U.S. Pork Industry Structure 2006 Glenn Grimes Professor Emeritus University of Missouri-Columbia Website: Rev.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Ron Plain D. Howard Doane Professor of Agricultural Economics University of Missouri-Columbia Hog & Pork Outlook Louisville,

Advertisements

Ron Plain D. Howard Doane Professor University of Missouri-Columbia Chicken & Competing Meats.

LIVESTOCK MARKETS. HOW DO MOST LIVESTOCK MOVE TO MARKET?

The Pork Industry More Than Just the Other White Meat.

Ron Plain, Ph.D. Professor of Agricultural Economics University of Missouri-Columbia Hog Market Forecast 2004 Iowa.

Ron Plain Professor of Agricultural Economics University of Missouri-Columbia Swine Industry Outlook Worse than 1998?

Outlook for the U.S. Livestock and Poultry Sectors in 2011 Presented By Shayle D. Shagam World Agricultural Outlook Board, USDA USDA Outlook Forum Washington,

Econ 337, Spring 2012 ECON 337: Agricultural Marketing Chad Hart Assistant Professor

January 21, 2015 University of Missouri Extension.

Ron Plain Professor of Agricultural Economics University of Missouri-Columbia Pork Outlook Midwest/Great Plains & Western.

Impact of Ethanol on Animal Agriculture John D. Lawrence Iowa State University.

U.S. Pork Industry Structure 2003 Glenn Grimes Professor Emeritus University of Missouri-Columbia Website:

Modern Swine Industry Modern Swine Production is Extremely Complex –Feeding strategies involve Feed ration formulation – nutrient levels Choice of number.

Hog Outlook Ron Plain April 22, 2015.

Revenue Insurance for Livestock Producers. Two insurance products are now available Livestock Risk Protection (LRP) For hogs, fed cattle and feeder cattle.

Buying Hedge with Futures. What is a Hedge?  A buying hedge involves taking a position in the futures market that is equal and opposite to the position.

Dr. John W. Mabry Iowa Pork Industry Center Iowa State University

Swine Industry. Swine Facts Swine are popular because of their meat - pork. They reproduce at a high rate, grow fast, require low amounts of labor, and.

Econ 337, Spring 2012 ECON 337: Agricultural Marketing Chad Hart Assistant Professor

Grid Pricing of Fed Cattle.  Grid prices, or value-based marketing, refers to pricing cattle on an individual animal basis. Prices differ according to.

Livestock Markets 2003 BillionPer CapPriceExport lbslbs$/cwt% Beef Pork Broilers Turkeys

Pork Production Phases and Scheduling AnS 225 Lab &

Price Determination and Discovery uPrice Determination is the broad forces of supply and demand establishing a market clearing price for a commodity. uPrice.

1 Livestock Outlook and Economics Brenda L. Boetel University of Wisconsin – River Falls August 2008.

Econ 337, Spring 2014 ECON 337: Agricultural Marketing Chad Hart Associate Professor Lee Schulz Assistant Professor

The Rural-Urban Agri-Park Avery Murphy Mike Partyka Adam Ornawka Ryley Richards.

Swine Production. Swine Production in the US THE UNITED STATES is the world's third- largest pork producer after China and the EU. It is a major player.

Exploring the Beef Industry

Marketing Swine.

Profit Drivers for Small Farrow to Finish Operations Prepared by Dave Stender, ISU Swine Field Specialist For Iowa Pork Congress 1/24/08.

The Pork Industry More Than Just the Other White Meat.

Ron Plain D. Howard Doane Professor of Agricultural Economics University of Missouri-Columbia Hog & Pork Outlook Midwest.

‘Impacts of Country of Origin Labeling on North American Beef Trade’ Prepared for the Organized Symposium: ‘Impacts of Country-of-Origin Labeling on North.

April 22, 2015 University of Missouri Extension. Pat Guinan April 22, 2015.

Structure of the hog industry Many, small operations used to raise hogs from start to finish Hogs were raised where near large supplies of corn. Hog farmers.

Iowa Pork Industry. Iowa Pork Facts Iowa #1 pork producing state in U.S. Around 30 million hogs are raised annually Approximately 1/3 of total U.S. production.

Packer Concentration, Captive Supplies and Fed Cattle Prices Summarized by John D. Lawrence Extension Livestock Economist Director, Iowa Beef Center.

Mark Greenwood.  Corn has went from $3 to $8 per bushel back to below $4 per bushel  Breakevens have ranged from $110 a head to $160 a head now around.

Econ 337, Spring 2013 ECON 337: Agricultural Marketing Chad Hart Associate Professor Lee Schulz Assistant Professor

Outlook for the U.S. Livestock and Poultry Sectors in 2012 Presented By Shayle D. Shagam World Agricultural Outlook Board, USDA USDA Outlook Forum Washington,

Cooperatives in the food industry l Types of cooperatives l History and status l Relative importance l Coop problems.

