Assessment of the Cattle, Hog, and Poultry Industries 

FY 2005 Report 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 

March 2006 

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...................................................................6

Changing Business Practices as a Result of BSE ......................................................................................... 6

Animal Identification .................................................................................................................................... 6

Electronic Evaluation Devices...................................................................................................................... 7

Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (Check 21).................................................................................... 7

Section 2: Hog Industry................................................................................................................9

General Economic State of the Hog Industry .............................................................................9

Changing Business Practices in the Hog Industry....................................................................10

Swine Marketing Contracts......................................................................................................................... 10

Carcass Evaluation Device Standards......................................................................................................... 11

Trend Towards Deeper Discounts on Heavy Hogs..................................................................................... 11

Section 3: Poultry Industry........................................................................................................12

General Economic State of the Poultry Industry......................................................................12

Changing Business Practices in the Poultry Industry ..............................................................13

Avian Influenza ......................................................................................................................................... 13

Increasing Broiler Weights ......................................................................................................................... 13

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Effects ........................................................................................................... 13

Poultry Care and Handling.......................................................................................................................... 14

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

Raise Concerns under the Packers and Stockyards Act ..........................................................15

Adequacy of Bonds for Regulated Entities................................................................................................. 15

Retaliation in the Poultry Industry.............................................................................................................. 15

Federal Litigation in the Poultry Industry................................................................................................... 15

Livestock, Meat, and Poultry Carcass Evaluation Devices and/or Systems ............................................... 16
2

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 

AMS Agricultural Marketing Service 

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

BSE Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy 

cwt Hundredweight (100 pounds) 

DOC U.S. Department of Commerce 

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice 

ERS Economic Research Service 

FATUS Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United States 

FY Fiscal Year 

GIPSA Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 

HPAI Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza 

HHI Herfindahl-Hirschman Index 

ITC U.S. International Trade Commission 

LPAI Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza 

NA Not Available 

NAIS National Animal Identification System 

NPPC National Pork Producers Council 

NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service 

NCWM National Conference on Weights and Measures 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

P&S Act Packers and Stockyards Act 

P&SP Packers and Stockyards Programs 

U.S. United States 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 
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 Program (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 fifth 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 P&S 

Act. This report also includes responses by P&SP to apparent concerns under the P&S Act. The report 

covers events and data available as of September 30, 2005, the close of the Government’s fiscal year (FY).1

Trade issues and cyclically tight cattle supplies shaped FY 2005 in the U.S. cattle industry. For most of the 

year the hog industry benefited from high hog prices, strong domestic and export demand, and low feed 

prices. In May 2005, signs of weakening domestic demand became apparent, and producers’ prices began 

to decline. In the poultry industry, despite an increase in production in FY 2005, the combination of strong 

domestic demand and an increase in exports limited downward pressure on broiler prices. 

In FY 2005, changes in technology prompted changing business practices in the cattle industry. There was 

negligible market movement and limited reaction to the additional case of BSE in the U.S. In the hog 

industry, changing business practices related to swine marketing contracts, carcass evaluation device 

standards, a countervailing duty on Canadian live swine, and trends toward deeper discounts on heavy 

hogs. In the poultry industry there were several changes in business practices in FY 2005, including those 

related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

Market operations or activities that appear to raise concerns under the P&S Act include adequately bonding 

regulated entities, transparency in the poultry industry, federal litigation in the poultry industry, and 

livestock, meat, and poultry carcass evalution devices and/or systems. The report identifies the 

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

 

1

 Fiscal Year 2005: October 1, 2004 – September 30, 2005 
4

Section 1: Cattle Industry 

General Economic State of the Cattle Industry 

Trade issues and cyclically tight cattle supplies shaped FY 2005 in the U.S. cattle industry. Through 

September 2005, significant Asian export markets remained closed to U.S. beef. In June 2005, USDA 

announced a second positive U.S. case of BSE and additional international trading partners immediately 

imposed bans on U.S. beef and live cattle.2

 Between January and June 2005, however, the U.S. exported 

318 million carcass-weight pounds of beef and veal products, compared to 153 million pounds during the 

same period in 2004.3

 Domestic beef demand increased by more than 7 percent in 2004 compared to 20034

but decreased 1.7 percent January through July 2005.5

The U.S. ban on importing cattle over 30 months of age, and beef from such cattle, from Canada remained 

in effect throughout FY 2005. Imports of Canadian cattle under 30 months of age were allowed beginning 

in July 2005. In January 2005, Tyson Foods, Inc., closed three of its steer and heifer slaughter plants for 

approximately 5 weeks and eliminated a shift in another plant. Also in January, National Beef Packing 

Company, LLC, announced a 20-percent reduction in production, and in August 2005, announced that it 

would discontinue Saturday slaughter of steers and heifers at two plants. In August 2005, Smithfield 

