<%BANNER%>

Export Demand and Promotions of U.S. Beef

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022607/00001

Material Information

Title: Export Demand and Promotions of U.S. Beef Impact of Food Safety and Protectionism
Physical Description: 1 online resource (183 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Ferrara, Oscar
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: armington, beef, bse, exports, product
Food and Resource Economics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food and Resource Economics thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Trade disruptive policies have been used for a long time to address a large number of politic, economic, and food safety issues. Policy shocks (i.e., embargoes or export bans) have significant short-and long-term effects on trade relations and production of agricultural commodities, shaping the economies of producing countries as well as the direction and magnitude of trade flows. The consequences of the first case of BSE in North America in December 2003 exemplify how food safety issues significantly affect consumer preferences and producer welfare. After the announcement of the first case of BSE in North America in December 2003, almost immediately 53 countries banned imports from the United States to prevent the disease from entering their countries and to safeguard human health. The resulting negative shift in aggregate market demand for U.S. beef products and the loss of export markets were the immediate consequences of either government-imposed trade restrictions or changes in import demands. Today, U.S. beef exports show an increasing trend thanks in part to trade liberalization policies and information campaigns (i.e., promotions) aimed to expand the presence of U.S. products in major beef importing countries. The objective of this research is to analyze import demands for beef products in selected Asia?s countries using a model of product differentiation by country of origin and to estimate empirically the impact of U.S. beef promotions on re-capturing pre-ban market levels. Based on Armington?s specification (1969), the model for this research assumes a two-stage budgeting allocation and a product's imperfect substitutability between export sources. Hence, this study presumes that beef produced in the United States presents unique attributes (i.e., superior quality and taste) and that foreign consumers can perceive this difference from competing beef sources. Departing from Armington's Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) specification, this work proposes the use of a Constant Ratio Elasticity of Substitution (CRES) that allows elaticities to vary proportionally while the substitutability is not necessarly identical. This research includes eight countries divided into four exporting and four importing countries respectively. Based on countries? import/export yearly data, the entire dataset includes almost 2000 observations with information recorded over time across selected countries during an 11-year period (January 1995 to December 2006). Resulting product demand, market share, and elasticity estimates determine the degree of substitution among competing beef products and provide the coefficients to measure the economic impact of trade barriers and effectiveness of market access and promotion policies in four major markets for U.S. beef: Japan, Republic of Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Oscar Ferrara.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Ward, Ronald W.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022607:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022607/00001

Material Information

Title: Export Demand and Promotions of U.S. Beef Impact of Food Safety and Protectionism
Physical Description: 1 online resource (183 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Ferrara, Oscar
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: armington, beef, bse, exports, product
Food and Resource Economics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food and Resource Economics thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Trade disruptive policies have been used for a long time to address a large number of politic, economic, and food safety issues. Policy shocks (i.e., embargoes or export bans) have significant short-and long-term effects on trade relations and production of agricultural commodities, shaping the economies of producing countries as well as the direction and magnitude of trade flows. The consequences of the first case of BSE in North America in December 2003 exemplify how food safety issues significantly affect consumer preferences and producer welfare. After the announcement of the first case of BSE in North America in December 2003, almost immediately 53 countries banned imports from the United States to prevent the disease from entering their countries and to safeguard human health. The resulting negative shift in aggregate market demand for U.S. beef products and the loss of export markets were the immediate consequences of either government-imposed trade restrictions or changes in import demands. Today, U.S. beef exports show an increasing trend thanks in part to trade liberalization policies and information campaigns (i.e., promotions) aimed to expand the presence of U.S. products in major beef importing countries. The objective of this research is to analyze import demands for beef products in selected Asia?s countries using a model of product differentiation by country of origin and to estimate empirically the impact of U.S. beef promotions on re-capturing pre-ban market levels. Based on Armington?s specification (1969), the model for this research assumes a two-stage budgeting allocation and a product's imperfect substitutability between export sources. Hence, this study presumes that beef produced in the United States presents unique attributes (i.e., superior quality and taste) and that foreign consumers can perceive this difference from competing beef sources. Departing from Armington's Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) specification, this work proposes the use of a Constant Ratio Elasticity of Substitution (CRES) that allows elaticities to vary proportionally while the substitutability is not necessarly identical. This research includes eight countries divided into four exporting and four importing countries respectively. Based on countries? import/export yearly data, the entire dataset includes almost 2000 observations with information recorded over time across selected countries during an 11-year period (January 1995 to December 2006). Resulting product demand, market share, and elasticity estimates determine the degree of substitution among competing beef products and provide the coefficients to measure the economic impact of trade barriers and effectiveness of market access and promotion policies in four major markets for U.S. beef: Japan, Republic of Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Oscar Ferrara.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Ward, Ronald W.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022607:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101222_AAAABO INGEST_TIME 2010-12-22T16:46:10Z PACKAGE UFE0022607_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 2361 DFID F20101222_AABCDH ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH ferrara_o_Page_163.txt GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
6979e624d6ceeaa821545f785cd77a86
SHA-1
a6ee3407bbe221a8ab7954a7598ea08835334312
1184 F20101222_AABCCT ferrara_o_Page_110.txt
ed23d02d98a3ee5f29bcb2f5be9fda17
e5e03e6592c21bd35395a866309d5914d572f50e
25271604 F20101222_AABBYB ferrara_o_Page_107.tif
d221a1e9a583d2a644095273392eb173
1a93174840334f95b647b5a37e324362b4ee4919
F20101222_AABBXN ferrara_o_Page_079.tif
c30806bd2ea5509a86e7811aa3863119
f95f639f4894f40c0cc735b208397cf5a437aea7
F20101222_AABBWZ ferrara_o_Page_038.tif
26a8a8beb6953ee9cb3d1b93d0e3d27e
a62a6b0c6ffb28a0bfb8ad433af990bc3b38ceb9
80837 F20101222_AABATX ferrara_o_Page_057.jpg
6a9327d1f766415a07b73fccf9258958
5f725b913247c293d87fcaaf9661a2426b766317
2090 F20101222_AABBAF ferrara_o_Page_151.txt
d709c972184a1a30ca67e96b5d8d2ba8
18cf9e30eb2df3cf4c11c153700ec4a368468133
52667 F20101222_AABAUL ferrara_o_Page_041.pro
71066127891c63515e35ca64cd418df7
ad9d53e87fcbd3f8755298ec6761c268b3efdbde
2131 F20101222_AABCDI ferrara_o_Page_166.txt
ba9831e0dd81bddf77149d324ae80f6d
a771e345116cd63e1698641c01783d0e69cf9a72
2137 F20101222_AABCCU ferrara_o_Page_119.txt
76d8f0f1de14cbf18f5b95aeec166e0d
765c6cba723acbe6179df4a09e494dd3a9153dff
F20101222_AABBYC ferrara_o_Page_108.tif
b3dc64a849a3c7fcfee009ba466abf0d
5cf8bfad4985aad2319ccac012780adf36054886
F20101222_AABBXO ferrara_o_Page_081.tif
89a0f4b587f94b52232d87712a0423b9
76d1425bd19c5e6dd37501d34dd608cc7362a150
1575 F20101222_AABATY ferrara_o_Page_105.txt
74c1ebbbcf78217c8eeace28fc087a31
f17873dac38b9137895bf3a89be9e2e493484ea6
1051947 F20101222_AABBAG ferrara_o_Page_097.jp2
4fb7a2ee2f7d6807a00662882f7218e8
388e0b6c58c289c7076f74088cf09ea140f785ac
F20101222_AABAVA ferrara_o_Page_094.tif
9fa5efe884248c4064d3a504b0672239
ee85f72b16855bd591ef854d6629ec8f10918760
34687 F20101222_AABAUM ferrara_o_Page_043.QC.jpg
0f0c561e2f95aacc1ecac20c3ce33412
fe05e18a80d66c088148aa316fd42f0403b354ea
1772 F20101222_AABCDJ ferrara_o_Page_168.txt
dfd9a67401238608ca5c7a08737436d5
fab34dcd21182710a36c756d6b16c484815f04f1
1627 F20101222_AABCCV ferrara_o_Page_123.txt
49fee28eee295764faeea8d5f8909d5b
e88b89cd7aae0f40133947103aed986e2898d316
F20101222_AABBYD ferrara_o_Page_112.tif
db89f8207e34a82ac6d89c7064d3bca9
bfdcbf5f4edac0e482323ab5dbe23213843bdcdf
F20101222_AABBXP ferrara_o_Page_083.tif
d7b3b88ff9ae00a4d962299a31f58945
d0e0ec927b5fd8475092065e4db4c1938c92536e
8490 F20101222_AABBAH ferrara_o_Page_043thm.jpg
cee314b0c7a4e68f3f21d710b3a893e6
42187b29ca87660ab0e69864b74272a0153ecb03
84796 F20101222_AABAVB ferrara_o_Page_133.jpg
2222ff878087162e9ad8e52b0458fda1
f10a8c6e31025c12de80511057c60e254614abed
834119 F20101222_AABAUN ferrara_o_Page_058.jp2
cbf9b009d858afb433c1e4e460bcbbb2
50e5854c2024fc04c807ee4c3610a541dc223da8
1653 F20101222_AABCDK ferrara_o_Page_170.txt
c02b1dbeb5dbdbe2b466b5db4e557995
270754414ea44aa41b1bb67a11ed401b27f9b466
2055 F20101222_AABCCW ferrara_o_Page_127.txt
6641362533116afb5542e90ec1199621
ebfacea6aff3168581fdd43082f6eaace654aa7a
F20101222_AABBYE ferrara_o_Page_116.tif
07916369111866e3e59eb2f871b03c0b
318b4efed9eb1e07026b51ff97380079eb1b54f3
F20101222_AABBXQ ferrara_o_Page_085.tif
c163455682f7ed9e66045705775e2b0e
b9deb305f129f202a83d22aff11ea10ec15e5a52
2001 F20101222_AABATZ ferrara_o_Page_136.txt
b947bc52cf5e1f239d5be828fe16a0b4
bbf6fec757fd3f8340d6dbf3f944d61a9f1b00b8
35726 F20101222_AABBAI ferrara_o_Page_150.QC.jpg
82dfa2b6abf624d89b81725b8eaa6a36
5b6a77154334400d0f3fc5abb2a994b8e6b2e71e
1051978 F20101222_AABAVC ferrara_o_Page_090.jp2
41d0f639566b5200be5bc88e02ba1501
f5fdbef8134a6d0e5a85395cfdee3b4d9888eddf
8091 F20101222_AABAUO ferrara_o_Page_048thm.jpg
52bb618a436f558365137e3a72376f27
d1e183ca948111729c7602037f615333a9d514cf
35023 F20101222_AABCEA ferrara_o_Page_071.QC.jpg
195aaabd588c4d7b8a9c8b89001e5fa2
8a480ef2ab2866b6c272da82e0ac566918b719c6
1731 F20101222_AABCDL ferrara_o_Page_175.txt
58f2c6cce4b972120bcc5bd1803b9193
97bd6944e7a1fdd6169c0c7941fbb7e40c494cb7
2170 F20101222_AABCCX ferrara_o_Page_128.txt
e346f7a5fe96434e55549d1dc8e3d9a3
05175804028cdf212f2e437391fe3f797fcc2332
F20101222_AABBYF ferrara_o_Page_117.tif
99ef07164182bda1d928979066549257
b78feacb55d902979b8e0d7fe8696f9e99e2caef
F20101222_AABBXR ferrara_o_Page_087.tif
cb1da0e2d60cab7ba455bb26153866ac
46339d661651eacf1831919d65f303e7eb1680f0
1051982 F20101222_AABBAJ ferrara_o_Page_114.jp2
44f44b087d995ccdf003c080f858e8ed
4b642f79ee7ccc17d972d267cf404a7f17684471
1668 F20101222_AABAVD ferrara_o_Page_064.txt
2f0f57969d65849a23cc25c13bd79809
8e1a9f424ae55d83c5fb19db2f43740fba17459a
1051963 F20101222_AABAUP ferrara_o_Page_093.jp2
c05fa820a3dfa1c4b4133627f5151fec
94632af146cfd3cd388e04276f1201510a78c2f3
27293 F20101222_AABCEB ferrara_o_Page_171.QC.jpg
1a0e47812cb367aa8fccd9554cef6c01
a3568ed4d5c001b4df45b8e393ce461cc21ea3b7
2352 F20101222_AABCDM ferrara_o_Page_178.txt
760848d489c1e349f5c92238740b35ae
aa2db158abb1cd3f5a19097f7308129d4cc9b408
1983 F20101222_AABCCY ferrara_o_Page_131.txt
05c4f4f6b6e7bacf0632f6bcf6048999
3be0fec8831b4d9f6322c9cc0a8ef7c04a62c94e
F20101222_AABBYG ferrara_o_Page_118.tif
e817e8aab9ccb714a4d5bfea9d4001c3
d510db82f40c1ef42252ac3008edd323ea2bcc0e
F20101222_AABBXS ferrara_o_Page_089.tif
00bba8faac685c8c8dca3652025507e1
777e353a6f58fb0096c38db777b9b15258560a8b
34736 F20101222_AABBAK ferrara_o_Page_101.QC.jpg
2e8275142e6138ab501209da6f680b82
6b6ea80382302676b154a664a66f3a7bf9ed46be
F20101222_AABAVE ferrara_o_Page_057.tif
28ae73a82b30366c86af1e3d88b61589
469218702bee5ef7db9b84fa04df8278eacc543f
F20101222_AABAUQ ferrara_o_Page_127.tif
4f9eaaeb44012ccb0f86cc7e908666d5
e18140262bc5bcd365f4ff9f9a0f730f075b7a1a
3115 F20101222_AABCEC ferrara_o_Page_031thm.jpg
4aa85d758c6d32bff68d1087523669b3
6de6905abe66f68c745d11e7886079ae83e1dd87
2394 F20101222_AABCDN ferrara_o_Page_179.txt
ad4786564cfe2d4773871befe79c946b
57c143b355673f304e36d16b3966ea752338d77f
2171 F20101222_AABCCZ ferrara_o_Page_135.txt
6bb5f996f54730f3c2317abc573cce86
10a3bd17ca8d3ec1467dbb3b7b81892cc05a7ab2
F20101222_AABBYH ferrara_o_Page_121.tif
2ff84aba4730f9ca74f2cd4f24fdf385
79d099d2473ff681a43861aa64512a7f864acda0
F20101222_AABBXT ferrara_o_Page_091.tif
185a25f3dc8dcd88b0c3bc9e51735f62
d20ce2a915fe1142e1d10d4caa73f020fbeb02a6
58525 F20101222_AABBAL ferrara_o_Page_179.pro
197104144da60a9995cdd26a026b86e2
