r 630.7 I6b no. 740 cop. 8 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN AGRICULTURE __CIRCU!. >TINGCOPY AGRICULi JRARY -j Interregional Flow of Slaughter Cattle and of Carcass, Primal, and Retail Beef in the Forty -Eight States I MKR K. BROADBF.M AM) ) AMIS I). SI I.I.IVAN O O .1-' O lU'l.l.l UN 710 t ultur.il Kxpi-iiini-in Station (lolU'm 1 <>l .\inrii-ulture l'ni\frsit\ ni llliiiois.it LJibana*Champaign CONTENTS OBJECTIVES 1 PARAMETERS 2 DEFINITIONS 2 ASSUMPTIONS 3 MATHEMATICAL NOTATION 4 MODELJ: THE FORMAL MODEL 5 MODEL I RESULTS 11 MODEL I ANALYSIS 16 MODEL I-A: REMOVING THE CONSTRAINTS IMPOSED ON REGIONAL SLAUGHTER 17 MODEL I-A RESULTS 17 COMPARING RESULTS, MODELS I AND I-A 18 MODEL II: ESTIMATES FOR 1975 OPTIMUM FLOW 19 COMPARISON OF RESULTS, MODEL II VERSUS MODEL 1 21 SUMMARY 23 ADDITIONAL RESEARCH 26 BIBLIOGRAPHY 27 STATISTICAL SOURCES .. . 30 AUTHORS This bulletin was prepared by E. E. Broadbent, professor of livestock marketing, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign and J. D. Sullivan, a former graduate student in that department. Dr. Broadbent is currently on an assignment in Africa sponsored by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, studying the livestock industry in the northern part of the continent. His headquarters are in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Dr. Sullivan is now agricultural economist, livestock group, Marketing Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. URBANA. ILLINOIS JUNE, 1972 PUBLICATIONS IN THE BULLETIN SERIES REPORT THE RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS MADE OR SPONSORED BY THE EXPERIMENT STATION. Interregional Flow of Slaughter Cattle and of Carcass, Primal, and Retail Beef in the Forty -Eight States EMER E. BROADBENT AND JAMES D. SULLIVAN THIS STUDY concerns the spatial marketing characteristics of car- casses, primal cuts, and retail cuts of beef in the forty-eight contiguous states. It incorporates cattle slaughtering, centralized processing of primal and retail cuts, and product distribution into an optimum spatial pattern for the U.S. beef industry. This study differs from previous spatial analyses in that it considers together rather than independently four major modes of transportation truck, iced railroad car, mechanically refrigerated railroad car, and piggyback (truck on freight car); also, the flow of three forms of fresh beef carcasses, primal cuts, and retail cuts in addition to that of slaughter cattle. The other primary feature of this study is the construction of a mathematical model to synthesize the total regional cost functions for cattle slaughtering, processing, and the distribution of primal and retail cuts of beef. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study were to estimate the: 1. Deficit or surplus tonnage of beef available in alternate supply and distribution areas of the forty-eight states. 2. Comparative cost advantage for transporting loads of car- casses, primal cuts, and retail cuts between the various supply and consumption areas. 3. Cost economies that might be achieved by using alternate forms of transportation, in order to facilitate the marketing of the principal forms of beef. 4. Most economical form of distribution from surplus to deficit market areas carcasses, primal cuts, or retail cuts. 2 BULLETIN NO. 740 PARAMETERS 1. Regional supplies and demands within the forty-eight states for the year 1967 were taken as given. 2. The total demand on a retail-weight basis was equated with the total supply of slaughter cattle by using dressing per- centages, primal yields, and retail yield coefficients. 3. Each region was assumed to be a distinct market for the three beef products carcasses, primal cuts, and retail cuts. 4. All possible combinations of these markets were separated by a transportation cost per unit. The problem was to minimize the total costs of slaughtering, processing, and transportation under the equilbrium restraint that total supply and demand were equal. An interregional-activity-analysis model was used within the context that the location of economic activity in the beef industry depends on the demand for the final product, the supply of cattle, and the transfer cost among regions. This is designated as Model I. In Model I-A, the constraints imposed by the assumptions of regional slaughter in the outshipments of cattle and inshipments of retail beef contained in Model I were removed. A time dimension was introduced in Model II, to estimate the optimum flow that would be likely by 1975. Specific def- initions and restrictive assumptions were formulated in order to provide a practical application of the theoretical model. DEFINITIONS The products that appear in the model were defined as: 1. Primary Product. Slaughter cattle, assumed to be homo- geneous in terms of type, grade, and quality. 2. Primary Intermediate Product. Beef carcasses, emerging from the slaughtering-plant production process as an output and entering the primal processing activities as an input. 3. Secondary Intermediate Product. Primal cuts (chuck, round, loin, and ribs), emerging from the first processing activity as an output and entering the final one as an input. 4. Final Product. Retail cuts of beef, desirable and con- sumable in their current state. No consideration was given to quality, different cuts, or packaging. INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF Regional supply and demand demarcation. Regions: / Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont; 2 New York; 3 Dela- ware, New Jersey, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania; 4 North Car- olina, West Virginia, Virginia; 5 Georgia, South Carolina; 6 Florida; 7 Ohio; 8 Kentucky, Tennessee; 9 Mississippi, Alabama; 10 Michigan; 11 Indiana; 12 Il- linois; 13 Wisconsin; 14 Minnesota; 15 Iowa; 16 Missouri; 17 Arkansas, Loui- siana; 18 North Dakota, South Dakota; 19 Nebraska; 20 Kansas; 21 Oklaho- ma, Texas; 22 Montana, Wyoming; 23 Colorado; 24 Arizona, New Mexico; 25 Idaho, Nevada, Utah; 26 Washington, Oregon; 27 California. (Figure 1) ASSUMPTIONS The following paragraphs draw heavily on the formulation of assumptions as given by Takayama and Judge, pages 349 to 365.* The necessary assumptions as they apply to the U.S. beef-packing industry were: 1. A known, non-negative quantity of slaughter cattle was given for each region. 2. The production activities in each region were assumed to be technologically uniform among regions. The rate at which slaughter cattle were transformed into carcasses was constant for all regions and levels of production. The conversion rates of carcasses into primal and retail cuts were constant between regions and over all levels of processing. * The references are to items in the bibliography. 4 BULLETIN NO. 740 3. The final product, in terms of the retail-weight equivalent, was consumed in non-negative quantities in each of the regions. The regional demands were predetermined. 4. Each region had some non-negative capacity for slaughter- ing cattle, and these capacities were known. 5. In each region a base trading point was selected at which the supply of slaughter cattle, the demand for intermediate and final products, and the slaughtering and processing capacities were assumed to be concentrated. 6. Slaughtering and processing costs per unit of product were known in the time period, t, for each region, and they differed among regions. 7. All possible trading regions were separated by a transpor- tation cost per unit for slaughter cattle and carcasses, as well as for primal and retail cuts of beef. The unit transportation costs were independent of the volume of product flow, and were known for the time period, t. 8. No distinction was made between the regions concerning the methods of slaughtering cattle, the processing of carcasses and of primal and retail cuts, or the consumption of the final product. Thus, slaughtering and processing firms and consumers were considered to be indifferent about the source of supply. 9. No restrictions were imposed on the mode of trans- portation. Physical facilities to accommodate the four modes of transportation were assumed to exist at the points of origin as well as the destinations of all shipments. 10. Finally, all products were assumed to be traded in com- petitive markets. MATHEMATICAL NOTATION i,j the regions; i, j = 1, 2, 3, . . .27. k the type of beef k = 1, carcasses k = 2, primal cuts k = 3, retail cuts m the mode of transportation m = 1, truck m = 2, iced railroad cars m = 3, mechanically refrigerated railroad cars m = 4, piggyback, truck on freight car (TOFC). INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF 5 T k ij m the unit transport cost for shipment of the kth type of beef between regions i to j by the mth mode of transportation. X k ij m the quantity of the kth type of beef shipped be- tween regions i to j by the mth mode of trans- poration. Cj the unit cost of slaughtering or processing of the kth type of beef in region i. S- the level of slaughtering or processing of the kth type of beef. aj the dressing percentage of the live animal, or the yield of beef carcasses into primal cuts, or the yield of primals into retail cuts. ty the unit transport cost of the live animal. lj the quantity of slaughter cattle produced in region i (the quantity available before inshipments and outshipments) i = 1, 2, 3, . . .27. Zij the live-animal shipments from regions i to j. ij the slaughtering capacity or processing capacity in region i. Dj the demand for the kth type of beef in region i. g? the net availability in region i: q = 1, 2, 3, 4. MODEL I: THE FORMAL MODEL Given the assumptions and using the foregoing notation, the problem stated mathematically is: To maximize 27 27 3 4 27 3 , 27 27 2 F=2 222 Tf. X.. -2 ScfSf-S 2 2 t ; . Z. (1) i=l j=l k=l n=l y m U m i=I k=l l l i=l j=l m=l m J m subject to 4 = 1$ Sf - ZS2xk m >0 (2) The quantity of the kth beef shipment from ith region must be less than or equal to the kth beef equivalent of the number of cattle slaughtered (j = 1, 2, 3, . . .27; k = 1, 2, 3; m = 1, 2, 3,4). BULLETIN NO. 740 - 2SH > (3) k 1 The level of slaughtering or processing in the ith region must be less than or equal to the number of cattle available for slaughter in the region, plus or minus adjustments for live-animal shipments, (j = 1, 2, 3, . . .27; m = 1, 2; k = 1, 2, 3). i i " ^i "" \ ) The level of slaughtering or processing in the ith region must be less than or equal to the regional .slaughtering or processing capacity. j m J The quantity of the kth type of beef shipped to a region must equal the demand for the kth type of beef in region i (j = 1, 2,3,.. .27; m = 1, 2, 3, 4). XUm>S*,Z m (6) All selected variables must be non-negative. The tableau given in Table 1 shows the programming charac- teristics of the model specified by Equations 1 through 6. Input Specifications The model required the following data input specifications: 1. Regional demarcation. 2. Regional availability of slaughter cattle. 3. Processing capacities and processing costs required to transform cattle into carcasses, primal cuts, and retail cuts. 4. Regional demand for beef at the retail level. 