Foods, Inc., closed its Packerland Packing Company’s Gering, Nebraska, cow slaughter plant; and Swift 

and Company closed its Nampa, Idaho, cow slaughter plant. Supplies of feeder cattle in the U.S. outside 

feedlots remained near the lowest level in many years as producers continued to retain heifers to build 

herds. Canadian cattle less than 30 months of age began to enter the U.S. soon after the ban on importing 

cattle and beef from Canada was lifted in July 2005. By September 2005, markets were beginning to adjust 

to imbalances in cattle numbers, slaughter capacities, and price differences between the two countries.6

 

From January through March 2005, the average cash feeder steer price at Oklahoma City was $104 per cwt 

compared to $112 per cwt during the same period in 2004 and $97 per cwt during the same period in 2003.7

 

By September 2005, nearby feeder cattle futures prices increased to $115 per cwt.8

 Prices for the five-area 

weighted average direct slaughter steer price averaged $86 per cwt from October through December of 

2004, averaged $90 per cwt from January through April 2005, and fell to $83 per cwt from May to August 

2005.9

 As of August 2005, however, many cattle coming out of feedlots would have required prices in the 

$90-plus range to break even.10 Grain prices remained favorable, but feeder cattle prices continued to be 

sufficiently high to take most of the profit potential out of feeding cattle.11 High fed cattle prices, reduced 

supplies of slaughter cows, and increased slaughter capacity in Canada made it difficult for U.S. beef 

packers to maintain positive slaughter margins in 2005. From January to July 2005, 18.6 million head of 

commercial cattle were slaughtered in the U.S., down 3 percent from the same period in 2004.12 

 

2

 USDA, APHIS, BSE Trade Ban Status as of 08/04/05, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse/trade/bse_trade_ban_status.html, accessed 

September 13, 2005. 3

 USDA, ERS, FATUS, Monthly U.S. Livestock and Meat Trade, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Cattle/Data/MonthlyLivestockTable.xls,

accessed September 9, 2005. 4

 Kansas State University Research and Extension, “Beef Demand Strengthened in 2004, But Likely to Slow This Year,” March 4, 2005, 

http:/www.oznet.ksu.edu/news/sty/2005/beef_demand030405.htm, accessed September 12, 2005. 5

 Glen Grimes and Ron Plain, University of Missouri – Columbia, “Grimes & Plain Cattle Outlook,” September 9, 2005. 6

 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook, LDP-M-134 August 18, 2005. 7

 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook, LDP-M-134 August 18, 2005 and USDA, NASS, Agricultural Prices 2004 Summary, July 

2005, [Pr 1-3 (05) a]. 8

 Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Delayed Futures and Option Quotes, Feeder Cattle Futures, 

http://www.cme.com/trading/dta/del/delayed_quote.html?ProductSymbol=FC&ProductFoiType=FUT&ProductVenue=R&ProductType=com, 

accessed September 12, 2005. 9

 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. 10 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook, LDP-M-134 August 18, 2005. 11 Ibid. 

12 USDA, NASS, Livestock Slaughter, August 19, 2005, Mt An 1-2 (8-05). 
5

Acquisition and Concentration 

In October 2004, Smithfield Foods, Inc., acquired the four cattle feedlots of MF Cattle Feeding, Inc., from 

ConAgra Foods, Inc. In April 2005, Cargill Meat Solutions, Inc., announced that it would purchase Better 

Beef Limited of Ontario, Canada, combining operations of the largest beef packing plant in Western 

Canada (Cargill Meat Solutions, Inc.) with the largest beef packing plant in Eastern Canada (Better Beef 

Limited). In May 2005, ContiGroup Companies, Inc., and Smithfield Foods, Inc., announced the 

completion of a joint venture between respective cattle feeding businesses, ContiBeef LLC and MF Cattle 

Feeding, Inc., called Five Rivers Ranch Cattle Feeding LLC, creating the world’s largest cattle feeding 

operation. In August 2005, Rosen Meat Group, Inc., a subsidiary of Rosen’s Diversified, Inc., merged with 

American Foods Group, Inc., creating American Foods Group, LLC, the Nation’s largest cow and bull 

slaughtering company. 

Concentration of the top four-firm steer and heifer slaughterers increased from 1980 to 1995; however, 

over the last several years it has remained stable, fluctuating between 79.2 and 81.4 percent (Table 1). 

Concentration declined slightly to 79.6 percent in 2004 from 80.2 percent in 2003. The U.S. Department of 

Justice and the Federal Trade Commission consider markets with Herfindahl-Hirschman 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; the value declined to 1,900 in 

2003, 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 2002 2003 2004 

Four-firm 

Concentration 

(percent)2 

35.7 50.2 71.6 80.8 81.4 79.2 80.2 79.6 

HHI3 561 999 1,661 2,036 1,939 1,842 1,900 NA 1 Data for 1980, 1985, and 1990 are based on firms’ fiscal years as reported to P&SP. Data for 1995–2004 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.

Marketing Methods 

There are multiple marketing methods of live cattle that are available to producers. The methods 

commonly fall into two categories, cash sales and marketing agreements which create an assured 

procurement (often referred to “captive supply”) and commit the cattle to a particular packer. Cash sales 

can be for immediate delivery or sometimes on a delayed delivery normally within a 2-week period. 

