1 / 42

U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study 2001

U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study 2001. Glenn Grimes Professor Emeritus University of Missouri-Columbia. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001. U.S. Marketings by Producer Size. Hogs marketed annually 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 Under 1,000 32% 23% 17% 5% 2%

alexandra
Download Presentation

U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study 2001

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study 2001 Glenn Grimes Professor Emeritus University of Missouri-Columbia

  2. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 U.S. Marketings by Producer Size Hogs marketed annually 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 Under 1,000 32% 23% 17% 5% 2% 1,000-1,999 19 20 17 12 7 2,000-2,999 11 13 12 10 5 3,000-4,999 10 12 12 10 7 5,000-9,999 9 10 12 10 10 10,000-49,999 12 13 13 16 18 50,000 & up 7 9 17 37 51 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  3. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Estimated Number of Operators and Share of U.S. Hog Slaughter by Size Category in 2000 Size class Number Market share (annual mktgs.)operators(percent) < 1,000 54,513 2% 1 - 2,000 10,034 7 2 - 3,000 4,118 5 3 - 5,000 3,312 7 5 - 10,000 2,627 10 10 - 50,000 2,501 18 50 - 500,000 136 17 500,000+ 20 35 Total 77,260 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  4. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Number of Large Hog Firms Year Size (thousand head)1994 1997 2000 50 - 500 57 127 136 500+ 9 18 20 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  5. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Percent of Marketings by Large Hog Farms Year Size (thousand head)1994 1997 2000 50 - 500 7 13 17 500+ 10 24 35 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  6. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Age of Major Equity Holder Size Class Age (no. head) 1997 2000 1 - 2,000 47.6 50.0 2 - 3,000 48.0 48.5 3 - 5,000 48.8 49.0 5 - 10,000 48.4 49.0 10 - 50,000 48.3 47.9 1 - 50,000 48.8 49.0 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  7. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Age Distribution of Major Equity Holder Medium Size Operations 1-50,000 hd. marketed annually Percent Age University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  8. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Percent of Litters Sired by Artificial Insemination % Size of Operation (thousand head mktd.) University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  9. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Percent of Farms Increasing or Decreasing Production since Beginning Marketing Contracts (1,000 - 50,000 hd. size) Farms increasing production 12% Average increase on these farms 73% Farms decreasing production 4% Average decrease on these farms 50% Farms reporting they were larger because they had a contract 17% Average increase on these farms 114% University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  10. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Planned and Actual Growth of Hog Producers by Size 1997-2000 Marketings (thousands) Planned Actual 1 - 2 10% - 22% 2 - 3 6 - 27 3 - 5 15 - 20 5 - 10 25 13 10 - 50 39 37 50 & up 41 48 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes,Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  11. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Growth Plans More Modest in 2000 than 1997 Size (thousand head) 1997-00 2000-03 1 - 2 10% 1% 2 - 3 6 12 3 - 5 15 5 5 - 10 25 12 10 - 50 39 12 50 - 500 66 18 500+ 27 12 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes,Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  12. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 How Satisfied Are You with Pork Production? Size Class (no. head) 1 = not satisfied at all. . . . . . . 6 = extremely satisfied University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  13. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Limits on Further Expansion by Size Size Class (no. head) 1 = no effect . . . . . . . 6 = greatly limits University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  14. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Limits on Further Expansion by Size Size Class (no. head) 1 = no effect . . . . . . . 6 = greatly limits University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  15. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Limits on Further Expansion by Size Size Class (no. head) 1 = no effect . . . . . . . 6 = greatly limits University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  16. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Limits to Further Expansion Size Class (no. head) 1 = no effect . . . . . . . 6 = greatly limits University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  17. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Percent of Farms with a Profit in 2000 Size Class (no. head) Percent University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  18. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Factors that Limit Expansion 1 - 50,000 sizes 1 = no effect . . . . . . 6 = greatly limits University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  19. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Percent of Hog Firms that Will Stay in Business until 2003 with $40-42 Hog Prices Size Class (no. head) Percent University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing

  20. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Type Payment Production Contracts No Type Incentive Incentive Total Pig space 19% 18% 37% Head 37 14 51 Pound 7 2 9 Other -- -- 3 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  21. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Use of Production Contracts as Percent of All U.S. Hogs Size Class All HogsHogs under Contract (no. headFarrowed by Finished by marketed)contractors contractors Farrowed Finished 1997 2000 1997 2000 1997 2000 1997 2000 --- percent --- --- percent --- --- percent --- --- percent --- 1 - 50,000 10 5 14 9 1 2 8 3 50 - 500,000 8 8 9 13 4 7 7 10 500,000+ 22 26 22 33 11 13 16 21 Total 40 39 44 55 17 22 30 34 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  22. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Pricing Hogs by Large Producers % Use Cash Marketing Contracts University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  23. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Percent of U.S. Hogs Sold through Various Pricing Methods, 1997 & 2000 % Use University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  24. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Percent of Market Hogs Sold on Carcass Merit Basis % Size of Operation (thousand head mktd.) University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  25. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Opinions about Marketing Contracts Size (hd. marketed/yr.) 1,000 - 50,00050,000- with without500,000 500,000+ contract contractwith with Better coordinate slaughter 3.66 2.94 4.60 4.85 Lower cash prices 4.19 4.23 3.78 2.80 Producers with contracts receive higher prices 3.88 3.46 3.89 4.06 Undue preference in who is offered a contract 3.52 3.49 3.51 2.22 Should be made illegal 2.70 3.07 1.69 1.37 Should be more closely monitored 3.97 4.01 3.09 1.63 Prefer marketing all on cash 2.97 4.13 2.78 2.37 Have been fairly treated 4.36 4.63 4.38 Plan to continue mktg. on contract 4.19 4.83 4.85 1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  26. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Marketing Contract Preference Minimum Price Tied to Feed Costs Size Class (no. head) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 = not important at all . . . . . . . 6 = very important University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  27. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Marketing Contract Preference Size Class (no. head) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 = not important at all . . . . . . . 6 = very important University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  28. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Marketing Contracts Size Class (no. head) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 = strongly disagree . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 = strongly agree University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  29. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Marketing Contracts Prefer To Market All Hogs on Cash Market Size Class (no. head) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 = strongly disagree . . . . . . . . . 6 = strongly agree University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  30. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Marketing Contracts Size Class (no. head) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 = not important at all . . . . . . . 6 = very important University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  31. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Marketing Contracts Size Class (no. head) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 = not important at all . . . . . . . 6 = very important University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  32. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Marketing Contracts Size Class (no. head) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 = strongly disagree . . . . . . . . . 6 = strongly agree University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  33. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Marketing Contracts Size Class (no. head) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 = strongly disagree . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 = strongly agree University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  34. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Marketing Contracts Size Class (no. head) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 = strongly disagree . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 = strongly agree University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  35. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Marketing Contracts Size Class (no. head) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 = not important at all . . . . . . . 6 = very important University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  36. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Marketing Contracts Reduced Price Risk Size Class (no. head) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 = not important at all . . . . . . . 6 = very important University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  37. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Medium-sized Producers Percent Involved in Networking 0% 10% 20% 30% University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  38. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Medium-sized Producers Percent of Production Involved in Networking 0% 10% 20% 30% University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  39. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Medium-sized Producers Maximum Percent of Their Production Involved in Networking % University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  40. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Vertical Integration in the U.S. Hog Industry % University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  41. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 Percent of Hogs Sold on Spot Market % University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

  42. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2001 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, National Pork Board, Pork magazine, PIC, Land O’Lakes, Dekalb Choice Genetics, and Research Institute for Livestock Pricing.

More Related