5. Transfer costs for slaughter cattle, carcass beef, primal cuts, and retail cuts of beef. The forty-eight states were partitioned into twenty-seven regions (Table 2 and Figure 1). This regional demarcation closely followed that used in an earlier spatial analysis of the livestock- meat economy (Judge, Havlicek, and Rizek, 1964). The regional supply of slaughter cattle was assumed to be concentrated at the regional trading center and predetermined. The regional cattle supply was equal to the total live weight of INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF 7 commercial cattle available for slaughter in each region during the calendar year 1967. The regional availability of slaughter cattle was assumed to be equal to the live weight of inshipments and the weight added to inshipments, plus the live weight of a decrease in inventory numbers, plus the live-weight production occurring in the region during the calendar year. The supply, so defined, excluded the cattle and calves slaughtered on farms and the calves slaughtered commercially. It was further assumed that slaughter cattle were homo- geneous in terms of type and quality. Shrinkage that occurs in shipping live animals to the slaughter plant was recognized by assuming an average shrinkage loss of 2.5 percent for intra- regional and interregional livestock shipments. The allowance for shrinkage was made by adjusting the slaughter coefficient. Thus, the dressing percentage for cattle and the transformation factors of carcasses into primal and retail cuts were equal for all regions. Measures of capacity consisting of single-shift operations were predetermined and were concentrated at the regional trading points. Regional livestock slaughter was limited only by the slaughter capacities available in the region. Regional capacity per hour in terms of hundredweight units of live animal was converted to an annual figure, based on 7.2 hours per workday for 252 days per year. This method of computing regional slaughter capacity was adopted from the 1964 study by Judge, HavHcek, and Rizek. The procedure was to multiply the hourly rated capacity for each region by the total number of hours worked in the year for the federally inspected plants. The latest obtainable data for rated hourly capacity were for 1964, which was adjusted to represent the study period, 1967, by assuming that state or regional slaughter capacities changed in the same proportion as the percentage of change in the total commercial slaughter between 1964 and 1967. For nonfederally inspected plants, the same approach was used; however, data limitations required hourly rated slaughter capacities to be estimated from slaughter volumes. The estimated regional slaughter capacities are presented in Table 3. Data were not available with which to estimate processing capacities for primal and retail beef cuts. Cost Components for Slaughtering The total cost of slaughtering was estimated for 120 animals per hour at on-the-rail slaughtering plants. The annual cost components consisted of the following: 8 BULLETIN NO. 740 1. Labor. 2. Equipment depreciation. 3. Building depreciation. 4. Personal property tax. 5. Insurance. 6. Interest. 7. Utilities gas, water, and electricity. 8. Miscellaneous supplies and services repair and mainte- nance, office costs, taxes and licenses, telephone costs, and buying and delivery costs. Department of Labor wage rates were used to represent a realistic evaluation of the regional costs influencing product flow. Among the regions, management salaries were assumed to vary in the same proportion as the wage rates of production workers. Investment costs were defined as the annual capital costs for land, building improvements, and equipment. In addition, several other cost items such as insurance, taxes, and interest are af- fected by the size and nature of a firm's investment. Total construction costs as estimated by Logan and King for the Los Angeles area were adjusted to reflect 1967 costs and to show differences among regions (Logan and King, 1962, p. 67). An index of construction costs as computed by the F.W. Dodge Corporation served as a basis for the adjustment. Region- al building costs were determined by multiplying the costs as estimated by Logan and King by the 1967 construction cost indexes (Table 4). Data on required land area were also obtained from the Logan and King study. Land values obtained from Chamber of Commerce offices located in regional trading centers were multiplied by the land area requirements to obtain the total land cost (Table 5). Equipment specifications necessary to perform the slaughtering operation were obtained from pub- lished material supplied by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (especially Agricultural Research Service, Marketing Research Re- port No. 657). The value of equipment was assumed to be equal to its replacement cost, as derived from a list of prices supplied by the Albright-Neil Company, Chicago. The annual depreciation of various equipmental items was calculated by dividing the balance for depreciation for each item by its estimated, useful life (Table 6). Personal property taxes applicable to land, buildings, improvements, and equipment were estimated. The assessed valuation for tax purposes was assumed to be a percentage of the actual market value of the property. INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF 9 To estimate the tax costs, a tax rate assumed to equal half the regular rate was applied to the assessed value of depreciable property. The full tax rate was applied to the estimated land- investment costs. Regional tax rates were obtained for each regional trading point from Chamber of Commerce offices. Esti- mated, 1967 miscellaneous costs of slaughtering were derived by adjusting the 1961 miscellaneous costs given by Logan and King. In estimating the 1967 costs, an increase of 6 percent above the 1961 levels was assumed. The cost of utilities, gas, electricity, and water were established by applying monthly regional rates to the utility requirements derived by Logan and King. Regional differences in the cost of processing primal and retail beef cuts may exert an influence on the shipments of these products. Centralized beef processing is a relatively recent innovation in the beef-packing industry. Published information about the feasibility of such operations was not obtainable. Because of data limitations, a complete synthesized cost func- tion for the processing of primal and retail beef cuts could not be constructed; therefore, only labor costs were considered. The labor requirements needed to perform the various functions were obtained from the Cryovac Division of W.R. Grace and Com- pany. In estimating the regional, primal-cut processing costs, each processing unit was assumed to have the capacity to proc- ess 300 cattle per day. For the analysis, the troublesome prob- lems relating to shelflife and standardization of cuts in the processing of primal cuts into retail cuts were ignored. The demand for the final product was assumed to be prede- termined, as stated before. The level of demand was measured by actual consumption in 1967, as expressed in retail-weight equivalents. The regional demand levels were determined from regional differences in the per-capita consumption of beef and from regional income-consumption relationships. A household food-consumption survey conducted by the USDA in 1965 pro- vided the basic data concerning the differences in regional con- sumption (Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Reports 1-5, 1968). Estimates were made of income-consumption relation- ships for each census region from the USDA Household Food Consumption Survey, and these income-consumption response coefficients were used to adjust the 1967 per-capita consump- tion rates, unweighted by urbanization groups for variations in income among the twenty-seven regions. Total regional consump- 10 BULLETIN NO. 740 tion was obtained by multiplying the population figure for each region by the corresponding estimate of per capita consumption. The percentage of difference was calculated between the sum of these regional consumption estimates and the actual U.S. com- mercial cattle slaughter. The total estimate for each region was then adjusted by this percentage, so that the sum of these was equal to the actual, total slaughter figure. The final, regional consumption estimates and regional annual per-capita consump- tion figures by regions are presented in Table 7. Transportation Rates Four sets of transportation rates were required in this analy- sis. Shipments were assumed to take place between regional trading centers, and costs for intraregional shipments were not considered. Transportation costs for slaughter cattle were avail- able from previous spatial studies of the livestock-meat econ- omy. It was felt that within the scope of this analysis, these cost estimates could not be improved, so already existing data were used. Transportation rates for carcasses, primal cuts, and retail cuts were estimated from rate structures provided by Armour and Company. Four modes of transportation were considered in shipping these beef products: (1) truck, (2) iced railroad car, (3) mechan- ically refrigerated railroad car, and (4) piggyback (TOFC). A square-root function was used to estimate the parameters. The direction of shipments was taken into account by fitting sepa- rate functions for shipments to the east and the west. The transportation rates used in this analysis are presented in Tables 8 and 9. The simplex tableau of Table 1 and Equations 1 through 6 represents a highly condensed picture of the beef-packing indus- try. With a twenty-seven region demarcation, the number of activities in the model came to 2,970. Referring to the simplex tableau of Table 1, the activities were: 729 in Xj. (carcass-flow activities), 27 in S? (primal-cut processing activities), 729 in Xj. (primal-cut flow activities), A 27 in S? (retail-cut processing activities), 729 in X?. (retail-cut flow activities), INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF 11 27 in SJ (cattle-slaughtering activities), and 702 in X2 (cattle-flow activities). Using knowledge of the livestock-meat industry, the size of the problem was reduced by excluding some slaughter-cattle flows that were unlikely to enter the solution. It was assumed that Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 would not ship live cattle. All flow activities for carcasses, primal cuts, and retail cuts were included in the analysis. MODEL I RESULTS Optimum Flow of Slaughter Cattle The flow of slaughter cattle consistent with the objective of minimizing the costs of slaughtering, processing, and transpor- tation for the beef-packing industry is presented in Table 10 and Figure 2. Regional, excess supplies appear on the right side of the table; regional excess demands, at the bottom. The numbers appearing in the body of the table represent the live-weight, interregional shipments of slaughter cattle. The Uj and V: values refer to the live-animal price differentials related to the base region. The total, estimated interregional shipments of slaughter cattle are presented directly below the table. Please note that these estimates have meaning only for the regional demarcations used in this analysis; therefore, comparisons of results with previous studies would not be valid. The main aspects of the interregional movement of slaughter cattle indicated by the analysis were: 1. Approximately 13 percent (4.54 billion pounds) of the total, commercial slaughter-cattle production in the forty-eight states was involved in interregional movements. 