<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="cp:revision" content="2">
<meta name="meta:word-count" content="3385">
<meta name="extended-properties:Application" content="Microsoft Office Word">
<meta name="meta:last-author" content="raiadicicco">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="pkemere">
<meta name="extended-properties:Company" content="USDA APHIS">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="15">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="2010-10-27T18:57:00Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="2010-10-27T18:57:00Z">
<meta name="meta:character-count" content="19301">
<meta name="extended-properties:Template" content="Normal.dotm">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.microsoft.OfficeParser">
<meta name="extended-properties:TotalTime" content="600000000">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="115200">
<meta name="meta:page-count" content="15">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/msword">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><p>United States Department of Agriculture
</p>
<p>Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
</p>
<p>August 2010</p>
<p><img src="embedded:image1.jpg" alt="image1.jpg"></p>
<h1 class="title">Analysis in Support of Certification that the Rule will not have a Significant Economic Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities
</h1>
<h1 class="title">Final Rule
</h1>
<h1 class="title">APHIS 2009-0034</h1>
<p>RIN 0579-AD12</p>
<h1 class="title">Addition of the State of Santa Catarina, Brazil, to the List of Regions considered Free of Foot-and-Mouth Disease, Rinderpest, Swine Vesicular Disease, Classical Swine Fever, and African Swine Fever</h1>
<p>Policy & Program Development</p>
<h1>Summary
</h1>
<p>This analysis provides a factual basis for certification by the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
</p>
<p>APHIS currently recognizes the Brazilian State of Santa Catarina as an area where foot-and-mouth disease, rinderpest, swine vesicular disease, classical swine fever, and African swine fever exist.  APHIS is amending the regulations in 9 CFR part 94 by adding Santa Catarina to the list of regions considered free of these diseases.  This rule will allow the importation of live ruminants, ruminant semen, ruminant meat, ruminant products, live swine, swine semen, pork meat, and pork products from Santa Catarina.
</p>
<p>The final rule is not expected to result in beef or other ruminant meat exports to the United States of any appreciable quantity.  Santa Catarina contains less than two percent of Brazil’s cattle, most of which are dairy animals.  Brazil’s sheep and goat populations are also concentrated in parts of the country other than Santa Catarina, and their products are nearly entirely destined for the domestic market.  
</p>
<p> Pork imports from the State of Santa Catarina will compete with imports from Canada and Denmark, currently the United States’ largest suppliers of pork.  Taking into<b> </b>consideration probable partial displacement of pork imported from these countries by projected imports from Santa Catarina, the net increase in U.S. imports attributable to this rule is expected to be well under three percent.  Given the United States’ position as one of the largest pork exporters in the world, the market impacts resulting from the small amount of imports expected to come from Santa Catarina are likely to be minimal.
</p>
<p>We analyzed the potential effects of the rule by modeling three levels of pork imports from Santa Catarina, of increasing magnitude.  Estimated impacts include annual changes in U.S. consumption, production, the wholesale price, consumer welfare, producer welfare, and net welfare.  Pork imports of 10,000 metric tons (MT) per year (the ABIPECS projection) would result in a decline of $0.91 per MT (0.06 percent decrease) in the wholesale price of pork and a fall in U.S. production of 5,252 MT (0.05 percent decrease).  Consumption would increase by 4,745 MT.  Producer welfare would decline by about $7.6 million and consumer welfare would increase by about $8.0 million, yielding an annual net welfare benefit of about $0.4 million.</p>
<p>For each of the three assumed levels of pork imports, consumer welfare gains would outweigh producer welfare losses.  Even in the third scenario, in which we assume imports would equal 7.5 percent of Santa Catarina’s global exports, the decline in producer welfare would represent less than one-tenth of one percent of the wholesale value of U.S. pork production in 2009.  </p>
<p class="default_Text">A majority of enterprises that could be affected by the proposed regulation are small entities.  Entities in the category Hog and Pig Farming (NAICS 112210) are considered small if their annual sales do not exceed $750,000.  According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, over 89 percent of swine operations are classified as small and had average yearly sales of about $44,680.  Entities in the category Animal (Except Poultry) Slaughtering (NAICS 311611) are considered small if they have not more than 500 employees.  As reported in the 2007 Economic Census, over 90 percent of 1,597 establishments in the industry classification that includes hog slaughtering facilities had fewer than 100 employees. 
