians, and others, developed voluntary industry standards that were 

recently adopted and published by ASTM International. 

Currently, there are four published voluntary industry standards: 

3⁄4 Design of Device: Sets out certain criteria for the design of the evaluation devices (impacts 

manufacturers); 

3⁄4 Device Performance: Sets out criteria for the performance of the evaluation devices and systems 

(impacts manufacturers, meat packers, and live poultry dealers); 

3⁄4 User Requirements: Sets out requirements for users, including maintenance, operation, 

inspection, etc. (impacts meat packers and live poultry dealers); and 

3⁄4 Predictive Accuracy: Sets out a standardized method to collect and analyze data and develop a 

formula used to determine payment (impacts meat packers and live poultry dealers). 

The National Conference on Weights & Measures, Inc. (NCWM) is considering the ASTM standards for 

inclusion in Handbook 44. If NCWM incorporates these voluntary standards into Handbook 44, the 

standards would become mandatory requirements which would be enforceable by State weights and 

measure divisions. In addition, P&SP is developing a draft of a regulation to address the use of these new 

technologies under the Packers and Stockyards Act. 

Organization for Competitive Markets Lawsuit 

The Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) filed suit against the Department of Agriculture and 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) over GIPSA’s response to its plan to 

implement a program funded through voluntary contributions received from cattle producers. OCM’s 

program calls for livestock markets to automatically deduct funds from sellers’ proceeds for the benefit of 

the OCM program unless the seller opts out of the program. 

GIPSA Response: Regulations under the P&S Act require the markets to obtain written authorization in 

advance before deducting funds from sellers’ proceeds. Sellers may authorize deductions for any purpose.

 

41 ASTM F10 committee members include: National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS), weights and measures inspectors, academia, several 

meat packers, and evaluation device manufacturers. 
OMB Control No. 0580-0015 

Form P&SP-6020 July 2004 page 1 of 2 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND 

STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION

PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS 

PROGRAMS

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORT COMMENT FORM

Thank you for your interest in GIPSA’s Report, Assessment of the Cattle, Hog, Poultry, and 

Sheep Industries. As a means of both improving the publication and gaining insight on the 

issues arising in the cattle, hog, poultry, and sheep industries we invite your comments and ideas 

for future publications. 

1. Please indicate which area of the report you found to be the most useful (please check 

one box): 

 General Economic State  Changing Business Practices  Operations or Activities that Raise Concerns 

2. Please indicate which area of the report you found to be the least useful (please check 

one box): 

 General Economic State  Changing Business Practices  Operations or Activities that Raise Concerns 

3. Please rate your overall satisfaction with the report (please check one box): 

 Excellent  Good  Average  Poor  Very Poor 

4. Please identify each industry you are involved with (please check all that apply): 

 Cattle  Hog  Poultry  Sheep  Other: ____________ 

5. Please identify your primary role(s) in the industry: 

 Producer  Processor  Packer  Stockyard  Feedlot  Other: ____________ 

6. What changing business practices have you witnessed in the livestock, poultry, or meat 

industry?

7. What concerns in your industry would you like us to address in future publications? 

8. Additional comments or suggestions: 
Form P&SP-6020 July 2004 page 2 of 2 

9. If you would like to provide your contact information, please do so below. 

Name: _________________________________________________________________ 

 Last Name First Name 

Business Name (if applicable): ______________________________________________ 

Mailing Address:_________________________________________________________ 

Street 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

City/Town State Zip Code 

E-mail Address: __________________________________________________________ 

Telephone Number: (including area code) _____________________________________ 

Thank you for your response to this questionnaire. 

Please submit the completed questionnaire using one of the following methods: 

1) Mail the document to the following address: 

 Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration 

Packers and Stockyards Programs, CMAR 

1400 Independence Ave. SW, Stop 3647 

Washington, DC 20250-3647 

2) E-mail the form to: pspess@usda.gov with the subject line as “CMAR,” or 

3) Fax the form to: (202) 690-1266, ATTN: Jaime Adams. 

According to the Paperwork reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid 

OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information is 0580-0015. The time required to complete this collection is 

estimated to average 10 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, 

and complete and review the information collection. 
P&SP-6020i July 2004 Page 1 of 1 

 

Instructions for Completing 

the Annual Assessment Report Comment Form P&SP-6020 

You may use any of the following methods to submit the form: 

1) Mail the document to the following address: 

 USDA Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration 

Packers and Stockyards Programs, CMAR 

1400 Independence Ave. SW, Stop 3647 

Washington, DC 20250-3647 

2) E-mail the form to: pspess@usda.gov, with the subject line as “CMAR,” or 

3) Fax the form to: (202) 690-1266, ATTN: Jaime Adams. 

Line 

No. 

Subject Instruction 

1. Most Useful Part of the 

Report 

Check the appropriate box to indicate which part of the 

report you found most useful. 

2. Least Useful Part of the 

Report 

Check the appropriate box to indicate which part of the 

report you found least useful. 

3. Overall Satisfaction Check the appropriate box to indicate your overall opinion 

of the report. 

4. Industry Segment Check the appropriate box(es) to indicate each livestock 

category you work with. 

5. Industry Roles Check the appropriate box(es) to indicate your primary 

roles in the livestock, poultry, or meat industries. 

6. Changing Business 

Practices 

Enter a description of the changing business practices that 

you noticed during the past year. 

7. Industry Concerns Enter a description of the concerns you experienced in the 

livestock, poultry, or meat industries over the past year that 

you would like us to address in future publications. 

8. Additional Comments Enter any additional comments that will help to improve 

future annual assessment reports. 

9. Contact Information Enter your name, business name, mailing address, e-mail 

address, and telephone number. 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, 

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. 

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who 

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 

720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA 

is an equal opportunity provider and employer.