United States Department of Agriculture

Protecting fair trade practices, financial integrity, and 

competitive markets for livestock, meat and poultry.

 

PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS PROGRAM

Annual Report 2017

Agricultural Marketing Service
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Packers and Stockyards Program Overview � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Packers and Stockyards Program Snapshot � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 3

Economic State of the Livestock and Poultry Industries� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 4

Changing Business Practices in the Livestock and Poultry Industries � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 10

P&SP Regional Office Activities� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 21

P&SP Program Performance and Efficiency � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 32

Appendix A - Data Sources � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 35

Appendix B - Field Staff and Office Locations � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 36

Contacting P&SP � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 37
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

1

 PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS PROGRAM OVERVIEW PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS PROGRAM OVERVIEW

1

On November 14, 2017, the Packers and Stockyards Program was reorganized as a new Division within the 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) Fair Trade Practices Program. The activities and structure of the Packers 

and Stockyards Program described in this Annual Report are based on its status as of September 30, 2017, and 

do not reflect subsequent changes to the organization.

The Packers and Stockyards Program (P&SP) operates under the authority of the Packers and Stockyards Act 

of 1921 (P&S Act) (7 U.S.C. § 181 et seq.), which makes it unlawful for packers, live poultry dealers, market 

agencies selling or buying on commission, dealers, and swine contractors to engage in or use any unfair, unjustly 

discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device.. In fiscal year (FY) 2017, P&SP’s budget was $23.0 million, 

unchanged from 2016, and 2015. At the close of FY 2017, P&SP had 137 full-time staff and 9 vacancies for a total 

of 146 full-time positions. P&SP’s three regional offices and the headquarters division are shown below.

• Eastern Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia

• Midwestern Regional Office in Des Moines, 

 Iowa

• Western Regional Office in Aurora, 

 Colorado

• Litigation and Economic Analysis Division (LEAD) 

 in Washington, D.C.

Each regional director manages its geographic area� 

Together, they supervise a staff of auditors, marketing 

specialists, resident agents, economists, attorneys, and 

administrative support staff who work from the regional 

office or various field locations throughout the region.

Staff members in the regional offices and field locations 

conduct investigations and regulatory activities These 

include business audits, weighing verifications, and dayto-day industry monitoring. Their work often takes them to 

the business locations of the regulated entities. A Central 

Reporting Unit located in the Western region processes 

annual reports filed by entities subject to the P&S Act.

LEAD provides litigation support by reviewing 

investigations and preparing sanction and stipulation 

recommendations. It also assists the USDA Office 

of General Counsel and the Department of Justice in 

preparing for hearings and negotiating settlements 

and testifying at hearings. LEAD also processes and 

summarizes industry data, develops P&SP policy, and 

prepares information materials, press releases, and notices 

and regulations under the P&S Act.

Packers and Stockyards Program Overview

REGIONAL EXPERTISE

In addition to its geographic area, each P&SP 

regional office maintains expertise in one or 

more species of livestock or poultry. The 

Eastern Regional Office focuses on poultry, the 

Midwestern Regional Office on hogs, and the 

Western Regional Office on cattle and sheep. 

At the end of FY 17, P&SP had 137 fulltime staff which included 71 office staff and 

supervisors in headquarters and in the regional 

offices. P&SP also had 43 resident agents, four 

resident auditors, and one market inspector 

who report to the regional offices and are 

located throughout the country to provide 

core services nationwide. Each regional office 

has agent supervisors who manage teams of 

agents, marketing specialists, and auditors� 

The geographically dispersed resident 

employees enable P&SP to maintain close 

contact with the entities P&SP regulates 

as well as livestock producers and poultry 

growers (see Appendix B, figure 8).
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

2

 PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS PROGRAM OVERVIEW

OVERVIEW OF P&SP AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

Under the P&S Act, the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) regulates specified activities of businesses 

engaged in the marketing of livestock, meat, and poultry. P&SP fulfills these responsibilities under the Act by 

overseeing the regulated business entities including:

• Livestock market agencies (both livestock auctions selling on commission and commission buyers)

• Livestock dealers

• Stockyards

• Packers

• Swine contractors

• Live poultry dealers (those who obtain poultry for slaughter either by purchase or under poultry 

growing arrangements).

P&SP does not have jurisdiction over livestock producers, feedlots, 

poultry growers, or most retailers. The Act describes unlawful 

behavior, and its regulations mandate certain business practices by 

regulated entities. These include mandatory registration of market 

agencies and dealers�

Market agencies, packers whose annual livestock purchases exceed 

$500,000, and dealers must secure bonds or bond equivalents 

to protect livestock sellers� Market agencies selling livestock on 

commission are required to establish and maintain a separate bank 

account designated as a “custodial account for shippers proceeds” 

and deposit into that account the proceeds from the sale of 

livestock� Regulated buyers must pay promptly for livestock�

P&SP uses its authority to investigate alleged violations of the 

P&S Act and regulations. USDA’s Office of the General Counsel 

represents the Secretary in enforcement actions under the P&S 

Act and regulations. The Office of the General Counsel takes 

administrative action when P&SP identifies violations of the P&SP 

Act. The Office of the General Counsel may also refer matters to 

the Department of Justice for prosecution, when warranted.

TRUST PROVISIONS

To protect unpaid cash sellers of 

livestock, the P&S Act makes packers 

subject to trust provisions. 

An unpaid cash seller of livestock 

triggers these provisions by filing a 

written claim with both the packer and 

P&SP� 

After receiving a claim, the packer 

must hold in trust livestock inventories 

and receivables, and proceeds from 

meat, meat food products, or livestock 

products until it makes full payment to 

all unpaid cash sellers�

P&SP can penalize a packer for failing 

to pay for livestock in violation of the 

P&S Act and for dissipation of trust 

assets�

A similar provision applies to live 

poultry dealers� 
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

3

P&SP benefits America's agriculture and consumers by enforcing provisions for fair trade, prompt 

payment, and competition in the marketing of livestock, meat, and poultry� Below is a snapshot of the 

agency in 2017 and its accomplishments in promoting industry compliance with the P&S Act.

$1.7 Million

Custodial Account 

Recoveries

2,093 Regulatory 

Reviews Completed

1,873 Investigations 

Closed

$23 Million P&SP 

Budget 2017

146 Full-time 

Positions 80% Industry 

Compliance Rate

6,288 Regulated 

Entities

Packers and Stockyards Program Snapshot

 PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS PROGRAM SNAPSHOT
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

4

 ECONOMIC STATE OF THE LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY INDUSTRIES

Section 415 of the P&S Act (7 U.S.C. § 228d) requires P&SP to make an annual assessment of the cattle 

and hog industries. The first part of this section assesses the general economic state of the industries that are 

regulated by P&SP. This includes trends in the number of entities, financial conditions, and market share 

of the four largest packers by type of livestock (market concentration). The second part examines changing 

business practices of entities in the regulated industries. This includes pricing and procurement methods, and 

the volume marketed through market agencies and direct purchases. Finally, this section outlines specific 

concerns about the events and conditions in the industries regulated under the P&S Act.

P&SP relies on data from reports that regulated entities are required to file with P&SP each year. The annual 

reports for the 2017 calendar-reporting year are not due until April 15, 2018. As a result, most data series 

in this section end with the 2016 reporting year. There are exceptions. These include statistics on entities 

currently bonded and/or registered as recorded in P&SP databases, USDA Agricultural Census statistics on 

swine contractors, and statistics on types of procurement methods compiled from data reported to AMS under 

the provisions of the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act (LMR) (7 U.S.C. § 1635 et seq.). 

The following entities are subject to the P&S Act:

• All packers operating in interstate commerce are subject to the unfair and deceptive practices 

provisions and prompt payment provisions of the P&S Act. Packers that purchase $500,000 or more of 

livestock for slaughter annually are required to be bonded and file annual reports. Bonded packers include 

entities operating federally inspected plants as well as some entities operating State-inspected plants. 

Some packers that purchase less than $500,000 of livestock voluntarily obtain bonds�

• Live poultry dealers include persons who purchase poultry for slaughter and poultry integrators who 

contract with producers for grower services to raise chicks or poults to slaughter weight�

• Livestock dealers purchase livestock for resale on their own accounts, or they may purchase or sell as the 

agent or representative of another entity�

• Market agencies are engaged in the business of buying or selling livestock in commerce on a commission 

basis� 

• Posted stockyards are physical facilities and are not necessarily separate businesses� Livestock auctions, 

which are market agencies are usually located at posted stockyards�

• Swine contractors contract with hog producers to care for and raise the contractors’ hogs for slaughter.

Economic State of the Livestock and Poultry Industries
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

5

 ECONOMIC STATE OF THE LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY INDUSTRIES

The number of entities subject to the P&S Act varies somewhat from year to year. The number of bonded 

packers and bonded market agencies increased in 2017. The number of bonded livestock dealers and live 

poultry dealers declined slightly from the prior year 1 (Table 1).