</p>
<p>The impact of the final rule for the U.S. pork industry is expected to be insignificant; we estimate that the average decrease in welfare for small-entity producers for the highest assumed level of imports would be about $23, that is, about 0.05 percent of average annual sales.  Based on the factors presented, this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
</p>
<h1>Introduction 
</h1>
<p>This analysis provides a factual basis for certification by the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
</p>
<p>APHIS currently recognizes the Brazilian State of Santa Catarina as an area where foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), rinderpest, swine vesicular disease (SVD), classical swine fever (CSF), and African swine fever (ASF) exist.  APHIS is amending the regulations in </p>
<p>9 CFR part 94 by adding Santa Catarina to the list of regions considered free of these diseases.  This rule will allow the importation of live ruminants, ruminant semen, ruminant meat, ruminant products, live swine, swine semen, pork meat, and pork products from Santa Catarina.</p>
<p class="default_Text">The final rule is not expected to result in beef or other ruminant meat imports from Santa Catarina into the United States of any appreciable quantity.  As noted in the risk evaluation for this rule, Santa Catarina contains less than two percent of Brazil’s cattle, most of which are dairy animals.  Brazil’s sheep and goat populations are also concentrated in parts of the country other than Santa Catarina, and their products are nearly entirely destined for the domestic market.</p>
<p>Effects for small entities due to pork imports from Santa Catarina, the focus of this analysis, are also likely to be insignificant.  We provide an overview of the pork industry in the United States and the pork and beef industries in Santa Catarina, Brazil.  In support of the certification statement, we estimate price and welfare effects of the rule based on assumed levels of pork imports.
</p>
<p class="default_Text">The U.S. Pork Industry</p>
<p>The U.S. pork industry plays an important role in the U.S. economy.  Cash receipts from marketing swine for meat were about $14.4 billion in 2009 (average between 2004 and 2009 was $14.8 billion).
  Consolidation of the pork industry has resulted in more pigs produced by fewer operations.  Additionally, this industry has been marked by increased concentration (vertical integration) in that many slaughter firms own the pigs from the time they are born until slaughter, relying on contracting arrangements with growers to manage the daily care of the animals throughout the different production phases.  Most hogs are produced in some type of confinement facility, which allows for year-round production.  Approximately 53 percent of all production sites are classified as total confinement.
</p>
<p class="default_Text">As shown in table 1, U.S. pork production increased from 8.6 million metric tons (MT) in 2000 to 10.4 million MT in 2009, an annual growth rate of about 2.1 percent.  Similarly, consumption increased from 8.4 million MT to 9.0 million MT.  During the same period, U.S. exports increased from 0.6 million MT to 1.9 million MT, by far outpacing imports.  Net exports increased from 0.1 million MT to 1.5 million MT.</p>
<p>Table 1: U.S Pork: Supply, Utilization and Price, 2000-2009 (1,000 MT; prices per MT)</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p>Year</p>
</td>	<td><p>Production</p>
</td>	<td><p>Consumption </p>
</td>	<td><p>Price </p>
</td>	<td><p>Exports </p>
</td>	<td><p>Imports </p>
</td>	<td><p>Net Exports </p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>2000</p>
</td>	<td><p>8,596</p>
</td>	<td><p>8,455</p>
</td>	<td><p>$1,413</p>
</td>	<td><p>584</p>
</td>	<td><p>438</p>
</td>	<td><p>146</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>2001</p>
</td>	<td><p>8,691</p>
</td>	<td><p>8,389</p>
</td>	<td><p>$1,473</p>
</td>	<td><p>707</p>
</td>	<td><p>431</p>
</td>	<td><p>276</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>2002</p>
</td>	<td><p>8,929</p>
</td>	<td><p>8,685</p>
</td>	<td><p>$1,179</p>
</td>	<td><p>731</p>
</td>	<td><p>486</p>
</td>	<td><p>245</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>2003</p>
</td>	<td><p>9,056</p>
</td>	<td><p>8,816</p>
</td>	<td><p>$1,298</p>
</td>	<td><p>779</p>
</td>	<td><p>538</p>