Market Vertical Coordination  Communication and distribution  Historically relied upon price signals »Markets and spot negotiation  Moving toward non-market.

Price determination  is the broad forces of supply and demand establishing a market clearing price for a commodity.

Chapter 13 Processor Procurement Systems. Processor as Coordinator  Goal: to keep organization running with flow-through that is profitable  Profitable.

By: Mary McElligott. Feedlots are a place were cattle owners bring their cattle to fatten them up for market  Feedlots are a place were cattle owners.

Livestock Markets 2007 BillionPer CapPriceExpImp lbs 1 lbs 2 $/cwt% 3 % 3 Beef Pork Broilers

The Pork Industry More Than Just the Other White Meat.

Beef Industry Beef Industry. Quiz Answers 1. On average, how many hamburgers are sold at U.S. McDonald’s in one day? 1. On average, how many hamburgers.

Commodity & Ingredient Hedging, LLC Commodity & Ingredient Hedging, LLC PORK Management.

ECON 337: Agricultural Marketing Chad Hart Associate Professor Lee Schulz Assistant Professor

Production and Marketing Contracts in Agriculture  Production contracts  Marketing contracts  Trends in use by commodity  Advantages and disadvantages.

Chapter 12: The Changing Food Markets “Nothing is changing in the food markets except everything”

Cooperatives in the Food Industry Chapter 13 “Either we stand together or we hang separately”

Econ 337, Spring 2013 ECON 337: Agricultural Marketing Chad Hart Associate Professor Lee Schulz Assistant Professor

“Nothing is changing in the food markets except everything”

Intro to Livestock Marketing

Agricultural Marketing

Lecture outline Characteristics of ag production that make agricultural marketing different from manufacturing. Nature of product and production Cycle.

Agricultural Marketing

Livestock and meat industry

Agricultural Marketing

Agricultural Marketing

Integrated Crop-Livestock Production Systems

Agricultural Marketing

Production and Marketing Contracts in Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing

Agricultural Marketing

Presentation transcript:

U.S. Pork Industry Structure 2006 Glenn Grimes Professor Emeritus University of Missouri-Columbia Website: Rev 6/19/07

Firm Size (thousand head mktd. annually) Number of OperationsMarket Share Less than 148,4341% ,0255% ,1503% 5 – 101,1006% 10 – 501,45021% % % Total56,350100% Estimated Total Number of US Hog Operations & Share of US Hogs Slaughtered in 2006 by Size Category U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Firm size (thousand head mktd. annually) Less than 1 32% 23% 17% 5% 2% 1% Share of US Hogs Slaughtered by Year and Size Category U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Firm Size (thousand head mktd. annually) Number of Large Firms Producing Hogs U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Firm size (thousand head mktd.) %13%17%20%21% %24%35%39%43% Percent of U.S. Slaughter Hogs Marketed by Large Firms U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Percent of U.S. Slaughter Hog Marketings by Type of Owner, 2006 Operation wholly or partly owned by: Firm Size (thousand head mktd.) Veterinarian 1.90% 1.23% Feed company 4.80% 1.47% Packer or processor 1.90% 24.00% Foreign firm or person 2.86% 1.73% U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Increase in Marketings Planned in 2003 Study Compared to Actual Marketings * Firm Size (thousand head mktd. annually) Planned in 2003Actual % - 35% %- 23% %- 31% %+14% 50 or more +11% +15% *Percent increase in number of head marketed. U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Increase in Marketings Planned by Size Group, and Firm Size (1,000 head mktd. annually) Planned Planned – 34%11% % 7% % 8% %18% %16% 500+5% 8% U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Percent of Firms Planning to Reduce or Increase Marketings between 2006 and 2009 Firm Size (1,000 head mktd. annually) Reduce Steady Increase Unsure 50% or more 0 to 50% 50% or more 1 – 313%19%28%27% 6%7% %14%34%31%10%4% %16%25%39% 9%6% %10%20%48%10%7% %44%24%15% % 81% U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Firm Size (thousand head mktd. annually) Do not plan to market more hogs 63%53%58%45%26%10% Market more through existing facilities 19%25%16%20% 6%60% Construct new facilities 5%12%16%24%63%70% Purchase existing facilities 2%0%2%4% 1%22% Contract for more finishing space 2%3%11%21%13%5% How Firms Plan to Expand : Percent of Firms Responding in Size Groups U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