49d2f348193a0712795ee32d00bcaeeecde015cd
F20101222_AABAVF ferrara_o_Page_134.tif
f803c22e68921be8e5170241310326b6
c25d4066a906ed492e6e7e40b511c6ccee61b4b3
F20101222_AABAUR ferrara_o_Page_073.tif
fe110764afd4764cd0604a048e6ccad4
29020b5c695350d151d73617503b5647268d9b04
117873 F20101222_AABBBA ferrara_o_Page_005.jpg
c4de1c35360632cbd8ba7626e690a800
4fcce20e945f440d20a3abcde372130cbc887ba8
6736 F20101222_AABCED ferrara_o_Page_168thm.jpg
6206a48e291e122fef9132c1538300c7
7004c9347cff06ca22e60ad64031157dff7cad8d
2098 F20101222_AABCDO ferrara_o_Page_001thm.jpg
64d6fafa26ad700bb4c0aad5ec315707
107c5837928c0f61a1bd33c1c63a790939e0f02b
F20101222_AABBYI ferrara_o_Page_122.tif
b3c120e0bb5de7c9a46c486b935376f9
28b7531b3ff30cbf439d987c0c4db011987296e1
F20101222_AABBXU ferrara_o_Page_095.tif
1d166cc14a7b3670c9fec9e2bf4d9713
cec15d6a806518e2ceac5f960d07dfc96d83da39
8070 F20101222_AABBAM ferrara_o_Page_105thm.jpg
9cc2c681dc1aa34819f7682ae3800535
87d9113b76062ef2db47e9cbab5fd7a57eb7f67a
F20101222_AABAVG ferrara_o_Page_072.tif
420a5ec3d3602a0ac194f719b26af14d
53de6117866fb692a20db585446d7863dfebfcc7
8573 F20101222_AABAUS ferrara_o_Page_179thm.jpg
25cb0f26c43b69308305ba209b071138
a6c977418bee0f67cee73af3526555b454d11813
1051933 F20101222_AABBBB ferrara_o_Page_033.jp2
4d2773bb22c5d492fd9e63733dfbb6a7
c84237fc21a6ed7e15497201064ebd9a8ccbd2d1
33224 F20101222_AABCEE ferrara_o_Page_046.QC.jpg
15b65f49523c36cf5a175d08e27ead39
61f6933d5b13e9be99e15ce68feecd6c92a303a3
35640 F20101222_AABCDP ferrara_o_Page_093.QC.jpg
3e5977f01a52f36241b66752a16bbdbe
125356df4d23fa4883f91c57901b7272fa7c992f
F20101222_AABBYJ ferrara_o_Page_123.tif
225620a1cecf63bbb2884af58651c5ab
e076554f9ef1e16d635ad9cde076903fe9b50de8
F20101222_AABBXV ferrara_o_Page_096.tif
465530ac958355c9f22604715a4b52d8
3d42063e07b61887058bc112ab560dbbf6d62ff3
75035 F20101222_AABBAN ferrara_o_Page_051.jpg
184863b6b94119672366b5de8cfc23ca
88d8b880d21f12f83ceb0d636fda8971238bd425
37152 F20101222_AABAVH ferrara_o_Page_026.QC.jpg
494166a6b98a48c5fb33d0fe98de53f3
28d7373e87007ee2dc3fc41ff89cca2fad52c51b
6257 F20101222_AABAUT ferrara_o_Page_104thm.jpg
e04ac6adb021a0f5e9a049cd465e490e
8c86359ae684826d31c712c02edc5e4eb631fcc3
8748 F20101222_AABBBC ferrara_o_Page_149thm.jpg
037e87124c44e27c8e193b6ce05dc9c5
433139131387b1a7d6b03670879b22c700653339
7967 F20101222_AABCEF ferrara_o_Page_134thm.jpg
87611dbece2df3dfab24103b94046ab8
2ae80858f2baa92d878761f7f2d91bdd3baecf42
31556 F20101222_AABCDQ ferrara_o_Page_045.QC.jpg
c1bbf462e185762261443ba81d267741
86adc2ae9e981e97769cd97ea6d5b7cb00979a47
F20101222_AABBYK ferrara_o_Page_125.tif
73aa3a7f05eb2a06d1d25165757eedd3
be3894643f23adb51db058fbb712f1016432ad87
F20101222_AABBXW ferrara_o_Page_097.tif
123a516df693af5abe39b06f729f8438
041a589230bb20c1e79395a93ee3ed69667c8108
1051965 F20101222_AABBAO ferrara_o_Page_172.jp2
dea195b7cbb465d8b77d5c473ba329bf
d7739377394b1cfd77553850eb0ad099b3f9be50
1051949 F20101222_AABAVI ferrara_o_Page_016.jp2
58456a1069cde31b38b87f519897baef
bd739412dde1d3414262312f0dd96306916a900f
48222 F20101222_AABAUU ferrara_o_Page_153.pro
5700f3cf05f48fa9dce34b1d58d42fc7
247692be50413b8c321e6de88bbcc44155f730bd
107712 F20101222_AABBBD ferrara_o_Page_089.jpg
8924b4a1ecbb97e6741ae5016474d962
1c35236e53005dde7fff4e6f324a7ea80f09b415
7390 F20101222_AABCEG ferrara_o_Page_092thm.jpg
ac3fdb2b07b0760a216c87c1ae221a56
ce6f3c0134e21e366b0bc751a0d264ca1b09439d
35712 F20101222_AABCDR ferrara_o_Page_062.QC.jpg
fcf76eda93c33828edb0e1c6b619a746
bd626589778f9d9b22053018baf6e78371742ea3
F20101222_AABBYL ferrara_o_Page_128.tif
758dc53f63c8fe58efa89ae1fafaadc6
60c8c8c8c7374aa7bcabcd01c820aad674aa974d
F20101222_AABBXX ferrara_o_Page_099.tif
24cfa49441491768fb546eb53eca13a8
90c2c4419422d54e85e6208a81acc51b32f44896
31868 F20101222_AABBAP ferrara_o_Page_067.QC.jpg
928b44a4c9cd36dea7ba823067aa8a28
9687134ac234d465524b70922d9501634f713f56
28471 F20101222_AABAVJ ferrara_o_Page_133.pro
9a49086c1722c45b91e26fb9373d7763
1cbda20985ef2fecec79d94a2651b6919741e3a8
112370 F20101222_AABAUV ferrara_o_Page_053.jpg
7f7ba3170e18d20d929e9d11fb78eeeb
89c47f50adf254d419c566c4c20571d6f985ff1a
35908 F20101222_AABBBE ferrara_o_Page_079.QC.jpg
30a0a1f46d0749920b4615f46595e68c
807c51bbfaa9f0b4bbfa6cc01c01c190dff5a619
8109 F20101222_AABCEH ferrara_o_Page_153thm.jpg
3e2f0ef48601f2f9ecb22bd91987f6b4
ae4672681d5a37f7ca2f12b722ae90dfb0606120
8812 F20101222_AABCDS ferrara_o_Page_137thm.jpg
efb13780a8fb617545a98de96a2300c4
7bb8af04bf60f55276412f55bccee2dabfc8c5a1
60885 F20101222_AABBZA ferrara_o_Page_013.pro
a3f1ffe83dcb3e1f73612d86e56db05b
4045ab110e97b775b60ab5fb9dd5de0c26d32b26
F20101222_AABBYM ferrara_o_Page_133.tif
0f2036abf5ca3ef7d7ef800f990159e0
a5694afa1c758b405d7afe1eadeb05de4232a3f9
F20101222_AABBXY ferrara_o_Page_103.tif
c6724cfd2d9cda72ee1601c560a5583e
70659eae8d794bc51460d07e94be033214ab322b
32855 F20101222_AABBAQ ferrara_o_Page_102.QC.jpg
105d86957be2fc1dab11d8dab1e4c915
2daafc8af4bd42d960a3952c088fe3bc420503bc
40760 F20101222_AABAVK ferrara_o_Page_129.pro
6593e8a3ea4a5b54bee0c8e99a386de1
1531fbf217eec8d3003e6f379f12a106d8d8ff5a
46884 F20101222_AABAUW ferrara_o_Page_050.pro
9a25885bef1040cad0dfe26ea6a3d49d
7d83de2f54d593c220bbcc31297113c25ba8bab0
870627 F20101222_AABBBF ferrara_o_Page_122.jp2
9cb092b39ee01a6a053172c1f4068342
b9bd02e09606a1bdc44c5c17216e615ea60f7d08
32583 F20101222_AABCDT ferrara_o_Page_073.QC.jpg
e8c5ba6ee77a5ca0575e028a1e0467ee
f59ff9f51b3f31e998bcd90ba47d4a6f00124949
57516 F20101222_AABBZB ferrara_o_Page_014.pro
91e82b8b97a5032218e8f68e7da3b217
3fcc14d55373018f744679fed5cf59fbd415670d
F20101222_AABBYN ferrara_o_Page_135.tif
1c2640e226430585d5c20495349e7199
47f6c2a9386f6bd47e8a4d12e794ce0ed36765ee
F20101222_AABBXZ ferrara_o_Page_105.tif
49fd907e083979089a71bc7d6ad2b1b1
89a087078871360b183b124928a34a16597e4f11
2037 F20101222_AABBAR ferrara_o_Page_162.txt
c630c7ed6f0ae568c1d77026f768586a
d6d97a81ea29445e9a5ddc51404b5f90180c8c3b
1856 F20101222_AABAVL ferrara_o_Page_003.QC.jpg
b9b9ef544026243070208fea6306e07b
438d110ebed78ae1506f6fb82c288a1621abc992
2139 F20101222_AABAUX ferrara_o_Page_100.txt
e57ff58ad5d61c19bc273d8be212b511
6b6ef742f3dfdad38793925ed78523588b1e0d91
8012 F20101222_AABCEI ferrara_o_Page_073thm.jpg
9e02191e2895b204ca75309a126b773a
9d52a57142423dbd44241d788d0fa2756c510420
33523 F20101222_AABCDU ferrara_o_Page_047.QC.jpg
db3bffc3e4e0cb95db33759fa6026287
97813f22beae298fe8b7b31e456c3349a55551c7
41891 F20101222_AABBZC ferrara_o_Page_015.pro
92c66b227e44b73aa632c0bdbe2999bb
ceb320a494599993fde119ca5c6b8fa30a56adef
F20101222_AABBYO ferrara_o_Page_138.tif
e0f89269e4d89cec340859d6a282f346
97067b7835c7bf2819f57ce2b71fdfa2348b3a96
2724 F20101222_AABAWA ferrara_o_Page_009.txt
37eb190518b0bb2f5c7bff0d4493a5e2
7894746589bf348ba478411d537471d8df909aa8
1051968 F20101222_AABBAS ferrara_o_Page_145.jp2
1489b93b01e8a2c8b948e129298512d6
2408f086599a88d98bfb31e3ac0826c3785ad4d6
964449 F20101222_AABAVM ferrara_o_Page_130.jp2
7082e802d5cfad6862ad54c352fd1832
79021d378d04a83b3eb1f7480f56f2d3a7b4a7cf
F20101222_AABAUY ferrara_o_Page_029.tif
a9152b8c77717485117a984a15eaee7d
7929362ac1345d3fa2af82683da3f82cb948c383
54628 F20101222_AABBBG ferrara_o_Page_053.pro
0043345045838c717d47388e88f4bf0c
89d757389b021776594939ea1945188e0eebd268
35165 F20101222_AABCEJ ferrara_o_Page_151.QC.jpg
4ea5aec69d6c32997f5a894bf33e9a80
a58597b691326dd5873ea383ebc93a1d05e31093
34445 F20101222_AABCDV ferrara_o_Page_008.QC.jpg
6d1c6ba54ded0faecac394e7a994a18f
99625aec654db14b96274ddb8c71829ec3f0c644
54079 F20101222_AABBZD ferrara_o_Page_021.pro
a7759c844d99027d9a8db274dab2ae89
2c5c49f1e4cf3b8f36de198e4bdd1e4b25cbfeef
F20101222_AABBYP ferrara_o_Page_155.tif
370463807097af7902da875077711d0f
18df5f6fd27e6d3ec9c6793ec985c8a058f542f5
102630 F20101222_AABAWB ferrara_o_Page_044.jpg
162e1def603cd8c0898dc17a39e8e9ab
7454d731318440294e545be7cc442bf129ea593b
1051960 F20101222_AABBAT ferrara_o_Page_077.jp2
3f23790a33c33bbd896aea2e3e6e8c7a
fe469932a5e8e87fe8f91e903b8fe232be7547fe
48708 F20101222_AABAVN ferrara_o_Page_025.pro
db4a239cb3490c8dd70657eb9360d3d6
757e143f8ebd472c0697e26da5af6bdc8ef4a5be
8636 F20101222_AABAUZ ferrara_o_Page_063thm.jpg
238eb1b2780b86d9b616317db4691a89
e7f0f4e6417dfcdb70dec5e6233ad34d914253e9
71411 F20101222_AABBBH ferrara_o_Page_110.jpg
b38c3e8d44c7f7c30ee75f94f5952d29
113a9843c2ff43cf1fff93e14f1ec4232322b8b2
7061 F20101222_AABCEK ferrara_o_Page_172thm.jpg
9488bfed316c641e1697694a8dce8225
5d783c8ec59b58e54a5d1b014713780c279ab294
9997 F20101222_AABCDW ferrara_o_Page_067thm.jpg
c270f9cc7668565e60859c6ef3a4217d
f6d2fd3e5a4469b2c3b34657b727474d158ab1ff
55159 F20101222_AABBZE ferrara_o_Page_027.pro
ea262ec7ade2b1a65274df234b5214c3
3953505a3e9993c73cacbe3b598fc95b88795961
F20101222_AABBYQ ferrara_o_Page_164.tif
d6348bdc32a76892701c6463b1e74ecf
184878bf5a64a28493fba5a180d082aa123c5c26
1051924 F20101222_AABAWC ferrara_o_Page_027.jp2
f7968d2210e4f4a23dc07815af2fad97
eb579b500d79cd472a48eab96419b52fafeb57c7
35072 F20101222_AABBAU ferrara_o_Page_179.QC.jpg
da00c3c124895adf0e7aa91695289d96
032934f5f1351995371a8973f133611efc9d0bc2
938823 F20101222_AABAVO ferrara_o_Page_123.jp2
ef842784d8daab0bc3e8cc5123b5ad35
810cb9636629e1f047422a7b131bcd8ffee99673
6937 F20101222_AABBBI ferrara_o_Page_057thm.jpg
79afa2178ce9c2e5cbd2e80b9a6cb216
933bd3249837c9633b136b1d1852ce7857066bd4
31001 F20101222_AABCFA ferrara_o_Page_025.QC.jpg
a6056e0087f5a1b85116d44498419306
e78190b866f49f944e0c0092df6706db2ca68848
8912 F20101222_AABCEL ferrara_o_Page_142thm.jpg
a8d34160a81b7a64d36f1c2e8a11ff48
d38af270b94fbb95bfbe20552a9b1fb132ceacbb
2957 F20101222_AABCDX ferrara_o_Page_183thm.jpg
d6de8ae103e3df45cbef89d84b2a154c
b59469099f82d949502cd40c499cd067f5535933
53257 F20101222_AABBZF ferrara_o_Page_028.pro
742e04e10ef849cd75710cdc1cec57f1
a93218f66bb384d99a1119a7b4f4ff09eb262507
F20101222_AABBYR ferrara_o_Page_165.tif
e28a3a3a193df67da5a68a5a316b94fa
be3779f73cfbd0e825a65a7f49ba6c862cb2fc53
106084 F20101222_AABAWD ferrara_o_Page_115.jpg
a958582387942070c321823ab7c49e60
4951aded67cf8099961fed72d3917b0dbfe5ee5d
63227 F20101222_AABBAV ferrara_o_Page_118.pro
480fa1e31c26ae03b77c8d536dcf6a3b
c3dd18f3bf1f902dbe1fd94b6427f27349c3920b
8665 F20101222_AABAVP ferrara_o_Page_115thm.jpg
879a76b94be8ad4858a3c3fa232c0b84
7e2d9655a44a125ebd1fcd27deacc540338b09a4
108531 F20101222_AABBBJ ferrara_o_Page_144.jpg
9521fb762143083a7438ee79138e9647
ae3b8b18f8fda1c1e4a774f6775253f6b542f92e
31783 F20101222_AABCFB ferrara_o_Page_050.QC.jpg
01080eb04be08d7ed223a40668897a12
7c5e8f27a6a85d006af542dbd1a720f512abbe56
37296 F20101222_AABCEM ferrara_o_Page_087.QC.jpg
fe25e578fede0e6413b34ce8ff0809eb
de12b16b03cb34b5c73fa94752bae6073af64e90
8311 F20101222_AABCDY ferrara_o_Page_064thm.jpg
b289511773ec5a721dd0627b7c2f84d4
77e5a7fee0119821198fad8354a126a61245cb66
54513 F20101222_AABBZG ferrara_o_Page_029.pro
7dc2e5306c2509d207fb311da597c584
3f4fbfba3fa1d5042a2d2a81345d7865de45f804
F20101222_AABBYS ferrara_o_Page_169.tif
35c0cb9c19e3c665df44e171a3785cb5
8e5e726830379ad4a78b2c0083c59eb5d4a8b369
9779 F20101222_AABAWE ferrara_o_Page_065thm.jpg
9e1c0df7e97753c78668606013159dc5
c3f191377535cf08d0038602a0d1d011a490138a
7346 F20101222_AABBAW ferrara_o_Page_174thm.jpg
495e85fb9e911dd99c6a4f6030a824ca
cd588a8b3ba71296f2b13f62f70ac8682fca55c9
2267 F20101222_AABAVQ ferrara_o_Page_040.txt
10f7aeff2909d4267726ff6beb63dac5
3dd43b42072152acd8a4e706e3f74f73ae62c85b
114021 F20101222_AABBBK ferrara_o_Page_088.jpg
a26b438d354189707ab0cc849ecd5a14
53cc99b22bfb70891f7d4bb45dc2b065abefc305
31788 F20101222_AABCFC ferrara_o_Page_174.QC.jpg
bd1509871f9db4a1764001530ea86cc3
a3f63db74b8e061d73647409df8c51efff051d9a
8719 F20101222_AABCEN ferrara_o_Page_116thm.jpg
23bb9e97214069989eae820a45305737
c70d9dc702a6552d913c6c6e5e2ccea5248b8e7a
35522 F20101222_AABCDZ ferrara_o_Page_149.QC.jpg
dbc0fad6d084f63b3ac4468b7cc2f7e0
4829b7da28debd0639306461fa486964bf45d94b
17248 F20101222_AABBZH ferrara_o_Page_031.pro
dd2a9d2df60973ad30258b7f0c05d81f
b94ab048bdcf80067c0c010100a7bcad9d32abab
F20101222_AABBYT ferrara_o_Page_173.tif
04dd43399f16499537de86ad7ea17d06
cbab8deb891c050548d63b206d55295e60a752a2
1051966 F20101222_AABAWF ferrara_o_Page_119.jp2
cec9df113d9d27076ce4ba0fad7ae36e
bd7f868646e06b73fdc98f4fa551188a228facad
F20101222_AABBAX ferrara_o_Page_009.jp2
695ad7729fe280a04ddfc15a7dc3f607
d5fdf90f865ca96e61b9b326f3d6239420575e63
1051980 F20101222_AABAVR ferrara_o_Page_074.jp2
3e1d074d3e25be52512114231308555b
edd09d2493b02b10e9a992d9fb4da2dbb39021e1
8743 F20101222_AABBCA ferrara_o_Page_028thm.jpg
c89655355ba03e18fff75e767ffad81c
5a676e6795b04f3064e32b8cb698b2d68be60839
6642 F20101222_AABBBL ferrara_o_Page_058thm.jpg
4c06122eb0d1ab99e97e4ca1b0edb59f
db7a3eae56a6a8a31bef2ca79b8eb196811b8550
5834 F20101222_AABCFD ferrara_o_Page_160thm.jpg
6e8d99ec13857cb92bb25d3dacb52f68
fb0e1d6d059fe5f5947e34550e1efa25eb279c9a
29345 F20101222_AABCEO ferrara_o_Page_122.QC.jpg
e78127ac9aa80193a99cbdc5868e0ef7
36338a9e8f469505abb4a365d1cb95f9e497332a
51256 F20101222_AABBZI ferrara_o_Page_032.pro
cc67992bc27f7ed7e81a4c83c61bc078
57a97ef3559f94ced2a0815b84947f5e71717a27
F20101222_AABBYU ferrara_o_Page_176.tif
a40da0cf5ff3239f55d03fb951a61d3f
47db8e5b5e698178778e08e7c13eb8768824a0a5
101875 F20101222_AABAWG ferrara_o_Page_141.jpg
2ba535e565ca8c6a966ec27de73f60f6
ba0fc918b078aac0e5aff9f416c7e4dfe63c0a53
42056 F20101222_AABBAY ferrara_o_Page_044.pro
5bef43c9e87bbe325261d64a3ff2fb7d
db442901033441dc029c0cb4e08cb956d4bec7bf
2734 F20101222_AABAVS ferrara_o_Page_156thm.jpg
1a978dba10ef57f09319faf6315a7190
a77cda2aca311929d4b66eb929849b8dca089a68
1051959 F20101222_AABBCB ferrara_o_Page_017.jp2
a56dfefe4c166f7f292039abdb3e5339
a39f884be6d65491312a1ce87d841671721bc68d
34921 F20101222_AABBBM ferrara_o_Page_126.QC.jpg
40c63579bdb9c77754293c3bf03e5a45
049580f1da2f05435f4b569dd24635737b2fbede