</td>	<td><p>241</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>2004</p>
</td>	<td><p>9,312</p>
</td>	<td><p>8,817</p>
</td>	<td><p>$1,621</p>
</td>	<td><p>989</p>
</td>	<td><p>499</p>
</td>	<td><p>490</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>2005</p>
</td>	<td><p>9,392</p>
</td>	<td><p>8,671</p>
</td>	<td><p>$1,562</p>
</td>	<td><p>1,207</p>
</td>	<td><p>464</p>
</td>	<td><p>743</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>2006</p>
</td>	<td><p>9,559</p>
</td>	<td><p>8,640</p>
</td>	<td><p>$1,491*</p>
</td>	<td><p>1,359</p>
</td>	<td><p>449</p>
</td>	<td><p>910</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>2007</p>
</td>	<td><p>9,962</p>
</td>	<td><p>8,964</p>
</td>	<td><p>$1,489*</p>
</td>	<td><p>1,424</p>
</td>	<td><p>439</p>
</td>	<td><p>985</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>2008</p>
</td>	<td><p>10,599</p>
</td>	<td><p>8,806</p>
</td>	<td><p>$1,462*</p>
</td>	<td><p>2,117</p>
</td>	<td><p>377</p>
</td>	<td><p>1,740</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>2009</p>
</td>	<td><p>10,437</p>
</td>	<td><p>8,975</p>
</td>	<td><p>$1,270*</p>
</td>	<td><p>1,872</p>
</td>	<td><p>378</p>
</td>	<td><p>1,494</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>5-Year Average (2005-2009)</p>
</td>	<td><p>9,990</p>
</td>	<td><p>8,815</p>
</td>	<td><p>$1,455</p>
</td>	<td><p>1,596</p>
</td>	<td><p>421</p>
</td>	<td><p>1,175</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>Sources: USDA/FAS, PS&D Online,  <http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/livestock_poultry.pdf; prices, reported as $/100 pounds for yearly pork carcass cut-out values, are converted to dollars per metric ton, and are taken from Red Meat Yearbook (94006), <<a href="http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/94006/wholesaleprices.xls"><u>http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/94006/wholesaleprices.xls</u></a>. </p>
<p>* These prices are from ERS/USDA, Agricultural Outlook: Statistical Indicators, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/agoutlook/aotables/2010/04Apr/aotab16.xls (accessed on 7/13/10).  http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ldp/2009/08Aug/ldpm182tables.pdf</p>
<p>Santa Catarina’s Pork and Beef Production and Trade</p>
<p class="default_Text">As can be seen from table 2, Santa Catarina is a net importer of beef and a net exporter of pork.</p>
<p>Table 2.  Santa Catarina Beef and Pork Production and Trade (1,000 MT), 2004-2008
</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>2004</p>
</td>	<td><p>2005</p>
</td>	<td><p>2006</p>
</td>	<td><p>2007</p>
</td>	<td><p>2008</p>
</td>	<td><p>Average</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Pork Production</p>
</td>	<td><p>587</p>
</td>	<td><p>619</p>
</td>	<td><p>733</p>
</td>	<td><p>754</p>
</td>	<td><p>724</p>
</td>	<td><p>683</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Pork Exports</p>
</td>	<td><p>233</p>
</td>	<td><p>283</p>
</td>	<td><p>187</p>
</td>	<td><p>189</p>
</td>	<td><p>170</p>
</td>	<td><p>212</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Beef production</p>
</td>	<td><p>123</p>
</td>	<td><p>120</p>
</td>	<td><p>122</p>
</td>	<td><p>113</p>
</td>	<td><p>113</p>
</td>	<td><p>118</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Beef Imports</p>
</td>	<td><p>62</p>
</td>	<td><p>66</p>
</td>	<td><p>67</p>
</td>	<td><p>69</p>
</td>	<td><p>68.2</p>
</td>	<td><p>66</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Beef Exports</p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>3</p>
</td>	<td><p>4</p>
</td>	<td><p>4</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>Source: Empresa de Pesquisa Agropecuária e Extensão Rural de Canta Catarina – Epagri Centro de Socioeconomicia e Planejamento Agrícola – Epagri/Cepa, <a href="http://www.cepa.epagri.sc.gov.br/"><u>www.cepa.epagri.sc.gov.br</u></a></p>
<p>Since the final rule is expected to only result in exports of pork and pork products to the United States, they are the focus of the analysis.  Santa Catarina accounts for approximately one-fourth of Brazil’s pork production (about 24 percent) and one-third of Brazil’s pork exports (about 31 percent).  Santa Catarina produced an average of 683,400 MT of pork between 2004 and 2008, although its pork exports declined (domestic pork consumption is increasing) over this period, from 233,000 MT in 2004 to 170,000 MT in 2008.