How Firms Plan to Expand : Percent of U.S. Hogs Owned by All Firms Reporting Percent of Hogs Do not plan to market more hogs28% Market more through existing facilities34% Construct new facilities50% Purchase existing facilities11% Contract for more finishing space10% U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Percent of Firms That Made a Profit in 2004 Firm Size (1,000 head mktd. annually) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Percent of Firms That Made a Profit in 2005 Firm Size (1,000 head mktd. annually) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Percent of Firms That Made a Profit in 2006 Firm Size (1,000 head mktd. annually) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Percent of Firms That Started Marketing Hogs Prior to 1975 Firm Size (1,000 head mktd. annually) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Percent of Firms That Started Marketing Hogs 1976 to 1985 Firm Size (1,000 head mktd. annually) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Percent of Firms That Started Marketing Hogs 1986 to 1995 Firm Size (1,000 head mktd. annually) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Percent of Firms That Started Marketing Hogs after 1995 Firm Size (1,000 head mktd. annually) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Firm Size (thousand head mktd.) Feed is self-prepared 74%70%61%60%25%63% Replacement gilts are purchased Hogs are raised indoors Feeding is split sex Facilities are wean- finish Grain raised by own firm Production Information 2006: Percent of Hogs Affected within Size Category U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board. Production Information 2006: Percent of All U.S. Hogs Affected Feed is self-prepared54% Replacement gilts are purchased32% Hogs are raised indoors94% Feeding is split sex64% Facilities are wean-finish29% Grain raised by own firm35%

Networking Activities of Producers Marketing 1,000-50,000 Head Annually Percent U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Commodity Firm Size (thousand head mktd.) Average 1-50 Size Groups Corn 89%93%94%92%91% Soybeans 84%88%87%83%85% Wheat 29%28% 33%30% Dairy/milk 6%0%4%7%5% Beef cow/calf 25%16%17%14%20% Beef stockers 8%5%2%3%6% Beef fed cattle 23%25%20%17%22% Hog Operations Producing Other Commodities U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Firm Size (thousand head mktd. annually) % 23% 22% % 33% 66%69% % 40% 79% % 65% 91%88% % 95% 98%100% % 91%100% Litters Sired by Artificial Insemination 1997, 2000, 2003, 2006 U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Firm Size (thousand head mktd.) Collected by firm 10%25%16%26%11%86% Purchased 77%69%70%63%71%33% Part-owned stud 13% 5%14%11%23%14% Where Firms Acquired Semen (percent of firms responding in size category) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Firms Finishing Canadian-born Pigs (percent of firms responding in size category) Firm Size (thousand head mktd.) Percent of Firms % % % % % % U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Firm Size (thousand head mktd.) Spot market 78%75%58%52%28% 0% Under marketing contract 22%25%42%48%72%100% Method of Pricing Canadian-born Pigs (percent of firms that fed Canadian pigs by size category) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Firm Size (thousand head mktd.) Load by load 82%65%67%57%28%32% Negotiated contract 9%16% 35%38%89% Group contract 10%17%19%21%56% 5% Own packing plant 4%5%9%10% 4%42% Other 4%7% 4% 1% 5% How Firms Marketed Slaughter Hogs, 2006 (percent of firms in size category) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Firm Size (thousand head mktd.) packer 55%54%43%40% 6%37% 2 packers 35%24%40%37%41%16% 3 packers 7%17%12%14% 9%11% 4 packers 2%4% 5%42% 5% 5 packers 1% 2% 6 packers 1%2%11% 7 packers 8 packers 21% Number of Different Packers Sold to in 2006 (percent of firms responding in size category) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