Sales that are committed to a particular packer for delivery in excess of 14 days assure procurement for that 

packer. These arrangements can be written or oral and establish an ongoing relationship for trading 

multiple lots of fed cattle, rather than negotiating single lots of cattle.14 “Forward contracts” refer to 

agreements between packers and sellers for future delivery of a specific lot or quantity of livestock. The 

price of these cattle can be set at the time of the contract or determined upon delivery based upon an agreed 

 

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.” U.S 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). 14 The term “lot” is commonly used by industry participants to represent a group of cattle purchased as a unit in a transaction. 
6

pricing arrangement using prices from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange futures market for live cattle with 

an adjustment for the basis at the time of delivery. Formula pricing agreements vary depending upon the 

type of cattle involved and the desired retail product. In these arrangements the seller agrees to deliver 

cattle to the packer at a future date with the price being determined by carcass grade and/or yield. The 

pricing mechanism is normally based on the current cash market at the time of the arrangement with 

premiums or discounts calculated from the carcass evaluation. There are numerous of these arrangements 

in the current market, many of which are livestock committed to an alliance or cooperative of some type. 

Some packers directly own and feed some of the cattle they slaughter. P&SP defines “packer fed” 

livestock as all livestock obtained for slaughter that a packer, a subsidiary of the packer, the packer’s parent 

firm, or a subsidiary of the packer’s parent owns, in whole or part, for more than 14 days before the packer 

slaughters the livestock. 

In 2003, 38.5 percent of the four largest steer and heifer packers’ slaughter was procured through captive 

supply, with 23.7 percent acquired through marketing agreements, 4.3 percent through forward contracts, 

and 10.4 percent packer fed (Table 2). 

Table 2. Packer feeding, forward contracts, and marketing agreements as a percentage of 

steer and heifer slaughter, four largest steer and heifer packers, 2000 – 2003 

Year1

 Packer fed and other2 Forward Contracts Marketing Agreements Total 

2000 9.1 2.0 27.1 38.2 

2001 10.9 2.5 29.5 43.0 

2002 9.6 2.4 32.4 44.4 

2003 10.4 4.3 23.7 38.5 

1

 Data for 2000 to 2003 were audited by GIPSA, and are not comparable to prior years (GIPSA-SR-05-1). 2

 “Other” includes steers and heifers purchased more than 14 days in advance of slaughter and not listed as packer fed, 

forward contracts, or marketing agreements.

Changing Business Practices in the Cattle Industry 

Changing Business Practices as a Result of BSE 

BSE concerns continued to affect livestock markets and slaughtering packers. Some packers ceased 

slaughtering non-ambulatory livestock and some re-tooled kill floors to slaughter fed cattle or species other 

than cattle. Cow and fed beef slaughterers, particularly in the northern U.S., reduced kills or closed plants. 

Livestock markets experienced a reduction in the number of cows and bulls consigned. Some markets 

reported a reduction in the number of sales held. Markets continue to reject distressed livestock. 

Companies that produce, process, or market natural beef are growing in significance due to customer 

demand for meat products perceived to be healthier. Natural beef companies are using concerns about BSE 

and other pathogens as an affirmative marketing tool. Packing companies that process and market natural 

beef require confirmation from producers that livestock have not been fed specified feed additives, and that 

they market their product accordingly. P&SP found that one packer that processes natural beef has 

agreements with sellers to delay payment until it receives an affidavit from the livestock owner establishing 

the lack of antibiotics, hormones, and prohibited feed additives. 

Animal Identification 

Livestock identification has been utilized for years for various reasons, including: establishing ownership, 

vaccination information, and tracing purposes. Since the discovery in the United States of BSE and other 

serious animal diseases, animal identification has received more attention throughout the industry. The 

National Animal Identification System (NAIS) administered by APHIS, USDA, is a national program to 
7

provide uniform animal identification in the industry. Several States and livestock organizations are 

working on pilot identification programs. The goal of NAIS is to allow tracking of animals from point of 

origin to processing within 48 hours without unnecessary burden to producers and other stakeholders. It 

will use three identifying factors: (1) premises identification, i.e., identification of all locations that 

manage or hold animals, (2) animal registration, and (3) animal tracking. 

The overall program is supported by the industry; however, the industry is split as to whether the program 

should be mandatory or voluntary. Currently, many segments of the cattle industry support making parts of 

the system mandatory over time.15 At the end of January 2006, APHIS reported that 50 States, 5 Tribes, 

and 2 Territories had programs for registering premises that house animals, including locations where 

livestock and poultry are managed, marketed, or exhibited. APHIS also reported that over 196,000 

premises were registered.16

Electronic Evaluation Devices 

Packers are testing or using electronic evaluation devices to determine quality or yield grade factors. All 

four major packers have an electronic evaluation device in at least one plant. 