,
</p>
<p class="plain_Text">Impact of Potential Pork Imports</p>
<p>Imports of pork from Santa Catarina are expected to be 50,000 MT over a five-year period, assuming imports of 10,000 MT per year.  This level of pork imports by the United States would be equivalent to about two percent of Brazil’s annual pork exports (514,000 MT), less than three percent of annual U.S. pork imports (421,000 MT), and one-tenth of one percent of annual U.S. pork production (9,990,000 MT), based on data averaged over the years 2005 through 2009.  </p>
<p>We estimate the impact of pork imports from Santa Catarina on U.S. production, consumption, prices, and welfare using a net trade welfare model.  The data used were obtained from the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service’s Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS),
 the Global Trade Atlas, USDA Economic Research Service Meat Yearbook and data projected by the Brazilian Pork Industry and Exporter Association (ABIPECS).  The demand and supply elasticities used are -0.86 and 1, respectively (Sullivan, Wainio, and Roningen 1989). <b> 
</b></p>
<p>We analyze the potential effects of the rule by modeling three levels of pork imports from Santa Catarina, of increasing magnitude: (i) 2.5 percent of Santa Catarina’s average annual world exports, 2004-2008; (ii) about 5 percent of Santa Catarina’s average annual world exports (the level of exports projected by ABIPECS); and (iii) 7.5 percent of Santa Catarina’s average annual world exports, 2004-2008.  Amounts of pork shipped to the United States under the three scenarios would be 5,310 MT, 10,000 MT, and 15,930 MT. </p>
<p>Table 3 presents the changes resulting from the assumed U.S. pork imports from Santa Catarina.  Pork imports of 10,000 MT per year (the ABIPECS projection) would result in a decline of $0.91 per MT (0.06 percent decrease) in the wholesale price of pork and a fall in U.S. production of 5,252 MT (0.05 percent decrease).  Consumption would increase by 4,745 MT.  Producer welfare would decline by about $7.6 million and consumer welfare would increase by about $8.0 million, yielding an annual net welfare benefit of about $0.4 million.</p>
<p>Table 3: Potential Impacts of Pork Imports from the Brazilian State of Santa Catarina, based on Three Hypothetical Levels of Importation</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p>Assumed pork imports per year, metric tons</p>
</td>	<td><p>5,310</p>
</td>	<td><p>10,0002</p>
</td>	<td><p>15,9303</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Change in U.S. consumption, metric tons</p>
</td>	<td><p>2,521</p>
</td>	<td><p>4,745</p>
</td>	<td><p>7,563</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Change in U.S. production, metric tons</p>
</td>	<td><p>-2,789</p>
</td>	<td><p>-5,252</p>
</td>	<td><p>-8,367</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Change in wholesale price of pork, dollars per metric ton</p>
</td>	<td><p>-$0.48</p>
</td>	<td><p>-$0.91</p>
</td>	<td><p>-$1.45</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Change in consumer welfare</p>
</td>	<td><p>$4,265,737</p>
</td>	<td><p>$8,034,418</p>
</td>	<td><p>$12,800,872</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Change in producer welfare</p>
</td>	<td><p>-$4,057,366</p>
</td>	<td><p>-$7,639,867</p>
</td>	<td><p>-$12,168,048</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Net welfare gain</p>
</td>	<td><p>$208,372</p>
</td>	<td><p>$394,551</p>
</td>	<td><p>$632,824</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>Note: The baseline data used are five-year annual averages for production, consumption, price, exports and imports as reported in the last row of table 1.  The demand and supply elasticities used are -0.86 and 1, respectively.   