36449 F20101222_AABCFE ferrara_o_Page_029.QC.jpg
b4714b46f64b9df4492e8be88b64899f
b7ebca307fa5b3e1cae9fa54728226cae17e0840
7941 F20101222_AABCEP ferrara_o_Page_094thm.jpg
9b87d7369534c481379430b4798a364d
129f32d0d782acc9ec667c1ca86eac25e10883e5
34062 F20101222_AABBZJ ferrara_o_Page_035.pro
b56439cac41ea977d9ebb8200818bd3e
a350b4986fdc516f77323ff5b18272c6a7da3cdf
F20101222_AABBYV ferrara_o_Page_177.tif
437b3369fa8c29b7f77e73c43256ece3
a446858b3f7c3c2e5ffb04c0d5ac3b833ed0e1ba
1836 F20101222_AABAWH ferrara_o_Page_015.txt
0475b827387b0875b67a42e045746a04
b270bbcef0f8cae829c41867ac4eb7f2fc329b19
1051957 F20101222_AABBAZ ferrara_o_Page_151.jp2
330d533adb149e1e0bdd9e09a113e163
b5490ba6ab7c85a3b7e6c5d8826c9ff5ec5ea757
28326 F20101222_AABAVT ferrara_o_Page_064.QC.jpg
7667aaf36d4c1254ecb90c8fccb66576
62ab6597403577f1ddd8579226806e586008e6f5
8396 F20101222_AABBCC ferrara_o_Page_097thm.jpg
5813c9ab63085cd2dbec844c426028ec
70a3a74f64601d3eb5fd64e3a94d55aaf8a76f32
31720 F20101222_AABBBN ferrara_o_Page_092.QC.jpg
a08762f85d44d7aa943ac861e4c279c4
ea725d7cd76ba9d62e47713e7a27050d42179081
9045 F20101222_AABCFF ferrara_o_Page_062thm.jpg
2c42f1fca97d26489ad91e70f9eb3d57
a39f982c3330c37f232355619c7d097372c66152
37552 F20101222_AABCEQ ferrara_o_Page_120.QC.jpg
70c99cb409b3f512538b100ec2278cb0
23294f4c16684c970c4956493d1d60e9f4c1e604
55260 F20101222_AABBZK ferrara_o_Page_036.pro
26e8c2cba0394ccb8a42cd1bd20f20eb
b1051aab7e9063c16fd57772fa935f85d7f35642
F20101222_AABBYW ferrara_o_Page_180.tif
17e4a513ae9f52a43a00c8ea4ee4b7c3
4200ac7d3b974015716c7bf6c8dbd5098a57fd3f
F20101222_AABAWI ferrara_o_Page_049.jp2
e3eaecc55181ef962aaa8badc7400908
9035106b392ab27c8110cdae9f49d55a12cf7cc9
8953 F20101222_AABAVU ferrara_o_Page_100thm.jpg
6798bb97fdb68c804a2fcb13598af562
715c4cf6d022e617f35cfa139377d1f2b8319b63
5429 F20101222_AABBCD ferrara_o_Page_118thm.jpg
ce721619710bc2940ba8925a92396ebe
8ff1ec0b8326154ca8b19c99444ab9a0ef01f5bb
28411 F20101222_AABBBO ferrara_o_Page_010.QC.jpg
dcf0e450122b60d0cd032a4c079c8788
0b25db53d62960897d667144e2393a6332863395
7207 F20101222_AABCFG ferrara_o_Page_163thm.jpg
6cd00b0f7c1782c647711f43ab82b2bc
f6e6c48ca9846587fd7ff08eddcd13cc28d2725a
8449 F20101222_AABCER ferrara_o_Page_127thm.jpg
1e494bf82b469c7af33e071f5d7ebfa0
00faed285a8078f2399562b6e6e2ec9ab6734d40
49668 F20101222_AABBZL ferrara_o_Page_042.pro
c3c4ede5aa9a628aab5037dcc62e6cea
36c935a8c2126a3b44c80fceeb0661c7b7f52156
74804 F20101222_AABBYX ferrara_o_Page_005.pro
c76260c0571c336fbe1c5dace36d50fe
7bd8e57c7f33c2e62484a8a40104bdd7fdeff50d
32995 F20101222_AABAWJ ferrara_o_Page_131.QC.jpg
a26bd5b2ef66ac9a64d686c8b1b6fb19
28e33ce71dedc7823426cfeb1e0ea24f82605619
2283 F20101222_AABAVV ferrara_o_Page_019.txt
b8d53661be682cb88b6879d6414e63dd
18db9fa09d641153ab4da0552a8fbcf44d0fc502
1967 F20101222_AABBCE ferrara_o_Page_025.txt
151f182b0c7e2772156861a601a4ea6f
daa30453933ccd957819dbbc1c8adca3067e5817
8171 F20101222_AABBBP ferrara_o_Page_025thm.jpg
743cacf8126c1d04e59b5c99d752b4de
290e8339aa0d4441c4a6be215d1e36151964177b
9054 F20101222_AABCFH ferrara_o_Page_051thm.jpg
b13193e56f89ca890571049773095293
60f4af87abce7a44d7c4c82f4da2e9e170e0cf5c
8325 F20101222_AABCES ferrara_o_Page_042thm.jpg
176efeaec411db0b679fafdb40c85b94
a581c26ce08c7a32ca603d8d74da9293c08eb9c4
52356 F20101222_AABBZM ferrara_o_Page_043.pro
5fa430730d1a2d66b216b79586ba40cd
ef923a4baa851cae622522bc0a2f2b43f355e189
29133 F20101222_AABBYY ferrara_o_Page_007.pro
06169e0ca7a378d7c953cbd3fa28674c
7e3e820ed575794fb1cafbfbb8cf7ecf3f5fd77d
2382 F20101222_AABAWK ferrara_o_Page_180.txt
05479156a06c315ad843a24f2e088157
b308181d725bb23a20ccf2a4a0e52fc003d96ede
2222 F20101222_AABAVW ferrara_o_Page_120.txt
b957874a7b459f13c92677532882298a
c98357fadadc11f3461095c68db768f1963dab2c
30199 F20101222_AABBCF ferrara_o_Page_137.QC.jpg
0f15a12860469dd0502a09f257451f9a
80ad55c1ce82217c1b9f81c1a30e23d0f08a8ea6
F20101222_AABBBQ ferrara_o_Page_009.tif
1a5ac64032b0b5653db3946dbad107de
bf38bb0eaa0d8a8f5bce473976176143acd320f4
37274 F20101222_AABCFI ferrara_o_Page_078.QC.jpg
afd4a239ffdbe24a5f88f462e073ed07
183fa88126f312153dd52c6e39a30729f8332cb2
8398 F20101222_AABCET ferrara_o_Page_139thm.jpg
b5a68f6dc131a9f69b7fcba9938b68f4
cc926fb052850117c7ebecb74242c82555d9753d
21262 F20101222_AABBZN ferrara_o_Page_045.pro
ee08650f5f6ba27953bbe61056790518
2eac781898c244bacff0ca3e3839f3460ad1b62b
43685 F20101222_AABBYZ ferrara_o_Page_010.pro
958ffc53876a0c1a5f2cb016e1bf7f93
8ec557938e8a7f7007f342f691625fee551aaeab
8158 F20101222_AABAWL ferrara_o_Page_129thm.jpg
0ded8c58e0e8b99af6aa4f5db7dc3e51
f4a1af1720b558413f152ddff5889312c455695a
34876 F20101222_AABAVX ferrara_o_Page_021.QC.jpg
598b3207fc9c945118535a582d12f23d
cbb8691129fcebb34824da20dd9391a63a06d37e
34199 F20101222_AABBCG ferrara_o_Page_112.QC.jpg
ac841e007d356b7bca1fdafde9f13809
8f39c4f66ad9297d9883882ef24504ab90c0d5b1
53605 F20101222_AABBBR ferrara_o_Page_062.pro
a440cb4ccbffbca96251733884eb35e6
89eec930fc34cff7928aa88903758d292563a525
9032 F20101222_AABCEU ferrara_o_Page_086thm.jpg
8188570619d090390f11829fd63b78f9
ddf9a62dea950b725795160b3597623143d59f1c
35333 F20101222_AABBZO ferrara_o_Page_060.pro
ab538824360ebe44b9a533da8bd06195
eef9bc368cd6973456baa8159ce8ace0f86caddc
28992 F20101222_AABAWM ferrara_o_Page_156.jpg
a78550b40e9108a8629427fd24016b3f
5b0748a04ef08e58252e3e6258286ec2dc00ed95
7841 F20101222_AABAVY ferrara_o_Page_166thm.jpg
6463f3968967dc9288112ed761761c96
a06dbaf35836ac7460f57a7ac1450c1cb4d83e4d
F20101222_AABAXA ferrara_o_Page_069.tif
938ca83f042c831002aab8ef683f4531
4d5a4ba9c818d61ce2b9524fcf173d9cded18ae9
95146 F20101222_AABBBS ferrara_o_Page_113.jpg
958df00676476c27d35fd3495f893b55
cb433482fe6aceea7684054ff87e30e73a0cfe3b
6264 F20101222_AABCFJ ferrara_o_Page_006thm.jpg
981446cf8c67a33bf8dd972f1c245d3d
a0a7514593138dc48bed139761ed27cd0f943a0c
8585 F20101222_AABCEV ferrara_o_Page_085thm.jpg
d5b9cde2d2a64472e1ac71893320362c
fa14db9e1074131877b37d2757071308750b2c87
33862 F20101222_AABBZP ferrara_o_Page_064.pro
d787b54e97e5657f89836d09aa391a66
5807b963a045272738e94584b66a788a29b1dca6
34697 F20101222_AABAWN ferrara_o_Page_099.QC.jpg
e33f0b7d62771353bc8022e6d5708d69
00fdd585fa12fcddafc3a8c17a6383d1bd2edd32
52384 F20101222_AABAVZ ferrara_o_Page_039.pro
2ef30c18b00e591d804aa7c72258e8e0
a62b62984686bd3678da75f32c68b4888b180d57
947539 F20101222_AABBCH ferrara_o_Page_038.jp2
bb78e408ed1cf0a6a65f3492e047495f
fc42c6e643ef1e65af8c4ef2a090afbf917052da
956195 F20101222_AABAXB ferrara_o_Page_133.jp2
8a1fdf07aff5d6d568f3325845626e11
7eec226089e0f161e9f14da6b6328d6c9142e8c4
1051955 F20101222_AABBBT ferrara_o_Page_142.jp2
4997d86ef119842ff1375a164cd009ef
89aa016f1bd35e39a39d95b1a489bf04929bdd93
34039 F20101222_AABCFK ferrara_o_Page_178.QC.jpg
9f437bce41b635c08301de7fa924567a
e08b3e597ea1551c4e52219aa8135d13b841b041
6796 F20101222_AABCEW ferrara_o_Page_110thm.jpg
155d081def3ca21f26bcf9c6c347156e
69b69ed22a7f9ebac82fe401fb1d32b4bc91c1ad
38048 F20101222_AABBZQ ferrara_o_Page_067.pro
50ca5293b0f82b8aeb09839d53710ad9
b282ea7b5776356892f99ffe46da2cb6c5383461
2111 F20101222_AABAWO ferrara_o_Page_149.txt
2afaffb5e0ff51fbf25e1290edb79623
47e4459c456e242741fa525116963a2d5cfc4978
1051956 F20101222_AABBCI ferrara_o_Page_098.jp2
c0e28e04d7515dd127f9aa4427e220ec
fbba72633d29fd6fe0033c31f6ac32ab17feed14
55101 F20101222_AABAXC ferrara_o_Page_138.pro
7e52a664b1db4077c90de059dcedfbf1
a2ccd69d77a129d407f0b2816a17ef2f5735e22d
284101 F20101222_AABBBU ferrara_o_Page_156.jp2
66c4b64afbc920a29bf22a6e76270438
41a5a70233e4658ce4052786793fb96903b35d48
8880 F20101222_AABCGA ferrara_o_Page_021thm.jpg
93107badc377e42f544737b26f473350
3f29ad2007fc72d875694ae88329f36581696b60
33687 F20101222_AABCFL ferrara_o_Page_176.QC.jpg
07eb0aaf9513644857b8112818866d1a
69adea8a3d5a589bf6ea7fc5ea75f524f785320d
8517 F20101222_AABCEX ferrara_o_Page_052thm.jpg
17c9263b2877bef5e17905e4f12d2f6e
2d424ab73ef7a863956efc83dfbefc0ca5986fb2
41788 F20101222_AABBZR ferrara_o_Page_068.pro
fd95f4bf31cccf9b0327bc9bb4ec4272
317d3526f13936a39587eb84c45b76ef53b91548
9495 F20101222_AABAWP ferrara_o_Page_047thm.jpg
4dc4b52f9a5b6bca80633b58152c4aa9
651f3ddfcbf4212ea4f989dc50ee042141c867d7
55446 F20101222_AABBCJ ferrara_o_Page_087.pro
2e739ab7066bc1a203a35433a7f14a21
790f5df8fceb1db57e29e75aa56b72c8a40e4217
81323 F20101222_AABAXD ferrara_o_Page_023.jpg
f9f99270b37ff332ed96687d44068190
9fd3c4f3a2e8b1b17d9278cb5cf1b5bd8b297311
26727 F20101222_AABBBV ferrara_o_Page_162.QC.jpg
3d676956a1b95a72d39889384d1ab84e
a3dd4c2f402a249919fe64a4b44b45bdfea9d8a5
8340 F20101222_AABCGB ferrara_o_Page_140thm.jpg
8829a7c374b8262d42e48ad468ef07f8
06f2c154ce4870f367d568574a4cb6846da388dd
9446 F20101222_AABCFM ferrara_o_Page_143thm.jpg
4ba0fbbc1b13c53cf348080ecf95ca30
633d7a623fcb3780cc64cc7e03ac753e12260784
33791 F20101222_AABCEY ferrara_o_Page_085.QC.jpg
945f1b3e22f67710f11ecba0d178f547
62660a4357611466ecc242e8297a18edcf8a9a39
15937 F20101222_AABBZS ferrara_o_Page_071.pro
b847cac6d4f6a3c2df0e90d0626cdc7c
2b532c089b6b6f405800ad2669485432e3c9565a
F20101222_AABAWQ ferrara_o_Page_071.tif
a0e39c2d2913f289b2a34daf19cfac8e
e7e2dfa01c1094ff1ed773229377d61b717891ad
1976 F20101222_AABBCK ferrara_o_Page_103.txt
c46cf9e20855b5b18084d2da2be57784
62ee526a1f2884edc3602d80f81d2d5a10b41d42
79647 F20101222_AABAXE ferrara_o_Page_058.jpg
00a9797f716ec91d11acbd6f5a861c86
8cb1332ae9305710f524972ae2ae687d6aa4e023
6956 F20101222_AABBBW ferrara_o_Page_171thm.jpg
e3b2cf593122fe290758d278568918ed
76da62dbb795ac7df01ecdeb893c09277cc3bdc0
34233 F20101222_AABCGC ferrara_o_Page_049.QC.jpg
dff145df17efd076691930c262963216
e2a021aad9d9b413ce64d85c8c3edff681d015bc
31854 F20101222_AABCFN ferrara_o_Page_117.QC.jpg
dc243f963f9b471170acc3ec6c57be23
ecc5f3d96f13dad52c70f76b43ab4e85bb5786c0
36366 F20101222_AABCEZ ferrara_o_Page_077.QC.jpg
315d59b5daf88e5776a917b5f4e0a7e9
7d538f5be24ce2e7d0dcf32e3bd9523314c56bc8
52070 F20101222_AABBZT ferrara_o_Page_074.pro
358b1115f4f38fcdb178ec1df6bde760
2b35385b8bfcdccbeba3254bd5bda8c7acec3bf9
6770 F20101222_AABAWR ferrara_o_Page_124thm.jpg
9b0808f1bf8b9931d4779e74845e2e8d
48a6a8dee0a1f3b4232c0c2f7ef4553ae6284dba
F20101222_AABBDA ferrara_o_Page_020.tif
2fb77d88d060fb78f03655ddf7061b5f
05309e612540dfe122608af823867ef3c528601f
3787 F20101222_AABBCL ferrara_o_Page_002.jpg
391d18a413a7fab11a12b134dfc714ee
6b30adcf29429909d8d45f5d9edb35ecffd7137a
8985 F20101222_AABAXF ferrara_o_Page_044thm.jpg
a1ea6ff5dcc5240bec4606718aaa9010
f6332c591c67e18f309fa49b04ed0d84dd9799ac
2524 F20101222_AABBBX ferrara_o_Page_006.txt
d709f708d0b5fbd327f7d0d36cc333df
d4ba7696d658f449637b3668e6170e063742b893
29994 F20101222_AABCGD ferrara_o_Page_139.QC.jpg
382317cc74280e3e8933904a1294b9ce
f1fc89abf9d7e3d3f617aea4ec399507fec1f087
30512 F20101222_AABCFO ferrara_o_Page_164.QC.jpg
162f6ac7f48aab1cc0b326bf6e8178be
83af06e81e9e952b9c6e274035835f07de56ab43
54604 F20101222_AABBZU ferrara_o_Page_079.pro
f4ce33e5695faa8d6963c84c2570d9f1
8e957ec0722fb37064a7a1dd23c39525df7e16b7
106129 F20101222_AABAWS ferrara_o_Page_074.jpg
0a0ddd842b6fbfb3149f2d3ed1ec989f
e634ffd73e587fda850bed806c984328d1a32b78
95957 F20101222_AABBDB ferrara_o_Page_160.jpg
e2c453a49b4600d632a213e2e33dd006
d11500e587d4e5d70382d2fb2e02c3b29dbdb8e2
120533 F20101222_AABBCM ferrara_o_Page_176.jpg
1e95fe67514671279517a08cf16d2f1b
b9a6f57b3c54ac362d96aee77402a82356afed27
94251 F20101222_AABAXG ferrara_o_Page_175.jpg
054baf858c93d1324610217958d2f4eb
bf0109f23797e7a0336fbddcc6a5d02b2e28e278
35665 F20101222_AABBBY ferrara_o_Page_055.pro
48116fff3cc1db65705f3a3c3a50f6a5
818f60f640fb08c97f8652dcc6d3fbf3bbe2ca53
29097 F20101222_AABCGE ferrara_o_Page_140.QC.jpg
402ae78e66858cc1670c9c5e1a77d59f
1f18438b94d36208613eb1878f169a49d5d0dcd1
34719 F20101222_AABCFP ferrara_o_Page_032.QC.jpg
5683e37d8d5319561621e2e76193040a
5960112c533719ead6685a7f6bc9271171cbd942
54282 F20101222_AABBZV ferrara_o_Page_081.pro
4f16c2ac5eceb3421230947729a5cc88
ae2b513592a8dff61d446d419995ba87c44457f7
109296 F20101222_AABAWT ferrara_o_Page_090.jpg
ec65f3883a2be685e544837e73da9501
e63ac384988c1712beed4ddba66bc35d348da55e
35544 F20101222_AABBDC ferrara_o_Page_144.QC.jpg
7e883b48261be1b655d739e64aa1eb7a
879c40a14b333eaf5aaf5c10677d71965b0ea1a8
F20101222_AABBCN ferrara_o_Page_138.jp2
b36b6435ecb29436fc2f01727ca041d6
59a5b037e3d05bf4d21782a3878312732e0ca848
109576 F20101222_AABAXH ferrara_o_Page_083.jpg
212b314fad810fd5c6bee0087b186ca6
df44beaf6c37cfec462e658dfae7b3610b72e30c
1051977 F20101222_AABBBZ ferrara_o_Page_006.jp2
1868468ad258888ca9e6fca39da7e8d2
714508bf20adf7d8380697e47a06539f2ef334f0
7702 F20101222_AABCGF ferrara_o_Page_165thm.jpg
2d2aa2c83783c12d4cc581fb30c7976f
1c622004cf3705b97656f7e175ff7aac3198305a
32246 F20101222_AABCFQ ferrara_o_Page_129.QC.jpg
9e26a35ae4c86da1d9248a789d9b5875
9e77631657e37150312dd4ccbc224eeda56a4fce
52376 F20101222_AABBZW ferrara_o_Page_086.pro
0386de52f9ae9c0d75f2863f8aa5f43a
d7bfed41464c5f7132979eb29fd844789e20d90b
108732 F20101222_AABAWU ferrara_o_Page_071.jpg
c882ad4256ba2b9facd237274190e130
e1b13e9d439cf478756c6687f603d202f6e04e39
1051950 F20101222_AABBDD ferrara_o_Page_128.jp2
9531a63188ba08e7c322d169cde3b991
17cf553f99a47863480f57dc8e2ee0f918e2ce15
1812 F20101222_AABBCO ferrara_o_Page_167.txt
59b6ab3dcd46f8b35fb93c8e57b7e6f5
d2e2d2997b5dead9d35a22bd42c0fae3db81ab11
977 F20101222_AABAXI ferrara_o_Page_094.txt
e98dc9cefb3416a9713bc44318dacf68
273bd9a9c7d6f52e2523f5c50d7c3eac6adb6bb2
31936 F20101222_AABCGG ferrara_o_Page_113.QC.jpg
ff4c15bb4e5fceda509bfec9fba812e7
465da82ba17a88148061d55dba998ad8c5c838c3
9103 F20101222_AABCFR ferrara_o_Page_026thm.jpg
f4404a0fe99afcadcd643638be1b69a8
b2437549afa18c71c2a139c3e84ba0ad6f089b2b
54132 F20101222_AABBZX ferrara_o_Page_091.pro
54e445e2f022d4ac9cb6cb93399e0a6c
24ed30ff9e45f2c329db0fd513e9306e07eb2b50
2293 F20101222_AABAWV ferrara_o_Page_095.txt
8ac707862a7f35a170d73b7861fb6d46