1 Data sources for all tables and figures are listed in Appendix A.

Table 1. Number of Bonded Packers, Livestock Dealers, Market Agencies, 

Posted Stockyards and Live Poultry Dealers Reporting to P&SP

Year Bonded 

Packers

Bonded Livestock 

Dealers and Market 

Agencies Buying on 

Commission

Bonded Market 

Agencies Selling on 

Commission

Live Poultry 

Dealers

2008 281 4,685 1,326 126

2009 284 4,529 1,225 125

2010 233 4,468 1,205 117

2011 258 4,572 1,220 136

2012 295 4,619 1,234 133

2013 297 4,639 1,216 136

2014 295 4,650 1,202 137

2015 303 4,607 1,224 133

2016 294 4,660 1,221 132

2017 304 4,634 1,223 129

At the end of fiscal year 2017, there were 304 bonded packers, 129 live poultry dealers, 4,634 registered 

livestock dealers, and 1,223 market agencies that were subject to the P&S Act. There were also just over 500 

swine contractors (Table 2) as of 2012. From 2007 to 2012, the total number of hog farms declined from 74,789 

to 55,882. This represented a decline of 18,907 farms or 25.3 percent. The number of contractors and contract 

growers also declined from 2007 to 2012. When slaughter hogs are grown under contract, swine contractors 

typically own the hogs and sell the finished hogs to pork packers. The swine contractors typically provide feed 

and medication to the contract growers who own the growing facilities and provide growing services� P&SP 

regulates the business practices of swine contractors, but swine contractors are not required to register with 

P&SP or maintain bonds� 
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

6

 ECONOMIC STATE OF THE LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY INDUSTRIES

Table 2. Number of Farms by Swine Grower/ Producer Type

Grower Producer type 2007 2012

Independent Grower

Contractor or Integrator

Contract (contract grower)

65,067

737

8,995

47,336

515

8,031

Total 74,789 55,882

Packers’ livestock purchases decreased to $62.8 billion in 2016 from $72.5 billion in the previous year and 

$79.0 billion in 2014 (see Figure 1). The dollar volume for entities selling on commission and for entities 

operating as dealers or commission buyers also declined. Fed cattle prices increased to more than $170 per 

hundredweight in late 2014 but had fallen to less than $100 per hundredweight in late 2016. Hog prices also 

reached a record high in late 2014, but the decline in hog prices was even more steep than for cattle.

Figure 1. Value of Livestock Purchased by Packers, Value of Livestock Purchased by 

Dealers and Market Agencies Buying on Commission, and Value of Livestock 

Sold through Market Agencies Selling on Commission

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Billions ($)

Commision Sales Value of livestock Packer Purchases Dealer and Commission Purchase Total Value
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

7

 ECONOMIC STATE OF THE LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY INDUSTRIES

P&SP requires packers with livestock purchases that equal or exceed $500,000 per year to report the number of 

head slaughtered annually. The number of cattle slaughtered by packers reporting to P&SP declined from over 

33.8 million head in 2011 to just over 28 million head in 2015 but increased somewhat in 2016 (Table 3). Total 

cattle includes fed steers and fed heifers, cows, and bulls, but excludes calves. In most, but not all cases, plants 

that report to P&SP slaughter either fed cattle or cows and bulls�

The number of hogs slaughtered increased each year from 2007 to 2009, then declined by around 3 percent or 

3.1 million head in 2010 and another 2 percent or 1.2 million head in 2011. Hog slaughter reached the highest 

level in the past decade in 2014, at over 122 million head, then fell to less than 114 million in 2015. In 2016 the 

number increased to over 116 million (Table 3).

Sheep and lamb slaughter has been close to 2 million head in most years since 2007, except for 2013 when it 

was at its highest level of 2.7 million head, 17 percent above the prior year. In 2016, the number of sheep and 

lambs slaughtered by packers reporting to P&SP decreased to 2�0 million head from 2�1 million in the prior 

year�

Poultry processors reporting to P&SP slaughtered an estimated 54.1 billion pounds of chicken and 7.3 billion 

pounds of turkey in 2016. This is the highest level reported for chicken in the past decade while turkey 

slaughter reported to P&SP has fluctuated between 6.6 billion and 7.5 billion pounds.

Table 3. Annual Volume of Livestock and Poultry Purchased for Slaughter

Packers and Live Poultry Dealers Reporting to P&SP

(Million Head) (Billion lbs.)

Year Cattle Hogs Sheep and 

Lambs Broilers Turkeys

2007 33.0 108.6 2.5 45.6 6.6

2008 32.0 109.0 1.8 46.2 7.4

2009 32.1 113.2 2.0 46.4 6.9

2010 33.0 110.1 1.9 48.4 7.2

2011 33.8 108.9 1.8 49.0 7.1

2012 33.5 110.1 2.1 49.4 7.5

2013 31.8 113.3 2.7 52.1 7.4

2014 30.0 122.3 2.3 50.1 7.2

2015 28.1 113.7 2.1 52.2 6.8

2016 29.3 116.3 2.0 54.1 7.3

 
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

8

 ECONOMIC STATE OF THE LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY INDUSTRIES

The number of hog plants increased slightly in 2016 while the total count of cattle and sheep plants declined 

from 2015. Although the number of plants slaughtering sheep and lambs has increased significantly since 2008, 

many of these are small multispecies plants that slaughter only a few sheep and lambs (Table 4). Poultry plant 

counts are available only for the most recent years�

Table 4. Yearly Number of Slaughter Plants Operated by Packers and 

Live Poultry Dealers Reporting to P&SP

Year Cattle Hogs Sheep and Lambs Poultry

2007 165 165 56 NA

2008 135 126 52 NA

2009 133 134 54 NA

2010 135 129 59 NA

2011 147 136 70 NA

2012 168 157 81 NA

2013 166 143 79 NA

2014 163 125 72 230

2015 161 138 81 240

2016 150 141 73 220

On Table 5, data on Total Value Purchases is the total dollar value of livestock purchases reported to P&SP 

on packer annual reports filed with P&SP each year. Data on total head of steers and heifers, cows and bulls, 

hogs, and sheep and lambs are from federally inspected slaughter plants. Data on broiler and turkey slaughter 

are total slaughter reported to P&SP on live poultry dealer annual reports filed with P&SP each year.

The four largest packers’ share of industry expenditures on livestock for slaughter has ranged from 66 to 71 

percent for the past decade (Table 5). The four largest packers that slaughter steers and heifers accounted for 

84 percent of total steer and heifer slaughter in 2016, a slight decrease from the previous year. Prior to 2009, 

concentration in steer and heifer purchases had remained around 80 percent. 
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

9

 ECONOMIC STATE OF THE LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY INDUSTRIES

Cow and bull slaughter has consistently been less concentrated than fed cattle slaughter. The four-firm 

concentration ratio increased to its highest level of 60 percent in 2013, declined to 57 percent in 2014 and has 

been 58 percent for the past 2 years. The four-firm concentration ratio for hog slaughter has remained in the 

low to mid-60’s range for the last 10 years.

Due to the small total slaughter volume for sheep and lambs, moderate volume adjustments by any of the 

largest four packers can result in relatively large changes in market shares. The four-firm concentration ratio 

in the sheep and lamb market was between 60 and 70 percent from 2007 through 2012. The share decreased 

to less than 60 percent in 2013, declined further to 55 percent in 2014 but increased to 59 percent in 2016. The 

market shares and other concentration measurements likely overstate concentration in the lamb market because 

non-traditional markets account for as much as one-third of the lambs slaughtered in the United States and are 

not included in the totals�

Concentration in broiler slaughter has been between 50 and 51 percent for the past 3 years, a sharp decline 

from the 57 percent level seen in 2007 and 2008. The share of production accounted for by the four largest 

turkey slaughter firms ranged from 57 to 58 percent from 2014 to 2016.

Table 5. Annual Four-Firm Concentration Ratios Among Meat Packing and 

Poultry Processing - Federally Inspected Plants

Year

Total Value 

Purchases 

(Total $ Value)

 %

Steers & 

Heifers 

(Total Head)

 %

Cows & 

Bulls 

(Total Head) 

%

Hogs

(Total Head)

 %

Sheep & 

Lambs 

(Total Head)

 %

Broilers 

(Total Lbs.)

 %

Turkeys 

(Total Lbs.)

 %

2007 66 80 55 65 70 57 52

2008 68 79 55 65 70 57 51

2009 71 86 55 66 68 53 58

2010 67 85 53 65 65 51 56

2011 67 85 52 64 67 52 55

2012 68 85 57 64 62 51 53

2013 67 85 60 64 59 54 53

2014 67 83 57 62 55 51 58

2015 68 85 58 66 56 51 57

2016 67 84 58 66 59 50 57
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

10

 CHANGING BUSINESS PRACTICES IN THE LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY INDUSTRIES

PROCUREMENT AND PRICING METHODS

The pricing method that sellers and purchasers agree to use for a transaction is a fundamental characteristic of 

any market transaction. For livestock, pricing methods are most often divided into two categories: live-weight 

and carcass pricing methods� 

In live-weight purchasing of livestock, the final payment is based on the weight of the live animal. 