AMS currently has performance standards established that provide for use of advanced technology to 

predict the yield grade characteristic for ribeye size or to predict the final yield grade of beef carcasses in 

accordance with the official United States Standards for Grades of Beef Carcasses (January 31, 1997). 

USDA currently approves the protocol in three separate phases: 

 Phase I – Demonstrate accuracy and repeatability of prediction on stationary exhibits 

 Phase II – Demonstrate accuracy of prediction at line speeds 

Phase III – Document operational procedures to ensure that appropriate presentation of carcasses 

and image capture are performed. 

Currently, two technology providers are approved through Phase II. The requirements for Phase III are 

currently being modified, but are anticipated to be published soon. A packer representative from one of the 

big four packers has indicated that the electronic ribeye measurement will initially be used to pay premiums 

and discounts based on the size of the ribeye. P&SP recently witnessed the use of two electronic devices 

using digital camera images. One is stationary and analyzes carcass merit as the carcass passes through the 

unit. The other is physically placed over the ribeye by a plant employee as the carcass passes by on the 

grading chain. 

In 2005, the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) adopted the American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards for electronic evaluation devices as a Tentative Code in its 

Handbook 44. The newly adopted standards cover equipment design resolution, units of measurement, and 

operator error; device performance repeatability, audit, examination, and tolerances; user requirements such 

as operation, installation, maintenance, training, and calibration; and predictive accuracy including 

repeatability, audit and examination. Inclusion of the standards in Handbook 44 promotes uniform 

application of the standards and enforcement by State officials.

Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (Check 21) 

Check 21 was signed into law in October 2003 and became effective in October 2004. Check 21 allows 

banks to truncate the flow of checks by creating substitute checks, to process information electronically and 

 

15 USDA, APHIS, National Animal Identification System (Draft) Strategic Plan - April 25, 2005. 16 USDA, APHIS, About NAIS, http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/about/index.shtml, accessed February 8, 2006. 
8

to deliver substitute checks to banks requiring a paper check. Uncollected checks or commercial paper in 

process of transfer from one bank to another bank result in a “float time” before the money transfer takes 

effect.17 Check 21 facilitates the speedy payment of checks, resulting in less float time within the banking 

system. 

Some livestock entities, especially auction markets, have relied on account floats to minimize the need to 

deposit actual funds into operating or custodial accounts. Check 21 increases the need for livestock entities 

to promptly deposit adequate funds to cover their payment responsibilities under the P&S Act. 

Under the P&S Act, markets are required, before the close of the next business day following the sale of 

livestock, to remit net proceeds of the sale to consignors or shippers. Typically, markets have remitted 

proceeds the day of the sale to all consignors or shippers present at the sale and prepare checks for mailing 

to other consignors or shippers. Some consignors, especially at small markets or at small animal markets, 

have taken their checks directly to the bank for immediate payment on sale day. P&SP employees are 

finding that some payment procedures are changing. Some auction markets are remitting proceeds the day 

after the sale. This practice fulfills the markets’ responsibilities under the P&S Act, but allows the markets 

1 extra day to collect proceeds from the sale before consignor’s checks can be presented to a bank. Some 

markets require buyers to wiretransfer payments or to use overnight mail (at the buyer’s expense), and 

some markets are charging buyers a late fee for payment extending beyond 2 days. Check 21 will continue 

to change business practices as check processing times decrease and banks make changes in systems to 

facilitate the handling of checks. 

 

17 The Federal Reserve Board, “Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act,” http://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/truncation/default.htm, 

accessed October 13, 2005. 
9

Section 2: Hog Industry 

General Economic State of the Hog Industry 

For most of the past fiscal year the hog industry benefited from high hog prices, strong domestic and export 

demand, and low feed prices. In May 2005, signs of weakening domestic demand became apparent, and 

producers’ prices began to decline. From October 2004 to April 2005, the 51-52 percent lean equivalent 

base price average was $71.39 per cwt18, an increase of 27 percent over the previous year. The market 

peaked in December 2004, reaching a high of $81.87. While prices remained higher than the previous year 

for each month through April 2005, the general trend was downward. In May and June 2005, prices fell to 

an average of $71.12, a decline of nearly 10 percent from the same period in 2004. Retail pork prices 

remained high and relatively constant from October 2004 through June 2005, with per pound prices in the 

$2.80s.19 Wholesale cutout prices saw slow but relatively steady declines, with second quarter 2005 prices 

down about 3 percent from the previous year.20 From January through June 2005, demand for live hogs 

was up 1.6 percent, while demand for pork was down 3 percent from the previous year.21 High retail pork 

prices, high energy prices, declining beef prices, increased poultry production, and lessening popularity of 

high-protein diets affected pork demand.22 Despite lower prices in the latter part of the period, estimated 

returns to producers were still positive for the first half of 2005.23 Packer margins throughout most of the 

year were low to negative. 