2. Region 20 (Kansas) was the dominant surplus region, with an excess supply amounting to 46 percent of its cattle produc- tion (1.57 billion pounds). 3. The other, major surplus slaughter-cattle areas, in order of excess supply, were Region 23 (Colorado), Region 24 (Arizona and New Mexico), and Region 16 (Missouri). As a percentage of the total slaughter-cattle production in these regions, this excess represented 25 percent (543 million pounds) in Region 23, 60 percent (515 million pounds) in Region 24, and 21 percent (412 million pounds) in Region 16. 12 BULLETIN NO. 740 4. Approximately 67 percent (3.04 billion pounds) of all interregional shipments originated in Regions 20, 23, 24, and 16. Minor shipments of slaughter cattle occurred between adjacent regions. 5. The average transportation cost for the interregional movements was $1.03 per hundredweight. 6. Generally, the Corn Belt States shipped slaughter cattle to the deficit areas on the East Coast, while the Western Plains States shipped cattle to the deficit areas on the West Coast. The surplus and deficit slaughter-cattle supply regions are given in Table 11. The negative numbers appearing in the body of the table represent deficit supply regions; the positive num- bers, surplus ones. Region 19 (Nebraska) and Region 21 (Texas and Oklahoma) are represented as deficit supply areas. This appears to be unrealistic; however, the surplus and deficit areas were determined with respect to estimated slaughter capacities within the regions. Excess supply was the residual after the slaughter capacity was fully utilized. Thus, representing Regions 19 and 21 as deficit supply areas implies that excess slaughter capacity existed within these two regions. Optimum Flow of Carcasses No interregional flow of beef carcasses was generated by the joint analysis. Admittedly this is unrealistic, but it resulted from data limitations that prevented capacity constraints for proc- essing primal and retail cuts of beef from being included in the model construction. Regional demands for carcass beef do exist. However, final demand in this study was represented for beef in terms of retail cuts. The assumption was that incorporating capacity constraints and regional demands for carcass beef would have induced interregional shipments of this product. Minimum Shipment of Primal Cuts The joint analysis produced one interregional shipment of primal cuts. Region 15 (Iowa) shipped 419 million pounds of primals to Region 4 (North Carolina, Virginia, and West Vir- ginia). The mode of transportation was piggyback, and the cost was $1.54 per hundredweight. In the solution, Region 4 not only imported primals, but also received 297 million pounds of slaughter cattle from Region 20 and 452 million pounds of retail beef from Region 19 to satisfy regional demand. INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF IS Optimum Flow of Retail Beef The optimum, interregional flows of retail beef generated by the joint analysis are summarized in Table 12 and Figure 3. The Vj and Ui values may be given the same interpretations as in Table 10. Excess supplies and demands of retail beef cuts are shown at the right and bottom of the table. The interregional flow quantities appear in the body of the table. The important characteristics of the interregional movements were: 1. Approximately 39 percent (5.71 billion pounds) of the total demand for beef (retail equivalent) in the forty-eight states was involved in interregional flows. 2. Of the total interregional retail beef shipments, 49 percent (2.79 billion pounds) originated in Regions 15 and 19 (Iowa and Nebraska). 3. Approximately 70 percent of the total interregional flow of retail beef moved in four deficit areas: Regions 1, 2, 3, and 27 (New England, New York, the Central Atlantic area, and California, respectively). The three deficit areas east of the Mississippi River Regions 1, 2, and 3 (New England, New York, and the Central Atlantic area, respectively) accounted for 58 percent of the interregional movements. Regions 1 and 2 ac- counted for 45 percent of the regional shipments of retail beef. 4. Three of the four alternate modes of transportation were used in the interregional movement of retail beef. Piggyback was the mode used most frequently (75 percent). Trucks (15 per- cent) and mechanically refrigerated railroad cars (10 percent) accounted for the remaining interregional shipments. Table 13 summarizes the interregional flow by mode of transportation. The average transportation cost was $1.46 per hundredweight. Surplus and Deficit Regions The surplus and deficit areas of beef in terms of retail weight are given in Table 14. A similar pattern of surplus and deficit areas was observed for retail beef and for slaughter cattle. In general, deficit retail-beef supply areas were located on the East and West Coasts. Five regions exhibited the characteristic of being surplus slaughter-cattle supply areas and deficit retail-beef areas Regions 6, 10, 12, 17, and 24. In reality, this outship- ment of slaughter cattle and the corresponding inshipment of retail beef probably would not occur. 14 BULLETIN NO. 740 The model as specified did not allow for more than one working shift. Thus, when regional slaughter capacity was fully utilized, the excess supply of slaughter cattle was created. Region 21 shifted from being a deficit slaughter-cattle supply area to a self-sufficient retail beef region. Two regions, 11 and 13, shifted from deficit slaughter-cattle areas to surplus areas for retail beef. The optimum levels of regional cattle slaughtering are shown in Table 15. The estimated total amount of cattle slaughtered in the forty-eight states in 1967 was approximately 34.54 billion pounds. Since the estimated U.S. slaughter capacity was 40.35 billion pounds, only 86 percent of the available capacity was being utilized. Unused Slaughter Capacity Of the twenty-seven regions in the forty-eight states, eight regions (1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 21, 26, and 27) did not fully utilize existing slaughter capacity. Region 9 utilized 96 percent of the regional slaughter capacity. Two regions (5 and 23) utilized 60 percent or more of the available capacity. Regions 1, 2, and 26 used 39, 41, and 36 percent of their regional slaughter capacity, respectively. In Region 3, only 27 percent of the available capacity was utilized. Comparison of Programmed Versus Actual Slaughter A comparison was made of the optimum, regional slaughter quantities with the reported commercial cattle slaughter, reveal- ing that the optimum, regional slaughter quantities as deter- mined by the analysis were generally of the same magnitude as the actual slaughter reported during 1967 (Table 15). However, there were a few notable exceptions. There was a difference between the estimated and actual slaughter for Regions 3, 26, and 27. The reported slaughter exceeded the estimated, opti- mum slaughter in all three of these regions. The optimum levels of processing for primal and retail beef cuts consistent with the optimum flow patterns for slaughter cattle and retail cuts of beef are presented in Table 16. Since no reported data existed for the actual levels of regional processing, no comparison of the model results could be made with actual data. Hence, only the levels determined by the model specifica- tions are reported. INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF 15 The set of price differentials consistent with the optimum flow pattern for slaughter cattle and retail cuts of beef, as derived by the joint analysis, is presented as V; and Uj values in Tables 10 and 12. Regional Price Differences Slaughter cattle. In the slaughter-cattle analysis, Region 20 (Kansas) was chosen as the base region, and the price differen- tials were computed in relation to that region. The two types of information involved are: (1) the price differentials for the surplus regions, which measure the comparative advantage of each region against the base region; (2) the price differentials for the deficit regions, which provide the delivered price differentials in relation to the base region. For example, slaughter cattle were estimated to be worth approximately 17 cents per hundred pounds more in Region 16 (Missouri) than in Region 20 (Kansas). This comparative advan- tage can be explained largely by the proximity of Region 17 to the large, deficit Region 21. Where there was excess supply- Region 22 (Montana and Wyoming), slaughter cattle were esti- mated to be worth 13 cents per hundred less in Region 22 (Montana and Wyoming) than in Region 20 (Kansas). In deficit Region 21 (Texas and Oklahoma), slaughter-cattle prices were estimated to be approximately $1.13 per hundred higher than in Region 20 (Kansas). (See Table 10.) Carcasses and primal cuts. Since the results of the analysis produced no interregional flows of carcass beef, no price dif- ferentials for this product were calculated. The solution pro- duced no interregional movements because capacity limitations were not placed on the chill-cooler for carcass beef or for primal processing. No price differentials for primal cuts were calculated because only one flow occurred. Retail cuts. Using Region 20 (Kansas) as the base, the excess-supply region with the greatest comparative advantage was Region 9 (Mississippi and Alabama). This advantage may be attributed to the nearness of Region 9 to Region 5, a deficit one. With Region 20 as the base, other surplus areas in a favorable position were Regions 25, 8, and 11. Regions 18 and 19 were at a disadvantage relative to the base region, Kansas. This came about because of the higher cost of transportation from these two regions, compared to that from Region 20. 