b2f7203ad20600f8ce72652a848f2425efb8a8a4
8811 F20101222_AABBDE ferrara_o_Page_148thm.jpg
8e722b42b20322b9f867a73ddb0fc080
e27c303d22fc7af407b42c954c8fed5d40c6ff8e
F20101222_AABBCP ferrara_o_Page_061.txt
afa7ebd01af79a37e27b7d14b93abb23
45548427bcddb33a8a2d47e2a2f4eb573d56fa07
2241 F20101222_AABAXJ ferrara_o_Page_078.txt
13e9db909be36dad75624fb901be2653
c50b495e9fa89e15b4d6a6ffa5bec13e2470c426
36163 F20101222_AABCGH ferrara_o_Page_059.QC.jpg
453ccd0d5660f00cdaa13e3b2bc4f519
8dbd65d50b036f91b43cf263298382462deefa6c
7809 F20101222_AABCFS ferrara_o_Page_023thm.jpg
d19a6f63b66bfe58d721640e9b612412
b3e678ebb56ce97f4b6fec2c3896efa1ab9dcfa4
51968 F20101222_AABBZY ferrara_o_Page_093.pro
c2e055a5822a116cbeb855e54aeb86b6
b26137b6b92c1bdda30d22b16f8fc68b3f0eb794
46693 F20101222_AABAWW ferrara_o_Page_113.pro
dc0b7b10b4e4775704c6dc92177b7a12
3ef8aa960e86daff6446698e056d8d9b62178b0a
863325 F20101222_AABBDF ferrara_o_Page_057.jp2
4de0c32b874c1e8bfd9aec2f6c0ef9cd
68d5391636b751d00d87c694ce404d779974c811
F20101222_AABBCQ ferrara_o_Page_157.tif
514c704178f8909f376195fe12e6a1c1
8737d498e950102ec7f44a6ccdfa3d6eaab2ed70
F20101222_AABAXK ferrara_o_Page_059.tif
99e1c174ba22c802b6f0944170409540
9a69efc4e353691e3d04d535f6eb76a78700dda2
F20101222_AABCGI ferrara_o_Page_088thm.jpg
1741c7653c20091e2bcaffa421a79c01
b61e42b6114d216691b99d491cc8acac49382c6b
17529 F20101222_AABCFT ferrara_o_Page_007.QC.jpg
e5cdad977a89072a19287bb594e62e9b
6dc141de72582b1d40cf47deb341b6442afe10c4
57827 F20101222_AABBZZ ferrara_o_Page_095.pro
8d29204ef67f7caeffc23d33bcc4ac33
2ded238b4e54a2e40652d347f26093feda5129ba
35251 F20101222_AABAWX ferrara_o_Page_090.QC.jpg
cac0b8cc21620d86329b60195da7da18
b26c2185c2cf246b4de88193c15ba8f22cbaf0cc
37212 F20101222_AABBDG ferrara_o_Page_061.pro
558e16ad48d7d961f8e14ea896dd70ac
7bddc28b5ed7499eb601e94ff594b3aa59e92e06
62666 F20101222_AABBCR ferrara_o_Page_006.pro
b3bcdca8a99af40f6478571df33941b1
4021c59020175a0bda2facb6d43a5e80a9764dff
45635 F20101222_AABAXL ferrara_o_Page_092.pro
ea510028c0899f149651eef20e5524d9
a5e60c812ab88bedcef0eff5f6920dc4bfdfd8f3
35998 F20101222_AABCGJ ferrara_o_Page_036.QC.jpg
f4784684f2430a8b71d252d3e7a7d40c
cb936bd27137ad09449bcffb2d744d8b8d3a72bd
8544 F20101222_AABCFU ferrara_o_Page_177thm.jpg
f2a392b3439a19dd7151c4e6befd07e6
6931ff485e68416316ce9a13b6f5e68e3aaa6529
49473 F20101222_AABBDH ferrara_o_Page_117.pro
46a3a120e840aa678b36fe4a2fd2b3e3
f4f58561dee577df5d0b3bec7dc53e57aa1707c7
120047 F20101222_AABAYA ferrara_o_Page_008.jpg
ef3b38da73578acb6565c99953ac3d3a
cc7ff383864c17b190729b3381a889332255182d
115151 F20101222_AABBCS ferrara_o_Page_019.jpg
76a077e2d716f4829076ca017ce5530a
f1b298828ca8c32785129c9f21d2f05163635800
36185 F20101222_AABAXM ferrara_o_Page_020.QC.jpg
e8837e3c022f3400c1385c675c708040
eef8345142ae0eae115f29ef1937eb9d29c714e2
40295 F20101222_AABAWY ferrara_o_Page_139.pro
eb7f12a8123f7599aa83935193e833de
73268205ba5c5c9cfe34b0934b0cce51ace26252
8852 F20101222_AABCFV ferrara_o_Page_061thm.jpg
87684d66aa22e9da3d98773ba26b08e5
1d2bbfb79f0ef8fb7ffaaea52418c9dbc89ebb9d
37168 F20101222_AABAYB ferrara_o_Page_152.QC.jpg
894a9c26bde29714ec86a20a5e6032e3
bc16f54590d0c54d8156b55314fe6e9e025aad37
98615 F20101222_AABBCT ferrara_o_Page_046.jpg
f7039f45af17bbf8f0aa6cc17563a51d
5af38a55283ddd3e9a1cc74d574962b9d065fcec
1817 F20101222_AABAXN ferrara_o_Page_173.txt
4d0736f822bc278d77d237c95bf189a7
873037dde32670e6e1ae3c03a342980d91082ce6
907199 F20101222_AABAWZ ferrara_o_Page_137.jp2
17886219bf174746d55587f93d39ed88
42cc3e784783fa441ef3ca979bd763948ea302c5
8241 F20101222_AABCGK ferrara_o_Page_131thm.jpg
6e2fdeb62bb1605c62107ce22949b671
1dbceda97a535bf87471b42a2e42babcf499f7ce
24963 F20101222_AABCFW ferrara_o_Page_037.QC.jpg
4baa0908fe1bfbd24c9b2019ce5ad6be
c14d9df23e28a301078ba56d6e4c5093dcd53034
87071 F20101222_AABBDI ferrara_o_Page_061.jpg
0c951b014484ea048faf6dfeeec343a8
dea3dc93a2fa7dd94c73c55f2bd7d6de32449b0b
51930 F20101222_AABAYC ferrara_o_Page_146.pro
32d219a2f91c3cf753d6f50a67b257cf
15c1de2b561dd6caa6dcf8af198ca813b5a1aa32
2151 F20101222_AABBCU ferrara_o_Page_032.txt
db96a8a78bda339497b55489b4a6e64a
497cccd1b72eb1341397f15dd6af64e2a03dd0af
32492 F20101222_AABAXO ferrara_o_Page_103.QC.jpg
d7721096126284824d106431a7e1045f
9458371c4bd75ec7820d778bfe3d0450901acfe2
9086 F20101222_AABCHA ferrara_o_Page_150thm.jpg
e1ef0f00d9eee2ce73cb91eaae356baa
8cf11f0dd4939d2599f2b9e7da346a31849c6dd7
23236 F20101222_AABCGL ferrara_o_Page_159.QC.jpg
e73c04888700b987e66a01de24090e20
f09ee59f13f6a56bb592ef43733335ae9b92f443
33402 F20101222_AABCFX ferrara_o_Page_145.QC.jpg
27774d69e1705fd2afd8c24aa4f62384
b2d0fad23e520da489774da07c18d12064acdcf6
112977 F20101222_AABBDJ ferrara_o_Page_174.jpg
820a900576b2ddef6863619f060d5b6d
10d7118614874848c3683503829c800447d1f72f
9072 F20101222_AABAYD ferrara_o_Page_126thm.jpg
4389da3fb2aab2a0106b4b1d8bb54851
0409ed08aabd16b238c3da272053008c2239537b
36397 F20101222_AABBCV ferrara_o_Page_053.QC.jpg
14300b4dfe7143ffe48de20db81b8bc6
212b12a729b67d5d507b9420c5dc5d8fa3b17799
943434 F20101222_AABAXP ferrara_o_Page_063.jp2
64057f22f4234dfbeb029571d9edfd40
08bb3b6c6430e6e96c9e4b8b0aeba12ae6323e00
8623 F20101222_AABCHB ferrara_o_Page_093thm.jpg
1aa5722f614faad355cf62a022fa9712
b0b17a3f0c23e50bd45ed70b5356f519dae71bd0
9145 F20101222_AABCGM ferrara_o_Page_128thm.jpg
37b9a47f64e7db68ec02188079e152ef
c29a8ec73abc5f39dd13a0e5086e6ccaa701980c
37614 F20101222_AABCFY ferrara_o_Page_056.QC.jpg
7422dbfb089d9956f60f8e65d7cd6b7f
7f70b84726fe69d2dd6acb23bd841f7c5d89b1c6
108307 F20101222_AABBDK ferrara_o_Page_030.jpg
d28411b0a090599ad865f653e17dd170
87dc9218e51a6f014d8f4d40884200b9db80894d
920532 F20101222_AABAYE ferrara_o_Page_035.jp2
91a52bf73469e227c1b364a58e9238a5
5b203dba7a4fcfd9b4f65ad8eb04b8e046e6d3ae
35255 F20101222_AABBCW ferrara_o_Page_058.pro
77ce94914291701b9691556df9a028f4
d13c1cb256e5103c2fee866d7ef3e8a5c3c4aa35
8359 F20101222_AABAXQ ferrara_o_Page_008thm.jpg
200960a4d9383ef74aff1f8c1346a273
736dbab70862ad0d71bbc7a4dbb713990c0a090b
31967 F20101222_AABCHC ferrara_o_Page_106.QC.jpg
4d1d3c7d1406d5142a2c9203b1ee7e97
a2471ca596d45b4783bdcda6b8956b0efce46ae2
24914 F20101222_AABCGN ferrara_o_Page_110.QC.jpg
e29214cf4df62282b2c99f0521af749f
201d7e41a8a8b123e1f0a6bd11eb3e34e800df9f
35687 F20101222_AABCFZ ferrara_o_Page_138.QC.jpg
0cce7f832d08256bd9963a9bd3ca02b9
f2fd3d507273de87cfbc2aabd9bc2e049de3bbdd
25817 F20101222_AABBDL ferrara_o_Page_058.QC.jpg
66e206940b62293119f01b9a0fb6f869
4dcf631b3b6e210690f965a86ad420b86c810b2f
2185 F20101222_AABAYF ferrara_o_Page_114.txt
c46b2272ce515c3dc6cc13f05939a9d0
2cfb9767ec645a66272adde6e22e09a4bd3df60c
1805 F20101222_AABBCX ferrara_o_Page_060.txt
93505ff2ded1e0dfa8f90747d23189aa
f8c84cee75883bb4d159e4a7ae52bbe53adb88db
50632 F20101222_AABAXR ferrara_o_Page_147.pro
aafd1fd30df0fd014af2cddbebb0c48e
36c6050b297ad89756b1153d0ae92cb2b2da7289
4921 F20101222_AABBEA ferrara_o_Page_161thm.jpg
81a7eda1fda76a1ed6db81d9a2bdc02a
c897fda8808216a9d8c2ff68210f69f607aa778e
35967 F20101222_AABCHD ferrara_o_Page_114.QC.jpg
6ddd2ee2d79e823c1becdda7429cd6b2
995d48166f284c80750b1be133fe7f004d59e201
8982 F20101222_AABCGO ferrara_o_Page_027thm.jpg
c1cb5be3b47876316da93902fd33543a
1f9e78d20f0d86051003175450e05a162447abc9
9008 F20101222_AABBDM ferrara_o_Page_024thm.jpg
39de1a61a69f2f914f96a7ecf29f1e74
5745b0196f2721add5de5569e508efc4c99f47f6
8618 F20101222_AABAYG ferrara_o_Page_091thm.jpg
ad807efd73238a35f32e2b06a1821637
53fd67ea866f623937b429ec9ef3fcde183e4044
41332 F20101222_AABBCY ferrara_o_Page_011.pro
6179d13316b6eeb11f843aaf1162c8da
67d167ed1aa85bb1231473890543691a4c63947e
31560 F20101222_AABAXS ferrara_o_Page_121.QC.jpg
3f20fa111e6c8879bfbd3e75e48fd69a
39082ce9a05c1bda26160283219d557b72356a85
34108 F20101222_AABBEB ferrara_o_Page_116.QC.jpg
3a2143244786fe6bee114deb0521a5d8
12b5bfae77f83a9e75c049ff08f34e7bcd1fa239
1121 F20101222_AABCHE ferrara_o_Page_002.QC.jpg
f5da7ceb6aaa0dfaa39722c6c2870fce
b10c6caa4b84be89792c31c86069aa6f068d9a8c
8462 F20101222_AABCGP ferrara_o_Page_076thm.jpg
3e7fbc6635afdc448a3964aaed6e2123
9fd47d4b2d48a0150a03835ddd799a1a95c6e73a
73185 F20101222_AABBDN ferrara_o_Page_037.jpg
ebbacee9923a8d59293f91c0174a3457
7e5718a1afeec05c9a3650d86ebde1ec36a94fd5
F20101222_AABAYH ferrara_o_Page_093.tif
bad66c2b3d9dc6d4ec738b390849a2f7
e86eeb3b96efe57f44d2ba2e0c6a81ce923aaef9
F20101222_AABBCZ ferrara_o_Page_136.tif
eda27e70661af104fd98732cba8fcdd7
fad7684d4c1265f9c764b54045476d9fd71971c2
F20101222_AABAXT ferrara_o_Page_042.tif
4bb47db8c7619f0b05420d4287b1cda2
84a5487854999d9caa28836cffe879df1d9bf5e1
2521 F20101222_AABBEC ferrara_o_Page_177.txt
7ba95fce537ff06a7ac5ada62f2b8bb1
24c5b0435f6ada53b1853ce59dbde461a314401e
32623 F20101222_AABCHF ferrara_o_Page_136.QC.jpg
ae61f0fa2b6b940bc924824a6c8f7063
0e72fe27b0b451c5e402364b7ac3f19eee20c293
25510 F20101222_AABCGQ ferrara_o_Page_005.QC.jpg
3b19f42a22155d82808f4a17f6899599
a58abe04b638b20e5f51127fdc27d6526369f9a7
1939 F20101222_AABBDO ferrara_o_Page_139.txt
56e50ba12d7176b64c62307ad1105843
5e177f64c5b6b9643bf01322aca573867fca9378
4362 F20101222_AABAYI ferrara_o_Page_182thm.jpg
45f5cdf6307ed7de924d14660d43a9a8
dad10724b9dabe104965d1b9638811945cfdf877
2105 F20101222_AABAXU ferrara_o_Page_121.txt
c652dc69237f4bf76049fb53deeaa8eb
13618f9d4926e131bdb87eeffdd70af190cbc081
1051921 F20101222_AABBED ferrara_o_Page_040.jp2
6352504bf4cc6a7c454cb860bc976fc9
3d95fbeab52868a694d5972a415c7097e077ce30
34362 F20101222_AABCHG ferrara_o_Page_016.QC.jpg
962aceb86610c213e8f40f0d624484f7
85161f91618897249803d7996fd8eaddb007c8e5
8830 F20101222_AABCGR ferrara_o_Page_136thm.jpg
a3ed290e72b2f7666e6370a4755c9ba0
5d5e78c8ce725cd9a952668a705943c4cc0381e9
1051975 F20101222_AABBDP ferrara_o_Page_127.jp2
4ceb841da1b620f3213668e1c1af5024
16c6778de63107200845fe740b1ebc8f6a79e32e
2012 F20101222_AABAYJ ferrara_o_Page_052.txt
406b77fa29faec7bb6d5c559cdd79328
6b9175756278983f70d127d83b016cca64172b6e
8286 F20101222_AABAXV ferrara_o_Page_103thm.jpg
db39c13cefc7e0321fe81c2dc441fa04
2d7535cb350b5ce1a48d9e6949f81c47d7b4aee1
1051974 F20101222_AABBEE ferrara_o_Page_085.jp2
10dfd1e21dc15975c8aa54ca8154a112
0c59e5404aa5298984017774450f1bf0e92a4fc6
11790 F20101222_AABCHH ferrara_o_Page_183.QC.jpg
76257c4097a08cb3c9e14433a1ae68d7
8f09d8f15101c8868743884fffb98951b80fa7b4
34873 F20101222_AABCGS ferrara_o_Page_177.QC.jpg
0a1438d88cca2fc7b227c9dcb98749be
1fc643948159c9611ec5b5f1f8aadf24cd2197b5
53771 F20101222_AABBDQ ferrara_o_Page_100.pro
d42f3b6ba4c50c448c8c0f81dd100f6f
498b7b93d34fbcfb1190e65ee8ca0521803d3edd
42411 F20101222_AABAYK ferrara_o_Page_054.pro
7372c57ef4af99ef2b073f78b5aad319
4f4bcce50eb98e36084c338e3813ffefb2c93458
980420 F20101222_AABAXW ferrara_o_Page_132.jp2
10b609e63a24c3f1de8c37dd596d4c1e
8a1c6ce6d5da9c8e0bb829044f2274940703ddfb
32082 F20101222_AABBEF ferrara_o_Page_052.QC.jpg
7726d4117fa794ece44e7239fbb90409
224848ffd76549fb855f38c3a90599a7e1a3a8d0
29107 F20101222_AABCHI ferrara_o_Page_134.QC.jpg
e5dff6095bb1d878e95b332de7cd7873
ff81327b70023573baa9fa655c278248c9530e91
38758 F20101222_AABCGT ferrara_o_Page_095.QC.jpg
13cd3fdaf91f874e8ad3496f7e8b0f39
44ef7c68d01709716dd6566e89634fecb2268f3e
F20101222_AABBDR ferrara_o_Page_170.tif
88dc319bf00c804b5ab396e8d3affbfc
3238ebef1b62084aa8e337aa7d7f8f8b98946820
8503 F20101222_AABAYL ferrara_o_Page_046thm.jpg
ea86e47ce9a6052b732087197738b552
2dc9398ea57672dee2a6d7a0c7f5be10d942278a
F20101222_AABAXX ferrara_o_Page_048.tif
87e6e7243d37725db2fd557684bb30fd
1e272674001911f52d66ec6e0aed77ebafe877cc
32616 F20101222_AABBEG ferrara_o_Page_068.QC.jpg
505684fb1cb63cf5b2856eab3950d1d8
5fd8b10244b62a3661201688d3aca8aa1486b677
8645 F20101222_AABCHJ ferrara_o_Page_081thm.jpg
5cdccf2ac1f1ebcc8338ce14bb404c2b
a404b34a85523fe9de68e392a53c83f9877b4856
32083 F20101222_AABCGU ferrara_o_Page_048.QC.jpg
830a4bfd167034ea49591c1e2c92f1ee
5a8cb4c5486979a3c49f9f85320d22aa36ad67d7
55268 F20101222_AABBDS ferrara_o_Page_030.pro
d1b4f7217e6469f98616a9af9e00253b
257f55c50b4fbbf0b15c09ed0eed9fc5b2fa71dd
33464 F20101222_AABAYM ferrara_o_Page_035.QC.jpg
96f131dc2e579ac3b1aa54933138f508
c21915b04b426dba5b09fb954116957cb7a4fdc3
30238 F20101222_AABAXY ferrara_o_Page_037.pro
35fbb81b5ff3c328650b958b10eb7fbd
f97ca3ec0108be8c751b0c4249ec9c2a5afe657b
27352 F20101222_AABBEH ferrara_o_Page_169.QC.jpg
c2c252da3215321a5c8cbe9bda79f041
8df98f95dd7d9ea438c4633e9d612c08b2e29b1c
F20101222_AABAZA ferrara_o_Page_159.tif
33d3d347d40498d02c0c57ff74cb3c2e
d1de7d25c8ca70be9eaa8711a805cffbe09c8196
34230 F20101222_AABCHK ferrara_o_Page_072.QC.jpg
b49b96524b457bf9ecb9c76334ce8aa2
1a970817bd646569990a7185eade46371343427e
34311 F20101222_AABCGV ferrara_o_Page_165.QC.jpg
1ae7633945d1d929b86d2dbefc695a54
71eb604176e84c231ad7dad28ed02d9ce261f563
30194 F20101222_AABBDT ferrara_o_Page_130.QC.jpg
ee2a20594c09550ec2b3dff0764403dc
3b8aa0201642b0bf9f4b1a7fdb26ba405cc0187f
F20101222_AABAYN ferrara_o_Page_102.tif
3dfca38f8c1eec6cc0f37fd9e179e6de
8debac2f0940ca8a76c34d7d42db36f052813a91
2288 F20101222_AABAXZ ferrara_o_Page_014.txt
469c8cfb0d61551be294f65681464454
3889048afe6558127651cc50a881cfdb414b957b
7985 F20101222_AABBEI ferrara_o_Page_054thm.jpg
146ef326bd997588afc3813d6d3002aa
4ceac0e2a2dd5c0d94f163bb433858aa3e457062
8562 F20101222_AABAZB ferrara_o_Page_049thm.jpg
7fd4d7bb4be9a6d91106089490c42c10
e8675fe65d3a0e0e72370a6973e01166a2f998be
34860 F20101222_AABCGW ferrara_o_Page_146.QC.jpg
a14bb8bedbfe129223a4265e0d7492fa
710ea80a41c494f6ca95f99dddac579ce2a5b917
32222 F20101222_AABBDU ferrara_o_Page_111.QC.jpg
a8e1a6b64a479503c349c998c56f07cd
575d87bd2143f29203c692eb5a6adc247c1f2578
2176 F20101222_AABAYO ferrara_o_Page_126.txt
189215a2cb6dd13dab936c35f9c00fec
7317a5bb7366a9bd23ec58a5473d65ec95561c13
110651 F20101222_AABAZC ferrara_o_Page_069.jpg
5cb5a8da1b522f93660bc2b113a7b4a3
a16f84050fe01441dcc4336abea9a67ce147532b
31723 F20101222_AABCHL ferrara_o_Page_108.QC.jpg