Transactions that use some variation of live-weight purchasing are usually on an “as-is” basis with a single 

price per pound for all animals in the entire transaction. The price may be fixed by negotiation in advance, or 

established by formula from prices reported by AMS or a market price reporting service when the animals are 

delivered or slaughtered. In some instances, provisions may be made for paying different prices for animals 

that differ significantly from other animals in the transaction (e.g., animals that are much smaller than the 

average for the transaction may receive a different price).

In a carcass-based purchase, the final payment is based on each animal’s hot carcass weight, which is the 

weight of the carcass after the animal has been slaughtered and eviscerated. Carcass-weight transactions can 

involve a single price per hundredweight for all of the carcasses in a lot. They can also involve schedules 

of premiums or discounts based on the quality of the carcasses. These may be referred to as "carcass-merit" 

transactions. The price of carcasses can also be determined by other features, such as time of delivery and 

number of animals in the transaction. The price before premiums or discounts is referred to as the base price. 

One benefit of carcass-based pricing is the ability to convey market signals to livestock producers through 

premiums and discounts. The proportion of cattle purchased on a carcass basis has varied over the last 10 

years with no obvious trend, ranging from around 57 percent to 64 percent of total purchases. The proportion 

of calves purchased on a carcass-weight basis is considerably less than the percentage of cattle, but has also 

exhibited a mixed pattern (Table 6).

Table 6. Percentage of Livestock Purchases on a Carcass-Weight Basis

Packers Reporting to P&SP

Year Cattle 

%

Calves

 %

Hogs 

%

Sheep and Lambs 

%

2007 57.2 38.9 78.6 46.6

2008 62.3 46.1 87.8 55.2

2009 61.8 27.5 76.5 30.6

2010 59.1 36.2 77.5 31.6

2011 59.2 44.0 76.0 40.8

2012 60.6 28.9 76.4 36.2

2013 63.9 35.7 83.1 27.5

2014 62.9 38.7 76.9 26.5

2015 63.1 42.4 82.1 29.2

2016 66.1 41.3 82.3 30.4

Changing Business Practices in the Livestock and 

Poultry Industries
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

11

 CHANGING BUSINESS PRACTICES IN THE LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY INDUSTRIES

Carcass-based purchases have become the predominant procurement method of buying and selling hogs for 

slaughter and has comprised between 76 and 88 percent of the total over the last decade (Table 6). 

The proportion of sheep and lambs purchased on a carcass basis fell to about 31 percent of the total in 2009, 

followed by an increase of nearly 10 percentage points in 2011, and was just over 30 percent in 2016.

The number of cattle sold through livestock auctions declined from 35.3 million head in 2007 to less than 33 

million head in 2016 (Table 7). Stockers (heifers and/or steers that are being raised on pasture or other forage 

for sale later) and feeders (weaned calves that have been raised to a certain weight and then sent to feedlots 

to be fattened) make up the majority of cattle sold. Breeding stock, such as replacement heifers, young cows, 

and bulls, tend to sell through livestock auctions. Livestock auctions also sell a significant number of slaughter 

cows and bulls (beef or dairy cows and bulls that are no longer needed for breeding or milk production).

The volume of hogs marketed by market agencies selling hogs on commission from 2007 to 2016 has been 

between 7 and 9 million head in most years. The highest level of 9 million head occurred in 2009, but since 

then, volume declined most years to 7.7 million head in 2016 (Table 7). 

The volume of sheep and lambs sold through market agencies selling on commission has varied slightly over 

the past 10 years, but remained close to 3 million head in most years (Table 7). 

Table 7. Volume of Livestock Marketed Through Market Agencies 

Selling on Commission Reporting to P&SP

(Thousand Head)

Year Cattle Hogs Sheep and Lambs 

2007 35,263 8,395 2,772

2008 32,792 7,553 2,872

2009 33,214 9,047 2,883

2010 35,623 8,471 2,974

2011 34,956 8,919 3,046

2012 33,683 8,119 2,857

2013 33,690 7,319 3,162

2014 33,426 7,185 3,079

2015 31,650 7,453 3,015

2016 32,970 7,662 3,416
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

12

 CHANGING BUSINESS PRACTICES IN THE LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY INDUSTRIES

Packers use multiple direct exchange procurement methods to obtain livestock for slaughter. The methods 

commonly fall into two categories: (1) cash or “spot” sales for immediate delivery or delivery within 14 days, 

and (2) “committed procurement” arrangements that commit the livestock to a particular packer more than 14 

days prior to delivery�

Committed procurement usually uses some form of formula pricing� In cash sales, the prices generally are 

negotiated, although the transaction may include grids to establish premiums and discounts after the transfer�

Important components of 

committed procurement are 

“packer fed” livestock, “forward 

contracts” and “marketing 

agreements.” 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 firm owns, in whole or 

part, for more than 14 days 

before the packer slaughters the 

livestock�

P&SP considers “forward 

contracts” to be agreements 

between packers and sellers for 

deliveries more than 14 days 

in the future of specific lots or 

quantities of livestock. The price of the livestock in a forward contract can be set at the time of the contract or 

determined upon delivery based upon an agreed pricing arrangement�

The term “marketing agreements” includes a variety of arrangements that establish an ongoing relationship for 

trading multiple lots of livestock rather than negotiating single lots� In these arrangements, the seller agrees to 

deliver livestock to the packer at a future date, with the price generally determined by some type of formula 

pricing mechanism. The price is often based on the reported cash market or meat price at the time of delivery, 

with premiums or discounts determined by evaluation of carcass characteristics�

AMS publishes prices and volumes of livestock purchased under alternative pricing methods as reported under 

the provisions of the Mandatory Price Reporting Act (https://mpr.datamart.ams.usda.gov/).

Individual packers use a variety of procurement methods, ranging from packers that are fully integrated to 

packers that rely primarily on the open market. In 2017, formula pricing represented 58 percent of total fed 

cattle procurement compared to 37 percent in 2008 (Figure 2). Forward contracting accounted for 13 percent, 

higher than the 10-percent level in 2008 but a decline from 16 percent in 2015. 

Negotiated pricing, including negotiated grid and cash or spot market transactions, made up over 29 percent of 

total fed cattle procured (not including packer-owned cattle) in 2017, down from almost 53 percent in 2008.
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

13

 CHANGING BUSINESS PRACTICES IN THE LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY INDUSTRIES

Figure 2. Fed Cattle Procurement by Purchase Type, 2008 – 2017

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Percent of Total

Formula Forward Contract Negotiated Grid Cash

Most pork packers use some combination of packer-fed hogs, marketing agreements, forward contracts, and 

negotiated spot market procurement. These combinations typically vary by plant for multi-plant packers.

For all pork packers reporting to AMS in 

2017, about 43 percent of procurement 

was based on some type of formula 

pricing (Figure 3). Pork packers obtained 

about 2 percent of their hogs on the 

negotiated spot market in 2017, compared 

to about 9 percent in 2008. Marketing 

agreements based on a formula accounted 

for 55 percent of hog slaughter reported 

to AMS. 
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

14

 CHANGING BUSINESS PRACTICES IN THE LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY INDUSTRIES

With the decline in the volume of negotiated spot market hogs, both production and slaughter sectors 

increasingly question whether the negotiated live price fully reflects the value of fed hogs sold for slaughter. 

Consequently, the industry began migrating from formulas based on negotiated live or carcass prices to other 

publicly reported prices. A popular replacement price is the pork carcass cutout price reported by AMS.

Figure 3. Hog Procurement by Purchase Type, 2008 – 2017

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Percent of Total

Formula Marketing Arrangements Negotiated

In some respects, the market for slaughter lambs is similar to markets for cattle and hogs, but in others, it 

is considerably different. Lambs tend to be marketed in one of two channels. In the traditional market for 

slaughter lambs, the lambs are fed in feedlots and marketed to packers. It is this traditional market that supplies 

most of the lamb to supermarkets and traditional stores.

Lamb packers use similar methods to purchase lambs as beef and pork packers. The methods include spot 

markets, marketing agreements, forward contracts, and packer feeding. In the traditional lamb market, packers 

purchased approximately 21 percent of their lambs under a negotiated price. They purchased about 48 percent 

with marketing agreements based on some type of formula, and packers fed about 31 percent of the lambs for 

slaughter (Figure 4).