16 BULLETIN NO. 740 Of the deficit areas, Regions 1, 2, 6, and 27 had the highest relative prices; Region 12, the lowest. The estimated price dif- ferentials suggested that retail beef prices were highest on the East and West Coasts, and lowest in the Midwestern States. (See Table 12.) Rents A byproduct of the spatial analysis was the information about rents for additional slaughter-cattle capacity that were consistent with the optimum interregional flow of products. Such rents, which accrued only to those regions in which the entire capacity was utilized, gave an indication of the relative profitability of increasing the slaughtering capacity within a region. These rents were a result of the geographic advantages in relation to the available supply of slaughter cattle, the available slaughter capacity, and the location of the deficit regions in terms of retail cuts of beef. The regions to which slaughtering rents accrued and the cost in dollars per hundredweight are presented in Table 17. In the analysis, nineteen of the twenty-seven regions utilized existing slaughter capacity. The total regional slaughter capacity was utilized in seven of the nineteen regions by inshipments of slaughter cattle. Since transportation costs were incurred in ship- ping the cattle, the rents for these regions were low in relation to the remaining regions. The seven regions were 4, 7, 8, 11, 13, 19, and 25. The remaining twelve regions in which rents accrued were 6, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, and 24. Of these twelve, Regions 24 and 22 had the highest rents $1.38 and $1.16 per hundred pounds, respectively. MODEL I ANALYSIS 1. The East and West Coasts were deficit supply areas for both slaughter cattle and retail beef, while the Corn Belt and Plains States were the major excess supply areas for slaughter cattle and retail cuts of beef. 2. The major mode of transportation in the interregional shipments of retail cuts of beef was piggyback, accounting for three-fourths of the total flow. 3. Five of the six shipments of retail beef via truck transport were to bordering regions, and all shipments were in an eastward INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF 17 direction. The one remaining shipment was also eastward, but this load was shipped from Region 20 (Kansas) to Region 10 (Michigan). No directional preference for shipments was shown between piggyback and mechanically refrigerated railroad cars. 4. The interregional shipments of slaughter cattle, primal cuts, and retail cuts plus the absence of interregional carcass flows provided the economic implication that potential cost reductions might exist in processing and distribution. MODEL I-A: REMOVING THE CONSTRAINTS IMPOSED ON REGIONAL SLAUGHTER Since there has been a trend toward locating new slaughter- ing facilities in the major slaughter-cattle production areas, an alternate analysis (Model I-A) was performed. This model cor- responds to Model I in basic specifications, the difference being the relaxation of the two constraints imposed on regional slaugh- tering capacities. Model I-A eliminated the outshipment of slaughter cattle as well as the inshipment of retail beef observed in Model I. In Model I-A, slaughtering plants were assumed to operate more than one shift a day, making invalid the estimated slaughter capacities used in Model I. MODEL I-A RESULTS Since the capacity constraints were relaxed for slaughtering, there were no interregional flows of slaughter cattle. Likewise, there were no interregional flows of carcasses. The same flow of primal cuts occurred as in Model I. Region 15 shipped 611 million pounds of primal cuts to Region 4. The retail beef flow consistent with the objective of min- imizing the costs of transportation, slaughtering, and processing for the beef industry is presented in Table 18 and Figure 4. A comparison of the interregional movement of retail cuts of beef with the results of Model I showed the following: 1. The total interregional movement of beef (retail-weight equivalent) was 6.65 billion pounds, an increased flow of 940 million pounds above the estimated flow in Model I. 2. Region 4 was no longer involved in the interregional movement of retail cuts. In Model I, Region 4 was a deficit area. 18 BULLETIN NO. 740 3. Regions 8 and 9 changed from ones of excess supply to deficit areas. This was consistent with the results of Model I in that Regions 8 and 9 were excess-supply areas only because they received inshipments of slaughter cattle. 4. Region 24 became one of excess supply. In Model I, it was the opposite. 5. The major excess-supply areas were Regions 19 (Ne- braska), 20 (Kansas), and 15 (Iowa). These three accounted for approximately 60 percent of the total interregional movement. 6. The relative importance of the alternate modes of trans- portation remained about the same. Piggyback transport ac- counted for 76 percent of the shipments; mechanically refriger- ated railroad cars and trucks, 15 and 9 percent, respectively. COMPARING RESULTS, MODELS I AND I-A 1. The total interregional movement of beef (retail-weight basis) increased by approximately 12 percent. 2. The three major surplus-supply regions accounted for ap- proximately 60 percent of the total interregional flow. 3. Some regions exchanged positions, in terms of being surplus- or deficit-supply regions. The unrealistic shipments that occurred in Model I were eliminated. 4. By extending the analysis performed in Model I, the regional slaughter capacities were eliminated in Model I-A. As expected, there were no interregional flows of slaughter cattle. The flow pattern for the other products generally remained the same, as did the modes of transportation. 5. The optimum levels of cattle slaughtering for Models I and I-A and the commercial slaughter figures reported by the USDA for 1967 are shown in Table 19. The level of slaughtering changed in all but three of the regions 1, 2, and 3. Table 19 shows that the solution levels for slaughtering given for Model I are closer to the USDA's slaughter figures than the results of Model I-A. Price differentials consistent with the optimum, interregional flow of retail beef are presented in Table 18. Region 11 was the one of excess supply with the greatest comparative advantage. Other surplus ones having a favorable advantage were Regions 22 and 24. This can be attributed to the proximity of the large deficit area, Region 27. Regions 14, 18, 19, and 23 were at a disadvantage relative to Region 27. INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF 19 Of the deficit areas, Regions 6, 2, and 3 had the highest relative prices. The estimated price differentials suggest that retail beef prices are the highest in Regions 6 (Florida) and 2 (New York). MODEL II: ESTIMATES FOR 1975 OPTIMUM FLOW Model II corresponds to Model I in basic mathematical specifications; the main difference was the time period inves- tigated. The purpose of Model II was to determine what the optimum flow of slaughter cattle and of carcasses, primal cuts, and retail cuts of beef might be under the conditions likely to prevail by 1975. The slaughter-cattle flow quantities consistent with the ob- jective of minimizing the combined costs of slaughtering, proc- essing, and transportation for the beef-packing industry are presented in Table 20 and Figure 5. The important character- istics of the interregional slaughter-cattle shipments, as obtained in the analysis, are listed below. Interregional Shipment of Slaughter Cattle 1 . The total, interregional shipment of slaughter cattle is projected to be 7.52 billion pounds. This represents approxi- mately 21 percent of the slaughter-cattle production estimated for 1975 in the forty-eight states. 2. The important surplus areas would be Regions 12, 14, 15, and 20. These four would account for approximately 65 percent of the total interregional movement of slaughter cattle. 3. The total transportation bill would be $80,447,570, an average of $1.07 per hundredweight. 4. In general, the Great Plains and Western Corn Belt States would ship cattle east and south, while Region 23 would ship cattle to California. Region 21 would import cattle for slaughter because of the large slaughter capacity available there in relation to that of surrounding regions. The differences between Models I and II would produce an increase in slaughter -cattle shipments and in transfer activities between regions. Slaughter-cattle production in 1975 was as- sumed to be higher than in 1967, so the potential would be greater for a larger interregional flow of slaughter cattle. 20 BULLETIN NO. 740 In terms of the number of transfer activities between re- gions, there would be an increase from twenty under Model I. to twenty-five under Model II. Movement of Carcasses and of Primal Cuts Model II produced no interregional shipments of carcasses or primal cuts. The reason is not a fault of the model itself. More accurate regional cost data for the processing of primal cuts and limitations expressed in terms of carcass chill-cooler capacity may have had a substantial influence on the interregional flow of these beef products. Flow of Retail Cuts The optimum transfer activities for retail beef are given in Table 21 and Figure 6. The main aspects of this interregional movement are: 1. The total amount of retail beef entering interregional trade is 5.97 billion pounds. This represents approximately 38 percent of the estimated, total beef consumption in the forty- eight states for 1975. 2. Fourteen surplus regions ship retail beef to thirteen deficit-consumption regions. Approximately 25 percent of this surplus comes from Region 15, with 23 percent from Region 19. 3. Deficit Regions 1, 2, and 3 receive 3.7 billion pounds. This represents approximately 62 percent of the interregional shipments of retail beef. The major sources of supply for these areas are Regions 15 and 19, which account for 71 percent of the excess demand for the three regions (1, 2, and 3). 4. Deficit Region 27 imports 14 percent of the excess supply of retail beef. The major sources of supply for this particular region are Regions 21, 23, 24, and 25. 5. The transportation bill totals $85,382,173, an average of $1.43 per hundredweight. 6. All four of the alternate modes of transportation are employed in Model II. As in Model I, piggyback transportation is used the most, some 74 percent. Shipments of retail beef by truck account for 19 percent of the total. Six percent of the remaining shipments are made by mechanically refrigerated rail- road cars, and 1 percent via iced railroad cars. Eight of the nine truck shipments are eastward. The exception is Region 18 (North Dakota and South Dakota), which ships to Region 22 INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF 21 (Montana and Wyoming). All truck shipments are to bordering regions. The single, mechanically refrigerated railroad car ship- ment is westward, while the only iced railroad car shipment is eastward. (See Table 22.) The estimated surplus- and deficit -supply areas for slaughter cattle and retail cuts of beef in 1975 are presented in Table 23. The negative numbers appearing in the body of the table refer to deficit-supply areas, while the positive ones indicate areas of surplus supply. Region 1 was self-sufficient in terms of slaughter cattle; Region 26, in terms of retail cuts of beef. In actual practice there would be little or no exporting of slaughter cattle and importing of retail beef, as observed in four of the twenty- seven regions-2, 4, 12, and 22. (See Table 23.) A similar situation was observed in Model I. This could be corrected by increasing the estimated slaughter capacities in these particular regions. That was not considered as part of this study, and therefore was not attempted. COMPARISON OF RESULTS, MODEL II VERSUS MODEL I 1. The total amount of retail beef entering interregional trade increased by approximately 1 percent. This is consistent with the expectation that the population will become further concentrated in the large, metropolitan areas; thus, a greater potential for interregional shipments. 