050619d835f10e5c562d38c5ce6d7628
a3bde81bc53bf7a2b18273bb07187729cdc78a50
36139 F20101222_AABCGX ferrara_o_Page_081.QC.jpg
33543569063297bf249ed2153d26c222
98f6ef38ce4e1ce2e8a6308e1510d3ad40e98b65
F20101222_AABAYP ferrara_o_Page_154.tif
0b52ea8ffc0f113e1682edd3d5c5084f
a99f0f9849f708694886db8e4af00b8f9647ff3d
107306 F20101222_AABBEJ ferrara_o_Page_098.jpg
e67f6cffccc1751567d736ed2d4c9f35
4ea3c57970ce1b8771561d213d3d0187b04afd8d
F20101222_AABAZD ferrara_o_Page_168.tif
a8d0cf15e2cd5ab572a90bb9dcd1a97e
c903ca97d130a2b0b60fae0828615fd36c3cae46
F20101222_AABBDV ferrara_o_Page_069.jp2
7764eeecd87d8377750bf8e5e08368f9
9918c1e12de6df41895a16418fb5d90c5d13fb33
8886 F20101222_AABCHM ferrara_o_Page_082thm.jpg
cf2caa50f9a66b92b7269cc354e80b4d
5ca2d2e4becc32c216552eebb6ffa35bfc59fe89
30124 F20101222_AABCGY ferrara_o_Page_061.QC.jpg
4483777762fbfc9842bc06f2c2368b65
3cc881caca43406451b41e65656b6b7512717470
F20101222_AABAYQ ferrara_o_Page_008.tif
ffc8958ffa79c5c63505b19c458d1e3b
a0bad9c7d6ce166f5938e7d1672c6ce042ca2ce1
1672 F20101222_AABBEK ferrara_o_Page_018.txt
e7adbfa566b3941c0e9e99c3e227eaed
f311d890a30d1ffd0045d7503fe571528b0b75a4
97005 F20101222_AABAZE ferrara_o_Page_038.jpg
5be13d024d8ab139516dca4c4272ea57
f2078a8c794efdb3a1f2c3bd756b57d8f37bc683
1051936 F20101222_AABBDW ferrara_o_Page_025.jp2
dd968fd317fdfa5920319203f64f1c95
f8fdd17a1c47932e0c155fd14206fce0fb2029a2
8728 F20101222_AABCHN ferrara_o_Page_089thm.jpg
af1dbb70698ae2bbec41622bf5976ea1
eadf4b3a3afce03fc657419c64ec34ab8b4a44be
6540 F20101222_AABCGZ ferrara_o_Page_005thm.jpg
41c6092a11db9f9bb973a771b84f1d26
e6ab52ef88c429c131d99a876ba48bd8627632ae
55613 F20101222_AABAYR ferrara_o_Page_034.pro
176800f84563cc4c26f3358cd1162354
32761c641c1560408792fd22a77bae413f6921cd
8706 F20101222_AABBFA ferrara_o_Page_017thm.jpg
22de7601ed74031150b5ea8154822ac4
65b1031531590eb02839fdd4c5b72a443fd81541
44345 F20101222_AABBEL ferrara_o_Page_167.pro
35009cd69df9c281509a8bcc56f05bfd
212a783d3fc844d2bfd61cee8c7381e6b34ee2f8
2109 F20101222_AABAZF ferrara_o_Page_112.txt
c62c98a350c3e0e7fc12817d43b9b2dc
356f64b4ca8ef2998d2e7958a707bcd79d84d5e0
2254 F20101222_AABBDX ferrara_o_Page_088.txt
f8b393ae894b2492bdb68e45b4172d52
c84aa8e19944cae46c592ab3f2c8857e51651f80
274400 F20101222_AABCHO UFE0022607_00001.xml FULL
0f7ac724963b0589d76caa5bea16339f
cfe021877c9314266cf2e45d1ed52f099b3c1908
F20101222_AABAYS ferrara_o_Page_138.txt
f7596e6ab80d3e0930c225ff8d6283d2
36232969a41bf248a4cc72eba79e41082d2d89d9
873622 F20101222_AABBFB ferrara_o_Page_023.jp2
84f6997733d9fb9ff9ad1e1a6e172d2a
7a115ae931274af6235d6cce493b183fdabe50ef
38502 F20101222_AABBEM ferrara_o_Page_105.pro
a88fabe44148f990c69d65a9bb60cd8a
225dd81967789f6e0fbb820d776f3227c2fdb6ee
53828 F20101222_AABAZG ferrara_o_Page_090.pro
e765b8ede34c05acdd05a70a00ee6a9f
b960b8c38e6da3f0b79b967bc813fecffc7b5796
F20101222_AABBDY ferrara_o_Page_021.tif
71b982a5cf0048be2840952b2225ec2f
a8ce9fd26a8642423bfa5034790a3d965a233647
35047 F20101222_AABCHP ferrara_o_Page_098.QC.jpg
b4abcc0858f66c24d5661093e041d8cb
ef4aa33696bdb7c740cb59e874a4122cefaaea92
2177 F20101222_AABAYT ferrara_o_Page_150.txt
0194515cf580110451a310a15f5ad9d1
4639beaedad91f1ced64fba09d9d2cea7ce35901
1998 F20101222_AABBFC ferrara_o_Page_147.txt
438b1953586af70a838bb01547070bc7
87223ceca7a7a63bd917b23a303a59f64be253e8
F20101222_AABBEN ferrara_o_Page_051.tif
119b6b1679ac625ee842b420684814ac
18385714d85df74bfcf041a892d520bd331b702a
36379 F20101222_AABAZH ferrara_o_Page_135.QC.jpg
a46ee19d2183cab1d8141b2374828d1c
7c5bda743badd0f39c93139e54dbfe59855d4840
54989 F20101222_AABBDZ ferrara_o_Page_020.pro
813e6de888128ebf16d8035cf3cfb7c4
b677d19f8e59430467444d4e3cef0bc0060fc8f6
31364 F20101222_AABAYU ferrara_o_Page_153.QC.jpg
401e329321616612b18bc84bb9c22459
66ed40a58d7fccfbe60aa5c4701a49d4bf398fc2
54030 F20101222_AABBFD ferrara_o_Page_077.pro
ec0598767555a0614bf36b04f27b8938
1f8f233c432936c2df37b4caf1e68a4f32a87ee0
50172 F20101222_AABBEO ferrara_o_Page_052.pro
b3949be01245bcb2fd256ba0e3f117aa
3afeb3c68fdb847dd72bffd49d1084e8742f6469
2030 F20101222_AABAZI ferrara_o_Page_076.txt
4618911479343f927c3804e138bf2582
a8abdcc4a79002aa084e91c6314c9dff2b6bb046
F20101222_AABAYV ferrara_o_Page_167.tif
91d670b2f5a3a671b02d8e71b01b3d9c
5705721a92771e7eaab1dd5d29ef1b5568797f15
1688 F20101222_AABBFE ferrara_o_Page_065.txt
ba96372b5db4cf947b847fc6f680e777
59b1c56dec4ca05ed43ed21d119088dd94648423
50274 F20101222_AABBEP ferrara_o_Page_033.pro
6ef0a5897322157e44b1808273833a62
d8807fb178f8c1704cee477d4731859a7a2ee55e
1051853 F20101222_AABAZJ ferrara_o_Page_162.jp2
46707e185b09e2f90f7f678c48d7706d
ce2a2bb51ab31193eb49281d95cefe940ef0721c
8177 F20101222_AABAYW ferrara_o_Page_111thm.jpg
459ad7b23bd995854b7b7d4ada765de0
99816ed0e01965c745676ca94a8a32662e250615
F20101222_AABBFF ferrara_o_Page_014.jp2
f97ec4f96ace8294e6dfd17485c0e790
169bf23853902ce28f3e7c6e7703e49797130576
30851 F20101222_AABBEQ ferrara_o_Page_132.QC.jpg
14e74afa3c864571865b6df4d252732c
abf78735f757b67fd4c11f0fc5b84f452d31d46d
27304 F20101222_AABAZK ferrara_o_Page_018.QC.jpg
55e3a59a6781b9f63ef23ef0aadabc77
3218c43904ba6f4eabd673fb9f2c5601f1f8be26
1865 F20101222_AABAYX ferrara_o_Page_106.txt
79afae1057cbdd26a8027bdf9801389f
675a4a147bd164a0b0b7e45a404eab3523fa22b4
2443 F20101222_AABBFG ferrara_o_Page_181.txt
a4a18db3459f47dfdc5510a210d87d33
2e2bf8097b2abc514a3641178a4c7bf0b4eb802b
98610 F20101222_AABBER ferrara_o_Page_103.jpg
9abc3e6c43d282a67a7f23660bd8efb4
ed0f48ba1ccc13d8bccb3750a360aa7efd57a655
509 F20101222_AABAZL ferrara_o_Page_002thm.jpg
6516b9edf2b1be463af6d16d0806c4e8
7ee013e25974256cb73f993a59ed72fa5c31cfbd
38678 F20101222_AABAYY ferrara_o_Page_157.QC.jpg
5a2bf6cc47445251aecad8a79d32cdb3
0a318574d796eca84441b99aeb97d45b0ecab902
8741 F20101222_AABBFH ferrara_o_Page_074thm.jpg
7184ab86a3b011afaaa76825047775d0
e2ba7fd1841720bbff789ab7dcac0ad75c7adb75
959169 F20101222_AABBES ferrara_o_Page_061.jp2
af506eb90165672c551855e969c08f49
c248fad3c446cfa2bb4542d34673934f2e90443c
F20101222_AABAZM ferrara_o_Page_102.jp2
3db8eb8f87809151ebb43ce63cfcda7a
e2b1a0c5bd13ce93205f684fbace2e4c9fc81053
2110 F20101222_AABAYZ ferrara_o_Page_062.txt
5cb1e7bc67ee0b6beba906ef8d87c9ca
980c5bab1cb275e217049fec8a5cbad358230dc1
F20101222_AABBFI ferrara_o_Page_120.jp2
dc63ed0e3132a0111924aa19d8b0ba79
7470f7c1401b1d85b4a61f001da4ba298cbe390b
2202 F20101222_AABBET ferrara_o_Page_030.txt
3d890e46801f2928a458d11e64dce21f
92d6753f587162ff47b84df44d2ee4110938f79d
114747 F20101222_AABAZN ferrara_o_Page_080.jpg
f7655852f443a9456d458f4d3935e0df
ad53aa9346a65b666f26474ab1858dc0e4d1a1f3
57408 F20101222_AABBFJ ferrara_o_Page_019.pro
715fa76910d88e2344e11206ab387ee6
ee355239051c0f3e8ad6fc0660b7450622e3f414
108270 F20101222_AABBEU ferrara_o_Page_021.jpg
4f513c91a4b4d9d2de394e3bad4c829b
35dd202331520e86ee38e43c2f273423f8c1a407
F20101222_AABAZO ferrara_o_Page_142.tif
73e052a684e746bd88da46f5e35b7cad
adb0684457549347be481b8c2ee1c7c79c4964f3
1051967 F20101222_AABBEV ferrara_o_Page_082.jp2
e8c3d79ac0d2c3f04f23eb1608a85a15
ef7a72f79843da5269a253138ca483bc11dc0fb9
125330 F20101222_AABAZP ferrara_o_Page_177.jpg
0562ac4bb1844f983afe9f8dd6f4b45b
2180fb1b011d7c1a4fe60866e14245a0e67df01e
F20101222_AABBFK ferrara_o_Page_063.tif
6942547e86c5f0a27e967f0790c2dfcd
fc4827e9af14c39f355a5def1ca2359a74a697a3
8976 F20101222_AABBEW ferrara_o_Page_020thm.jpg
3d89cea74a4c2bb0d737c831f4504c97
9149c91bc5e9db9180c3939200c2b5edcd8e8948
109981 F20101222_AABAZQ ferrara_o_Page_143.jpg
b26e3d889467ebe68af7b5184058e114
46eb9e2ddba7f91d4ad2ae27e66dfb382c9b89d7
1141 F20101222_AABBFL ferrara_o_Page_133.txt
c121444e4eab4a8d2847ae5acbec1403
99db31952f1c866bc62e16ea41ece8418a9dd535
8808 F20101222_AABBEX ferrara_o_Page_083thm.jpg
27cb554c37acf8cee2a8b7c9506efe31
3af926c010f839f2deb18b7fcd8e9e1c4c759d0e
118829 F20101222_AABAZR ferrara_o_Page_166.jpg
c9096407f424ed86600b81203cbbfe0d
2f06a181fee97b256ce0a66480d1356ec63b1ca8
664465 F20101222_AABBGA ferrara_o_Page_182.jp2
311a58880bb57e01ba190db4e8fad338
9e87148feb618e70fd317646a427c88d8a014d6f
2058 F20101222_AABBFM ferrara_o_Page_039.txt
2536f46cb019f3b354ed23d8bcf65170
c5703e65c2723e725037439f33871b2efd772440
34407 F20101222_AABBEY ferrara_o_Page_143.QC.jpg
7b3f3e2490ad524cddcbfb8c2be34a87
a82a239744d687cbe7bc9ccd41282f4bb145612d
8842 F20101222_AABAZS ferrara_o_Page_016thm.jpg
316dcad181846773c198ab76d43a4e4f
ce01707c4aa06502393861dbccc18882f217631a
1083 F20101222_AABBGB ferrara_o_Page_155.txt
1d57c86de9e68678c4b9361bba859459
e9367148029153268bf87946b8a2c7fcb136c3eb
F20101222_AABBFN ferrara_o_Page_109.tif
00f063b8565b3f910f91dcae92b16c56
b1b0be27fb8e640fd3056d7be6c55041d3e7280c
1049997 F20101222_AABBEZ ferrara_o_Page_171.jp2
08cf80ddeb210e5dfb6c23038b0bae44
d49d9b739df3e78969fc5a6a8b23f03bb40ea199
111194 F20101222_AABAZT ferrara_o_Page_128.jpg
69861d55a8d013f7e3e07d41d36b14e3
308f79973f9ab66376ee9a3ac564c38cd2c0d41f
1819 F20101222_AABBGC ferrara_o_Page_046.txt
842f9d7c4a924dfce5dab3120417ec31
3e6a93fc7fdd9b85108945e957137a1a0a783db3
2213 F20101222_AABBFO ferrara_o_Page_034.txt
cf10178b748cccbdc1208c3081778955
a5820be9436f490373c2a1e00195d2d3b96cde8f
F20101222_AABAZU ferrara_o_Page_053.jp2
da8f01217935a5da45a7d0f8bb632bf4
452408271b89fbeeb84c6c177f706170c8908a0c
F20101222_AABBGD ferrara_o_Page_141.tif
cd71983ea1fbbcc9976a0ef2238fa371
afca782dc3817621e211415138502a8ffa2a19eb
103249 F20101222_AABBFP ferrara_o_Page_032.jpg
7ecf7e6f69db94eca5eb51ac09abf4b7
db7d9810dff580b22db780be550e7851bebf3e26
F20101222_AABAZV ferrara_o_Page_178thm.jpg
2383eca2bcf2a0adc6fbca8ec7541ac2
db7248cd1b63286addf94b9f1d4ca84561d443e2
8505 F20101222_AABBGE ferrara_o_Page_032thm.jpg
6cde300fa100644081121f8ae7276bb2
936613a734a813256658fd69bed1202a3fc2aae5
7625 F20101222_AABBFQ ferrara_o_Page_133thm.jpg
79f0d65ea7473b13c36e6daaca104915
22f5ffa4704f05459ad32c1f13fa567343a7121d
59333 F20101222_AABAZW ferrara_o_Page_181.pro
507cb84cea0a495cc06e263e8edb4ed8
30780f457eba4666c9c022ce2e3fbce254c862aa
7315 F20101222_AABBGF ferrara_o_Page_037thm.jpg
bb999d71ee66b0aa97bfbc2cf18da463
5037a0b7cf214113fbc4442e753fbed6348c18c8
F20101222_AABBFR ferrara_o_Page_104.tif
2e5dd882c4f6288bcd3eb41f0146158c
e720847d3d98ed064c69e0df3b2a87cd04075a29
55243 F20101222_AABAZX ferrara_o_Page_024.pro
a9baa64657fa3fa9e576fee04fb6bf9d
03f70c8e452e5bb6ce337ae33fafe38365cadaef
8925 F20101222_AABBGG ferrara_o_Page_014thm.jpg
52828242184c70b57578412d650c16e6
90daf1adb5955ff6bc3ba3e7072c53b5303160ab
926278 F20101222_AABBFS ferrara_o_Page_047.jp2
0051f91a2a1a1464578be1711722e37e
fb5287df23de3e28140f4afa2065e6b946997073
105879 F20101222_AABAZY ferrara_o_Page_076.jpg
ed8082e28f61da05c049b121d3ba8de1
93dd322ac68232d1d1c7c20e0f685949915a6745
100283 F20101222_AABBGH ferrara_o_Page_162.jpg
bc25d30e307019501211057b23dc3fc9
c018ccfd051fdb57939d10f3ab08d8a795357724
32636 F20101222_AABBFT ferrara_o_Page_123.pro
c574b49621e858b1c836f08adc8b35af
435cab964a36e5bab2e1172560c1f2ee45f203c9
8784 F20101222_AABAZZ ferrara_o_Page_030thm.jpg
302abe40ba58b54b841187f45078f8dd
fe4320074fb0e7704ada714cf8cdfa6d0f0a3a9e
49199 F20101222_AABBGI ferrara_o_Page_172.pro
2c7deedee38c6c3f67a842d093564e33
d3163c891060372ac2cf55834861643f02dc0932
36554 F20101222_AABBFU ferrara_o_Page_024.QC.jpg
9cab009c064ac95a5e99b00fdf613df4
792119cc0fffa6aeb6b65ddd4a3e2d13d1ed93c2
1963 F20101222_AABBGJ ferrara_o_Page_117.txt
d2df140f501614e32c916d8acaca5ca8
786d18b99d8dbc7dd3c5bfc520a46022988c4ba5
111699 F20101222_AABBFV ferrara_o_Page_029.jpg
cbfd549f39761e6f3e2d3a0053ac9ba5
8c511e42b9d40cb18eaa0aaf888b332f30d4cefa
40122 F20101222_AABBGK ferrara_o_Page_158.pro
1964f5ce7f92cfd3a4efdab56f313be2
1e8375fc36c4fb4066eac09279086050641ebfe7
1643 F20101222_AABBFW ferrara_o_Page_011.txt
aa0a1567b2dc38701da2c127348a05ab
574b49f7263b22f237c0a4862f7344760a16b9e9
26242 F20101222_AABBFX ferrara_o_Page_001.jpg
462ab1fa9bd8afba1e3a46a99058812e
c36698fdaee0d539ce6c23aa63c4bec1fbed2ee8
98698 F20101222_AABBHA ferrara_o_Page_168.jpg
4ea20f99c6397a1e43660232d761152d
ea27ac1ddefac541470b1ca5aeec4deb6153f08b
F20101222_AABBGL ferrara_o_Page_098.tif
18fc54041b0468ce3cb873befecb5dbf
b49d139203d8b71c349e3e67655826cb1e5185b0
F20101222_AABBFY ferrara_o_Page_034.tif
e31356be48b6f6e7fbf31fec300d9aa1
831ff71abcee5b4b475164f85449cd1f0299498c
2020 F20101222_AABBHB ferrara_o_Page_125.txt
8817d16a97dcbafbc0af4c441abaa9f2
a2447f67b1bf89fa21060c94e5385e62dd55d864
37134 F20101222_AABBGM ferrara_o_Page_080.QC.jpg
3e906ad1371c327466cebe6957bf141e
770b6fd4451e1091a519da4b84aed58aaece71b7
113241 F20101222_AABBFZ ferrara_o_Page_056.jpg
fbafe4a890b421172d761256433b4b5c
44d79d34dbf7f53f6aa2f434f6025d601567e9e7
1051983 F20101222_AABBHC ferrara_o_Page_160.jp2
365d921995a8b1f336d494a1fb657f5a
3de79d28d3ae900b87d3254693295b630d7b01a0
2093 F20101222_AABBGN ferrara_o_Page_028.txt
1ca4a03de7f233d3f14d350d414755e6
562232894f3dbd310b7e448cc7e1f1b0e42e9252
84813 F20101222_AABBHD ferrara_o_Page_159.jpg
e5a4ab589ba042a824940c99efe7e79c
351b904661b13436782e2fd9e756c349555ef048
F20101222_AABBGO ferrara_o_Page_041thm.jpg
2051cb9f58741cfe78f7cb343ac78d70
a603beeb49119174fa91e88c9ef6c55800337a73
716405 F20101222_AABBHE ferrara_o_Page_110.jp2
bf00158f93d9090c8af8c219274da486
600faad5a7001f6b0926e5a55df8d54bda15abb8
1483 F20101222_AABBGP ferrara_o_Page_159.txt
3447e7e53f188db6810dadb4795d1322
fe57b5023a213c7ddab09a1b02534c3df997b4a5
60333 F20101222_AABBHF ferrara_o_Page_007.jpg
0e3942c5275dd14f4ed2ff049679ac4e
8b1cfe22f3925b93e1d92b8f7aebbd4ad8c42564
20815 F20101222_AABBGQ ferrara_o_Page_155.QC.jpg
a81f2934b547d2ba06402e14985e2585
e1bea8a3a020ac25f4ac52c9dcad20fad5a083f1
2183 F20101222_AABBHG ferrara_o_Page_029.txt
61c9d34689273f3350b375b326e83e79
b39fda148f8bdce57cd98fb6f3903d5a11d7c955
111973 F20101222_AABBGR ferrara_o_Page_040.jpg
940c77d643c54a4ab1aeb6cea4795b45
da794476cb2e3a5b62a374883d0841a314997fb4