The non-traditional market is much different. It is characterized by small butchers and meat shops that process 

lambs and sell directly to consumers. Consumers can often choose the lamb before slaughter, and consumers 

may have the choice of purchasing the lamb and processing it themselves.
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

15

 CHANGING BUSINESS PRACTICES IN THE LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY INDUSTRIES

One aspect of the non-traditional market 

is that lambs are not typically processed in 

federally inspected slaughter facilities. The 

packers that process the lambs are far too 

small to meet any of the mandatory price 

reporting requirements. Consequently, 

there are very limited data available on the 

number of lambs in the non-traditional 

market. There are also limited data on the 

prices paid for the lambs or the amount of 

meat produced. Some estimates suggest 

that the non-traditional market for lambs 

may account for as much as one-third of 

the lambs produced in the United States.

There are also small butchers and meat 

shops that process cattle and hogs to sell 

directly to end consumers, and there are 

consumers that purchase cattle or hogs and have them butchered. However, these buyers purchase a relatively 

small portion of the cattle and hogs produced in the United States.

Figure 4. Lamb Procurement by Purchase Type, 2008 – 2017

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Percent of Total

Formula Packer-Owned Negotiated
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

16

 CHANGING BUSINESS PRACTICES IN THE LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY INDUSTRIES

CHANGES IN OPERATION AND ORGANIZATION

P&SP uses information about business practices at the packing plant level to identify industry trends� One 

significant measure may be the intensity of operations (e.g., one or two shifts per day). The number of plants 

in business at any given time might be another. The ownership of those plants may also be significant. Plant 

closures or re-openings can affect competition by shifting supply and demand patterns. The Federal Trade 

Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice review industry mergers and acquisitions 

under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-435).

P&SP monitors packers’ mergers and acquisitions to determine whether a change in business practices might 

reduce competition. Other changes in operations and industry conditions may also affect competition as entities 

attempt to adjust to changing conditions. P&SP monitors these industry events for any competitive effects.

Cattle, Sheep, and Hogs

In November 2016, One World Beef started 

processing cattle at a plant in Brawley, 

California. The plant was previously owned by 

National Beef Packing Co., LLC, but National

Beef closed it in 2013. In addition to its own 

products, One World Beef expects to operate as 

a toll or custom processor, that is, it expects to 

slaughter and process cattle on behalf of other 

packers charging them a fee for the service� 

In January 2017, Smithfield Foods began 

operating Clougherty Packing LLC which it 

acquired from Hormel Foods. The acquisition 

includes two processing facilities and three hog 

farms as well as the Farmer John and Saags 

Specialty Meats brands� Clougherty Packing 

slaughters about 7,400 hogs per day.

In April 2017, Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation agreed to sell its feedlots in Yuma, Colorado, and 

Leoti, Kansas, to Green Plains Inc. The two feedlots had a combined one-time capacity of about 155,000 

head. After the sale of Cargill's Texas feedlots in 2016, the Yuma, Colorado and Leoti, Kansas, feedlots were 

Cargill's last two feedlots. Green Plains is one of the world's largest ethanol producers, which began expanding 

into cattle feeding in 2014.

Prime Pork began operations in its new plant in Windom, Minnesota, in April 2017 processing about 5,000 

hogs per day. The facility was the former PM Beef plant which Prime Pork converted into a pork facility� 

CS Beef Packers, LLC began processing cattle at its newly built plant in Kuna, Idaho in May 2017. CS Beef 

is a joint venture involving Caviness Beef Packers and J.R. Simplot Company. CS Beef expects to process 

as many as 1,700 head of cattle per day. The plant processes non-fed cows and bulls and fed cattle for niche 

programs�
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

17

 CHANGING BUSINESS PRACTICES IN THE LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY INDUSTRIES

Robinson Premium Beef, LLC, which does business as Texas Packing Company, began processing cattle 

at its facilities in San Angelo, Texas, in June 2017. The Robinson Premium Beef plant was previously owned by 

San Angelo Packing Co., Inc. but closed in 2013. Robinson Premium Beef expects to process 300 to 350 head of 

primarily cows and bulls per day�

In July, Marubeni Corporation announced that it would purchase Creekstone Farms Premium Beef 

LLC from Sun Capital Partners, Inc. Creekstone Farms processed about 1,400 head of fed cattle per day. 

Marubeni is a Japanese Corporation with diverse holdings world-wide.

In September 2017, USA Beef began processing cattle at its Roswell, New Mexico, plant. The facilities were 

formerly owned by Pecos Valley Meats, which closed in 2012. USA Beef expects to process up to 100 head of 

cows and bulls per day with the potential for processing sheep, lambs, and hogs as well�

Also in September 2017, Seaboard Foods and Triumph Foods, in a joint venture, opened a new plant in Sioux 

City, Iowa, that processes about 12,000 hogs per day. About two-thirds of the hogs come from Seaboard and 

Triumph farms and the remainder is sourced from other producers and the open market. 

Clemens Food Group which owns Hatfield Quality Meats, opened a plant in Coldwater, Michigan, in September 

that processes about 11,000 hogs daily. Hatfield and nine area hog producers supply the hogs for the new plant. 

Pipestone Systems, Pipestone, Minnesota, added 55,000 sows and is now the third largest hog producer after 

Smithfield Foods and Seaboard Foods� Iowa Select, the fifth largest hog producer, added 36,000 sows.

Seaboard Foods, in its attempt to supply 

one-third of the hogs to the new Sioux City, 

Iowa, plant, added 35,000 sows by buying 

Texas Farms and part of Christensen 

Farms. Its Texas Farms facilities has the 

ability to expand by another 15,000 sows. 

Poultry

In January 2017, Pilgrim's Pride 

Corporation completed its purchase 

of Gold'n Plump, based in St� Cloud,

Minnesota. This expands Pilgrim's range 

of antibiotic-free products and its organic 

products� 

Sanderson Farms opened a new processing 

plant in St� Pauls, North Carolina, also in 

January. The new facility processes over 1 

million birds per week�

On February 25, 2017 a fire destroyed a House of Raeford Farms processing plant in Teachey, North Carolina that 

employed about 675 people. In June, House of Raeford announced it had chosen a contractor to rebuild the plant 

that it expects to be completed in 2018. Sanderson Farms processed chickens grown by House of Raeford Farms at 

its St� Pauls, North Carolina, facility on an interim basis�

In June 2017, Holly Poultry opened a new chicken processing facility in West Baltimore, Maryland. Holly Poultry 

expects the new plant to double its processing capacity to approximately 3.2 million pounds of chicken per 

week� 
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

18

 CHANGING BUSINESS PRACTICES IN THE LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY INDUSTRIES

CHANGING BUSINESS PRACTICES

Cargill sold the last of its feedlots in 2017. JBS has announced that it was offering all of its feedlots for sale. 

The sale would mark a change in the industry. Before Cargill began selling its feedlots in 2015, it was one of 

the largest U.S. cattle feeders. JBS is currently the largest U.S. cattle feeder, but if JBS is successful in selling 

its feedlots, none of the largest beef packers would own feedlots� 

Packers will still be able purchase cattle and have them fed in custom feedlots, but selling their feedlots is 

likely an indication of a desire to own fewer cattle and a preference for contracting rather than ownership for 

upstream coordination� 

With the purchase of Cargill's feedlots in Colorado and Kansas, an ethanol producer, Green Plains, Inc�, 

will be among the largest U.S. cattle feeders. It demonstrates the importance of distiller's grains in the cattlefeeding ration. In 2000, grain merchandizers such as Cargill, ConAgra, and Continental Grain were the largest 

U�S� feedlot operators� Now all three are out of the feedlot business and an ethanol producer is among the 

largest� 

INDUSTRY CONDITIONS AND EVENTS

Cattle, Sheep, and Hogs

Things appear to be moving in a positive direction for the pork industry as a whole, as both domestic and 

international demand for U�S� pork are strong, slaughter capacity is increasing, production costs are low, and 

disease appears to be under control. However, since growth in the industry is largely dependent on the export 

sector, a trade disruption in any of the major markets would harm the entire pork complex. In 2017 many large 

producers were scrambling to expand and during the past year, nearly a quarter of a million sows were added 

by the top 40 producers.

Production growth has largely occurred among existing large hog producers, rather than smaller producers 

or new entrants. The top 40 producers have increased their sow inventories in 2017 by about 250,000 

head and now control just over 4 million head or about 57 

percent of total U�S� sows� Similarly, integration between 

producers and packers appears to be increasing� Contrary to 

the industry trends observed in recent decades, integration 

has been forward rather than backward. Two of the three new 

large packing plants that opened in 2017 are a result of large 

producers entering into the packing sector of the industry� 

Increased demand has boosted hog prices. Except for the April 

through June period, prices in 2017 have remained above 

2016 levels and increased about $10 per hundredweight in 

October after two new plants opened. Higher hog prices have 

generally increased producer profitability in 2017 compared 

to 2016. In the first two-thirds of the year, profits were higher 

than in 2016 and in the last four months of the year losses are 

expected to be in the $10 to $20 per hundredweight range compared to $30 to $40 per hundredweight in 2016. 
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

19

 CHANGING BUSINESS PRACTICES IN THE LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY INDUSTRIES

The agreement in principle between Japan and the European Union (EU) on a free trade deal in July 2017, 

and a potential Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) arrangement, could leave U.S. pork exports at a significant 

tariff disadvantage relative to competitors. The two agreements are likely to contain similar tariff concessions 

for a wide range of pork products including fresh, chilled and frozen pork as well as processed products 

such as ham, bacon, sausage, ground seasoned pork and canned ham. The Japan-EU agreement could come 

into force as early as 2019 while Japan continues to advocate for a TPP arrangement without the United 

States. Similarly, on October 25, 2017, Russia issued decree No. 1292, expanding the ban on the imports of 

agricultural products from the countries that applied economic sanctions against Russia, including the United 

States, to live swine and certain meat by-products. Similar to the decree issued in June 2017, this import ban 

will be in effect until December 31, 2018.

