Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:37:34.002Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Live Hog and Pork Imports: Past and Projected Consequences for the U.S. Pork Sector

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2016

Jon A. Brandt ,
Robert E. Young II ,
Shamsul Alam  and
Abner W. Womack
Jon A. Brandt
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri-Columbia
Robert E. Young II
Affiliation:
U.S. Senate Agricultural Committee
Shamsul Alam
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri-Columbia
Abner W. Womack
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri-Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The U.S. pork sector is modeled to simulate the effects of alternative import levels on prices, production, consumption, farm receipts, and consumer expenditures. Over the 1983–1985 period, producers annually received $600 million less due to increasing imports than if imports had remained at the 1979–1982 average. Farm prices and slaughter were lower by $2.21 per hundredweight and 1.1 million head annually, respectively. Four simulations reflecting alternative import paths over the period 1986–1992 were examined. With lower imports (relative to current levels), production and farm prices rise significantly in the long run; consumers purchase less and pay more.

Keywords

econometric modelsimulationimportsporkhogs
Type
Submitted Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , December 1987 , pp. 133 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brandt, J. A., Alam, S., Young, R. E. II, and Womack, A. W.. “Documentation of the CNFAP Chicken, Eggs, and Turkey Models and Review of Previous Studies.” Center for National Food and Agricultural Policy (CNFAP-5-85), Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri-Columbia, 1985a.Google Scholar
Brandt, J. A., Perso, R., Alam, S., Young, R. E. II, and Womack, A. W.. “Documentation of the CNFAP Hog-Pork Model and Review of Previous Studies.” Center for National Food and Agricultural Policy (CNFAP-9-85), Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri-Columbia, 1985b.Google Scholar
Brandt, J. A., Young, R. E. II, Alam, S., and Womack, A. W.. “Foreign Trade and Its Impact on the Domestic Livestock Market.” Presented at the Demand for Meat Symposium, Sponsored by Southern Regional Research Committee (S-165) and the Board on Agriculture of the National Research Council, Charleston, South Carolina, October 20-21, 1986.Google Scholar
FAPRI Staff Report. “National Farm Survey on Financial Stress.” Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, Department of Agricultural Economics, FAPRI 6-85, University of Missouri-Columbia, July 1985.Google Scholar
Freebairn, J. W., and Rausser, G. C.. “Effects of Changes in the Level of U.S. Beef Imports.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 57(1975):676–688.Google Scholar
Hayami, Y. “Trade Benefits to All: A Design of the Beef Import Liberalization in Japan.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 61(1979):342–347.Google Scholar
Heien, D. “An Economic Model of the U.S. Pork Economy.” Review Econ. Stat, 57(1975):370–375.Google Scholar
Heller, H. R. International Trade, Theory and Empirical Evidence. Second Edition, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1968.Google Scholar
Just, R. E., Hueth, D. L., and Schmitz, A.. Applied Welfare Economics and Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1982.Google Scholar
Kindleberger, C. P. International Economics. Fourth Edition. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1968.Google Scholar
Rowsell, J. B., and Kenyon, D. E.. “Canadian Hog and Pork Imports: Potential Causes and Price Impacts.” Department of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, SP-86-5, paper presented at Southern Agricultural Economics Association annual meeting, Orlando, Florida; February 2-5,1986.Google Scholar
Salathe, L. E., Price, J. M., and Gason, K. E.. “The Food and Agricultural Policy Simulator: The Poultry and Egg-Sector Submodel.” Agri. Econ. Res., 35(1983):23–34.Google Scholar
Sandstrom, M. R. “Pre-Hearing Brief in Support of Final Affirmative Determination of Material Injury, and the Threat Thereof, to the Domestic Industry.” Submitted by National Pork Producers Council and Wilson Foods Corporation before the International Trade Commission, July 13, 1985.Google Scholar
Schmitz, A. “Research in International Trade: Methods and Techniques—With Emphasis on Agricultural Trade.” In International Trade and Agriculture: Theory and Policy. Ed. Hillman, J. and Schmitz, A.. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1979. pp. 273–294.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service. Hogs and Pigs Report. Washington, DC, December, 1984.Google Scholar
Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates. Long Term International Agricultural Outlook. Spring 1986, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Yanagida, J. F., and Conway, R. K.. “The Annual Livestock Model: Beef, Pork, Poultry and Eggs, and Dairy Sectors.” USDA, Economic Research Service, Documentation Manual, November 1979.Google Scholar