F20101222_AABBHH ferrara_o_Page_140.tif
6fa519f627ce043cb7d533f153f32877
705cdded40a4a9a3cbd8fbfe62398506cc5000aa
32877 F20101222_AABBGS ferrara_o_Page_004.jpg
55c877d3b5e7055ae95b9b1ed116ee11
69e2e25a9e2843f8a75b6917d665998feb15e0d7
1051905 F20101222_AABBHI ferrara_o_Page_176.jp2
705203e28a02cbb201663c7f053dacb3
2de52bc01e00962d96d276fad27abd5eba6d783c
32885 F20101222_AABBGT ferrara_o_Page_012.QC.jpg
10f7849b22275fc4307529557408358a
0d6edd368b71b7d7c8870add3f1d7970a4224827
29875 F20101222_AABBHJ ferrara_o_Page_063.QC.jpg
2a9d3f281a9f8a36392377f8020e9537
587f5401a5173f418b4142b3df52adf22cf653e7
9144 F20101222_AABBGU ferrara_o_Page_080thm.jpg
4eb8172e9015de48c8e7a4229333b60c
e287f49e17dcb10db327a561a26e1a3d4913f38f
23035 F20101222_AABBHK ferrara_o_Page_094.pro
b9c9f8d09ee42fb76afc8f09699e2e9b
491a2cef476b258f25cac248b7d8a07c47c5691b
F20101222_AABBGV ferrara_o_Page_090.tif
e0ff82b6f756315d8d0d7af31a384da8
79f9811cb5d0b7bf3e148ae8056250b0d65836e4
F20101222_AABBHL ferrara_o_Page_013.tif
6d8e08ee4a3eaa333d47a2f4ea67e717
49ea134ec7aa599fd394b6241fe9d7472dc3e5a6
9023 F20101222_AABBGW ferrara_o_Page_084thm.jpg
bd5c6d3726324ebb0f34c99d0fb9ca2e
84e6fd8206234da010ab70853b1314cb2e652245
8758 F20101222_AABBIA ferrara_o_Page_151thm.jpg
983e1bbd5861ac546d30340c2934fa44
93f79a4365eed19584e9d3c258375b827348c4ef
28106 F20101222_AABBGX ferrara_o_Page_051.QC.jpg
a28f51a82ac48d087a3bcac59903cf60
81223ccef56e14dbc0283f138968c7c94a5a7ffa
1051986 F20101222_AABBIB ferrara_o_Page_076.jp2
ac76a72423b992e6895dc92867cbbf2e
549e287ac42ae0d17cd7197d8f9ead2b1d1ef493
F20101222_AABBHM ferrara_o_Page_036.jp2
4e7060f74476435486bf9dfdadf5d33f
d67311b12aedec13e412bbdca99ad929e800d109
F20101222_AABBGY ferrara_o_Page_065.tif
5230eccd900618aac7ec005726c27028
c1551b9ddc4fdf426a871a595ba421b0b2e9debb
140003 F20101222_AABBIC ferrara_o_Page_009.jpg
b5530e73e8c9e90041a42b0c281df4ce
3754b5e63fc8623e6ec2a93e86fa016423532a20
35944 F20101222_AABBHN ferrara_o_Page_039.QC.jpg
ffee0896d4d1d8bd57b37cd9729af3ad
d965e51d2e7ba702e3b37aa71312f404ae7af407
9288 F20101222_AABBGZ ferrara_o_Page_120thm.jpg
390e50abfd20f0539b8211cbbab7bff6
6423a08b35a48f61160c803cb943556070cf8b23
106387 F20101222_AABBID ferrara_o_Page_028.jpg
5e12730918f7762661132f250ba8880e
1dc6cfd2d4d5f222685502e5819def3f57ae5f93
1749 F20101222_AABBHO ferrara_o_Page_141.txt
5aa1ec4b83e589ee6fd61b52d011e6c1
c70ac68630b661cdd89c626390ec48388b0fa603
F20101222_AABBIE ferrara_o_Page_152.tif
2cf5167f207f563abda7cc2e749f41db
a5a537a060eb8a21646489e44b9c0a1c61a3251a
F20101222_AABBHP ferrara_o_Page_023.tif
e250c8cd6b05af900369dc699567010a
72f5ebec0702094e7e18a2e69573980230fc9b15
34936 F20101222_AABBIF ferrara_o_Page_028.QC.jpg
1d8df4126336cc1f59f3cf6a9f951d4a
db00dc1a4735f78889c4d704a3a0cf7e574f9b31
2107 F20101222_AABBHQ ferrara_o_Page_115.txt
6e4ad88549b6eae5591eeff8c99532a1
012fffd180e43017ea087465b41019fb9f404660
41000 F20101222_AABBIG ferrara_o_Page_046.pro
43a5376da2d1b9b49c865bb074f4da21
8491d7d60491f645c07d810f986eea2d812968dd
34594 F20101222_AABBHR ferrara_o_Page_091.QC.jpg
892778e5f25c88f742122ee1182455be
7b4a5c52755a760f1def40905f95b419874cf946
F20101222_AABBIH ferrara_o_Page_017.tif
e39d431935899ca032ce7ab997d18023
8078d7b036bd56ad8cac146776f5ec1aecfa222d
106920 F20101222_AABBHS ferrara_o_Page_075.jpg
20b05502943628ca3e37a8997d966e23
c3ad128a2d9c8f3c54d5237ce6fdc4f73dcf9ad6
F20101222_AABBII ferrara_o_Page_044.jp2
bce94b79a949afaf4f964e27ca460409
b6dcef11fc7ec2865c0d5f44c7d56883d8b4f294
6694 F20101222_AABBHT ferrara_o_Page_011thm.jpg
bd0c6db716f440b75a773b09bae3a59a
71767767b87393948fdd4dc6734c61a18ac63928
32666 F20101222_AABBIJ ferrara_o_Page_042.QC.jpg
eba49ca18c6de48393ec0f363e6318e1
cadb5829ebc812953222880b64a45fae739d91a1
1456 F20101222_AABBHU ferrara_o_Page_023.txt
27c605315d02f6a739a0d5744f5ee100
b299b8457d13bb0b24695fa2f4d6af5e053b826f
26925 F20101222_AABBIK ferrara_o_Page_006.QC.jpg
6501b5c6e506e174179051d6bdeab93f
a7d07e85e06b534a4ce5965de5717d2b9dfbdf59
29812 F20101222_AABBHV ferrara_o_Page_105.QC.jpg
37054e9f48d1f565c7e501764e901f82
3d74901dc665d005055ca02bb4e4bc04c0a71d2d
86307 F20101222_AABBIL ferrara_o_Page_045.jpg
6fe87b8d0354553e59c5248a9c46c3ac
3c77f823d7417a99814c50536d920f505695ca58
28019 F20101222_AABBHW ferrara_o_Page_094.QC.jpg
affd78b796f826f87ad99f654adbde26
0740ad4ebc5d26a3951671e83a063850ce5e7f99
109078 F20101222_AABBIM ferrara_o_Page_100.jpg
bc45bb64710730223284efadc83edef5
0229928b59853d4d6d193af866465ff589b71e62
1705 F20101222_AABBHX ferrara_o_Page_058.txt
6c4eb642e07b4aed5a7e65141bdda0ff
8138ee521fe8f84bcaad3b7b9e74f5c9bbb9c5c6
57657 F20101222_AABBJA ferrara_o_Page_180.pro
e8078358451f3130401ad9a16bb9d41b
8e2a3f44724356723027e5b5ba0d5d60108049ba
34797 F20101222_AABBHY ferrara_o_Page_086.QC.jpg
0fd0325f756a49e1a771492710a3b8a6
9585da7fe70350e43440267864d30a93fd31e521
91952 F20101222_AABBJB ferrara_o_Page_047.jpg
f39143d7394715d4b7d2dafea81eeb78
1ed072870d53cc671085160817f1212c1124eb8d
56127 F20101222_AABBIN ferrara_o_Page_066.pro
3844cd2a11a717b25cd8b34d423051a8
97b6be499a8c7a9230aee572edd58becf4e11f83
249073 F20101222_AABBHZ ferrara_o_Page_001.jp2
d1b1c81fe426384970d4be4ad16838a3
542f84e7eef98b90db243c710fb3c567767955de
50292 F20101222_AABBJC ferrara_o_Page_049.pro
e75984295f23a5e7cbf5cb69c35c7b9a
56b6d4a4216c5f6b87cd15c447b43484c761851d
39630 F20101222_AABBIO ferrara_o_Page_065.pro
88c87db813abbf5a93f0f95db9d7c17f
bffaf7ac6c4f48c964fb59061285b4821d0fcbb1
1323 F20101222_AABBJD ferrara_o_Page_104.txt
47c8a01bd0f40497295c0c4dab196ed2
0a6d882b0e723ae05f9ea28e8c92000ebc728616
38119 F20101222_AABBIP ferrara_o_Page_014.QC.jpg
75fd992db0368565bb4c71ab081d06dc
809771e59894083ca5c18e7a2ca5c97fa32a0143
98043 F20101222_AABBJE ferrara_o_Page_097.jpg
e35381672b000f90b511246fa6c30d5c
2bdb6bbddb90f7885feded55e25647259b525e49
107105 F20101222_AABBIQ ferrara_o_Page_119.jpg
5219830bcb4a2f5185a091c6d25cc960
ba68c2cd81573e7b852e7d03be6a17d3c42fa1eb
8826 F20101222_AABBJF ferrara_o_Page_075thm.jpg
4bebb41c0571ac2f39a0e5cd87807b9f
a5db934bfb9e0092ad464ecb50d34722169300e9
F20101222_AABBIR ferrara_o_Page_179.tif
cb5679ab388f3e52989576f852f2f181
d778d90dd3ce338640edfd2f90dfb4f6aaef096c
113848 F20101222_AABBJG ferrara_o_Page_026.jpg
cf933abea7206560420a9dc36dce03f7
f7614807b67f7592a8fc6d790664404446b842f6
2130 F20101222_AABBJH ferrara_o_Page_021.txt
a72ba4efcb1e9ebe427b28e83c23ec1d
e66795409305978dbd3257b0ea32fb6331ee6c03
2099 F20101222_AABBIS ferrara_o_Page_148.txt
8596cdb9e19b18c54da505a28eff4f9c
d44693736d54ea117b102ff84bd48ea8586ec1c0
F20101222_AABBJI ferrara_o_Page_161.tif
d35235014504eba134e7096028fbe4cf
57927db4d618d296d058ae2ade417a1c1bff986d
27876 F20101222_AABBIT ferrara_o_Page_011.QC.jpg
ac1851d9ec3d2897e6300cff59803db7
7aa7cb84824f60b4ea7ab20368969fd8dedec325
55188 F20101222_AABBJJ ferrara_o_Page_082.pro
4df288106fa232af9b0dc18fea167052
f9f3fc7f60181d718f2df315f82774db4e832f95
2144 F20101222_AABBIU ferrara_o_Page_053.txt
359a01872c499195332612a0c390cb51
b7b6689a3116a69b950439f9b4fb818b731e7afc
3364 F20101222_AABBJK ferrara_o_Page_157.txt
1a3303e6bd15dc4e33893e20c732e338
50f5e3dfafa4db25f799e88e37841f5e4c898c13
1929 F20101222_AABBIV ferrara_o_Page_172.txt
c7e1c5f674f430b68bb8fff039ea1f0c
23e441f4f30ff510dcb113704deb5aecb36021e2
1051973 F20101222_AABBJL ferrara_o_Page_091.jp2
4835318da69c9ab717ee4a7978f78db2
00c59a662dd1070ba29f29abdda27552610bcf51
66449 F20101222_AABBIW ferrara_o_Page_009.pro
45f324babd1b98e858fb243f5b912ca6
9e6931747e401e6c955024cf1b2b2042610e8f84
805 F20101222_AABBKA ferrara_o_Page_002.pro
85ee19b6f2b3393f277e44655f6e94be
3c43f1bd56cd911c681d7c3f9d813263d5d20144
28120 F20101222_AABBJM ferrara_o_Page_168.QC.jpg
cd266ebfb1ccf76bbef723f35b43813d
4c3b4d6c74162dd6202883bee828ae9d2383216d
105283 F20101222_AABBIX ferrara_o_Page_146.jpg
18d2026d0ca582e3b7803b081361c5db
dbc13c179c6a87570ae034f76dee414ae778756f
2274 F20101222_AABBKB ferrara_o_Page_164.txt
90a5c55dc3bcf7c0ba1b8eaafaa939af
e24cc410914611d04229d857ff22e3f3317677fd
676 F20101222_AABBJN ferrara_o_Page_183.txt
23322c74f9187315c1fee8dd6991dad8
6f3c33914dd3073ba1dd7374100bbc21ee6cb5d3
110880 F20101222_AABBIY ferrara_o_Page_020.jpg
0dd9a473e4a2eb42d7d12514f098aab4
d6033bb71d2013988c9b2f1f6cfe6cd4770b3561
1051979 F20101222_AABBKC ferrara_o_Page_166.jp2
c89d26673241c9e4a60fe34ddfbfb374
ef118d083cdced37b5fb998116aa349b916361d6
50234 F20101222_AABBIZ ferrara_o_Page_003.jp2
6848470a624fbccd693a5b1dd86152bc
2e578158e7105011680ab0908218ab6a48e5c046
61129 F20101222_AABBKD ferrara_o_Page_177.pro
ba84068c407f9c67338b3fb765079254
223916d234acdc9f6bd495835151963dc040f6b2
105189 F20101222_AABBJO ferrara_o_Page_112.jpg
3c12e18bbac56607e238564c1279945b
4ed16bf31e1807cd8ff3bbbe28c306365c934e91
8678 F20101222_AABBKE ferrara_o_Page_101thm.jpg
ca1f51f95b391c75fb871612d57b17f2
0063d41b3f4cbbe40ab392567bd42d52325cd5ef
F20101222_AABBJP ferrara_o_Page_037.tif
f0e4c6e8e0af16dbf45c2bce16cb1932
93f0f6ec5dab9aa2dab588af0b2de76cf65f7bb2
8952 F20101222_AABBKF ferrara_o_Page_013thm.jpg
6623eea199cf2414f6a371a9674118cf
993b282adef8df09b45215a39735338fcff3fefc
94707 F20101222_AABBJQ ferrara_o_Page_092.jpg
0da53ec18e068cdc89be68e491ecd4fa
d18d81829d6b04412ede7cdd1e2360d3807237c2
121903 F20101222_AABBKG ferrara_o_Page_179.jpg
64fee7b039f035b888fa35cba6da5cc4
223746a391625063d7a5912e04887c28e1499279
14973 F20101222_AABBJR ferrara_o_Page_063.pro
61437179982b816bd111cce4f4ae0510
dac6654285bfde336b760eb273e8c7515e806a89
F20101222_AABBKH ferrara_o_Page_150.jp2
b117f86af959485d283e5b10d2fdd9eb
e9440d856a3df00780bc17c79deeaa8e44f9b073
16657 F20101222_AABBJS ferrara_o_Page_182.QC.jpg
4cbe0b1ccbd0f99eb7ff41bbc0a3ec02
a72599c849ac3706f7f66f028c568711001bf6e6
1584 F20101222_AABBKI ferrara_o_Page_055.txt
1cbdbaafe7c1b99ca4bae1384bb9a0a9
98a09375b6076feb98301af9b5ba4356736ddfd5
34334 F20101222_AABBJT ferrara_o_Page_018.pro
b3574e62474189f6913c1828c1b98137
1f43bbb1213143bb7a5d8991abf7540be527df51
8919 F20101222_AABBKJ ferrara_o_Page_070thm.jpg
31af1f0b32df02e00fc54f98d275ba00
3645ff6a1e61950a44c86ac2c52a6695ed5b2f8b
89619 F20101222_AABBJU ferrara_o_Page_105.jpg
0f171e38d9ad6526a0948dddb63e97b0
6f24cca2b017ca761d33b511054bc08475509a26
93106 F20101222_AABBKK ferrara_o_Page_123.jpg
64c7a66c6fd3d53bdabfbcead0f038a0
4e57eac01527654768abb2b69d93df78d0a9771c
1997 F20101222_AABBJV ferrara_o_Page_113.txt
ffbe40d4e58981a5ed73fc44e6825d57
a5634d53e357e15310ed792adbf980001e3fbc5e
1499 F20101222_AABBKL ferrara_o_Page_057.txt
755b3c6190b74b24cfdef1c3b484b1ac
a199056e4cbd6afd95064d3ea591c9e5a04577cc
33200 F20101222_AABBJW ferrara_o_Page_147.QC.jpg
4f07a6b8f0031e66a051dfb783a5e729
147e07fb7fe7e80c29c7ab4555658ee0f9b9de3a
8438 F20101222_AABBKM ferrara_o_Page_147thm.jpg
f6ce95600f256d726da197752d153235
d5682572335b19c257a97bdf834c2e877aa024d1
32367 F20101222_AABBJX ferrara_o_Page_054.QC.jpg
b3a85bf27934133d3efc041bb748fcac
e5e923f2150ecbfe45e4a05eb5ff5e9572f06d19
4277 F20101222_AABBLA ferrara_o_Page_007thm.jpg
ce4d933e3dc2a3facc007284ba06f7fa
82c3d98d6999f6134db8b1b0d122c1a7066b2866
1051985 F20101222_AABBKN ferrara_o_Page_087.jp2
4a9f5a7e002854e8c19530dd2bde3ecf
5607c5b9eaa2b0abf4bfb473bc56450ce69daa06
7955 F20101222_AABBJY ferrara_o_Page_117thm.jpg
9939b2922ae23a9c50be2e41d4791c94
3693f2bcad9c7628ac9e74bd07d63945bb9c595b
7916 F20101222_AABBLB ferrara_o_Page_145thm.jpg
579a28f98e88ebdef2680da07716c588
db5d8d452a9745126f26a60ff44bdf4deae45e94
34283 F20101222_AABBKO ferrara_o_Page_074.QC.jpg
6364d377d6836dc2ce945aee6b59eebd
2e90f4dde5c1b00857802d2d98020f8ec15e5c38
8759 F20101222_AABBJZ ferrara_o_Page_135thm.jpg
ca040ce554625da397adb9930aeb3ae9
5921a79b3d147cf0e7eb60984d899783c26cf3f6
2232 F20101222_AABBLC ferrara_o_Page_026.txt
104278a7b2184775a1f4ae8c3fdd0161
b64c457fd2107924b2738b824f0084897e3d81ba
F20101222_AABBLD ferrara_o_Page_066.tif
e502d8b82d5061895d394142b3eae38f
735928adab1e07f5db9e2a4b87c795e911882ac1
F20101222_AABBKP ferrara_o_Page_152.jp2
30a94b433f848c567d2faa989aa3493f
8f98e5ec081fa21a892d9a6533dda8baa36f0947
105399 F20101222_AABBLE ferrara_o_Page_127.jpg
7e37329d2257d4a5915c60bba498aa61
42c1d89e0bf5a6e7146730017f1c6e1b427e06bf
7767 F20101222_AABBKQ ferrara_o_Page_132thm.jpg
734ef1d8e79137609dc1c6ec00580a11
5af4bce30c03138d87aec6b13b686b2b929de0d0
2661 F20101222_AABBLF ferrara_o_Page_004thm.jpg
68903dfab453bbb3286763b8a0550518
59ef796e4486be31b11220d91f570e3bebbf1b6f
938126 F20101222_AABBKR ferrara_o_Page_011.jp2
6480f7ad28aad05d530e3ccaf5afd559
1833f0ba81e227fac67b85b0c37bb8124f7d0a81
996708 F20101222_AABBLG ferrara_o_Page_136.jp2
97936c896b86ff670bdcb1f7af78c9c2
12c98bfec08c5401f6c1ed766f8e444db2cd904e
F20101222_AABBKS ferrara_o_Page_129.tif
15929c8ec0c0a9b4c94d762134404bdb
0c5e4b9a6ac734022f1df5153fba4732f81265e2
36901 F20101222_AABBLH ferrara_o_Page_013.QC.jpg
3c7617b0df3807c807242d62b236c7b0
6b8e85253f8217de6dc1c8cfaaedc7efc2ad8a31
1051937 F20101222_AABBKT ferrara_o_Page_131.jp2
49b26cd91247a0958cdd894f065b3e9d
42f624cbc501a10c6c299a77bdebb33fd2b0b084
1024139 F20101222_AABBLI ferrara_o_Page_108.jp2
d5da040723610c9d93c6849440dec1cb
67a59648c9225a438d1e331c23ad55a3e76d635a
35778 F20101222_AABBKU ferrara_o_Page_027.QC.jpg
8a69e952a39484eec522f87ae53bd322
4318883bfcf4006bb3b9c6ecc776a64263fd3a73
109804 F20101222_AABBLJ ferrara_o_Page_062.jpg
c2b2075f51b3f6355b8dd7a426f58b32
fbad4b12d31be56b2e0a7f05c6446d489bc0360a
997214 F20101222_AABBKV ferrara_o_Page_054.jp2
6ae79eb705742a5ef89168a6f5cdee76
ea0b46234f44391edbb73f7a11ebc707ef942ca6
42792 F20101222_AABBLK ferrara_o_Page_168.pro
bc55b62bb6e54936200cf14f48365205
e157572e408ad46c463450a9fdb660036025920f
F20101222_AABBKW ferrara_o_Page_100.tif
fc1f2cf270e9cde8c6a7f87b259827c6
e2a52f9ebff111c40b099aaa356fd89699cc5ed7
F20101222_AABBLL ferrara_o_Page_076.tif
b14c0c75caca12f3f3847b20f4a0c2f6
2ec2b6fcb53307f80ba78c582b3f2f1c7fa21045
85167 F20101222_AABBKX ferrara_o_Page_157.pro
fb60e260ee834313b328aa256d3c2198