Exports continued to increase throughout the year, as the industry held historical markets and expanded 

into newer markets. In the second quarter of 2005, exports rose 28 percent over the year before.24 U.S. 

pork exports exceeded more than 2.6 billion pounds in 2005, an increase of 21 percent over 2004.25 The 

primary markets for U.S. pork were Japan (accounting for 41 percent of U.S. pork exports from January 

through June 2005), Mexico (19 percent) and Canada (11 percent).26 Exports to Russia more than doubled 

in the first 6 months of calendar year 2005 compared to the same period in 2004, and exports to smaller 

markets such as South Korea, Romania, and Australia also grew rapidly.27 U.S. pork exports have set 

progressively higher record levels since 2003, and now represent 15 percent of production, up from 8 

percent in 2002.28 Various factors account for the upsurge in pork exports over the past few years, 

including: a weaker dollar, making U.S. exports more affordable in foreign markets; BSE-related import 

bans on U.S. beef; rising standards of living in other countries; and concerns about livestock and poultry 

diseases in importing countries.29 Pork imports from January to June 2005 declined 9.3 percent compared 

to the same period in 2004, primarily due to the weaker dollar.30 

In spite of record hog prices during the past 2 years, producers restrained herd expansion. The total number 

of hogs was estimated at 60.8 million head in June 2005, up 0.2 percent from the previous year. Market 

hogs totaled 54.8 million head (up 0.1 percent from 2004) while the number of breeding hogs was 6 million 

head (up 0.7 percent).31 While the hog herd size growth was restrained, USDA analysts estimate that pork 

 

18 USDA, AMS, Iowa/Minnesota Daily Direct Hogs Report, LM_HG204, Various Issues. 19 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook, Various Issues, 2004 and 2005. 20 USDA, AMS, Iowa/Minnesota Daily Direct Hogs Report, LM_HG204, Various Issues. 21 Glenn Grimes, University of Missouri Demand Index, http://agebb.missouri.edu/mkt/bull13c.htm, accessed October 13, 2005. 22 Glenn Grimes and Ron Plain, University of Missouri Hog Outlook, http://agebb.missouri.edu/mkt/bull1c.htm, accessed August 19, 2005; USDA, 

ERS, Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook, June 16, 2005; Ron Plain, University of Missouri Swine Economics Report, 

http://agebb.missouri.edu/mkt/bull1b.htm, accessed July 18, 2005. 23 USDA, NASS, Quarterly Hogs and Pigs Report, June 2005. 24 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook, August 18, 2005. 25 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook, July 18, 2005. 26 Ibid. 

27 Steve Meyer and Len Steiner, Daily Livestock Report, Volume 3, Issue 155, August 16, 2005; USDA-ERS, Livestock, Dairy and Poultry 

Outlook, various issues, 2005. 28 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook, June 16, 2005. 29 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook, May 19, 2005. 30 Ron Plain, University of Missouri Swine Economics Report, http://agebb.missouri.edu/mkt/bull1b.htm, accessed August 18, 2005. 31 USDA, NASS, Quarterly Hogs and Pigs Report, March 2005 and June 2005. 
10

production for 2005 will be 20.7 billion pounds, up 0.8 percent from 2004.32 There are several reasons for 

the growth in production. Low feed costs and high hog prices offer producers an incentive to produce 

heavier hogs. Accordingly, the average dressed weight of hogs ranged from 201 to 203 pounds during the 

first 6 months of 2005, about 2 pounds more than the same period in 2004.33 Environmental regulations, 

local permitting requirements, and capital barriers to expansion also provided an incentive to increase 

slaughter weight instead of number of hogs.34 As a result of advances in breeding herd productivity, a 

continuing increase in the number of pigs per litter has became an important means of expanding pork 

production without adding to herd numbers. For example, pigs per litter averaged 9.02 in June through 

August of 2005, compared to 9.01 and 8.90 in the same periods in 2004 and 2003, respectively.35 Imported 

live animals from Canada slaughtered in the U.S. also added to total production of pork in the U.S. 

Acquisition and Concentration 

In December 2004, Hormel Foods purchased Clougherty Packing Co., a privately held California pork 

packing company, for $186 million. Based on U.S. Department of Justice guidelines36, this acquisition did 

not significantly increase concentration in the pork packing industry. Table 3 shows that the four-firm 

concentration ratio remained constant at 64 percent between 2003 and 2004, after the Hormel-Clougherty 

merger. In the previous year, the acquisition of Farmland Foods by Smithfield Foods, Inc., caused the 

concentration ratio to rise from 55 to 64 percent, and the HHI to increase from 1,005 to 1,334.37 In another 

important merger, in May 2005 Seaboard Farms (later renamed Seaboard Foods) announced plans to 

purchase Daily’s, a bacon processor in Utah and Montana. 