2. Regions 15 and 19 were the major excess-supply areas again. These two accounted for 49 percent of the total inter- regional movement in Model I, and 47 percent in Model II. 3. Deficit Regions 1, 2, and 3 received 58 percent of the interregional shipments in Model I, and 71 percent in Model n. 4. In general, the flow pattern from surplus to deficit regions remained the same. However, the magnitude of the shipments increased, which was expected. Estimated Regional Cattle Slaughtering and Excess Capacity The optimum levels of regional cattle slaughtering and uti- lized capacity are presented in Table 24. The total amount of excess capacity was 181 million pounds (less than 5 percent). Only three regions 1, 3, and 26 did not fully utilize their existing capacity. In Region 1, only 35 percent of the regional slaughter capacity was used. The other two, Regions 3 and 26, 22 BULLETIN NO. 740 utilized more than 80 percent and 90 percent of their regional slaughtering capacity, respectively. Regional Processing of Primal and Retail Cuts The estimated, optimum levels of processing for primal and retail cuts of beef are presented in Table 25. Since no capacity limitations were incorporated into the model for these particular activities, very little can be said about the levels shown in the solution. No comparison could be made between those levels and the actual ones because no data existed concerning an estimate of the actual regional processing of these beef products. The set of regional price differentials consistent with the optimum flow of slaughter cattle and retail beef are given in Tables 20 and 21. They are presented as the Vj and Ui values in the last row and column of these tables. Regional rents are presented in Table 24. Region 20 was chosen as the base region, and the price differentials in Table 20 were computed relative to this region. Region 2 had the greatest comparative advantage in relation to Region 20. This may be the result of the large consumption demand for beef in Region 2 and its proximity to Region 3, where excess slaughter capacity existed. The smallest compara- tive advantage was in Region 18. Of the deficit-supply regions, the prices for live cattle were estimated to be $1.97 per hundredweight higher in Region 3 than in Region 20. The delivered price differential in Region 13 was only 55 cents per hundred pounds higher than in Region 20. (See Table 20.) The comparison of the price differentials generated by Models I and II suggests that the pattern of comparative advan- tage of the important, surplus-slaughter-cattle regions remained almost the same between the two periods of analysis. Comparing the price differentials for the deficit regions also suggests that the pattern of delivered prices is likely to be repeated to a large extent in 1975. However, one exception can be noted. Region 3 replaced Region 2 in the results of the Model II analysis as the area exhibiting the greatest delivered-price differential. No price differentials were calculated for carcass or primal cuts of beef because no interregional flows were generated in the solution. Measured against Region 20 (the base region), Region 11 had the greatest comparative advantage for shipping retail beef east, while Region 24 had the comparative advantage for supplying INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF 23 the West Coast (Table 20). Interpreting the price differentials in the usual sense for the deficit-supply areas, the results indicate that the highest delivered prices were in the regions along the East and West Coasts of the United States; the lowest delivered prices, in Region 5. The general pattern of comparative advan- tage and price differentials was the same in Models I and II. Three regions did not use their entire regional slaughter capacity. Those with excess capacity earned no rent. The marginal returns or rents of an additional unit (hundredweight) of slaughter capacity are presented in Table 24. Ten regions earned a rent of a dollar or more per hundredweight, while seven regions earned rents of 50 cents to a dollar. Seven other regions earned rents of less than 50 cents per hundredweight. The highest rent was in Region 22; the lowest, in Region 21. Given the regional production and consumption patterns and the transportation rate structure specified for this model, the rents generated by the model suggest that additional slaughtering facilities would be more profitable in the Western Corn Belt and the Northern Plains States (Table 24). SUMMARY The spatial characteristics of slaughter cattle and of carcass, primal cuts, and retail beef in the meat-packing industry of the forty -eight states were examined. The consideration of alternate modes of transportation and forms of fresh beef as well as of regional cost functions for cattle slaughtering and the processing of primal and retail cuts of beef distinguish this study from previous spatial analyses. Within an interregional -activity -analysis format, Model I was designed to determine the optimum levels of regional cattle slaughtering and processing for primal and retail cuts, as well as for the interregional flows of slaughter cattle, carcasses, primal cuts, and retail cuts of beef. The final solution was determined with given regional supplies of slaughter cattle; regional beef demands (retail-weight equivalent); and slaughtering, processing, and transportation costs. The results may deviate from what actually exists in the industry because of oversimplification in the assumptions made for the model. Data consistent with the model specifications were estimated or synthesized from relevant secondary sources. A limited amount of data were also obtained from private firms in the 24 BULLETIN NO. 740 beef-packing industry. The time period of the basic analysis was the calendar year of 1967. An extension of the analysis (Model II) was used as an application of secondary data for estimating the 1975 slaughter-cattle supplies, slaughter capacities, and de- mands for beef. The analysis delineated twenty-seven demarcations within the forty-eight states (Figure 1). Necessary data for the analysis consisted of estimates of regional slaughter-cattle supplies; re- gional slaughtering and processing costs; dressing percentages and yield coefficients for primal and retail cuts; regional slaughter capacities; and transportation costs for slaughter cattle, carcasses, primal cuts, and retail cuts of beef. Assuming a perfect competitive market behavior, the study provides a basis for judging the efficiency of the beef-packing industry in slaughtering, processing, and distributing beef prod- ucts. As always, the validity of the available data conditions the usefulness of the results. Given the assumptions and data of the study, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. The major supply areas for slaughter cattle and retail beef are the Corn Belt and Plains States. 2. Consistent with the objective function of minimizing the combined costs of slaughtering, processing, and transportation for the beef-packing industry, retail cuts of beef are the most economical form in which to distribute beef from surplus to deficit areas. 3. Ignoring the problem of transportation availability, the optimum modes of transportation for retail beef are (1) piggy- back (TOFC), (2) trucks, and (3) mechanically refrigerated rail- road cars. 4. Consistent with the objective of minimizing transportation costs, the least-cost mode of transport was piggyback, followed by trucks and mechanically refrigerated railroad cars, in that order. 5. Considering only the combined costs of slaughtering, proc- essing, and transportation, the logical point for breaking and processing beef carcasses into primal and retail cuts is at the point of slaughter. This study showed that the locations for breaking carcasses should be closer to the areas of surplus beef production than they are now. 6. The beef-packing industry should reduce slaughter capac- ity in the marginal cattle-producing areas of the East and West Coasts and increase processing capacity in the Southwest, Plains, INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF 25 and Western Corn Belt States, where it would be possible to keep shrinkage, transportation, and service costs at a minimum. The East and West Coasts were deficit-supply areas for both slaughter cattle and retail cuts of beef. The major supply areas for these products were the Corn Belt and Plains States. A definite pattern of directional shipment was observed in the interregional movement of slaughter cattle. The Corn Belt States shipped slaughter cattle to the deficit cattle-supply areas in the east; the Western Plains States, to the deficit areas located on the West Coast. Approximately 13 percent (4.54 billion pounds) of the es- timated slaughter-cattle production was involved in interregional shipments. Four excess supply areas Regions 20 (Kansas), 23 (Colorado), 24 (Arizona and New Mexico), and 16 (Missouri) accounted for 67 percent of the total interregional shipments of slaughter cattle. The greatest excess supply of cattle originated in Region 20 (Kansas), which exported 46 percent of its esti- mated cattle slaughter. However, Region 24 (Arizona and New Mexico) exported 60 percent. This implies that the production of slaughter cattle had increased faster than the development of slaughtering facilities in these areas. Accordingly, high slaughter rents (79 cents and $1.38 per hundred) showed up in Regions 20 and 24, respectively. The analysis used in Model I produced only one interregional flow of primal cuts. There would be no interregional shipments of carcasses. One shipment of primal cuts that originated in Region 15 (Iowa) was shipped to Region 4 (North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia). Approximately 39 percent of the estimated demand for beef (retail equivalent) in the forty-eight states was involved in interregional shipments. Approximately 45 percent of total interregional flow was transported to Regions 2 and 3 (New York and the Central Atlantic area). Another 25 percent of the total movement was shipped to Regions 1 and 27 (New England and California). Only three of the four alternate modes of transportation would be involved in interregional shipments of retail beef. The most important mode of transportation was piggyback, approxi- mately 75 percent of the total. Trucks would transport 15 percent, and mechanically refrigerated railroad cars would haul 10 percent. With one exception, all truck shipments would be short hauls to adjacent regions. There was no directional priority between piggyback shipments and those by mechanically refrig- erated railroad cars. 26 BULLETIN NO. 740 By comparing USDA reports of actual slaughtering with the figures suggested by the model, only Regions 3 (the Central Atlan- tic area), 26 (Oregon and Washington), and 27 (California) showed higher slaughter totals than those estimated in the analysis. The extension of the analysis (Model I-A, which relaxed the slaughter capacity) eliminated the interregional shipment of slaughter cattle and carcasses; increased the level of slaughtering within all regions except 1, 2, and 3; increased the movement of retail beef cuts by 14 percent (9.4 billion pounds); and caused some regions with excess slaughter capacity to change from areas of surplus to ones of deficit supply. The modes of transpor- tation remained substantially the same as for Model I. The optimum regional flow and price differentials were shown in Table 18 and Figure 4. The approximation for 1975 conditions indicated that 38 percent of the total U.S. demand for beef would be involved in interregional shipments. New England, New York, the Central Atlantic area, and California would absorb 52 percent of all retail shipments. Under 1975 simulated conditions, slaughter capacity in all but three regions would be fully utilized. The highest slaughter rents would be earned in the Western Corn Belt and Northern Plains States, implying that additional slaughtering facilities would be most profitable in these areas. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH This analysis incorporates the centralized processing of primal and retail cuts of beef and the resulting interregional flows into a framework of the American beef-packing industry. Although the results obtained were largely conditioned by the data available, the interregional activity analysis model represents a useful economic tool for analyzing actual industry problems, particularly ones such as whether the industry should move toward centralized processing as the major method of handling and distributing its product. The data problems encountered with this particular analysis suggest further areas for research. Preliminary research should consider the following: 1. Studying meat preservation, spoilage, shrinkage, and mois- ture loss in packaged beef, to gain a better understanding of these factors in the handling losses for primal, subprimal, and carcass beef. INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF 27 2. Examining economies of scale, to determine the most efficient size for processing units that handle primal and retail cuts. This type of research would provide needed cost co- efficients to include in the objective function. 3. Obtaining more precise estimates of the regional demand for carcass, primal, and retail beef on an annual or quarterly basis. Such data would lend more realism to the results. 4. Determining realistic production levels of regional cattle- slaughtering and beef-processing activities. If data measurements with greater precision can be attained, more useful results could be achieved. Skillful research should succeed in making activity analysis a useful tool for predicting and analyzing structural changes in the beef-packing industry. This analysis has indicated that the methodological problems can be solved and the computational tasks performed. BIBLIOGRAPHY Anthony, W. E. Structural changes in the federally inspected livestock slaughter industry, 1950-62. USDA, Econ. Res. Serv., Ag. Econ. Rpt. No. 83, 1966. Bain, J. S. Industrial organization. John Wiley, New York, 1959. Baker, C. B. Interpretation of regional spatial models in Agricultural supply functions. (E. O. Heady et al. ed.) Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, 1958. Baumol, W. J. Economic theory and operations analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ., 1965. Bawden, D. L. An evaluation of alternative spatial models. Jour. Farm Econ. 46(5), 1964. Beckmann, M. J. A continuous model of transportation. Econometrica 20(4), 1952. Bhagwati, J. The pure theory of international trade: A survey. Econ. Jour. No. 293, 1964. Brandow, G. E. Interrelations among demands for farm products and implications for control of market supply. Pa. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 680, 1961. Buchholz, H. E. An interregional analysis of the United States feed-livestock economy. Ph.D. thesis, Dcpt. Agr. Econ., Univ. 111., 1965. Buchholz, H. E., G. G. Judge, and V. I. West. A summary of selected estimated behavior relationships for agricultural products in the United States. Ill Agr. Exp. Sta. Agr. Econ. Res. Rpt. 57, 1962. Clifton, E. S. Market power in the meat packing industry, discussion under Market power and the farm problem. Jour. Farm Econ. 42(5), 1960. Crom, R. J. Simulated interregional models of the livestock-meat economy. USDA, Econ. Res. Serv., Agr. Econ. Rpt. No. 117, 1967. 28 BULLETIN NO. 740 DeGraff, H. The trouble with the beef business is that packers aren't attuned to change. Nat. Provisioner, Mar. 10, 1962. Dorfman, R. P., P. A. Samuelson, and R. M. Solov. Linear programming and economic analysis. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1958. Dunn, E. S. The location of agricultural production. Univ. Florida Press, Gainesville, 1954. Enke, S. Equilibrium among spatially separated markets: Solution by electric analogue. Econometrica 19(1), 1951. Fox, K. A. A spatial equilibrium model of the livestock-feed economy in the United States. Econometrica 21(4), 1953. Fox, K. A., and R. C. Taeuber. Spatial equilibrium models of the livestock- feed economy in the United States. Amer. Econ. Rev. 45(4), 1955. Greenhut, M. L. Plant location in theory and in practise; the economics of space. Univ. North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1956. Griffiths, W. O. The trend toward centralized meat packaging in Packaging for retail impact with specific application to the dairy meat, candy, and baking industries. Mgt. Bui. No. 70, Amer. Mgt. Assn., Chicago, 1965. Havlicek, J., R. L. Rizek, and G. G. Judge. Spatial structure of the livestock economy: II. Spatial analyses of flows of slaughter livestock in 1955 and 1960. N. Cent. Reg. Res. Bui. 159 (S. Dak. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 521), 1964. Heady, E. O. Aggregation and related problems in models for analysis of interregional competition in Interregional competition research methods. (R. A. King ed.) Agr. Policy Inst., Sch. Life Sci., N.C. State of the Univ. North Carolina, Raleigh [1963?]. Hertsgaard, T. A., and S. D. Phillippi. Distribution patterns for beef: An economic analysis. N. Dak. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 435, 1961. Higeland, P. H. Developments in meat processing plants. Food Trade Rev. 32(10), 1962. Hoover, E. M. The location of economic activity. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Synthetics and substitutes for agricultural commodities. Inst. Food Agr. Sci., Pub. No. 1, Univ. Florida, Gainesville, 1966. Isard, W. Location and space economy. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1965. Ives, J. R. The livestock and meat economy of the United States. Amer. Meat Inst., Chicago, 1966. Judge, G. G.., J. Havlicek, and R. L. Rizek. An interregional model: Its for- mulation and application to the livestock industry. Agr. Econ. Res. 17(1), 1965. Spatial structure of the livestock economy: I. Spatial analyses of the meat marketing sector in 1955 and 1960. N. Cent. Reg. Res. Bui. 157 (S. Dak. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 520), 1964. Judge, G. G., and T. D. Wallace. Estimation of spatial price equilibrium models. Jour. Farm Econ. 40(4), 1958. Spatial price equilibrium analysis of the live- stock economy: 1. Methodological development and annual spatial analysis of the beef marketing sector. Okla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bui. 78, 1959. INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF 29 2. Application of spatial analysis to quarterly models and particular problems within the beef marketing system. Okla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bui. 79, 1959. 3. Spatial price equilibrium models of the pork marketing system. Okla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bui. 81, 1960. Kelley, P. L., J. H. McCoy, and M. L. Mannal. The competitive position of Kansas in marketing hogs. Kans. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bui. 118, 1961. King, G. A., and L. F. Schrader. Regional location of cattle feeding A spatial equilibrium analysis. Hilgardia 34(10), 1963. Koopmans, T. C. Optimum utilization of the transportation system. Econo- metrica 17(Supp.), 1949. Koopmans, T. C., ed. Activity analysis of production and allocation. John Wiley, New York, 1951. Ladd, G. W. and H. Kuang. Optimal beef and pork marketings. Jour. Farm Econ. 48(2), 1966. Leftwich, R. H. The price system and resource allocation. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Chicago, 1966. Lost h, A. The economics of location. Sci. Ed. (paperback), Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, 1967. Logan, S. H., and G. A. King. Economies of scale in beef slaughter plants. Giannini Foundation Res. Rpt No. 260, Calif. Agr. Exp. Sta., 1962. Size and location factors affecting California's beef slaughtering plants. Hilgardia 36(4), 1964. Maki, W. R., C. Y. Liu, and W. C. Motes. Interregional competition and prospective shifts in the location of livestock slaughter. Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bui. 511, 1962. Mighell, R. L., and J. D. Black. Interregional competition in agriculture. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1951. National Commission on Food Marketing. Organization and competition in the livestock and meat industry. Tech. Study No. 1, Nat. Comm. Food Mktg., Wash., D.C., 1966. Palander, T. Beitr2ge zur Standortheorie. Almquist and Wiksells boktryc- keria-a. b., Uppsala, 1935. Rizek, R. L., G. G. Judge, and J. Havlicek. Spatial structure of the livestock economy: III. Joint spatial analysis of regional slaughter and the flows and pricing of livestock and meat. N. Cent. Reg. Res. Bui. 163 (S. Dak. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 522), 1965. Rohdy, D. D. Southeast hog-pork industry: A national market competitor. Southern Coop. Series, Bui. 89, DepL Ag. Econ., N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, 1964. Samuelson, P. A. Spatial price equilibrium and linear programming. Amer. Econ. Rev. 42(3), 1952. Schunpeter, J. A. History of economic analysis. Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1954. Seaver, S. K. Spatial research Measurement for what? Jour. Farm Econ. 46(5), 1964. Smith, A. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Modem Library, New York, 1937. Stout, T. T., E. R. Bentley, and F. E. Walker. Econometric generalizations of the Ohio hog-pork industry in interregional competition. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bui. 950, 1963. 30 BULLETIN NO. 740 Takayama, T., and G. G. Judge. An interregional activity analysis model for the agricultural sector. Jour. Farm Econ. 46(2), 1964. Volz, M. D., and J. A. Marsden. Centralized processing of fresh meat for retail stores. USD A, Agr. Mktg. Serv., Mktg. Res. Rpt. No. 628, 1963. Wallace, T. D. The general problem of spatial equilibrium: A methodological isssue in Interregional competition research methods. (R. A. King ed.) Agr. Policy Inst., Sch. Life Sci., N.C. State of the Univ. North Carolina, Raleigh [1963?]. Weber, A. Theory of location of industries. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 1928. Williams, W. F., and J. W. Malone. Interregional competition in fed beef. Okla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Processed Series No. 473, 1964. Williams, W. F., and T. T. Stout. Economics of livestock-meat industry. MacMfflan, New York, 1964. Wyckoff, J. B. Cattle transportation in Washington. Wash. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 636, 1962. STATISTICAL SOURCES Albright-Neil Company, Chicago. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Chicago. American Meat Institute, Chicago. Financial facts about the meat packing industry, 1967. Dept. Mktg., 1968. (Issued annually) Architectural Record, McGraw-Hill, New York. Building costs indexes and indicators. 144(6), 1968. Armour and Company, Chicago. Chamber of Commerce offices, various regional trading centers. Colorado State University, Ft. Collins. Western livestock round-up. Coop. Ext. Serv., 1967. W. R. Grace and Company, Cryovac Division, Chicago. University of California at Berkeley. Economies of scale in beef slaughtering plants. Giannini Foundation Res. Rpt. No. 260, Calif. Agr. Exp. Sta., 1962. U.S. Department of Agriculture Cash receipts from major farm commodities, by states. Agr. Mktg. Serv., Stat. Bui. No. 262, 1968. Cattle killing floor systems and layouts. Agr. Res. Serv., Mktg. Res. Rpt. No. 657, 1964. Food consumption of households in the United States, spring, 1965. Agr. Res. Serv., Rpt. No. 1-5, 1968. Livestock and meat statistics (Supp. for 1967 to Stat. Bui. 333). Econ. Res. Serv., Stat. Rpt. Serv., Consumer and Mktg. Serv., 1968. Number of livestock slaughter plants, March 1, 1965. Stat. Rpt Serv., SRS-8, 1965. U.S. Department of Labor Employment and earnings statistics for states and areas, 1937-67. Bur. Labor Stat. Bui. 1307-5,' 1968. Wilson and Company, Chicago. 00 C1 X 00 CM X CO < X on X ~ 3.2 V tS 1 CM CM X -I X w C 51 3 CM X - o o II II o o II II r v v y 00 CM H - V V CM CM H CM U CM H H H I 32 BULLETIN NO. 740 Table 2. Regional Demarcation Regions States Demand and supply points (base points) 1 Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. . Boston 2 New York New York City 3 Delaware, New Jersey, the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania . . Philadelphia 4 North Carolina, West Virginia, and Virginia Richmond 5 Georgia and South Carolina Atlanta 6 Florida Orlando 7 Ohio Columbus 8 Kentucky and Tennessee Nashville 9 Mississippi and Alabama Birmingham 10 Michigan Detroit 1 1 Indiana Indianapolis 12 Illinois Chicago 13 Wisconsin Milwaukee 14 Minnesota Minneapolis-St. Paul 15 Iowa Des Moines 16 Missouri Columbia 1 7 Arkansas and Louisiana Alexandria 18 North Dakota and South Dakota Bismarck 19 Nebraska Lincoln 20 Kansas Kansas City 21 Oklahoma and Texas Ft Worth 22 Montana and Wyoming Billings 23 Colorado Denver 24 Arizona and New Mexico Phoenix 25 Idaho, Nevada, and Utah Salt Lake City 26 Washington and Oregon Portland 27 California Los Angeles Table 3. Slaughter Capacity, 1967 Estimates, by Live Weight and Region Region Capacity, Ib. Region Capacity, Ib. 1 546,937,400 15 3,401,325,000 2 952,933,700 16 1,139,425,100 3 2,171,876,000 17 313,891,200 4 712,658,600 18 781,589,100 5 853,532,900 19 3,380,608,200 6 388,346,200 20 1,824,963,400 7 1,715,729,300 21 3,471,008,900 8 1,276,913,000 22 318,599,500 9 1,055,930,200 23 1,638,896,700 10 494,064,700 24 344,966,500 11 1,181,486,400 25 504,868,300 12 1,926,664,200 26 1,293,859,500 13 1,406,860,400 27 3,118,823,000 14 1,898,414,000 INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF S3 Table 4. Construction Cost Indexes, by Region and Base Point, 1967 Indexes Region Base point 1941 = 100 Los Angeles, 1961 = 100 1961 1967 1961 1967 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Boston . . .237.5 264.3 311.5 290.4 293.2 337.0 284.7 292.7 268.7 273.9 299.6 301.4 324.4 264.3 296.1 296.3 291.9 268.7 294.2 294.9 262.6 269.0 294.2 301.4 268.7 294.9 280.0 306.7 86.6 98.7 96.8 98.4 107.4 94.5 95.4 92.5 91.9 96.5 98.7 105.7 87.5 97.7 98.2 93.7 92.5 97.1 96.5 86.4 89.2 93.7 98.8 92.5 96.5 90.1 100.0 106.9 113.6 105.9 106.9 121.8 103.8 111.8 100.5 99.9 109.2 109.8 118.3 107.5 108.0 103.2 106.4 100.5 102.1 107.5 95.7 98.1 102.1 109.0 100.5 107.5 102.1 111.8 New York City . . .270.8 Philadelphia . . .265.4 Richmond . . .269.9 Atlanta . . .294.7 Orlando . . .259.1 Columbus . . .266.6 Nashville . . .239.1 Birmingham . . .249.9 Detroit . . .264.7 Indianapolis . . .270.9 Chicaeo . . . .289.9 Milwaukee . . .237.5 Minneapolis-St. Paul . . . . .267.9 DCS Moines . . .271.1 Columbia . . .256.9 Alexandria . . .239.1 Bismarck . . .268.7 Lincoln . . .264.6 Kansas City . . .237.1 Fort Worth . . .244.7 Billings . . .268.7 Denver . . .270.9 Phoenix . . .239.1 Salt Lake City . . .264.6 Portland . . .247.0 Los Angeles . . .274.3 Source: Architectural Record 144(6): 79, 1968. 34 BULLETIN NO. 740 Table 5, Cost of the Land Area for Synthesized Beef -Slaughtering Plants, by Region, 1967 [197,530 square feet used for the land area] a 120 cattle per hour Region Cost per sq. ft.*> Total cost, land area Region Cost per sq. ft.b Total cost, land area 1 $.90 $177,777 15 $.40 $ 79,012 2 .90 181,728 16 .35 69,136 3 .75 148,148 17 .32 63,210 4 .46 90,864 18 .23 45,432 5 .44 86,913 19 .25 49,383 6 .35 69,136 20 .30 59,259 7 .70 138,271 21 .40 79,012 8 .32 63,210 22 .25 49,383 9 .32 63,210 23 .40 79,012 10 .75 148>148 24 .32 63,210 11 .70 138,271 25 .30 59,259 12 .80 158,024 26 .50 98,765 13 .50 98,765 27 .85 167,900 14 .50 98,765 a Logan and King, Giannini Foundation Res. Rpt. No. 260, 1962, p. 67. ^Obtained from land values supplied by Chamber of Commerce offices located in various regional trading centers. Table 6. Equipment and Depreciation Costs, 120 Cattle Per Hour, Beef Slaughtering Plant, 1967 Cost of equipment (based on manufacturing prices provided by the Albright-Neil Co. in Chicago, and from USDA Mktg. Res. Rpt. No. 657) $519,288 Salvage value (derived from estimates given in USDA Mktg. Res. Rpt. No. 657) 35,788 Balance for depreciation (cost of equipment, minus salvage value) 483,500 Total depreciation per year (calculated by dividing the balance for the depreciation of each item by its estimated useful life, as given in USDA Mktg. Res. Rpt. No. 657) 62,800 INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF 35 Table 7. Estimated, Adjusted Regional Beef Demand, Retail Weight, Forty-Eight States, by Region, 1967 Region Annual con- sumption per capita, Ib. Approximate population Unadjusted beef con- sumption, Ib. Adjusted beef con- sumption, Ib.* 1 87.88 11,321,000 994,889,000 805,860,000 2 89.44 18,335,000 1,639,882,000 1,328,305,000 3 86.84 23,647,000 2,053,505,000 1,663,339,000 4 78.52 11,358,000 891,830,000 722,382,000 5 77.48 7,114,000 551,193,000 446,466,000 6 81.64 5,996,000 489,513,000 396,506,000 7 101.92 10,462,000 1,084,633,000 878,552,000 8 78.00 7,079,000 552,162,000 447,251,000 9 73.84 5,888,000 434,770,000 352,164,000 10 102.44 8,584,000 879,345,000 712,269,000 11 101.92 4,999,000 509,498,000 412,693,000 12 103.48 10,894,000 1,127,311,000 913,122,000 13 102.08 4,188,000 427,511,000 346,284,000 14 101.92 3,582,000 365,077,000 295,713,000 15 101.61 2,753,000 279,732,000 226,583,000 16 101.40 4,605,000 466,947,000 378,227,000 17 76.44- 5,629,000 430,281,000 348,527,000 18 99.84 1,313,000 131,090,000 106,183,000 19 101.56 1,435,000 145,739,000 118,048,000 20 101.45 2,275,000 230,799,000 186,947,000 21 94.64 13,369,000 1,265,242,000 1,024,856,000 22 95.68 1,016,000 97,211,000 78,751,000 23 97.14 1,975,000 191,852,000 155,400,000 24 94.12 2,638,000 248,289,000 201,114,000 25 95.68 2,165,000 207,147,000 167,789,000 26 99.32 5,088,000 505,340,000 409,326,000 27 100.36 19,163,000 1,923,199,000 1,557,791,000 TOTAL. . . .18,123,987,000 14,680,450,000 Adjusted by the percentage of difference between the unadjusted beef consumption, col- umn 4, and total commercial slaughter, Table 19. 36 BULLETIN NO. 740 T_I ,- ,- CM T- CM CM CM i-H T-H i-H i-H CM CM oos t-1 U S "e 1*8.1 2 o ft h 43 1 S CO OH INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF 37 06 I 3 Cl c-. 3C o eo o CM <> o o o ^ on en o r^ t^ o xn eo vo m oo O 00 rH O 1^ >~* tf> O t"" O CM CM r- 1 i I i I rH i I CM CM l-Hl-Hl-Hl-Hl-HCMCM i I i-H i I i ( F-H CM CM 38 BULLETIN NO. 740 CM O ^in t^obobinecO' i^tOTfOooi-HCM CM fH CM CM co ^O *o ^O ^^ ^O ^5 *^ ^^ O"i r"** co 0*1 r*"* O*i ^^ ^^ ^5 ^5 co vO co ^) ^^ ' CM CM CM CM I-H CM CM CM r-H -H' ,-<* CM CM B. C S OCM*O*** t****** .< ^'i C 00 "S ^ . **0*'ScM*'*^^^^^ 00 ^H **i 1-H 1-H i-H -H i-H 1-H i-H 1-H 1-H i-H 1-H i-H 1-H 1-H 1-H 1-H 1 S CM 1-H CM CM to^i^omooch^ooO^'oO'^H CM i-i CM CM CM CM ^ O O 00 CM CM CM CM CM CM ooo ?i ^ en J> * J> * * * * S S en oo * CM ^ oo i ^i ^- - i CM CM CM CM CM CM to eot^'^'^Ooo^'CMeo^t'int^t^-Tfr^o^r^too^CMOcocotOto CM CM CM CM CM s 1-H b CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF 4 r r r ? TI ?I r^ CM CM on ^^O'-rj f-T <0 6* ^ ss I 1 CM w <3 c m cn OO '^ oo oo" *< & 3 1-H l-H 00 CO 00 1-H ^^ " r- oo to Oi 00 CM I-H CM 3 O^ m r^ Tf 00 co" CO 5 *g <2 CM co K ~* Q v* h c ^ <^ CM - . .to . .^ . . . 00^ r ( 3 - ' "CM * ' ' oo" I-H O <> CT> CM i i CM eff i*! *"* i i i CM CM r^ "^ * II m O m o fc* f^i Tt^ ^ O oo cr>.... t^^ in ^0^ m t^ ''''' co '' c ?>\ 00 VO m 4^ j -O CM ^ CO e ^ ** ^ O s" 3 1 1 i-H 00 3 ^/^ -. i.~ . 3 n in M -^ -H * X c: eo on X Ifi a - ^ ~ tn X u-. X. c-i GO r-" BQ J= * C i .9- 1= .c u 42 BULLETIN NO. 740 o B 0000 o o o rj^ 06" r~T co" 01 in o to CM O O O to r- co m CO O CO -H C^l C^l CM CM oo o -H co CO C7^ CO CO m co t~ CT> OO 00 O> CM i^ oo m o OO CM i VO o o o o 0000 o o o o_ o" m" o" *" -H O * ^ r* oo cyi o to r^ oo CM CM CM -H JU 3 j H u I bo o c o a V s 3 'M a o INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF 43 Table 11. Estimated Commercial Slaughter Cattle Production, Reported Commercial Cattle Slaughter, and Estimated Surplus and Deficit Supply Regions, Forty-Eight States, by Region, 1967 Region Estimated commercial cattle slaughter Reported commercial cattle slaughter 3 Surplus (+) or deficit (-) slaughter cattle supply^ pounds 1 214,063,000 188,945,000 ... 2 387,782,000 420,474,000 ... 3 586,976,000 1,463,858,000 ... 4 415,948,000 410,298,000 - 296,710,000 5 171,844,000 364,082,000 - 356,745,000 6 476,151,000 375,936,000 + 87,805,000 7 956,881,000 1,262,395,000 - 758,849,000 8 687,541,000 755,358,000 - 589,372,000 9 676,664,000 544,113,000 - 333,161,000 10 686,079,000 718,215,000 + 192,014,000 11 1,033,327,000 632,549,000 - 148,159,000 12 2,092,063,000 1,501,724,000 + 165,399,000 13 1,138,973,000 1,305,456,000 - 267,888,000 14 2,055,298,000 2,019,845,000 + 35,386,000 15 4,807,361,000 4,477,869,000 + 331,217,000 16 1,953,284,000 1,541,651,000 + 411,642,000 17 601,179,000 276,661,000 + 287,288,000 18 1,242,854,000 973,499,000 + 268,990,000 19 3,632,061,000 3,770,412,000 - 137,317,000 20 3,392,808,000 1,675,104,000 +1,567,844,000 21 1,511,233,000 2,739,637,000 - 895,628,000 22 512,376,000 277,577,000 + 133,007,000 23 2,182,254,000 1,624,609,000 + 543,352,000 24 860,030,000 512,363,000 + 515,063,000 25 430,035,000 643,579,000 - 107,058,000 26 339,215,000 901,841,000 - 133,007,000 27 1,493,410,000 3,159,640,000 - 515,063,000 TOTAL 34,537,690,000 34,537,690,000 ^Livestock and meat statistics, supplement for 1967 to USDA Stat Bui. 333, p. 99. ^Surplus slaughter cattle supply after regional slaughter capacity was fully utilized. 