81a9f98d25fc49c54144f542c44024080e6069ac
F20101222_AABBMA ferrara_o_Page_013.jp2
4368718d92f12102adc37833032e20a4
78ed4dcb5d7d7d424fd73ca92987718a2e854219
89009 F20101222_AABBLM ferrara_o_Page_137.jpg
49b639e3063ca0d8f612335b4a4066a8
b6ae0a276b251385d8cc6a1de8b8e9d0704b67b1
F20101222_AABBKY ferrara_o_Page_178.tif
fde079a312e4d7b0e2849eef4aa9233c
f762f153ad33d6a3006ff285a4f258ce1bec777f
1051927 F20101222_AABBMB ferrara_o_Page_059.jp2
d64d1f9c9e86c5adfdf5c592290acb8d
530a9bfb4e66f31ec8b854be34eaf845f0a20146
32964 F20101222_AABBLN ferrara_o_Page_070.QC.jpg
6ee4347b47cfb82b022f261be0dd7516
6dcbb981ae1dc6d22d35f8f527a8731b760c6190
54431 F20101222_AABBKZ ferrara_o_Page_069.pro
7a5d87abf3617116df71ab78fb00b760
c28fdf23f2ccbe95cbc6758f593db9ae87ea4025
F20101222_AABBMC ferrara_o_Page_015.jp2
fd3e3f416f0845168528c6669ad48e44
8530509cb0aa14990864ca96ac53799ec58925ba
10772 F20101222_AABBLO ferrara_o_Page_004.QC.jpg
a79a89f35616cc30b7d49d20c6f78f55
14f52ce402112caeb6020c677b21d3fbc60d60bc
F20101222_AABBMD ferrara_o_Page_147.tif
6cc11edacd3ebc8fc5d96ac95882fd81
1c54300bbe5f4c671bd8936f9e0d584b83c9b3e8
85987 F20101222_AABBLP ferrara_o_Page_139.jpg
b0634e5d4a566ed5e735f50b6df3da0d
98dfb1c77ea2ba58a4077b81e0f6b2e042180681
22050 F20101222_AABBME ferrara_o_Page_161.QC.jpg
79ae770321572d8edf1a0c031fab710e
18f3d266ee05218a2794b862cd2f337ccc85040d
88783 F20101222_AABBMF ferrara_o_Page_122.jpg
fc66d826f94a4df25c7b2325e28c507c
1d61fdff2e0d2ca713fcf40bfc3808b7fcd7a35d
8142 F20101222_AABBLQ ferrara_o_Page_121thm.jpg
5c7d506eb278a3d559c935bdfd3cf591
bce70854a4b558205f33475a03c7375773885a4d
29103 F20101222_AABBMG ferrara_o_Page_172.QC.jpg
048be052c96e99613d1b67165e35f4e5
5920a8c7c969acb1e3988b7559fd1b85afc1829e
51747 F20101222_AABBLR ferrara_o_Page_017.pro
a47a04ce804c4d1609da2b27fa0e15c8
9fafe828d8297a78550e0fbacdbb41f92ee5f3dd
F20101222_AABBMH ferrara_o_Page_175.tif
13115ce3ff20f4cd76aa1dcdad29f62b
2179f26e70006b6c989d15a5ba03759e08293a1f
28913 F20101222_AABBLS ferrara_o_Page_107.QC.jpg
2579d770835aee730de2be0dab42747e
cad82c3b0d9e845723f65cd32de5b46429024c8d
2542 F20101222_AABBMI ferrara_o_Page_017.txt
63c9b914356059a9b220b6295d334dad
e7848683fe900e9b8811b503d19847fc14483cff
13062 F20101222_AABBLT ferrara_o_Page_031.QC.jpg
736728143cd7496b4912cb8f245f6e61
31cd728922b49e95d122d7ac2d7904e6084a8a3e
2141 F20101222_AABBMJ ferrara_o_Page_069.txt
f47e24f9467b92477f7a00cffe53f543
0f284b2ff3300bc07cc4a08d51a7b793bc385b6c
8110 F20101222_AABBLU ferrara_o_Page_050thm.jpg
3c8a0a4d8ce4d9ded5e303db08909a73
61d4ca39e302c2ee77bd6125dc3e100c0363660f
F20101222_AABBMK ferrara_o_Page_180.jp2
1094590995496eb0ede0900217854e37
b02de552d364105a5bbb2be952a946a23a13001c
46545 F20101222_AABBLV ferrara_o_Page_173.pro
d8d24b4cd3ac462cf869ce72773df3e0
eeb0dbd1dda9c14c90c3fa6fc20c149409b5caf0
8603 F20101222_AABBML ferrara_o_Page_180thm.jpg
7d6697791aabf324e7743511d7a2a6cb
3f3921f00fd0741835315901c9508b2128f27c7d
30671 F20101222_AABBLW ferrara_o_Page_122.pro
3eb4fc5a8c232d55147ce742de5dc1f9
c263545d7fb71e9c6f387a403c52aad615871d03
56902 F20101222_AABBNA ferrara_o_Page_026.pro
0e20b6f5022f7ad184197a67dc6e42c7
9f7f7517057367a063a1c7d35c91e8fb7e034524
45695 F20101222_AABBMM ferrara_o_Page_109.pro
3b8b31caf13959674097321d47f35cb1
859a9274b80732e7f5c1bdd8ea93915747c1f0a6
6155 F20101222_AABBLX ferrara_o_Page_154thm.jpg
45c6bd869794be16d924f0786b3d45d5
24fd35db4a3594f244bb767bbf2864a1bc981ea1
F20101222_AABBNB ferrara_o_Page_117.jp2
c3ce557725b040abe6d40036c3f0c50f
5180531e20ddd5fcb3f881911ec6717fa1882761
F20101222_AABBMN ferrara_o_Page_045.tif
1006eab5a72f1accf41e0ff2710bba74
4064b1e60c967e82aefd1994f8dd921e6fd17cab
F20101222_AABBLY ferrara_o_Page_110.tif
8f15c2115d1e719f61c70eb62508cab0
af009c5dda52a8bb839cd91bc7bc3489fd85d491
53529 F20101222_AABBNC ferrara_o_Page_149.pro
96ec959cc77e3dba56ee1e14316d6517
35d5e32d97d2b36b664d6434fa4e64f1a7b478e5
F20101222_AABBMO ferrara_o_Page_126.tif
341817afa1a0351331df91facb0950e6
e3b0776bc7b1a744ebd8079030ca18474e134fe9
F20101222_AABBLZ ferrara_o_Page_158.tif
b0650e55753c5991309a79549e447ce1
87b0db38ec9fef8176bc8aba7f160e0e79740a19
F20101222_AABBND ferrara_o_Page_153.tif
ee5c45e41b77bc868ac22954f6fcc1e8
ff5305e74aff91a02fa818ea0a99022f40217e55
101966 F20101222_AABBMP ferrara_o_Page_042.jpg
1edd263f6605f7a8130fd04e1622a208
fca4eb3d8d00991bc329848261eab2d2ba77c4ae
32994 F20101222_AABBNE ferrara_o_Page_125.QC.jpg
fd2408c354d5387da083929745ecbb1c
4e944f0c84317ccb91930effd5c4d19715b5c6ed
9263 F20101222_AABBMQ ferrara_o_Page_066thm.jpg
2d0cdba11646164bf91211f0d961e284
39859cfc39ac702dfd259f50f8ae93734e1361ee
2236 F20101222_AABBNF ferrara_o_Page_080.txt
7766e6d97c16aede00cf2768863c7ff7
eb4ae439dbb3602e4933b1f825eb940916095af1
61373 F20101222_AABAKE ferrara_o_Page_008.pro
115242b297f61f49408dda6a55a7670c
87b4b18995861a8f3a484e45783dab60dfa4f4da
34932 F20101222_AABBNG ferrara_o_Page_065.QC.jpg
b5433a0e1ad971d5b7df8dd7dd68920b
52e8dc1b3aff7d62cc6ef9d5475d9dc41f1ff694
F20101222_AABBMR ferrara_o_Page_139.tif
791c711a0d75295d675e812218b2ae67
2f05dc45f6208303cf7a227e7ae77f18fba7b04d
36148 F20101222_AABBNH ferrara_o_Page_100.QC.jpg
3d69193dfec4d2183b23bd3c1ff1c820
4e722c5c275694b06008042c2f64324d7352bc19
52986 F20101222_AABBMS ferrara_o_Page_151.pro
4c6831c9ee1548add78c9cb1dc420ff5
9954e42629fe12d312644bf1e4dbee18a0ae920a
873789 F20101222_AABAKF ferrara_o_Page_055.jp2
718e0f7c5c5b4f0acb05b8fb31a32445
af0dbfee4e7d81c496949acebe93ddd078e41046
36444 F20101222_AABBNI ferrara_o_Page_034.QC.jpg
8000a679913190a44c51ff1d9fb37b6e
80604dc779874b327e33ad9941960fe443bc53b2
1009 F20101222_AABBMT ferrara_o_Page_182.txt
4185b224552815816c0ef207496cef9c
9f7f2ea0904544b915a195973b17757629cd46f3
34066 F20101222_AABAKG ferrara_o_Page_076.QC.jpg
d5afc030d184a11e6b18d067999e3bd0
4bc43f20e9f7e29ebba45d9efc9b3531515d4dec
F20101222_AABBNJ ferrara_o_Page_143.tif
c2729319fadb819488820de5a27446bd
9a6c2432dc8d6cc4db0929f0de3661d6c27ddc79
28117 F20101222_AABBMU ferrara_o_Page_055.QC.jpg
d9507e0465de2b1228bc7f16b0f17738
bac127a9f03d7438c419d9edb7322d7ae5c7d723
8291 F20101222_AABAKH ferrara_o_Page_001.pro
26aa4be6e132d952494197be0172ca93
a6dcc6460a59591e3b3a98da4519a74890e4dd64
1988 F20101222_AABBNK ferrara_o_Page_049.txt
36ded17e128d06dcfc77d27504dd22f8
0782b2ae5cd5cf4f5c6bfb0f0bb6275ce482f8b2
57039 F20101222_AABBMV ferrara_o_Page_022.pro
40b968399f0dc1d35b0b6c598f105c2e
0e0318912dceb76345cc622cfcbbc6d4b4145df9
117108 F20101222_AABAKI ferrara_o_Page_014.jpg
b8250042d9d2e9585e6fddb01b824bbd
481c3489e0b88d987eba29981e773b3839fa39d6
33316 F20101222_AABBNL ferrara_o_Page_017.QC.jpg
43ae406a62f22ce3880a0896bd1b1597
04929384db2c3fd2b0b84f64d22fc5958b582f36
8833 F20101222_AABBMW ferrara_o_Page_090thm.jpg
48ace94983271a9adf1852c9c9afced4
519f067c7cdbedce44d50bfdb889453b895b0d9a
F20101222_AABAKJ ferrara_o_Page_054.tif
39b44cc24f3d225e325fda053a59900b
169e033ee3cecfe8a2701c22aaeee18a85760182
F20101222_AABBNM ferrara_o_Page_130.tif
01c1afd8a28585144b1399b5af7d0fcc
e014899cbb997ceeb2de25a7e6509dcf1ca27cf8
F20101222_AABBMX ferrara_o_Page_088.tif
47d226b3f9a87e0aab01334f3697f409
b01fb312b81eec8e5d8a46548172910af589f5be
54270 F20101222_AABBOA ferrara_o_Page_128.pro
d97b292290f44d49184b4a06d80516da
c9704ba001edbd18c347fa0274150784b0dc628a
9084 F20101222_AABAKK ferrara_o_Page_038thm.jpg
c2306a56f161fe28411138e5cb780bdb
2ed0f2a502e06919c012a5064b79595e22e8e5ae
733 F20101222_AABBNN ferrara_o_Page_003thm.jpg
df1719818eaa3cdd0830d3996d13de4e
e7f220a0f5998552419fba944b172dfe8c430e33
95 F20101222_AABBMY ferrara_o_Page_002.txt
9ef7447a671c695438038e2e0afad185
faf84c65a2ed69a2cc184c07b79aefa94998833e
F20101222_AABBOB ferrara_o_Page_144.tif
4f97736c132f3d1636ae69f3dd01c920
a1872c75d93882b9e065b673875334f830ab1ed5
2163 F20101222_AABAKL ferrara_o_Page_099.txt
6efbafa0f4da7f241ba40052963795c9
721c3628cd977cd5987ead70f81a2d158031db59
51559 F20101222_AABBNO ferrara_o_Page_016.pro
58a02e4a22771a65f8e2e6c3c6b5a8db
3912d9048d40ab1b6394168438422bcbdf72f21e
110134 F20101222_AABBMZ ferrara_o_Page_081.jpg
b51737d5e72f92827cfa3d8dc689a025
c07ff532c0337625d6a174277b9d561df6873ec9
102936 F20101222_AABALA ferrara_o_Page_033.jpg
99217e07f462e6cb899d3b6e71bd6981
736cd5488b870e3f8a4aa4a346826697b1dc6dba
97755 F20101222_AABBOC ferrara_o_Page_050.jpg
67891a9c3c70a0c21583c4b9d7214353
292f32c43ee24a86da4beb028f0af9844c194885
F20101222_AABAKM ferrara_o_Page_035.tif
9bbfb6eaa28d89f3120cd9c4cf6c5529
6859dd007f95c337a8380b2d52086cf1c59198d6
87861 F20101222_AABBNP ferrara_o_Page_134.jpg
64ea6a16e81bcd0d622372916992928f
d0be605e0efac98b0b9d7031e865c0658f17b44f
1818 F20101222_AABALB ferrara_o_Page_169.txt
201ba895a1bb1813825f91fd01c02876
69aefe2ec433d9723dd26163005f588bcb997bc1
51352 F20101222_AABBOD ferrara_o_Page_076.pro
23e4a06331a4caf9039574f00eedd32f
9ebd729e2d31eefd2345fea465c223030d340d56
37608 F20101222_AABAKN ferrara_o_Page_128.QC.jpg
a8df7c51b98f190fc14abe11d8f6942f
a74a940f9f037272ea45abef0ac93a28bf730b78
F20101222_AABALC ferrara_o_Page_019thm.jpg
f10b6382411d3f47eeef66249af6e2e1
a9e6c9ca7be12b54e666f7dc5346cba634d6b04d
F20101222_AABBOE ferrara_o_Page_160.tif
e2533004b6787dfa9951a0bbd6401c1a
0e6001b01efba73e1cf2ae10052f8fa4b9131b0b
9148 F20101222_AABAKO ferrara_o_Page_053thm.jpg
91d82ffefa98b8fa3d132d6ff8bfcb90
c7001e8778d0695061f14d0390f7f2e83669bfcf
103348 F20101222_AABBNQ ferrara_o_Page_147.jpg
91f3ddd1e116217aeb73284725d42ab3
6eae151207ac51f9be32c7d418ed0e145de49a4e
F20101222_AABALD ferrara_o_Page_055.tif
a4bd22f9a0c9a0ee8902ba6188483c1a
363896bb4e96b1b3081415894f0590db39894a87
8990 F20101222_AABBOF ferrara_o_Page_034thm.jpg
42efdf8119888f9948a3279f5620befd
0193efa5ac20c4a4fc75831cb324ba091a9d4dae
94143 F20101222_AABAKP ferrara_o_Page_169.jpg
2564015b701abb0ca92a1b4410f1f0c3
b308a395766c40ba2273dca2e0c0e87ea96d3508
101546 F20101222_AABBNR ferrara_o_Page_017.jpg
c794c8822d59c9a89f754cd05037de9d
46f7917122e2ca7aa00ba51527f865a6182e63b3
7273 F20101222_AABALE ferrara_o_Page_055thm.jpg
c08bb669961e611cc48d607cae6bd258
1292e41acf1d4b5ea0e108ee373aa1dd70c2ef81
1313 F20101222_AABBOG ferrara_o_Page_154.txt
409c49b0a0c501afd69b93790e98605e
c494993d46040e00e4ee7d02cbb712fcced3c25a
9133 F20101222_AABALF ferrara_o_Page_095thm.jpg
6b55498f7eee7b0f842ac7d642003ed9
c263a7f672eea6240ba963f45d6c6fe25d1f0f1c
27867 F20101222_AABBOH ferrara_o_Page_133.QC.jpg
8cb281f74401ec4520c70bdeaa3052ff
c43ca2773902a3d41291b6ae459a40ac1b8f6901
1974 F20101222_AABAKQ ferrara_o_Page_054.txt
bdb1bbb0c8e8a11ddc5548bdc3edcdf2
0db8051afcd11cc98b67c72191decfbcda4c83c6
F20101222_AABBNS ferrara_o_Page_078thm.jpg
08ca2194aa239134cea3d3d0624f54fc
29e34218fd24a60a11e9ceaffeaa448265a69a72
8282 F20101222_AABALG ferrara_o_Page_109thm.jpg
a4aa22a2f9b7c81292b5abf83721d1e8
1d4261a89016817c8eb607714402093b80aaf14c
30747 F20101222_AABBOI ferrara_o_Page_047.pro
84b89f4d12bf4d1a914afc29c93b6297
2b3b599c230d6db11ebd64a9309fdd606f67b9d8
91000 F20101222_AABAKR ferrara_o_Page_132.jpg
43faed6cb69b1a71364415e0cb2bd9e1
04cc191245eb41be5a18737c2dc8cc1430a8c39f
112004 F20101222_AABBNT ferrara_o_Page_034.jpg
a69799c54d840691615ce6e604795692
5553162759b0123585573ed4573255c106ef2e9b
34806 F20101222_AABALH ferrara_o_Page_115.QC.jpg
1eb688991e174325b2b66d6e9efa904f
31d4507bffbe03490c101ed0f57cd4de5ea0cade
7904 F20101222_AABBOJ ferrara_o_Page_018thm.jpg
e5b7e90e490a90f9e6d7e66a2ac9c931
7df6f14eb24b8b0cd7bf47cdc7a168f5259e8c0e
37047 F20101222_AABAKS ferrara_o_Page_038.pro
f5d745d5aef9889990c186708f6bd8c6
79bebe81fd9dc2a0502b72b1125e2b450e9cf4fd
33904 F20101222_AABBNU ferrara_o_Page_057.pro
1ad38ea08b98e0d45d87b1830a0d2c42
4ddc2c22bc562ede94668d9588981a2ae623d866
103492 F20101222_AABBOK ferrara_o_Page_016.jpg
2f00f20f83cda1374ea51ad18c59b8a1
ee224a980bf971b411acdd5753272fb65883399c
833003 F20101222_AABALI ferrara_o_Page_045.jp2
389a90c2ec5354d20da7f7d4143ff777
78fde9ac605b0d9789fed4e3f7156057de16cfb5
698215 F20101222_AABAKT ferrara_o_Page_104.jp2
5cfe48544000f8b1f81e03ab2b4c8259
ba0bd5c43ba6e5390a5e8769ff958a7402a11cf1
44501 F20101222_AABBNV ferrara_o_Page_106.pro
8b557b306174e28390906426df7b2b35
0d498ecdc7885ea406c1986682e37f366ad47cd7
9095 F20101222_AABBOL ferrara_o_Page_071thm.jpg
41705023b271072c41d258070cbe93c6
2227cc844feafb30c3c65114701197aea246d752
8377 F20101222_AABALJ ferrara_o_Page_176thm.jpg
eae874f07a710a026bb16411d64bb438
089dc5adc918cbabde3807a52b6fe0d88da8cb14
F20101222_AABAKU ferrara_o_Page_111.tif
b4ac81a0af0a36a86b37bfc295238597
6c2c60e2991d7c9be14a40c43406fbe1b606915c
5962 F20101222_AABBNW ferrara_o_Page_155thm.jpg
a74d02fa09b261c2885e5875eb759bb5
a3bce5350693b21bcfdb28bac1527b1a59ae50ca
1051972 F20101222_AABBPA ferrara_o_Page_080.jp2
a83b87b25396a40e923b56bd99872adb
2da4a133da05646d762838fa45a1c001830728dd
40575 F20101222_AABBOM ferrara_o_Page_009.QC.jpg
62ee5be4926a97799ca4b3b5a0401494
b3b20c43a871f6822561c4bc5ad9ec93fa289627
27440 F20101222_AABALK ferrara_o_Page_173.QC.jpg
27011b0b6478ad1a249a2f07e17a4a99
322e23750998063653dd4a31a5c5da2f831a7c7d
2078 F20101222_AABAKV ferrara_o_Page_144.txt
1a29e520fe33d87c37e21e7aef8b9f27
4e9dd6124d6912b81a181c82994e81a9319b58ee
108960 F20101222_AABBNX ferrara_o_Page_149.jpg
238c4a7d2b0cb99d1c99cd74cbe6984a
515ef61a5d7705ee70453a9ea16ed8efaab2690c
F20101222_AABBPB ferrara_o_Page_005.jp2
4daa2853075348ebf5e28893becadabd
1d346937f742ec8ca2aa53835d2d1d8323927471
2697995 F20101222_AABBON ferrara_o.pdf
5c38757ef3c46777d115f029061db27b
7cba73e65cfb7e73a7de3e86ecf7cba802de0c1c
1661 F20101222_AABALL ferrara_o_Page_132.txt
e50e7364a57522da83e83a573d99cca0
cff9f9c41dacbdd6febbc2a88c847ccc0ecd5f73
F20101222_AABAKW ferrara_o_Page_144.jp2
fabda3e2a4592d9a61dd72d2846b0755
211c0e2063a90ec84f210ba5c7a80aa080eb7426
8563 F20101222_AABBNY ferrara_o_Page_098thm.jpg
fdedb6a3bed4a8ddb2578e859351cbc6
94460f9e48669ee32c8159f7424731484c834222
F20101222_AABBPC ferrara_o_Page_071.jp2
213d912ccfcdbc3c283aa4b88cb9adc0