Table 3.—Concentration of the top four hog slaughter firms and HHI for all reporting packers1

 1985 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Four-firm 

 Concentration 

 (percent)2 

32.2 40.3 45.7 56.4 56.7 55.4 64.2 64.1 

HHI3 456 593 769 1,033 1,035 1,005 1,334 NA 1 Data for 1980, 1985, and 1990 are based on firms’ fiscal years as reported to P&SP. Data for 1995–2004 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 

Swine Marketing Contracts 

Swine marketing contracts between producers and packers became a major factor in the pork industry 

during the 1990s. In 2005, many contracts came up for renewal and pork producers considered their 

marketing options for the future. With market contracts, packers and livestock producers set a price based 

on pre-determined formulas and factors usually involving a spot market or key production costs. In 2005, 

some hog packers elected to renew or offer new contracts using estimated pork cut-out prices reported by 

AMS, USDA, as a means to set base price. These reported prices do not reflect data gleaned from 

mandatory price reporting requirements. 

 

32 USDA, OCE, World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, January 12, 2006. 

33 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook, June 16, 2005. 34 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook, January 21, 2005. 35 USDA, NASS, Quarterly Hogs and Pigs, September 30, 2005. 36 U.S. Department of Justice, Horizontal Merger Guidelines, April 2, 1992 (revised April 8, 1997). 37 USDA, GIPSA, Packers and Stockyards Statistical Report: 2003 Reporting Year, June 2005. 
11

Carcass Evaluation Device Standards 

Packers continue to move toward use of electronic evaluation devices to measure the carcass characteristics 

of interest, and producers rely on the packer to maintain and operate the electronic carcass evaluation 

devices fairly and accurately. Producers, however, do not have the ability to monitor packers’ use of the 

technology, although third-party oversight may be implemented in the future. 

In 2005, the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) adopted the American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards for electronic evaluation devices as a Tentative Code in its 

Handbook 44. The newly adopted standards cover equipment design resolution, units of measurement, and 

operator error; and device performance repeatability, audit, examination, and tolerances. The standards 

also cover user requirements such as operation, installation, maintenance, training, and calibration; and 

predictive accuracy including repeatability, audit and examination. Inclusion of the standards in Handbook 

44 promotes uniform application of the standards and enforcement by State officials.

Trend Towards Deeper Discounts on Heavy Hogs 

In 2005, information obtained by P&SP from packers, including payment grids on contracts filed to the 

GIPSA’s Swine Contract Library, indicated that packer margins for heavy hogs appeared to decline as 

some packers adjusted sort loss discounts. These adjustments provided a clear price signal to hog 

producers by offering less incentive to produce hogs that did not meet desired weight specifications. The 

adjustments to the schedules of premiums and discounts meant that hog producers are being required to 

carefully sort hogs to meet packers’ desired weight specifications in order to optimize payment. 
12

Section 3: Poultry Industry 

General Economic State of the Poultry Industry 

Despite an increase in production in FY 2005, the combination of strong domestic demand and an increase 

in exports limited downward pressure on broiler prices. U.S. broiler prices were moderately lower from 

February through September 2005, compared to the same period in 2004. The wholesale price in 12 major 

metropolitan areas averaged 72.6 cents per pound in the first 6 months of 2005 compared to 76.3 cents in 

the first half of 2004, and 59.9 cents in the first half of 2003.38 Federally inspected broiler slaughter 

(pounds) was 4.9 percent higher in the first 6 months of 2005, compared to the same period in 2004.39 

Turkey prices in the U.S. moved higher in the first 6 months of 2005 compared to the same period in 2004. 

Turkey hen prices (8-16 pounds) in the Eastern U.S. during the first and second quarters of 2005 were 6.1 

percent and 1.7 percent higher, respectively, than in the same periods in 2004.40 Federally inspected turkey 

slaughter (pounds) increased 1.4 percent in the first half of 2005 compared to the same period in 2004.41 

Increased exports of turkey from the U.S. in the first 6 months of 2005 resulted in falling turkey cold 

storage stocks despite the higher production and slightly lower domestic consumption. 

Acquisitions and Concentration 

There were no major acquisitions or mergers by broiler slaughterers in FY 2005. The four-firm 

concentration ratio in broiler slaughter rose from 48 percent in the years 2001 and 2002 to 55 percent in 

2003, and dropped 1 percentage point to 54 percent in 2004, which is the most current data available (Table 

4). The HHI for the broiler industry fell slightly from 995 in 2003 to 974 in 2004. 

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

1990 1995 1997 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Four-firm 

 Concentration 

 (percent)2

41 46 44 49 48 48 55 54 

HHI NA NA 611 916 876 868 995 974 

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. 

Although there were no major acquisitions or mergers, one firm expanded operations and one firm changed 

ownership in FY 2005. Sanderson Farms, Inc., began operations at its newly constructed broiler slaughter 

complex facilities in Moultrie, Georgia, in August 2005. In August 2005, The Hain Celestial Group, a 

Melville, New York, based natural and organic food and personal care products company, purchased the 

poultry processing facility assets of Fredericksburg, Pennsylvania, based College Hill Poultry. 

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

FY 2005. The turkey slaughter concentration ratios rose from 54 percent in 2002 and 2003 to 55 percent in 

2004, which is the most current data available (Table 5). The HHI for the turkey industry rose slightly 

from 911 in 2003 to 951 in 2004. 