44 BULLETIN NO. 740 I tj e 3 SI r-i M So o <> CO o" 00 CM 10 CM oo o to to 00 O CM to to to * r CM eo * ^fri CO tO C5 CMCMCMCM to 00 CO CM 00 to co CM CM CM O OO to o T I r>^ *" 13 z% CM rH ^ INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF 45 H a CJ u-: O O ift CM ift ift O ^* VO CM O^ VO ^* oo on r^ VO'I^'O'CM ^^ r^ ^^ 10 CM O 00 VO 00 Tf O CM O CM i-J^ . . CM OJ^ ' oo cT 00 VO * o on O >ft in oj oc c c-i 1ft CM CM O 00 00 on r^ vc ci o K 'O oc X CM O 1ft CM 00* o CM ift CM CM O oc CM 00 on r^ CM CT c-. CSC o in 00 (> (0 CM on c d. c c 2 c 8 a 2 1 m vc oo CT) ^ on 46 BULLETIN NO. 740 o oo vo oo Tf Oi CM O CM -H CM CT> 3> O c H CM CM CM CM _o t* OO CT> CO ^* 05 ^ -H -H CM CM u. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c oo oo o td 1-1 g vo oo r^ CM if) O oo r- oo CM CM -H CM Tf * 00 rj< cy^ '^ *f) c^ ^ CO CM CM O CM t * VO c H rt ^H ^ CM CM Eb c w o O CO C71 OO OO CM -H H CM. -H c? ' H u ^ O O O O O O O O O O 1 . O O O O O H C oo vo o vo vo 5 O ~H eo f) O u >s E r^ ^H o r- O 3, CM ^ VO 0) o if) VO ^^* ^** ^5 -M C H > 1 D O NM a c *s en eo *o Ds CM -H -H ^ A u, S o o o o o o o o o o u i o o o o o V vo vo t^ f> f) _ * -H 00 00 VO CM ^_ c CM rt ^H T}< 00 o c CM -H if) VO ^- n CM CM S ^ * u o co eo -* m w u o ^ la e o /S in o o^ oo o^ ^^ fc i-H CM ^ 5 BM o c o o o o o ._ o o o o o (4 . o o o o o c VO rt< O VO CT> ^o 1 f- CM < c VO i-" 'be CO ^t* CT) C5 i"^ u Tj? eo* vo" r^ vo* vo 9> m rj< i i n -H E i _ ^H ^H CM CM -t .S I 1 'S a O INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF 47 Table 13. Optimum, Interregional Shipments of Retail Beef, Forty-Eight States, 1967, by Transportation Mode, Model I Mode of transportation Region Piggyback railroad car Truck Mechanically refrig- erated railroad car Origin Destination pounds 14 1 564,376,000 15 1 93,424,000 22 1 56,910,000 16 2 47,066,000 19 2 1,116,119,000 15 3 1,212,216,000 20 3 201,186,000 19 4 45,187,000 8 5 96,465,000 9 5 77,825,000 20 5 47,078,000 16 6 231,146,000 11 7 90,390,000 19 7 57,596,000 13 10 160,026,000 20 10 341,868,000 13 12 92,738,000 19 17 214,870,000 23 24 54,225,000 18 26 208,251,000 18 27 100,240,000 19 27 53,198,000 23 27 488,226,000 25 27 60,908,000 TOTAL. 4,307,087,000 , ,.859,312,000.. . . . 545,136,000 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL, INTERREGIONAL SHIPMENTS.. . 75 . . 15 . . 10 48 BULLETIN NO. 740 Table 14. Estimated Surplus and Deficit Beef Regions, Forty-Eight States, by Region, Retail-Weight Basis, 1967 Region Surplus (+) or deficit (-) retail beef supply, Ib. Region Surplus (+) or deficit (-) retail beef supply, Ib. 1 - 714,710,000 14 + 564,376,000 2 -1,163,185,000 15 + 1,305,640,000 3 -1,413,402,000 16 + 278,212,000 4 45,187,000 17 214,870,000 5 221,368,000 18 + 308,491,000 6 231,146,000 19 +1,486,971,000 7 147,986,000 20 + 590,132,000 8 + 96,465,000 22 + 56,910,000 9 + 77,825,000 23 + 542,451,000 10 - 501,894,000 24 54,225,000 11 + 90,390,000 25 + 60,908,000 12 92,738,000 26 208,251,000 13 + 252,764,000 27 - 702,572,000 Note: Region 21 was self-sufficient INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF 49 Table 15. Optimum Cattle Slaughter and Excess Capacity, Forty-Eight States, by Region, 196 7, Model I Region Optimum cattle slaughter (live weight) Reported commercial cattle slaughter 4 Excess capacity Capacity utilized pounds percent 1 214,063,000 188,945,000 335,874,000 39 2 387,782,000 420,747,000 565,192,000 41 3 586,976,000 1,463,858,000 1,584,900,000 27 4 712,658,000 410,298,000 ... 100 5 528,589,000 364,082,000 324,890,000 62 6 388,346,000 375,936,000 ... 100 7 1,715,730,000 1,262,395,000 ... 100 8 1,276,913,000 755,358,000 ... 100 9 1,009,825,000 544,113,000 46,105,000 96 10 494,065,000 718,215,000 ... 100 11 1,181,486,000 632,549,000 ... 100 12 1,926,664,000 1,501,724,000 ... 100 13 1,406,861,000 1,305,456,000 ... 100 14 2,019,912,000 2,019,845,000 ... 100 15 4,476,144,000 4,477,869,000 ... 100 16 1,541,642,000 1,541,651,000 ... 100 17 313,891,000 276,661,000 ... 100 18 973,864,000 973,499,000 ... 100 19 3,769,378,000 3,770,412,000 ... 100 20 1,824,964,000 1,675,104,000 ... 100 21 2,406,861,000 2,739,637,000 1,064,142,000 69 22 379,369,000 277,577,000 ... 100 23 1,638,902,000 1,624,609,000 ... 100 24 344,967,000 512,363,000 ... 100 25 537,093,000 643,579,000 ... 100 26 472,222,000 901,841,000 821,637,000 36 27 2,008,473,000 3,159,640,000 1,150,894,000 64 livestock and meat statistics, supplement for 1967 to USDA Stat. Bui. 333, p. 99. 50 BULLETIN NO. 740 Table 16. Estimated, Optimum Regional Processing of Primal and Retail Cuts of Beef, Forty-Eight States, by Region, 1967, Model I Region Primal cuts Retail cuts pounds 1 125,227,000 102,185,000 2 226,852,000 185,112,000 3 343,381,000 280,199,000 4 416,905,000 759,187,000 5 309,256,000 252,353,000 6 227,182,000 185,381,000 7 1,003,702,000 819,020,000 8 746,994,000 609,547,000 9 590,747,000 482,050,000 10 289,028,000 235,847,000 11 691,170,000 563,994,000 12 1,127,098,000 919,712,000 13 823,013,000 671,579,000 14 1,181,649,000 964,225,000 15 2,618,544,000 1,717,739,000 16 901,861,000 735,918,000 17 183,626,000 149,839,000 18 569,708,000 464,882,000 19 2,205,085,000 1,799,349,000 20 1,067,604,000 871,164,000 21 1,408,017,000 1,148,942,000 22 186,381,000 152,087,000 23 958,754,000 782,344,000 24 201,805,000 164,673,000 25 314,199,000 256,387,000 26 276,250,000 225,420,000 27 1,174,957,000 258,765,000 Table 17. Rents for Slaughtering, Forty-Eight States, by Region, 1967, Model I Rent Rent Region (per cwt.) Region (per cwt.) 4 $.08 16 $ .68 6 .90 17 .55 7 .13 18 .87 8 .14 19 .31 10 .54 20 .79 11 .26 22 1.16 12 .66 23 .86 13 .23 24 1.38 14 .70 25 .05 15 .76 INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF 0000 o o o o ? _y u c CM * VO -" CM ^ I CM VO !* Cft CM .a 9 E oo vo -" n m CM r^ ~+ if CM CM CM CM CM a g 2^ C oo on on <*" m -M CM CM CM CM U- * . O O O O O c vo oo CM in 00 ^ * VO E vo" on" CM CM -^ O CM O 00 -N on on o o o CM r C H _ _____ n . '? e on o on en o oo" Q^ O M CM -- CM JU b_ r> M ^ 0000 O H "* o o o o o - *j CM m on CM m C O O CT> r- VO ,^ C CM -}< in vo (A C H r^ r^ oo CT) O) f ^ a c V *2 1-1 CT) VO VO O g ^^ _- CM J U, 2 * 0000 0000 o o o o o 1 -}< vo VO * 00 *M r m ** in en m o p-< CM CM 1^ w ^ in oo on on r** on f^* C^ CM on -N 3 "* 1 SJ* 2 CM on on m vo *o II u. CM in o o vo CM * CM CM < 1 4 O Q O o o o o o 1 o "* o o o o o ^* 00 OO 00 ~t* fr ( j * VO VO O *n ^ CM CM VO E o> m CM ^ CM t^ on o vo en a 4 ,r _____ X E c H CM CM CM & 6 1 V 1 06 u. ^< CM vo oo en __ ri a o 52 BULLETIN NO. 740 c-. I J ^s ^ a e i g c a 3 o hi .0 So 00 o v> C II CM m t~- r** ^ co 00 CM 1 CM i-c Tf -H C7) m o m in l-H I-H l-H CM m r-- O O O vo . . . .00 "H ^H ,-H CM 5 S 00 OO m m CM VD * CO r -r * Qf^ CT> ~. i i i i S CM .... CM CM CO ' ' ' ' CO CO CO l-H VO i-< .1-1 . . . t-H l-H : : " * CM ^ CM * ^* Q(} 16 f^* ^O O"^ ^O l-H l-H ^H 00 ^ l-H . O CTi ^ ^ C ^COOCMCM^CnCM M _i' CO VO Tf " T ["Oior^-^cnoco u & H; 5 F*- 00 CD kf) C CM eo t-^ r^ u *-* lO CM T t-H r 1 r-> vo ^H CM en r^ en CM oo VO r^ CM C-J ^ CM ^ TJ 5 : : : : a 00 00 4 .3 U o o < eo eo , O * 6 -j ^^ OO **^ kO V ooocfipCMoo'j'jn C Q> V c ^ g 06 UJ "O > I o a c o VO a C i a o H 54 BULLETIN NO. 740 Table 19. Optimum, Regional Levels of Cattle Slaughtering for Models I and I-A and Reported Regional Cattle Slaughter, Forty-Eight States, by Region, 1967 Region Cattle slaughter, Model I Cattle slaughter, Model I-A Reported commercial cattle slaughter 3 pounds 1 214,063,000 214,063,000 188,945,000 2 387,782,000 387,782,000 420,747,000 3 586,976,000 586,976,000 1,463,858,000 4 712,658,000 415,948,000 410,289,000 5 528,589,000 117,844,000 364,082,000 6 388,346,000 476,151,000 375,936,000 7 1,715,730,000 956,881,000 1,262,395,000 8 1,276,913,000 687,541,000 755,358,000 9 1,009,825,000 676,664,000 544,113,000 10 494,065,000 686,079,000 718,215,000 11 1,181,486,000 1,033,327,000 632,549,000 12 1,926,664,000 2,092,063,000 1,501,724,000 13 1,406,861,000 1,138,973,000 1,305,456,000 14 2,019,912,000 2,055,298,000 2,019,845,000 15 4,476,144,000 4,807,361,000 4,477,869,000 16 1,541,642,000 1,953,284,000 1,541,651,000 17 313,891,000 601,179,000 276,661,000 18 973,864,000 1,242,854,000 973,499,000 19 3,769,378,000 3,632,061,000 3,770,412,000 20 1,824,964,000 3,392,808,000 1,675,104,000 21 2,406,867,000 1,511,233,000 2,739,637,000 22 379,369,000 512,376,000 277,577,000 23 1,638,902,000 2,121,485,000 1,624,609,000 24 344,967,000 860,030,000 512,363,000 25 537,093,000 430,035,000 643,579,000 26 472,222,000 339,215,000 901,841,000 27 2,008,473,000 1,493,410,000 3,159,640,000 a Livestock and meat statistics, supplement for 1967 to USDA Stat. Bui. 333, p. 99. INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF 55 c 18118 sr o o o o o u j -'-"-'-' H o >o o o 0000 .5 1 J* ^" CM 00 t^ ^ . ^ o in vo vo ! i^ ~> - 1 -i - 1 - 1 > e 0(5 S 00 CM OO OO * :i r i ri n ?i bu c iiiii ~~_ 00000 CM r>- O te> ^ oo -H o o en CM r^ vo >c oo ! 00 CM OO VO 00 O oo oo r- -H ^N _O v E * n o o oo ^ otf ^ -H CM CM CM o ta. CM V O O O O O O 00000 i o o o o o H J r^ O O o O C t^ O O O O J- a o o o o n E 00 "H 00 Tfr >C ^ < vo oo oi o 00 O> O O 1 ( C H i 1 ^H WH ' Q> g 1 Oi O O kC CM kC VO 1 5 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o c 00000 O O CM O S . . . ^1 . M VO ""^ VO 00 OO 2 < 1C OO OO VO OO 00 OO OO a a o ic vo r*. oo oo J '> E o> o CM m vo * * 2 _ r, _ _ _ u. c ;O o p o o o O O 1 o o o o o .2 J in vo vo r^ on r^ (0 ^o r>- CM S 1 vp' m* oo* i~* V O O O 00 -* E iJ 12 '& E as a oo oo oo in in CM ^f O ^f 00 E 1 U, o 56 BULLETIN NO. 740 XI s I I 2 g s a B o h, " s o 3 ^ 1^ S ~O , o O^ o' CO <*) O o o (> en oo o o o CO O CM O 00 O O O o o o o o o o o o o o O t& O m oo =n O O CD T^ 00 O o o CM oo 2 C O '& CMCMCMCM CM CM en ^^ ao r voeoCM CMTfoo O O o o o o O VO o n o o IO Ifl Tf CM CO O = = E 6, * j = ; <: O^ o> -f cr. o . m o a o a c .9- ~ ~Ji O - = ? on t^ CM r- 00 ^ a ~ CM t^ 00 CM on CM tf) i.-. <> E x u ui -a 58 BULLETIN NO. 740 It ^D m I-H o ^ in I I T3 c OQ * CM t-< I I u O i i i < 3 1-^ t^ Qj CM CM r^ ^, CM 53 ^> ,_J D CM CM *^ O) Ol en 3 e <* C "m "5 ^ K 1 tn 3 <> Oi O CM f* O Oi OO rf CM Tf (5 ^ U * * q i^ u O C * r- CM Tf a f-H ,-H co X C C 3 a, ^ & ^ 1 CO Tf c r* o i-i O CM *! ^ * r ! 1 1 ^H 1-H f& jjR" O CM CM ss ^ o a> 01 2 ^ m 1 a CM CM co m oo t^ m fH i-H CO i i 0% 5? s co ^o r^ in ^o CM ^o r^* O i^ i i 3 to f-H CM ^ ^ ^O t^. r-H ,..*...... r '-C * t^ ^ Ol i I CM ft. o CO ^H CM CO ^^ O k< ^ +j . u CM a) e o C '5b ' INTERREGIONAL FLOW OF BEEF 59 t: - J . - o s.s o.SP -* CM -* m CM oo en iO'- VO O CM oc oo v -< in CM ^f TJ< cr. - en 00 00 CM ir o C-J X C-J X C-J Ifl c-i X Ifl c-i c: Of) Ifl c; e c "> a u 2 E x u "O -t X c o en = o. IS o H 60 BULLETIN NO. 740 c O O O O O s^ ** o o o o o >o -J o o o o o c o oT of <>" irT TjT Tj< CM ^ O CM u .1 S *"2fS?5 t c H CM CM CM CM CM _o t 2 ta. oo < i of) TJ< in -H ^r CM CM CM .0 o o o o o o o o o o - o o o o o j- 1C to oo TJ< oo 3 Tf< O Tj< Of) CM 5 of) -i o in r^ I m CM CM o in CM * 00 CM O ^H Of) CM ^H o l~~ O CM CM t^ n E- 1 i-H i 1 i-H ^H _o u S o> o of) m -H ^ p4 2 -H CM rt -H CM CM u. y o o o o o 1 * o o o o o o o o o o H c O CM to r^ 'L ^, '^v "^^ I Tj* O 1 f C* *D CM < O Tt< CM OS Q "^ C H * - ch co <^ ^j* r^* CM oo r** * co oo i i r^ of) *2 S -< OfJ^ CM -H ^H 5 '3 CM Of) Of) ^ Tf 8 c E" 1 _0 'o '5b e o> m o oo 01 rt -H CM o ta G A o o o o o o o o o o "J3 ""^ o o o o o o 1 oo O O CM r^ ^ cyi ^^ oo Of) i 1 CM -H n S ^H ~< ^H ^4 CM G C r^ S a - u c o& o -* m CD oo