Poultry

In May 2017, Tyson Foods Inc. announced that its chicken will be antibiotic free by the end of the year�

Perdue Foods and Pilgrim's Pride Corporation have already begun to produce poultry without antibiotics� 

In August, Tyson announced the opening of a state-of-the-art, 75,000-square-foot hatchery in Springdale, 

Arkansas to facilitate its transition to chicken production without antibiotics. The new hatchery will supply 

chicks to the company's northwest Arkansas operations.

INDUSTRY CONCERNS

Cattle, Sheep, and Hogs

An issue of concern for cattle and beef markets in 2017 and for several previous years has been thinning of the 

cash markets for fed cattle, and it will likely remain an issue of concern for some time� Many of the formula 

price agreements in the fed cattle market rely upon cash prices as a reference point, and the proportion of fed 

cattle purchased with cash prices has significantly declined in recent years to a low of just above 21 percent in 

2015. While the percentage of cash transactions increased by a few points in 2016 and 2017, it continues to be 

only about 25 percent� Consequently, a relatively small proportion of cattle traded on a cash basis determine 

the price for millions of head of fed cattle every year�

Thin markets do not necessarily imply a violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act, but thin markets can 

create problems. If the market gets "too thin," stakeholders can lose confidence that reported cash market 

prices are representative of the fed cattle market as a whole. Any time that a reported average is based 

on a smaller number of reported prices, the average will be more sensitive to the price of each individual 

transaction. The implications are that prices may be more volatile and more susceptible to manipulation. 

Markets for sheep and lamb have become so thin that USDA's Market News Service finds it increasingly 

difficult to report prices for market lambs without disclosing prices that individual packers paid for lambs. 

The Market News Service has made several changes to address the issue, but the inevitable result is less 

information available to the market. With contracts for live lambs, boxed lamb, and livestock insurance 

dependent on price reports, thin markets are forcing changes in the way that the lamb market conducts 

business� 

 
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

20

 CHANGING BUSINESS PRACTICES IN THE LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY INDUSTRIES

Poultry

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) became a concern briefly in 2017 in some States in the Southeast. 

On March 8, a commercial chicken flock in Giles County, Tennessee, tested positive for H7N9 low pathogenic 

avian influenza (HPAI). The flock was depopulated, and domesticated poultry within a 6 1/4-mile radius were 

also tested and monitored for illness. That surveillance zone was released on March 30. In April, the State lifted 

a statewide poultry health advisory and removed the control zone around two Lincoln County poultry farms hit 

by HPAI, allowing poultry owners to resume regular activity. In April, Mississippi began implementing new 

measures at poultry sales and exhibitions because of the influenza outbreak.
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

21

 P&SP REGIONAL OFFICE ACTIVITIES

The Packers and Stockyards Program conducts two broad types of activities at the regional office level— 

investigations and regulatory activities� P&SP generally categorizes regulatory and investigative activities as 

addressing areas of competition, trade practice, or financial concerns.

Investigations and regulatory activities are conducted by agents stationed in a regional office or by resident 

agents. P&SP resident agents located in the field are the agency’s frontline staff who work daily with regulated 

entities as well as livestock producers and poultry growers. They are typically the first responders for 

complaints and, because of their daily contact with the industry, primary sources of market intelligence. The 

locations of P&SP offices and resident agents are shown in Figure 8 in Appendix B.

Regulatory activities are compliance reviews carried out to determine if a regulated entity is complying with the 

P&S Act and regulations. Regional offices initiate regulatory activities based on annual business volume of the 

regulated entity, time elapsed since the last review, information obtained from an annual report submission, or 

from the P&SP Strategic Business Plan that is used to determine the annual industry compliance rate. Examples 

of regulatory activities include:

• Registering market agencies, dealers, and packer buyers who operate subject to the P&S Act,

• Conducting orientations for new dealers, livestock auctions, and packers,

• Checking the accuracy and repeatability of weighing livestock, carcasses, and live poultry,

• Auditing custodial accounts and payment practices,

• Reviewing marketing practices and determining the adequacy of bond amounts,

• Assisting producers with filing bond and trust claims, and

• Analyzing bond and trust claims.

Regulatory activities also include market-level price monitoring. P&SP monitors industry markets using 

publicly available data. For example, every week P&SP monitors fed cattle and hog prices as reported by 

AMS. P&SP also analyzes structural changes in the livestock, meat, and poultry industries. These monitoring 

activities have led to firm-level investigations.

P&SP initiates an investigation when it has information that a violation of the P&S Act has occurred. For 

example, P&SP may initiate an investigation in response to:

• a complaint from an industry participant,

• finding of possible violations during a routine regulatory activity,

• self-reported violations on annual and special reports filed with P&SP,

• possible violations found through other monitoring activities, and

• a need for follow-up on previously identified violations of the P&S Act

P&SP Regional Office Activities

Stakeholders in the livestock and poultry industries and the public may report complaints in one of three ways� 

They may call the P&SP hotline at (833) 342-5773 (DIAL PSD). They can call any of the regional offices to discuss 

their concerns, or they can send an e-mail to PSDComplaints@ams.usda.gov. If desired, complainants may register 

their concerns anonymously. P&SP responds to all of these external contacts.
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

22

P&SP REGIONAL OFFICE ACTIVITIES

P&SP sees a range of outcomes from its investigative and regulatory activities. P&SP agents frequently find 

minor violations or none at all. The regional offices often attempt to achieve informal compliance of minor 

violations by asking regulated entities to take immediate corrective action�

When agents uncover violations that are more serious, the regional office typically issues a Notice of Violation 

as a first step. If the regulated entity fails to correct the identified violations, the regional office generally refers 

a formal investigative case file to LEAD with a recommendation for more formal enforcement. LEAD may 

stipulate2 the violation(s) with the entity to resolve the violations. It may pursue administrative enforcement

through USDA’s Office of the General Counsel before a USDA Administrative Law Judge, or through the 

Department of Justice in Federal court.

Administrative enforcements3 may result in a civil penalty against the regulated entity, suspension of the 

entity’s Packers and Stockyards registration, both a fine and suspension, or an order to cease and desist from 

repeating the violation(s). In FY 2017, 53 entities stipulated to penalties totaling $128,575. Administrative 

Law Judges levied $489,950 in penalties, and Federal courts awarded $128,950 for a total of $747,475 in civil 

penalties (Table 8). Total civil penalties in 2017 are higher than in 2016 but lower than in the previous 3 years.

2 A stipulation is a legal agreement citing violation(s) found, and the civil penalty amount P&SP will accept in settlement without pursuing a formal 

action� In signing the stipulation agreement, respondents agree to pay the civil penalty and waive the right to a hearing�

3 Administrative enforcement is legal action taken within USDA. A complaint alleging specific violations is filed against a firm or individual. The 

accused party has a right to a hearing before an administrative law judge. The judge's decision may be appealed to the USDA Judicial Officer. The 

accused party may appeal the Judicial Officer's ruling to a U.S. Appeals Court, and further to the Supreme Court of the United States�

Table 8. Penalties Levied for Packers and Stockyards Act Violations 

FY 2013 - 2017

Type Judgment 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Stipulations $167,387 $118,025 $158,950 $155,425 $128,575

Administrative Penalties $2,998,614 $1,230,150 $499,300 $128,900 $489,950

Department of Justice Civil $84,900 $12,400 $299,360 $74,468 $128,950

Penalties

Total Penalties $3,250,901 $1,360,575 $957,610 $358,793 $747,475

Suspensions 34 11 6 7 5
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

23

 P&SP REGIONAL OFFICE ACTIVITIES

ENFORCING BUSINESS-PRACTICE PROVISIONS

The regional offices are responsible for conducting regulatory reviews and investigations of competition and 

trade practice provisions of the P&S Act, collectively referred to as business-practice provisions. The regional 

offices investigate alleged anti-competitive practices and unfair and deceptive trade practices by market 

agencies, livestock dealers and commission buyers, packers, and live poultry dealers� 

Resident agents and resident auditors conduct investigations and regulatory activities from field locations 

throughout the region. Economists, legal specialists, and investigative attorneys conduct the more complex 

competition investigations and regulatory activities. For example, an economist might monitor market and firm 

prices for indications of anti-competitive behavior. Marketing specialists conduct trade practice investigations 

and regulatory actions related to inaccurate scales or carcass evaluation instruments, improper weighing 

practices, and compliance with contracts�

Competition

P&SP investigates complaints alleging anti-competitive behavior such as collusion, price fixing, failure to 

compete, buyers acting in concert to purchase livestock, apportionment of territory, price discrimination, 

price manipulation, and predatory pricing. P&SP’s economists, legal specialists, and investigative attorneys 

collaborate with USDA’s Office of the General Counsel on competition investigations. When the results of an 

investigation, the evidence, and circumstances support legal action, P&SP formally refers the case file to the 

Office of the General Counsel for enforcement. The Office of the General Counsel further refers some cases to 

the Department of Justice.