</p>
<p>1Calculated as 2.5 percent of Santa Catarina’s average annual world exports, 2004-2008 (5,310 MT).</p>
<p>2As projected by the Brazilian Pork Industry and Exporter Association (10,000 MT).</p>
<p>3Calculated as 7.5 percent of Santa Catarina’s average annual world exports, 2004-2008 (15,930 MT).
</p>
<p>For each of the three assumed levels of pork imports, consumer welfare gains would outweigh producer welfare losses.  Even in the third scenario, in which we assume imports would equal 7.5 percent of Santa Catarina’s global exports, the decline in producer welfare would represent less than one-tenth of one percent of the wholesale value of U.S. pork production in 2009.
  </p>
<h1>Potential Impact on Small Entities
</h1>
<p class="default_Text">Based on data from the 2007 Census of Agriculture and Small Business Administration (SBA) standards, we expect a majority of the enterprises that could be affected by the final rule to be small entities.
  Entities in the category Hog and Pig Farming (NAICS 112210) are considered small if their annual sales do not exceed $750,000.
  Over 89 percent of swine operations (66,798 farms) are classified as small and had total sales of 25.9 million (about 12.5 percent of animals sold) and an average inventory of 388 hogs.  Large operations (7,991 farms) had sales of 180.9 million hogs (about 87.5 percent) with an average inventory of 22,637 hogs.  Based on inventory share, small operations had annual sales of $3 billion and an average income of $44,680, while large operations had sales of $15 billion with an average income of $1,886,150. </p>
<p>Entities in the category Animal (Except Poultry) Slaughtering (NAICS 311611) are considered small if they have not more than 500 employees.  As reported in the 2007 Economic Census, over 90 percent of 1,597 establishments in the industry classification that includes hog slaughtering facilities had fewer than 100 employees.
,
  
</p>
<p>As shown in table 4, the impact of potential pork imports on U.S. producers as a result of this rule would be small.  The decrease in producer welfare per small entity for the highest assumed level of imports is estimated to be about $23, that is, about 0.05 percent of average annual sales by small entities.  
</p>
<p>Table 4. The economic impact of potential pork imports from Santa Catarina for small-entity producers, 2009 dollars. 
</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p>Change in producer benefit1</p>
</td>	<td><p>-$12,168,048</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Decrease incurred by small entities2</p>
</td>	<td><p>$1,521,006</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Average decrease per head of inventory, small     entities3</p>
</td>	<td><p>$0.06</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Average decrease per small entity4</p>
</td>	<td><p>$23.28</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Average decrease as % of average sales, small entities5</p>
</td>	<td><p>0.05%</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>1 From Table 3.</p>
<p>2 Change in producer benefit multiplied 12.5 percent (see text).</p>
<p>3 Decrease in producer benefit for small entities divided by 25.9 million (see text).</p>
<p>4 Average decrease per head of inventory multiplied by 388 (see text).</p>
<p>5 Average decrease per small entity divided by $44,680 (see text).</p>
<p>The 2007 Census of Agriculture also contains data on certain sub-categories of swine operations, namely, small family farms including limited resource farms, and farms having operators who belong to socially disadvantaged groups.
  Most farms that produce swine qualify as small family farms (gross farm sales of less than $250,000), and many of the small family farms also qualify as limited resource farms (gross farm sales of not more than $100,000 and low household income).  Categories of socially disadvantaged operators are women, persons of Hispanic origin, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, African American, and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific.  As described above for small swine farms generally, any economic impacts of the rule for operations categorized as small family farms or farms having operators who belong to socially disadvantaged groups would be insignificant, given the small quantity of pork expected to be imported from Santa Catarina compared to domestic production and current imports.