 

38 Cattle Fax, “12 City Broiler (Monthly Price)” http://www.cattle-fax.com/data/files/poultry/12citybroilerprice.xls, accessed October 13, 2005. 39 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook. LDP-M-135. 40 Ibid. 

41 Ibid. 
13

Table 5.—Concentration of the top four-firm turkey slaughterers and HHI for all reporting packers1

1987 1992 1997 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Four-firm 

 Concentration 

 (percent)2

38 45 41 41 55 54 54 55 

HHI NA NA 496 680 975 945 911 951 

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. 

Changing Business Practices in the Poultry Industry 

Avian Influenza 

Avian influenza is a highly contagious viral disease affecting mostly chickens, ducks, turkeys, 

quail, and other birds. Outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and H5N1 

continued in Asia and spread to Eastern Europe in 2005. The spread of the disease in Asia and 

parts of Europe has been facilitated by production in outdoor conditions and the intermingling of 

poultry in live bird markets. The U.S. commercial poultry industry contrasts sharply to European 

and Asian markets in that birds are raised in confinement where they are insulated from infected 

birds in other flocks and wild birds. In addition, the U.S. commercial sector is made up of 

vertically integrated firms that own the bird from chick to slaughter, constantly monitor the health 

of flocks, and take biosecurity precautions. In response to recent concerns regarding avian 

influenza, a voluntary industry testing program operated in cooperation with the USDA is being 

dramatically expanded by all major poultry companies, covering 90 percent of U.S. flocks. 

Increasing Broiler Weights 

Changing consumer demands for ready-to-eat chicken products affect the way poultry processors produce 

and market broilers. Poultry processors are increasing the processing weight of broilers due to increasing 

consumer demand for new products and the desire to maximize efficiency in processing. Broiler weights in 

2004 and 2005 have been significantly higher than the 5-year average. The mixture of smaller 

whole/foodservice birds versus larger boning/processing birds plays a major role in the overall average 

weight of broilers.42 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Effects 

In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated portions of southern Louisiana and parts of southern and 

central Mississippi. USDA’s Economic Research Service reports that the impact of Hurricane Katrina on 

overall U.S. broiler production is expected to be relatively small, although damage in specific areas was 

heavy.43 There are approximately 9,000 poultry houses in Mississippi and more than 2,000 poultry 

farmers. An estimated 2,400 poultry houses in Mississippi sustained some damage and, of the damaged 

houses, approximately 300 were destroyed. A poultry house typically contains 20,000-25,000 birds during 

the growth cycle. Mississippi produces 10 percent of the country’s poultry, and bird losses were in the 

millions. Poultry houses destroyed by Hurricane Katrina may be rebuilt, but with newer and more modern 

equipment. 

 

42 Chicago Mercantile Exchange, “Daily Livestock Report,” www.cme.com, accessed July 11, 2005. 43 USDA, ERS, Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook, September 16, 2005. 
14

Hurricane Katrina also damaged the port cities of New Orleans, Louisiana, and Gulfport, Mississippi. Port 

facilities along the Gulf of Mexico account for as much as three-quarters of the poultry exported from the 

United States to Russia. Poultry companies shifted export traffic from these damaged facilities to 

Pensacola, Florida; Mobile, Alabama; and other ports.44 

Poultry Care and Handling 

Animal welfare has become a priority issue in the poultry industry. Many poultry companies now 

hire personnel to oversee the proper care and handling of poultry through all points from the 

hatchery, to the grow-out operations on the farm, and to the processing plant. Most companies 

conduct internal audits specifically for the proper care and handling of poultry.45

Fast food customers, distribution companies, grocery chains, and foreign governments often 

require poultry companies to adopt the standards of care set by various animal welfare audit 

programs. The customers either conduct audits themselves or contract for external audits of the 

processing plants and the care and handling on independent broiler farms.46

 

44 Poultry Times, “Industry Affected By Hurricane Katrina,” www.poultryandeggnews.com, accessed September 26, 2005. 45 U.S. Poultry and Egg Association, Poultry Care and Handling Workshop, “The NCC Animal Welfare Program: Guidelines and Audit 

Procedures,” presented by Stephen Pretanik, August 10-11, 2005. 46 U.S. Poultry and Egg Association, Poultry Care and Handling Workshop, “SYSCO Corporation Poultry Animal Handling and Welfare 

Program,” presented by Dale Schiffner, August 10-11, 2005. 
15

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

Concerns under the Packers and Stockyards Act

Adequacy of Bonds for Regulated Entities 

The regulations issued under the P&S Act prescribe bond requirements and bonding formulas for packers 

purchasing over $500,000 of livestock annually; market agencies buying or selling on commission, or 

acting as clearing agencies; and dealers. These entities must execute and maintain a bond or bond 

equivalent to protect livestock sellers. The regulation that establishes formulas for computing bond 

amounts was last modified in 1983. These bonding formulas do not always 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: P&SP formed an internal task force to evaluate the effectiveness of P&SP’s bond 

requirements in today’s regulated industries. The task force’s initial findings showed that the cost of 

increasing bond coverage at an equal rate for all dealers, market agencies and subject packers outweighed 

the benefits to livestock sellers. The task force continued exploring alternatives to across-the-board bond 

increases and developed additional recommendations. After a review and evaluation of the task force’s 

revised recommendations, P&SP will initiate appropriate action. 