P&SP monitors changes in industry behavior in order to understand the nature of and reasons for changes, and 

to anticipate potential competition issues that may result from those changes� P&SP also conducts economic 

analysis of significant industry events, including mergers, acquisitions, and plant closings. P&SP interacts 

with the Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on competition 

investigations and when analyzing mergers and acquisitions�

Fed Cattle and Hog Market Price Monitoring

P&SP’s fed cattle and hog market price monitoring program includes a weekly internal reporting protocol based 

on statistical models, one for the fed cattle markets and the other for hog markets. The statistical models rely on 

publicly reported price data to assess regional price differences.

In 2017, P&SP price monitoring activities identified 39 outliers in the fed cattle markets and 

33 outliers in the hog markets. In reviewing these price differences, P&SP determined that, in 

each instance, it could attribute the price anomalies to external market factors, such as weather 

conditions or other circumstances�
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

24

P&SP REGIONAL OFFICE ACTIVITIES

If P&SP uncovers discrepancies, it opens an investigation. If P&SP does not find evidence of a violation, the 

review is closed with a finding that the live poultry dealer is in compliance.

Trade Practices

P&SP reviews the activities of regulated entities to ensure that packers, market agencies, livestock dealers, 

and live poultry dealers do not engage in unfair or deceptive practices in the procurement and marketing of 

livestock, meat, and live poultry�

 Regulated entities that own or use a scale for the purchase, sale, or payment for livestock or poultry are 

required to file scale test reports as evidence of accuracy of scales, but P&SP also examines scales and 

weighing practices� P&SP also evaluates the accuracy and use of electronic carcass evaluation devices when the 

equipment is used to determine payment for livestock�

P&SP investigates complaints against packers, market agencies, and dealers alleging violations of the P&S

Act and when appropriate, refers matters to Office of the General Counsel for formal resolution of the 

complaints�

Entities that furnish stockyard services in commerce, i�e�, services at a stockyard in connection with the 

receiving, buying, selling, marketing, feeding, watering, holding, delivery, shipment, weighing, or handling 

livestock, are required to post a notice that informs the public that the stockyard meets the definition of a 

stockyard under the P&S Act. Once posted, the stockyard remains posted until P&SP de-posts it through public 

notice�

Poultry Contract Compliance Review Process

Poultry is almost exclusively grown under production contracts. Under a production contract, the live poultry 

dealer provides the poultry grower with many inputs including the live chicks, feed, and medications. The 

poultry grower will in turn provide the housing, equipment, labor, and fuel to grow the birds to a target 

weight established in the production contract� Once the birds meet the target slaughter weight, the live poultry 

dealer picks up the birds for slaughter. The payment to the poultry grower for their growing services is often 

determined by a poultry grower ranking system (commonly referred to as a tournament) outlined in the 

production contract�

P&SP regularly conducts poultry contract reviews in which it reviews poultry contracts and payment practices 

for consistency and compliance with the P&S Act and regulations. P&SP generally selects a sample of 

payment data from the live poultry dealer's records for a detailed review for accuracy and completeness and 

compares the results to the integrator’s ranking sheets, settlement sheets, and payments to ensure adherence to 

the contract�

In FY 2017, P&SP conducted 68 poultry contract compliance reviews; 42 were conducted pursuant to 

a Strategic Business Plan random sample and included as a component of P&SP’s performance measure 

(see Packers and Stockyards Program Performance and Efficiency section).
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

25

 P&SP REGIONAL OFFICE ACTIVITIES

Historically, several commission firms bought and sold livestock at the terminal stockyards, but most of 

these are gone now. Today, nearly all of the posted stockyards are local livestock auctions. Internet and video 

auctions that hold sales of livestock over the internet or through a video platform are still subject to the P&S 

Act and regulations, even if they do not operate at a posted stockyard. An amendment to the P&S Act in 2016 

made clear that farmers and ranchers selling through online and video auctions are offered the same protections 

as those selling at traditional livestock auctions�

P&SP meets with new auction owners and managers, ideally before it begins operations, to ensure that 

operators understand their responsibilities under the P&S Act and regulations. Visits in the early stages 

of operation also serve to protect livestock producers who rely on the livestock auction to provide a 

nondiscriminatory and competitive marketplace�

P&SP reviews procurement practices of packers to determine if they have engaged in unfair or deceptive trade 

activities or have provided undue or unreasonable advantages in procuring livestock or poultry. The reviews 

assess procurement and pricing methods, payment practices, and weighing of livestock and carcasses�

Anyone who believes that an action or omission of a stockyard, market agency, or dealer caused 

personal loss or damage in violation of the P&S Act may file a complaint seeking reparation 

(damages) with P&SP within 90 days of learning of the action that caused damages.
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

26

P&SP REGIONAL OFFICE ACTIVITIES

A transaction made on false or inaccurate weights, including instances in which a livestock auction, livestock 

dealer, or packer modifies the actual weight of the livestock or fails to pass on a shrink allowance, is an unfair 

and deceptive practice. The P&S Act and regulations require livestock auctions, dealers, and packers to test 

scales used for the purposes of determining payment two times per year, with one test in the first 6 months and 

one test in the second 6 months and to file scale-test reports as evidence of scale maintenance and accuracy. 

State or local governments and private companies test scales�

P&SP inspects the scales used by livestock auctions, dealers, and packers for weighing live animals� P&SP 

inspects hopper scales for weighing poultry feed� It tests static and dynamic monorail scales used to weigh 

livestock carcasses in slaughter plants and also conducts feed weighing inspections on truck scales and hopper 

scales at feed mills�

In addition, P&SP conducts several types of regulatory and investigative inspections to ensure scale operators 

and entities subject to the P&S Act are using their scales properly and recording weights accurately in the 

purchase and sale of livestock and for payments to hog and poultry contract growers�

These inspections include check weighing to assure repeatability of weight. The types and number of weighing 

inspections conducted by P&SP and violations from 2013 to 2017 appear in Table 9. In 2017, out of 864 

inspections conducted, P&SP agents found a total of 154 violations, or 82 percent in compliance, significantly 

higher than the 73 percent without violations in 2016.

Type 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Inspections

Livestock Auctions 358 319 376 391 294

Dealers 231 294 247 253 241

Packers 148 156 160 143 138

Poultry 95 106 101 110 108

Feed 65 81 75 88 83

Total 897 956 959 985 864

Violations

Livestock Auctions 68 65 108 134 56

Dealers 33 52 44 56 30

Packers 33 42 36 39 37

Poultry 11 10 7 21 14

Feed 8 14 13 15 17

Total 153 183 208 265 154

Table 9. Weighing Inspections and Violations, FY 2013 - 2017
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

27

P&SP REGIONAL OFFICE ACTIVITIES

ENFORCING FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

The financial provisions of the P&S Act and regulations support the financial integrity of regulated entities and 

foster liquidity in markets for livestock, meat, and poultry� P&SP enforces these provisions through several 

activities that include on-site financial compliance reviews and investigations and reviewing annual and special 

reports submitted by regulated entities. Financial compliance reviews and investigations address five issues. 

These issues include maintenance of custodial accounts, solvency, payment to livestock sellers and poultry 

growers, bond claims, and trust claims�

Under the P&S Act, most regulated entities are required to be solvent, i.e., current assets must exceed current 

liabilities. P&SP monitors solvency by conducting on-site financial compliance reviews and investigations. 

P&SP also monitors solvency by reviewing financial data in annual and special reports filed by regulated 

entities� P&SP requires special reports from entities whose annual reports disclose insolvencies� If P&SP 

determines that an entity is insolvent, it notifies the entity that it must correct the insolvency immediately. In 

addition, P&SP conducts on-site financial investigations. These investigations confirm whether entities correct 

reported insolvencies. The investigations also confirm whether entities resolved other financial issues. P&SP 

initiates formal disciplinary action when appropriate�

Market agencies selling livestock on commission such as local livestock auctions, video and internet auctions, 

are required by the P&S Act and regulations to establish and maintain a bank account designated as “custodial 

account for shippers’ proceeds.” This account is a trust account which holds in trust proceeds from the sale 

of consigned livestock for the benefit of livestock sellers. The market agency selling on commission acts as a 

fiduciary depositor to the account. 