All size groups Firm Size (thousand head mktd.) Spot mkt. - negotiated20%58%32%30%32% 26%15% Contract - futures mkt. 7% 6% 7%13%14% 2% 5% Formula - hog prices57%28%36%38%37% 55%72% Formula - meat prices 6% 4% 6%10% 8% 5% 6% Formula - feed/ledger 1% 2% 1% 3% Formula - feed/no ledger 2% 1% 3% 2% Window – ledger 1% Window - no ledger 2% 1% 4% 2% 5% Other 4% 3% 7%4% 2% 1% Percent of Hogs Sold under Marketing Contracts (percent of total marketings of size category) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Firm Size (thousand head mktd.) Tight schedule 8%16%29%27%68%53% Somewhat flexible 26%27%36%43%25%21% Market at desired weight 65%57%36%30% 6%26% Flexibility in Marketing Dates (percent of firms responding in size category) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Percent of Hogs Sold on Carcass Merit Basis Firm Size (thousand head mktd. annually) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Firm Size (thousand head mktd.) Use contract tied to futures 7%13%12%17% 2%11% Use futures at times 41%51%61%65%91%84% Never use 52%36%27%18% 9% 5% Use of Hog Futures Market by Hog Firms (percent of firms responding in size category) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Firm Size (thousand head mktd.) Bad results in the past 26%36% 32% 2% 5% Option premium too high 30%32%42%41% 4% Don’t like margin calls 28% 31%27% Too complicated 34%28%19%20% 3% Why Hog Producers Do Not Use Futures or Options (percent of firms responding in size category) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Opinions on Marketing Contracts: Help Coordinate Slaughter Strongly disagreeStrongly agree Firm Size (thousand head mktd. annually) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Opinions on Marketing Contracts: Felt They Were Treated Fairly under Contract Strongly disagreeStrongly agree Firm Size (thousand head mktd. annually) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Opinions on Marketing Contracts: Plan To Continue Marketing with a Contract Strongly disagreeStrongly agree Firm Size (thousand head mktd. annually) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Opinions on Marketing Contracts: Should Be More Closely Monitored by USDA Strongly disagreeStrongly agree Firm Size (thousand head mktd. annually) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Opinions on Marketing Contracts: Prefer To Market All Hogs on Cash Market Strongly disagreeStrongly agree Firm Size (thousand head mktd. annually) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Opinions on Marketing Contracts: Have Caused Lower Cash Market Prices Strongly disagreeStrongly agree Firm Size (thousand head mktd. annually) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Opinions on Marketing Contracts: Producers with Contracts Get Higher Prices Strongly disagreeStrongly agree Firm Size (thousand head mktd. annually) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Opinions on Marketing Contracts: Packers Showed Undue Preference in Offering Contracts Strongly disagreeStrongly agree Firm Size (thousand head mktd. annually) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Opinions on Marketing Contracts: Should Be Made Illegal Strongly disagreeStrongly agree Firm Size (thousand head mktd. annually) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Firm Size (thousand head mktd.) Farrowed by contractorsFinished by contractors % 5%15%3%14% 9%13%12% % 13%14% 9%13%12%14% %26%4041%22%33%39%40% Total 40%39%6855%45%55%64%66% Percent of U.S. Hogs Raised by Firms That Are Contractors, U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Firm Size (thousand head mktd.) FarrowedFinished % 2% 7% 1% 8% 3% 5% 7% % 7% 5% 4% 7%10%11%14% %13%17%15%16%21%25% Total 17%22%23%20%30%34%41%46% Percent of U.S. Hogs Raised under Contract, U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Average Length of Production Contracts in Months Firm Size (thousand head mktd) Finishing Nursery Farrow or farrow-finish Nursery-finishing U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Training and Supervision Provided by Contractors to Growers (percent of firms responding in size category) Firm Size (thousand head mktd.) Train and supervise closely 23%59%82% Train briefly and supervise little 9% 5%17% Find experienced producers who need little training or supervision 57% 36% 6% U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Contractors’ Expectations for Next 5 Years (percent of firms responding in size category) Firm Size (thousand head mktd.) Expand their contract production 21%20%53% Reduce their contract production 23%35% 0% Keep their mix steady56%44%47% U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

How satisfied are you with hog production? Firm Size (thousand head mktd.) Satisfaction Rating 1 = very dissatisfied 6 = very satisfied U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

How satisfied are contractors with contract hog production? Firm Size (thousand head mktd.) Satisfaction Rating 1 = very dissatisfied 6 = very satisfied U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

How satisfied are growers with contract hog production? Firm Size (thousand head mktd.) Satisfaction Rating 1 = very dissatisfied 6 = very satisfied U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

When Growers Began Contract Production Percent of Growers Before U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Grower Plans after Contract Expires Percent of Growers Stop producing hogs 2 2 Contract with different company 9 6 Continue with same company 8078 Become independent 414 Other 50 U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Number of Contracting Companies For Which You Have Been a Grower Percent of Growers 1 contractor59 2 contractors29 3 contractors 9 4 contractors 3 5 contractors 1 U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

What Do You See as the Greatest Challenges to the U.S. Pork Industry over the Next 5 Years? U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board. Rank: 1 = extremely serious 6 = not serious Firm Size (1,000 hd. mktd.) All Disease & health management Compliance issues Maintaining desired productivity Animal care & well-being, animal activism Input purchasing Alternative feeds: profitability & environ. impact Establishing consumer trust & confidence Finding, training, retaining employees Facilities management & maintenance Health effect of prod. on employees & neighbors Finding higher value pork alternatives, niche mkts Reorganizing farm business

Percent of Firms That Will Stay in Business until 2009 with Average Hog Price $43 - $45 & Central Iowa Corn Price $3.00 Percent Firm Size (thousand head mktd. annually) U.S. Pork Industry Structure Study, 2006 University of Missouri, Iowa State University, Pork magazine, Pig Improvement Company, National Pork Board.

Any questions?