Retaliation in the Poultry Industry 

P&SP regularly hears from and meets with poultry growers and other members of the poultry industry. A 

recurring concern reported to P&SP during FY 2005 was retaliation by live poultry dealers against poultry 

growers who report unfair practices to USDA or other law enforcement agencies. 

GIPSA Response: Retaliation by a live poultry dealer against a poultry grower for expressing concerns 

and filing complaints with appropriate law enforcement agencies, including USDA, is an unfair practice. 

P&SP will vigorously investigate reported incidences of retaliation and initiate action. 

P&SP is considering modifying existing regulations to provide increased transparency in agreements 

between live poultry dealers and poultry growers. These modifications could include prescribing a 

minimum period of time for poultry growers to review poultry growing arrangements before entering into 

such agreements or requiring that additional information be provided by live poultry dealers to poultry 

growers in settlement documents. 

Federal Litigation in the Poultry Industry 

In June 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a plaintiff alleging violations of 

Section 202 of the P&S Act by a live poultry dealer must prove that the alleged violation adversely affects 

competition or is likely to adversely affect competition in order to prevail. Section 202 prohibits live 

poultry dealers from engaging in or using “any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or 

device.” 

The plaintiffs in this case were poultry growers who grew poultry under production contracts with a live 

poultry dealer. The plaintiffs brought an action against the live poultry dealer alleging violations of the 

P&S Act, including unfair contract termination and retaliation. After a jury verdict in favor of the 

plaintiffs, the Federal district court set aside the verdict, including monetary damages, and the plaintiffs 

appealed. 
16

USDA, through an amicus curiae brief, argued that “the plain language of the statute, the purpose of the 

P&S Act, and the . . . [Secretary’s] interpretation all indicate that in order to prove that any practice is 

‘unfair’ under § 202(a), it is not necessary to prove predatory intent, competitive injury, or likelihood of 

injury.” The live poultry dealer argued that the district court correctly ruled that the plaintiffs must 

establish that “the unfair, discriminatory or deceptive practice adversely affected competition in order to 

prevail under the PSA.” 

The Eleventh Circuit Court held that violation of section 202(a) of the P&S Act must have a showing of 

competitive harm or the likelihood thereof. 

GIPSA Response: GIPSA lacks administrative authority to enforce violations of section 202 of the P&S 

Act against live poultry dealers. Enforcement actions must be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice 

and are litigated in Federal district court. GIPSA is evaluating the Eleventh Circuit Court’s decision and its 

impact on future cases involving alleged violations of section 202 by live poultry dealers. 

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

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

determine the value and payment 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 

quality characteristics upon which payment is based. Before 2003, there were no established, verifiable 

and traceable standards in use to determine the accuracy of electronic evaluation devices and/or systems. 

In the hog industry, packers pay most producers based on the estimated lean percent of hogs, using 

formulas that incorporate measurements taken by electronic carcass evaluation devices. In the cattle 

industry, packers pay some producers on the yield grade of their cattle, estimated by electronic evaluation 

devices. In both industries, packers are replacing USDA graders (in whole or in part) with electronic 

carcass evaluation devices. Packers use the devices to measure the carcass characteristic of interest, and 

producers rely on the packer to maintain and operate the electronic carcass evaluation devices fairly and 

accurately. Producers, however, do not have the ability to monitor the packer’s use of the technology, 

although third-party oversight may be possible. 

GIPSA Response: Because there were no standards governing the use and accuracy of electronic 

evaluation devices in the livestock and meatpacking industries, P&SP established a task force, with 

assistance from the NIST, AMS, personnel from State weights and measures departments, equipment 

manufacturers, academicians, and others, to develop voluntary industry standards governing use of these 

electronic evaluation devices. Four voluntary standards were recently adopted and published by ASTM: 

• Design of Device: Sets out certain criteria for the design of the evaluation devices (impacts 

manufacturers); 

• Device Performance: Sets out criteria for the performance of the evaluation devices and systems 

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

• User Requirements: Sets out requirements for users, including maintenance, operation, 

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

• Predictive Accuracy: Sets out standardized methods to collect and analyze data and develop a 

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

In July 2005, NCWM adopted the voluntary industry standards on carcass evaluation devices as a tentative 

code in the NIST Handbook 44. Inclusion of the standards in Handbook 44 promotes uniform application 

of the standards and enforcement by State officials. 
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: 

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: CMAR COORDINATOR.

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: CMAR COORDINATOR.

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, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial 

status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because 

all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (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 to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.