P&SP monitors custodial accounts in several ways� It reviews annual and special custodial account reports 

from market agencies and conducts on-site custodial account audits. When the reviews reveal custodial 

account shortages, P&SP acts to have the livestock auction bring the account into balance by issuing a Notice 

of Violation or preparing for a formal enforcement. The table below shows the annual number of custodial 

reviews conducted by P&SP, the number of violations found, and the value of shortages corrected by market 

agencies because of the intervention of P&SP�

Table 10 shows that P&SP conducted 417 custodial reviews in 2017 and found 193 violations. The number of 

shortages in 2017 was similar to 2015 and 2016, but the dollar value of the shortages was considerably lower.

Year Reviews Account Shortage 

Violations Corrections ($)

2013 423 158 $3,364,543

2014 342 98 $3,846,844

2015 400 180 $2,978,657

2016 453 204 $3,317,866

2017 417 193 $1,668,901

Table 10. Number of Custodial Account Reviews, Violations 

Found, and Shortages Corrected, FY 2013 - 2017
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

28

 P&SP REGIONAL OFFICE ACTIVITIES

Bond Protections for Unpaid Livestock Sellers

All market agencies, all livestock dealers, and packers purchasing over $500,000 of livestock annually must file 

and maintain bonds or bond equivalents for the protection of livestock sellers. The bonds are for the benefit of 

unpaid livestock sellers should a regulated entity fail to pay for livestock. Those required to meet the bonding 

requirement may choose from three options to comply�

They may obtain a surety bond or in lieu of a surety bond, they may pledge one or more savings accounts or 

certificates of deposit under a Trust Fund Agreement. Alternatively, they may obtain one or more irrevocable, 

transferable, standby letter(s) of credit, issued by a federally insured bank or institution, and pledge the letter(s) 

of credit to a Trust Agreement. They may use a combination of these options to meet the total bond requirement.

To be eligible to receive payment under the bond, a livestock seller who does not receive payment for a 

transaction must file a bond claim within 60 days of the transaction. The seller may obtain claim forms from 

P&SP regional offices or at www.gipsa.usda.gov.

The seller must file a completed claim form, accompanied by supporting documents, with P&SP, or the surety 

company. P&SP analyzes each claim to determine whether the claimant filed it timely and whether the claimant 

provided adequate documentation to support the claim� P&SP provides its analysis to the principal and to the 

bond surety or trustee on a bond equivalent. The surety or the trustee decides whether claims are valid and 

timely filed and how much will be paid.

When circumstances warrant, P&SP immediately deploys a rapid response team to conduct an 

investigation for potentially serious financial situations that may cause imminent and irreparable harm to 

livestock producers�
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

29

P&SP REGIONAL OFFICE ACTIVITIES

Bonds often do not cover the entire loss sustained when a firm fails to make full payment. In that case, the 

claimant(s) receives a pro-rata share of the bond based on the value of the bond and the total amount of the 

valid, timely claims�4

The dollar amount of total claims on dealer bonds often varies significantly from the dollar amount of valid 

claims. This is because sellers frequently file claims beyond the 60 days after the transaction took place, 

and in this circumstance, the surety may deny the claim� Claim numbers have been revised for some years 

compared to those reported previously due to updated claim information and discrepancies in some years. The 

most significant change is for FY 2011 involving claims against Eastern Livestock. In this report, we are using 

totals in court documents from bankruptcy proceedings� 

Over the past 9 years, the largest dollar amount of valid claims were filed in 2011, and the rate of recovery 

in 2011 was a low of 11 percent. Claims filed in subsequent years had declined substantially until 2016 when 

the dollar value of valid claims increased to over $11 million. The share of valid claims recovered declined to 

14 percent in that year. In 2017, the dollar amount of valid dealer bond claims filed decreased to less than $1 

million, and almost 60 percent of that amount has been recovered as of the end of the fiscal year (Table 11).

Fiscal 

Year

Total 

Claims

Valid 

Claims Bond Other Total Recovered

% Valid 

Claims 

Recovered

2009 $3,134,145 $3,134,145 $348,018 $411,133 $759,151 24

2010 $51,781 $4,479 $56,260 55

2011 $38

$213,332 $101,512

,521,193 $18,516,016 $1,132,329 $851,944 $1,984,273 11

2012 $1,060,117 $516,344 $95,000 $68,811 $163,811 32

2013 $3,877,665 $3,828,780 $328,810 $2,411,470 $2,740,281 72

2014 $15,315 $13,315 $10,315 $0 $10,315 77

2015 $838,700 $20,926 $4,510 $16,416 $20,926 100

2016 $11,466,498 $11,331,648 $1,308,839 $273,947 $1,582,786 14

2017 $1,028,459 $752,707 $290,133 $151,813 $441,946 59

Claims against livestock auctions also varied widely each year over the past 9 years, and the total dollar amount 

of valid claims has been less than $1 million in any year though usually significantly less (Table 12). The 

proportion of claims recovered was lowest in 2009 and 2012, but since then, there has been restitution on up to 

90 percent or more of valid claims in most years. In 2017, the total dollar value of valid claims was less than 

$200,000, and 73 percent of that amount has been recovered as of the end of the fiscal year. Claims for FY 2016 

were updated from the previous report based on updated claim information�

4 In all bond claim tables, total claims are computed for the fiscal year in which the first claim was received. Bond claims are not always closed 

in the same fiscal year they were first opened and recovery for claims may be ongoing. Claims that are withdrawn are not included in any of the 

totals. Total Recovered amount is as of end of FY 2017.

Table 11. Dealer Bond Claims and Recovery, 2009 - 2017
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

30

 P&SP REGIONAL OFFICE ACTIVITIES

Table 13. Packer Bond and Trust Claims and Recovery, 2009 - 2017

Fiscal 

Year

Total 

Claims

Valid 

Claims Bond Trust Other Total Recovered

% Valid 

Claims 

Recovered

2009 $15,676,349 $15,676,349 $196,208 $9,999,228 $0 $10,195,436 65

2010 $5,960,684 $5,960,684 $748,435 $0 $3,825,518 $4,573,953 77

2011 $586,293 $586,293 $0 $81,978 $422,502 $504,480 86

2012 $22,706 $4,422 $0 $0 $0 $0 0

2013 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NA

2014 $39,765 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NA

2015 $191,298 $114,992 $0 $99,485 $0 $99,485 87

2016 $14,210,690 $14,210,690 $20,000 $14,172,296 $7,259 $14,199,556 99.9

2017 $23,757,904 $23,757,904 $0 $22,722,824 $0 $22,722,824 96

Table 12. Livestock Auction Bond Claims and Recovery, 2009 - 2017

Fiscal 

Year

Total 

Claims

Valid 

Claims Bond Other Total Recovered

% Valid 

Claims 

Recovered

2009 $981,189 $981,189 $261,498 $1,365 $262,863 27

2010 $20,901 $4,547 $4,547 $0 $4,547 100

2011 $75,119 $23,518 $22,162 $1,357 $23,519 100

2012 $877,861 $201,657 $82,953 $0 $82,953 41

2013 $763,422 $0 $0 $0 $0 NA

2014 $12,181 $706 $706 $0 $706 100

2015 $69,307 $66,307 $60,000 $0 $60,000 90

2016 $397,946 $0 $0 $0 $0 NA

2017 $441,433 $197,913 $143,468 $639 $144,107 73

As discussed earlier, the P&S Act authorizes unpaid livestock sellers to claim against packer trust assets. 

The trust is additional protection over any bond held by the packer. Some claim numbers have been revised 

compared to those reported previously due to updated claim information and discrepancies between years 

corrected. The most significant change is in FY 2016 which now includes claims against Sam Kane. Claims 

against packer bonds and trust assets resulted in a recovery of almost the entire amount owed for valid claims 

opened in 2016, and 96 percent of claims in 2017 (Table 13). These are the largest dollar amount of claims 

against packer bonds and trusts that have been filed in the past 9 years and recovery has been primarily from 

trust assets. In 2010, the majority of the recovery was from a source other than bonds and the trust. This is 

referred to as "Other" and is usually a loan or an injection of capital by an owner or investor, which the packer 

uses to pay unpaid livestock sellers.
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

31

P&SP REGIONAL OFFICE ACTIVITIES

Fiscal 

Year

Total 

Claims

Valid 

Claims Trust Other Total Recovered

% Valid 

Claims 

Recovered

2009 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NA

2010 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NA

2011 $8,010,978 $702,881 $270,525 $427,905 $698,430 99

2012 $387,688 $375,988 $187,354 $0 $187,354 50

2013 $127,596 $0 $0 $0 $0 NA

2014 $1,579,548 $1,579,548 $0 $0 $0 0

2015 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NA

2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NA

2017 $82,840 $82,840 $82,840 $0 $82,840 100

Table 14. Poultry Trust Claims and Recovery, 2009 - 2017

Poultry growers and live poultry sellers do not file claims against live poultry dealers as frequently as 

livestock sellers, and there were no claims filed for several years (Table 14). In 2017, there was full restitution 

for claims filed against poultry dealers and the poultry trust accounted for all of the reimbursement. 
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

32

 P&SP PROGRAM PERFORMANCE AND EFFICIENCY

P&SP delivers its mission by identifying broad, strategic, multi-year goals. It also sets shorter-term tactical 

annual objectives and activities as set forth in its annual Strategic Business Plan. This section addresses how 

P&SP strives to improve its performance and efficiency, and the demonstrated results.