</p>
<p>Table 5 shows that among the 74,789 farms that produced swine in 2007, 48,943 (over 65 percent) were small family farms.  It is notable that the combined number of retirement farms (8,532 farms) and residential/lifestyle farms (21,256 farms) accounted for almost 40 percent of all swine farms. </p>
<p>Table 6 shows the number and percentage of swine farms that had operators belonging to socially disadvantaged groups in 2007.  There were 7,230 swine farms (9.7 percent) for which the principal operator was a woman.  In terms of ethnicity, 1,545 swine farms (2.1 percent) were operated by Hispanics and 1,747 swine farms (2.3 percent) had an operator who was American Indian or Alaskan Native.  The percentage of swine farms operated by African Americans was 1.8 percent.</p>
<p>Although most swine operations are small family farms and there are swine operators who belong to socially disadvantaged groups, economic effects of the rule for these farms are not expected to differ from the effects for swine producers generally.  We do not expect the final rule to have any appreciable impact on U.S. swine and pork producers regardless of the size of operation or operator classification.</p>
<p>Based on the above information and analysis, the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, regardless of the size of the operation or whether the operators belong to socially disadvantaged groups.  The quantity of pork expected to be imported from Santa Catarina is not significant; any effect on prices will be insignificant.
</p>
<p class="default_Text">Table 5.  Number and percentage of small family swine farms, 2007</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>Limited Resource Farms</p>
</td>	<td><p>Retirement Farms</p>
</td>	<td><p>Resi-dential/ lifestyle Farms </p>
</td>	<td><p>Farming Occupation/Lower Sales</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farming Occupation/ Higher Sales</p>
</td>	<td><p>All Small Family Swine Farms</p>
</td>	<td><p>All Swine Farms<b></b></p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Number</p>
</td>	<td><p>9,006</p>
</td>	<td><p>8,532</p>
</td>	<td><p>21,256</p>
</td>	<td><p>7,635</p>
</td>	<td><p>2,514</p>
</td>	<td><p>48,943</p>
</td>	<td><p>74,789</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Percentage</p>
</td>	<td><p>12.0</p>
</td>	<td><p>11.4</p>
</td>	<td><p>28.4</p>
</td>	<td><p>10.2</p>
</td>	<td><p>3.4</p>
</td>	<td><p>65.4</p>
</td>	<td><p>100%</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p class="default_Text">Source:  USDA NASS, 2007 Census of Agriculture.</p>
<p class="default_Text">Note:  A limited resource farm is a small family farm that has gross sales of less than $100,000 (indexed after 2003), and a household income less than the poverty level for a family of four with two children or less than half the county median income.  A retirement farm is a small family farm whose operators report they are retired (excludes limited resource farms operated by retired farmers).  A residential/lifestyle farm is a small family farm whose operators report a major occupation other than farming (excludes limited resource farms whose operators report a major occupation other than farming).  A farming occupation/lower-sales farm is a small family farm with sales less than $100,000 whose operators report farming as their major occupation (excludes limited resource farms whose operators report farming as their major occupation).  A farming occupation/higher-sales farm is a small family farm with sales between $100,000 and $249,000 whose operators report farming as their major occupation. 
</p>
<p class="default_Text">Table 6.  Number and percentage of swine farms with operators belonging to socially disadvantaged groups, 2007</p>
<table><tbody><tr>	<td><p></p>
</td>	<td><p>Farms where the Principal Operator is Female</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farms where an Operator reports Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farms where an Operator reports race as American Indian or Alaska Native</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farms where an operator reports race as Asian</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farms where an operator reports race as Black or African American</p>
</td>	<td><p>Farms where an operator reports race as Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander</p>
</td>	<td><p>All Swine Farms</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Number</p>
</td>	<td><p>7,230</p>
</td>	<td><p>1,545</p>
</td>	<td><p>1,747</p>
</td>	<td><p>248</p>
</td>	<td><p>1,372</p>
</td>	<td><p>117</p>
</td>	<td><p>74,789</p>
</td></tr>
<tr>	<td><p>Percentage</p>
</td>	<td><p>9.7</p>
</td>	<td><p>2.1</p>
</td>	<td><p>2.3</p>
</td>	<td><p>0.3</p>
</td>	<td><p>1.8</p>
</td>	<td><p>0.2</p>
</td>	<td><p>100%</p>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p class="default_Text">Source:  USDA NASS, 2007 Census of Agriculture.</p>
<p class="default_Text">Note:  For the ethnic/racial categories, farms reported for their top-three operators.  An operator may report as belonging to more than one ethic/racial category, and a farm may report having operators belonging to more than one category.</p>
<p><b>References  </b></p>
<p>Saatkamp, H. W., P. B. M. Berentsen, and H. S. Horst. Economic aspects of the control of classical swine fever outbreaks in the European Union, Veterinary Microbiology 73, No. 2-3 (2000): 221-237.</p>
<p>SBA, Small business Size Standards matched to North American Industry Classification System 2007, Effective August, 2008, (<http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf).</p>
<p>Stegeman, A., A. Elbers et al. The 1997-98 epidemic of classical swine fever in the Netherlands, Veterinary Microbiology, 73, No. 2-3 (2000): 183-196.</p>
<p>Sullivan, John, John Wainio, and Vernon Roningen. A Database for Trade Liberalization Studies, #AGES89-12, March 1989.</p>
<p>The Global Trade Atlas: Global Trade Information Services, Inc., Country Edition, August 2010 (<http.www.gtis.com/gta/login.cfm).</p>
<p>Thompson, D., P. Muriel, H. de Smit, H. Mosher, J. Smak, and F Pluimers. Economic costs of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the U.K in 2001, Scientific and Technical Review, 21, No. 3 (2002): 675-687.</p>
<p>UN/FAO, FAOstat data (<<a href="http://faostat.fao.org"><u>http://faostat.fao.org</u></a>).
</p>
<p>U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census: Manufacturing –Industries Series, Wholesale Trade-Subject Series and Transportation and Warehousing-Subject Series, Issued August, 2006.</p>
<p class="footnote_Text">USDA/ERS, Farm Income: Data Files, (<http://<a href="http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/farmincome/FinfidmuXls.htm"><u>www.ers.usda.gov/Data/farmincome/FinfidmuXls.htm</u></a>).
</p>
<p>USDA/ERS, Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook, February 20, 2007 and Jan 18, 2008, (<http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ldp/2007/02FEb/ldpm152.pdf;</p>
<p class="footnote_Text"><http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/LDP/2008/01Jan/ldpm163.pdf;</p>
<p class="footnote_Text"><http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ldp/2010/07Jul/ldpm193tables.pdf).</p>
<p class="footnote_Text">USDA/FAS), Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS) online (<http://www.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx). 
</p>
<p>USDA/NASS, Meat Animal Production, Disposition, and Income: 2009 Summary, April 2010, (<http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/MeatAnimPr/MeatAnimPr-04-29-2010.pdf).</p>
<p>� http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/MeatAnimPr/MeatAnimPr-04-29-2010.pdf
</p>
<p>� APHIS-VS-CEAH-NAHMS.  October 2007.  Part I: Reference of Swine Health and Management Practices in the United States, 2006, National Health Monitoring System.  #N475.1007.  Fort Collins, CO.
</p>
<p>� UN/FAO, http://faostat.fao.org/
</p>
<p>� The Global Trade Atlas, 2010.
</p>
<p>� �HYPERLINK "http://www.fas.usda.gov/dlp/livestock_poultry.asp"�http://www.fas.usda.gov/dlp/livestock_poultry.asp�; http://www.fas.usda.gov/livestock_arc.asp
</p>
<p>� $12.2 million divided by $13.3 billion = 0.09 percent.
</p>
<p>� The 2007 Census of Agriculture is available online at �HYPERLINK "http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/index.asp"�http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/index.asp�.  The SBA Table of Small Business Size Standards is also available online at �HYPERLINK "http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf"�http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf�.
</p>
<p>� SBA, Small business Size Standards matched to North American Industry Classification System 2007, Effective August, 2008, (<http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf, accessed on 8/4/10). 
</p>
<p>� The 2007 Economic Census is available online at �HYPERLINK "http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ECN&_tabId=ECN1&_submenuId=datasets_4&_lang=en&_ts=264361774447"�http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ECN&_tabId=ECN1&_submenuId=datasets_4&_lang=en&_ts=264361774447�.  Note the detailed statistics by employment size for the Manufacturing sector have not been released for the 2007 Economic Census.
</p>
<p>� 2002 Economic Census is available online at �HYPERLINK "http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/"�http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/�.
</p>
<p>� For definitions and information, see:  USDA ERS. Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms: Family Farm Report, 2010 edition, EIB-66, July 2010.  http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB66/EIB66.pdf
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
</body></html>