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

P&SP assesses its performance annually by measuring industry compliance with the P&S Act and regulations. 

P&SP performs compliance reviews of a scientifically selected sample of regulated entities to estimate 

compliance rates in the following five areas:

1) Prompt payment of livestock auctions, dealers, and packers,

2) Financial reviews of livestock auction custodial accounts,

3) Scales and weighing practices at livestock auctions, dealers, and live poultry dealers,

4) Static and dynamic monorail scales, carcass evaluation devices, and related practices at livestock 

 packing plants purchasing more than 1,000 head per year, and

5) Contract compliance of live poultry dealers with contract poultry growers.

P&SP analyzes compliance data and general economic conditions� It uses this information to deploy its 

resources effectively to meet changing industry conditions. Compared to FY 2016, weighing practices 

compliance declined from 98 percent to 90 percent, carcass evaluation compliance declined from 90 percent to 

86 percent, and poultry compliance declined from 68 percent to 64 percent. The other components of the index 

did not change substantially from the prior year (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Industry Compliance by Component and Average Industry Compliance, 2013-2017 

P&SP Program Performance and Efficiency

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Percent in Compliance

Prompt Pay Custodial Account Weighing Practices

Carcass Eval� Poultry Contract Average Industry Compliance
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

33

 P&SP PROGRAM PERFORMANCE AND EFFICIENCY

P&SP puts emphasis on educational and outreach activities that improve industry compliance. During each 

regulatory review or investigation, P&SP agents discuss how to achieve compliance with regulated entities� 

However, economic conditions within the industry affect compliance rates. Weak economic conditions or 

highly volatile livestock prices may contribute to lower rates of compliance� 

EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENT

P&SP measures its efficiency at conducting regulatory reviews and investigations by comparing the total 

days between when it opens and closes each type of activity. The following figure shows the total number 

of regulatory reviews conducted by P&SP and the average number of days to complete a regulatory review 

(Figure 6).

The average number of days to complete a regulatory activity increased from 15 days in 2013 to 21 days in 

2015, but declined to 19 days in 2016 and 20 days in 2017. The number of regulatory reviews completed has 

declined from 2,161 in 2013 to 2,093 in 2017.

Figure 6. Number of Regulatory Reviews and Average Days to Complete a Review, 

2013 – 2017

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

0

5

10

15

20

25

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

No� of Regulatory Reviews

Average Days

Average Days Number of Regulatory Reviews
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

34

 P&SP PROGRAM PERFORMANCE AND EFFICIENCY

Figure 7. Number of Investigations and Average Days to Complete, 

2013 – 2017

The total number of investigations completed by P&SP in the field and the average number of days to complete 

an investigation appear in Figure 7. P&SP considers an investigation complete when it is closed by P&SP at the 

regional office level, closed by LEAD, or when the formal enforcement action related to the investigation has 

been completed for cases referred to Office of the General Counsel or Department of Justice.

For investigations closed in FY 2017, the average number of days to complete and close an investigation in the 

field decreased slightly to 104, from 106 days in 2016.

The number of investigations completed in the field decreased from 2,295 to 1,873. P&SP completed these 

investigations in several ways. For some, P&SP found no violations or reached an informal agreement to 

correct minor violations. P&SP resolved and closed other investigations by issuing formal Notices of Violation.

In the remainder of the investigations, the regional offices submit formal case files to LEAD with a 

recommendation for stipulation or enforcement by Office of the General Counsel or Department of Justice. If a 

regulated entity agrees to a stipulation, it waives the right to a hearing, admits the violation(s), and voluntarily 

agrees to pay a penalty. P&SP then closes the investigation. Cases referred to Office of the General Counsel or 

Department of Justice remain open until the Office of the General Counsel or Department of Justice completes 

the enforcement action. It takes much longer to resolve and close investigations referred to the Office of the 

General Counsel or Department of Justice for prosecution through a hearing before an Administrative Law 

Judge or a Federal court.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

90

92

94

96

98

100

102

104

106

108

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

No� of Investigations

Average Days

Average Days Number of Investigations
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

35

 APPENDIX A

Data Sources for Tables and Charts:

Table 1: Number of entities registered and/or bonded as recorded in P&SP databases.

Table 2: Data are taken from 2012 Census of Agriculture, swine contractors do not file reports with P&SP. 

Table 3: Data are compiled from annual reports filed by packers and live poultry dealers with P&SP each year.

Table 4: P&SP databases.

Table 5: Total Value Purchases is the total of livestock purchases reported by packers filing annual reports to 

P&SP each year� Concentration statistics for livestock slaughter (heifers and steers, cows and bulls, hogs, and 

sheep and lambs) are compiled from federally inspected plant data. Concentration statistics for broiler and 

turkey slaughter are computed from live poultry dealer annual reports filed with P&SP each year.

Table 6: Data are compiled from annual reports filed by packers with P&SP each year.

Table 7: Data are compiled from annual reports filed with P&SP by livestock markets selling on commission 

each year�

Table 8: Enforcement data from P&SP databases. 

Table 9: Scales and weighing inspection data from P&SP databases.

Table 10: Data on custodial account reviews are from P&SP database.

Tables 11 and 12: Data are from bond claims filed with P&SP by livestock sellers against the bonds of 

livestock dealers and market agencies�

Table 13: Data are from bond and trust claims filed with P&SP by livestock sellers against packer bonds and 

packer trusts�

Table 14: Data are from trust claims filed with P&SP by live poultry sellers against poultry trusts held by live 

poultry dealers�

Figure 1: Dollar value of livestock purchases packers, livestock purchases reported by livestock dealers and 

market agencies, and livestock sold through market agencies selling on commission compiled from annual 

reports filed with P&SP each year by packers, livestock dealers and markets selling on commission. 

Figures 2 to 4: Statistics on types of procurement methods compiled from data reported to USDA's 

Agricultural Marketing Service under the provisions of the Mandatory Price Reporting Act.

Figure 5: The margin of error in compliance performance measures in 2017 is (+/-) 7.4% for prompt pay, 

9.2 % for custodial account, 9.1% for weighing practices, 12.7% for carcass evaluation and 9.7% for poultry 

contract compliance.

Figures 6 and 7: Data on investigations and regulatory reviews from P&SP database. 

Appendix A
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

36

 APPENDIX B

Figure 8. P&SP Regional Offices and Resident Agent, Resident Auditor and Market Inspector Locations

Appendix B
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

37

 CONTACTING P&SP

To file a complaint, e-mail PSDComplaints@ams.usda.gov, call P&SP's hotline at (833) 342-5773, or contact 

the relevant regional office location:

Eastern Regional Office

75 Ted Turner Drive SW, Suite 230 

Atlanta, GA 30303

Telephone (404) 562-5840

FAX (404) 562-5848

E-mail: PSDAtlantaGA@ams.usda.gov 

States Covered:

AL, AR, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, LA, ME, MA, MD, MS, NH, NJ, NY, NC, PA, RI, SC, TN, VT, VA, WV,

and the Territories of the U.S., including Puerto Rico

Midwestern Regional Office

Room 317, Federal Building, 210 Walnut Street

Des Moines, IA 50309 

Telephone (515) 323-2579

FAX (515) 323-2590

E-mail: PSDDesMoinesIA@ams.usda.gov 

States Covered:

IA, IL, IN, KY, MI, MN, MO, ND, NE, SD, OH, WI

Western Regional Office

One Gateway Centre, 3950 North Lewiston, Suite 200

Aurora, CO 80011 

Telephone (303) 375-4240

FAX (303) 371-4609

E-mail: PSDDenverCO@ams.usda.gov 

States Covered:

AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, KS, MT, NV, NM, OK, OR, TX, UT, WA, WY

Headquarters Office

Stop 3601

1400 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington, D.C. 20250-3601 

Telephone: (202) 720-7051 

FAX: (202) 205-9237

E-mail: PSDWashingtonDC@ams.usda.gov

Please direct comments or questions about this publication to:

United States Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service, Fair Trade Practices Program, Packers and Stockyards Division

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20250-3601

Contacting P&SP
Packers and Stockyards Program Annual Report 2017

38

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations 

and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering 

USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender 

identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, 

income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights 

activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). 

Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e�g�, 

Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at 

(800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, 

AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a 

letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy 

of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Use of commercial and trade names does not imply approval or constitute endorsement by USDA.

May 2019