5ac9c1e8eb2965c4b01c9e34f0bad0719125dedc
46780 F20101222_AABBOO ferrara_o_Page_108.pro
829d3c34e081baacb9aa7691a2e3180c
5f866f75cd34d8f5584cd7accd3b959c51bff411
97373 F20101222_AABAMA ferrara_o_Page_173.jpg
e78ced0b2315e5cbf45e9903f1b35a85
e1ea5adf65676df1cbfd980ddc7d650ea31e5aa0
82490 F20101222_AABALM ferrara_o_Page_094.jpg
3d69481d4ed6db2999e78e82bb768e72
06f4739dd0786d0ad0345a55ce8b4e2ae722025a
F20101222_AABAKX ferrara_o_Page_005.tif
f3977c24642a0e4fc3de38ded8849343
e9293664e05a4cb51cbc459b8f5adc61ceade578
98804 F20101222_AABBNZ ferrara_o_Page_065.jpg
a56f74b435ca65415c15b1f6b2288d79
336cbe2db568eb4ba38184764122330b26d0479e
52941 F20101222_AABBPD ferrara_o_Page_116.pro
b2baaa79f8dd50e2f7319461676ab3c1
d8c395f4f01721276fda80b40ff3385890b66516
F20101222_AABBOP ferrara_o_Page_061.tif
a3fb62cf0413a48ca35db75cb8664f56
2b99a6727e83dddd642ebae99c6273c26b049aa2
36230 F20101222_AABAMB ferrara_o_Page_119.QC.jpg
462ca44a86c8e2c4b0c88d5fbb8e1ce9
69fda5584ba1711bf1d79874b99d8b279e294052
96972 F20101222_AABALN ferrara_o_Page_111.jpg
122899f9ed527f81b966860a680ecf7a
717f4441dce8b490b2218882f302d6301f9056e5
9059 F20101222_AABAKY ferrara_o_Page_056thm.jpg
49b0951ee2f5382c10f22da940e1eb42
e1c6118365c43f72907c46fb32167b045f702c9b
8998 F20101222_AABBPE ferrara_o_Page_152thm.jpg
d9c8f48c91343e583caf5ed63cd3efe1
97c9485b2654ded460075e6f9bcba8724e01620a
35272 F20101222_AABBOQ ferrara_o_Page_148.QC.jpg
d0bbda9d64e558a68a0dec06b61149b3
862f560be56711c908628cf6644e70353b72d2a6
F20101222_AABAMC ferrara_o_Page_003.pro
85d6e35758055779f260c658ad7f335d
37640d372a45c7073de13ff553c35c8a6ec7f2e0
1689 F20101222_AABALO ferrara_o_Page_130.txt
b8df7542456de966229f1097716abbd2
eea5d5fb7cd27e50671ec5a7782d106596930814
92748 F20101222_AABAKZ ferrara_o_Page_106.jpg
bb7fcc02489af4e898f4158a80a66342
9c93d1b4ae190c290545c7fb74510eeed0c22c17
F20101222_AABBPF ferrara_o_Page_041.tif
c303977cea02a79733b27092a4b34fb4
d248ebc8008af2b01103f419ba4d673b6c7e5f0e
F20101222_AABBOR ferrara_o_Page_151.tif
015676eb0338ff0dad27c9ca9f8fe765
f485404f6ada2f2b35b06de731d0316930b0cd96
108293 F20101222_AABAMD ferrara_o_Page_084.jpg
efbd34934ae472c0057805ec7899e613
a39587172a26515552cb75dff976bd8a4f0d180e
8862 F20101222_AABALP ferrara_o_Page_069thm.jpg
1a5f10b117d87ceb72060f4cfff794cd
827c3f205182dc12b41532e6a94ed4f7d932add0
F20101222_AABBPG ferrara_o_Page_145.tif
3949041295b0a700d4f12cb88501e218
e43e7ca354b8a5b35fe45b8ef27e41b40d7c9f07
54479 F20101222_AABBOS ferrara_o_Page_135.pro
393dc032bfc704e30622aa477f7ee6f3
6f22348862db7ea6c6821d8e9836c41e7a52e671
56270 F20101222_AABAME ferrara_o_Page_078.pro
b83c0842cad500a45df3ac285dc7c6b4
77de81432364169beebd3333a762103d8e874fcc
F20101222_AABALQ ferrara_o_Page_103.jp2
f314ace26a66fc9e4d5fb6a16172263d
ae1830e9e3901e73f9038b007e587facbe6c2094
7790 F20101222_AABBPH ferrara_o_Page_113thm.jpg
8c786fe2f6fb7f3340c6367912dd3b11
8ce566ad4dc503c8b5caab17c3ac4baffd7c4504
F20101222_AABAMF ferrara_o_Page_042.jp2
554c3f73abb9448bea6638f664068426
3f14c3dfe2eec4328426447c809a65b991b0e519
F20101222_AABBPI ferrara_o_Page_140.txt
7df4d2c43fd6cd63e714ff9df692a2a9
a6d6b8182048dd401ece1192a4d143acd3faa028
37736 F20101222_AABBOT ferrara_o_Page_088.QC.jpg
c365778e8a9a1094a6269de7b0968585
29a80d1e56ea5cee9f5544df4e21ef109dbe908d
2885 F20101222_AABAMG ferrara_o_Page_118.txt
24aaedc9caaf52123e294f9e52101cc7
c318ca9b1fb0a9c26f550d2d35df0a6a2eac1165
2199 F20101222_AABALR ferrara_o_Page_066.txt
d1005bc44dd10af154e04e693fa81acc
e936f00ddd88be67997f09fa6e97ef67cba79464
97912 F20101222_AABBPJ ferrara_o_Page_171.jpg
8c3ceaae700036a42a47cf37e9e3d5c2
c498bcee595aae6dff2017b8f5e0ed6ee029518f
89634 F20101222_AABBOU ferrara_o_Page_067.jpg
c7886d7af9faa463d6af10635977cd8d
805b8be1a4331a08177d6276a16229b9671d78c2
8899 F20101222_AABAMH ferrara_o_Page_079thm.jpg
21929a951a39d9508e01ad3c581223e8
c28f66a689c38946b2f7291883457878efa7bcd0
35556 F20101222_AABALS ferrara_o_Page_041.QC.jpg
e14ca7bff8c5ecc26aad009471cbe14c
6784b2e077a9b5ea6505ee933691fc36d34fca98
F20101222_AABBPK ferrara_o_Page_068.tif
44d2ce7308eebc48490a63d06bdfce8b
84a05e2b5aeeb1fe671fb150c1b5d4c484192cda
1784 F20101222_AABBOV ferrara_o_Page_171.txt
3822f5f8360239a5856b7a0a746f8bd4
39faee2b9faa8501179ec93a594048debdbf80d2
F20101222_AABAMI ferrara_o_Page_115.tif
8d156e8f4c0e6101fd91ba472538c872
8638e9232817fbaaa713356e374b5b2ec6a879cf
90643 F20101222_AABALT ferrara_o_Page_130.jpg
21773212aeb92e641fc8bb73838a2ecb
97bfc119a1ac25a8341318b401d08e46b1009aa6
7970 F20101222_AABBPL ferrara_o_Page_123thm.jpg
4186cf399f1bb3d1849e51d71e7af360
be54872e529d22865a13e109bb2e2ee7d6839508
F20101222_AABBOW ferrara_o_Page_149.tif
9228ac19e041d2409c6f825b199e0440
ef0f0903c43ed25d736e973ff5c87dc5e71b70bf
1574 F20101222_AABAMJ ferrara_o_Page_158.txt
b87895d79aad33343d60f053a657d6e9
2861b6914435f9556db7df191c33a5872f78ce62
44049 F20101222_AABALU ferrara_o_Page_175.pro
f2fa2670d31a5b237b87b9a0fa36c82f
9a2989078b1b7afd8419e35374f5a86f9b7d9908
27801 F20101222_AABBQA ferrara_o_Page_167.QC.jpg
ee7ab5c65fa8ec657e424ef4ca03546f
741eba0613bf7882d1514563978e526856ee0e2c
105279 F20101222_AABBPM ferrara_o_Page_072.jpg
dc27318f2fd7f27b79e26af12780b3c1
2e39f9ccebb0748bde542439fbef9efc339b27a9
8050 F20101222_AABBOX ferrara_o_Page_106thm.jpg
3a2b2f0f7314bbb95c7ba8a1a81eaa23
2f898f138f8ab0fa9f3185335a0a30ed5a0fe31e
F20101222_AABAMK ferrara_o_Page_056.jp2
d7234f725260ec949792826d65ebd823
c0060b5c2292878d16ac89c374a2a7e7d5967bdd
1850 F20101222_AABALV ferrara_o_Page_109.txt
44dd5b0a46b5b20da74bbc06f54fcdf4
a504c6c44b5585c66b2463a074eccabcfe1e84bb
34677 F20101222_AABBQB ferrara_o_Page_166.QC.jpg
4b10f32966e08116045e88f920e34b35
c556467918af2ce6cda2765bf150b1acc81698a4
9456 F20101222_AABBPN ferrara_o_Page_035thm.jpg
f28ddc3d1e8f3e419db839dd61c70ee9
58408114f624208e28a3920906fc76a9231da048
35441 F20101222_AABBOY ferrara_o_Page_030.QC.jpg
7a26855cb38f436866532d8173b6e2a0
716c6877001774e9a6d944fbc8289568276e550a
2845 F20101222_AABAML ferrara_o_Page_152.txt
c9ba1e9fdc49096adb33a75babdc9184
0b11ff2ea0b4352dad98354571f7e4a6f6bd2dd0
8935 F20101222_AABALW ferrara_o_Page_181thm.jpg
5f13d596db657e1d4fa0de57cafa9ebb
0ad7ec78078c4e8d58a12585f66e1c92a328dedc
F20101222_AABBQC ferrara_o_Page_048.jp2
6cba2e53a654f326255af15d5cc2a1ab
d604006206d8576d94ade4bb4dde79d80860cf35
799741 F20101222_AABBPO ferrara_o_Page_094.jp2
16da82801d492119bee1f0338b5c1667
3829a028033eb6f501ab34e63d725feb05332d90
1051934 F20101222_AABBOZ ferrara_o_Page_081.jp2
79db323010c9bc8db5b32707f1d964b6
92ce20c56c5d718df242ad73d3238af3b8725b05
29192 F20101222_AABAMM ferrara_o_Page_060.QC.jpg
1d5318de1d86dd207e91faeb5b2e2a98
d792ba3c4655a58c445ab4f009a59bbc22fda7ec
F20101222_AABALX ferrara_o_Page_175.jp2
61b965ca0e60e41e67668b5e2ccb9bf8
17ed4828cc23890fee821e4fef718a82b16e76f1
5556 F20101222_AABANA ferrara_o_Page_159thm.jpg
118fec58cde929f9ec33a1f08617bc60
58d0b5304173d8639f95c8820dcfb5c392296573
F20101222_AABBQD ferrara_o_Page_134.txt
4b1e58cdf5956121a7b113e472fe7766
f359bc9444a2540aedebc3e4876d75c68d6777f0
1561 F20101222_AABBPP ferrara_o_Page_122.txt
618773e35403f892b3707cb0253209f0
32f3d7282587f08d5489ff5884dd680774f86686
36025 F20101222_AABAMN ferrara_o_Page_069.QC.jpg
3b63d1371f355a3f45b3b8fc5f72f442
b01ce48fe14ced362a3fd38b5747fbaf6948645e
1009474 F20101222_AABALY ferrara_o_Page_109.jp2
725771b1c0e8211f5bdc4b4f1354431a
61129c0d5206392787fec143c72baeaa3611b5ac
9085 F20101222_AABANB ferrara_o_Page_039thm.jpg
b9e21db7b74ef62116e59d68869f05d0
689774d684058696ea612c3ddb5d1f4d34395dd0
8423 F20101222_AABBQE ferrara_o_Page_022thm.jpg
4728347e7268be48c6c0aea28b8de8a4
b6ede0177ae8a0f4344bd6340cec0ebb0c253542
93490 F20101222_AABBPQ ferrara_o_Page_068.jpg
f176e50695128b6af501c7d109449c44
436dda3a0cbac820e48377db69b16e4a48d3175c
12856 F20101222_AABAMO ferrara_o_Page_051.pro
2436466fff09614f3d85a5d2e743b7da
8e21ab5a98a7367d824636e40526b5ce36b66661
78316 F20101222_AABALZ ferrara_o_Page_055.jpg
d7a5c6a0980104f6334a55783bb3b0e0
923250fc34249b2d40e953539aaa5d22422f900a
1051961 F20101222_AABANC ferrara_o_Page_029.jp2
92d3c1d593067c6c25e4caaf463ce9af
d332be6890cf5304aafc03d41da3040918a214eb
56678 F20101222_AABBQF ferrara_o_Page_120.pro
0dfa055ecf251fc7de0a410c6968d1c6
82ae4945d6984e8c43e27fe489f7e94cfafc3e6e
49210 F20101222_AABBPR ferrara_o_Page_160.pro
c939e0fc9b40d80728037528f743788e
49875afd16fca64ad436ec5343a63480fe146782
7758 F20101222_AABAMP ferrara_o_Page_108thm.jpg
81acd4ca5cef01552515c6ab1062f43d
ee23309db6f67f4cb16ff8044ef9165663d9f0cb
F20101222_AABAND ferrara_o_Page_113.tif
326bc2ca9ab9b7fc9eb183e1f5da2fbd
c071a2b7313842a16c168458fedda3604af0fe75
9058 F20101222_AABBQG ferrara_o_Page_045thm.jpg
4e985d54a17deade980c3bce05ad8a17
93e9a02d59b3275e99fe9324c0d5400dc5afd6a8
55126 F20101222_AABBPS ferrara_o_Page_083.pro
bc294d354b21ad14d853d7ec0ab4bfa9
f3b9b530f5eff9df92ab94193bb299d8c9be2a93
393979 F20101222_AABAMQ ferrara_o_Page_031.jp2
692d35d532343cc2dfa7b7dd5717e764
d19047ff6f61ebf6c2b769aa13d6840ee78660a8
F20101222_AABANE ferrara_o_Page_183.tif
8f91dc7381317a515ca820e6405e213e
acacef308b5287a54b7159a7dcc66e1aaac67c7f
F20101222_AABBQH ferrara_o_Page_030.tif
2c10d19d702531f8d1d368120a05b108
76738577807b4a476ca01d22e2ba2587b2fa678b
57158 F20101222_AABBPT ferrara_o_Page_178.pro
fe9ec0e1558ac74bb48d22f9e2d1a884
166878f0a38fc184eeed0d9bb7014b9e9a35d82e
1051969 F20101222_AABAMR ferrara_o_Page_168.jp2
aabb14e1847d17692a172f35fdacd198
07115e9d6848f8a9df28ea6305dd1a94a576bcc9
1039518 F20101222_AABANF ferrara_o_Page_111.jp2
47815689c88d0782a10d904b721a3629
f2eb4ebc7ed88057cab0e136e547125b31261532
F20101222_AABBQI ferrara_o_Page_083.jp2
9ab8ee1bde8b06b5cc10a8ac35bd743e
06dfb75dc87c5e5e536b27f7b5873621a28f1e69
8962 F20101222_AABANG ferrara_o_Page_156.QC.jpg
3d7dfff92791a8c317b890340a532776
787e5cc9a617ea9c6373b93443af830ce9a17b5b
6682 F20101222_AABBQJ ferrara_o_Page_164thm.jpg
4a36cda27c534c22d8d11449c5a75d16
8d3e020740cb0f9d862811a872133eb5a79018bf
57823 F20101222_AABBPU ferrara_o_Page_040.pro
235bf9e4a61bafa4334747761efa113e
8822687897f004c138c4959e6c88763c1df5c3ec
37228 F20101222_AABAMS ferrara_o_Page_019.QC.jpg
bb00ecc8b527ce6ed0bc5ec8221e0fdb
ec2314d043aa5848916c7a43de3bb3ee0f3f3040
928170 F20101222_AABANH ferrara_o_Page_161.jp2
12b234eb4bbecd2fff067362b649cfc8
9cd1c36146dcdc008b7596b13c5c1b63baa19547
F20101222_AABBQK ferrara_o_Page_072.jp2
d1567ffd4fff6378ba815a239cc6ccd7
3ee4f6be68fb1a48261f3cd3fc2c7c259e45784b
7627 F20101222_AABBPV ferrara_o_Page_130thm.jpg
d71ee9057ef353f4d8cb2f42c9d70335
bbdf30f659e2af69fdb7fcbffd1acf369df4a162
52878 F20101222_AABAMT ferrara_o_Page_144.pro
0a117500fea6c44577e468b00f8fb0d2
e040a1fea28d5a42fde8783d261caefb7303d13e
8321 F20101222_AABANI ferrara_o_Page_012thm.jpg
a3a89ee046ab3ba79ec27f5fefb10e4f
b0cfb492dbf73f8d93395644163854dde9d17678
8558 F20101222_AABBQL ferrara_o_Page_102thm.jpg
d8973e8b870db410d8be64bd3c1aee83
a46446f3a095ecd37d19b59417ef0171a4c9d874
1240 F20101222_AABBPW ferrara_o_Page_007.txt
fedcf7340ced0d4585f34ba7947e113c
9548e74c1b8ba490df462086c0bce9a7a996a4b4
2035 F20101222_AABAMU ferrara_o_Page_016.txt
3410578071f13c9751e5b8e5b3f7e113
104f53e2d144a53c03a427beb76e5666b3befb6d
25669 F20101222_AABANJ ferrara_o_Page_154.pro
7cf938c6446a58a22f14c0b500de0c47
9e022918cb05ba6d31ad2792aceed87795b244af
51861 F20101222_AABBRA ferrara_o_Page_115.pro
73ab9dfd91ef9b865e0c15fa4fc18b44
b46086944bb1566e765d81518e51eaff5eb633f9
2049 F20101222_AABBQM ferrara_o_Page_101.txt
2ff5aa89e7bce405697dd75a529bb374
bd2a486cf0f05343d5bfeaf803d95c74daee3de2
1051981 F20101222_AABBPX ferrara_o_Page_163.jp2
24936a75e5b5291a88097a4cdaf5c913
7d99c53318869513e4de1dbe385468165006175e
99525 F20101222_AABAMV ferrara_o_Page_096.jpg
6a7a7425385a4638fb1bbeadce95dd8c
46cfdf5265d69b0faa425d0f3c67306f12e3120a
34547 F20101222_AABANK ferrara_o_Page_180.QC.jpg
01d79bd0dd214cf9c3018f68f1e885b8
f30f4ce1177233fd0274c4e31625f6e645b21a60
53235 F20101222_AABBRB ferrara_o_Page_059.pro
01f2e3a4a4c7526ecfdca749c275dd82
083b823ead9dc3a80417cab9c99a7d0cb118e9fd
56552 F20101222_AABBQN ferrara_o_Page_088.pro
e0c84da3c7a4b7d77d78d8cde8f8e292
dfa17be5abe03e200cbabcae7705d529fde58425
96618 F20101222_AABBPY ferrara_o_Page_125.jpg
646baa54b530bfd364983d50a3885614
319a9ecdbad33bc5fa1681d15f3ed4fee32d6a81
1051915 F20101222_AABAMW ferrara_o_Page_096.jp2
24c4bc9635df941631332e986edecc97
959eba2067b70f9825bd724c8b022fa69c44d096
2059 F20101222_AABANL ferrara_o_Page_012.txt
75df3697dd698990b22c5df383c307be
03d36989632bef8b76ecaece0b6838b9e4c066de
95739 F20101222_AABBRC ferrara_o_Page_121.jpg
6c9669df6c75280178ce7b826c5e4c2c
57e0d01a3d6ba684026372525a6e5c2c948fe45d
35117 F20101222_AABBQO ferrara_o_Page_089.QC.jpg
a181c120770268d47a99da7755206021
1df3f0c70c62aa61e14f497ae4ae75b48abf322f
F20101222_AABBPZ ferrara_o_Page_178.jp2
57a9eb5d85938abefc7e7c57ce07d38c
1408606449adbf5534cf9353818e5840196430be
8444 F20101222_AABAMX ferrara_o_Page_060thm.jpg
3996f82f42b75da7fcf2d140fd970004
ca6ecee9b9532734340bcc752354cd272965a0b8
F20101222_AABAOA ferrara_o_Page_137.tif
8c71524e5e3f39ca3bcdab35a400d11d
0ac6cff6b4ee29b4e0e9433ac116f5258255b8ca
25836 F20101222_AABANM ferrara_o_Page_070.pro
a59801d7b5b0299c1c5740e651d8a89c
a570084397c92039558a747f799b7cd04f2eb08a
153361 F20101222_AABBRD ferrara_o_Page_157.jpg
761521ab0c5231c696b1b9adbad49a32
79eb4576e3d72098f5fceb000f89318f5c304de4
F20101222_AABBQP ferrara_o_Page_073.jp2
da5d00a40b4f9fbc7e94d9eb4cc64b27
c1b3d6285dfed59ec4b133411968e67363cc2958
F20101222_AABAMY ferrara_o_Page_004.tif
9f9e69b4f12316c605941beff5c0feaa
79fbeec11cad1ece5bbf3f35181012510fc148a0
2036 F20101222_AABAOB ferrara_o_Page_174.txt
3d92bd8e3f48471437ed8f9bf1a1a7c7
6522c9a5ffc8b5415848384daef4ec8234922bde
33384 F20101222_AABANN ferrara_o_Page_033.QC.jpg
ae91653dd6a23b05ac2fabc34c854357
c49b34955d28b53498b70ec5a1e5ff00b8f9f437
F20101222_AABBRE ferrara_o_Page_124.tif
75e3f876ea27fa39d71dcc780e8a716d
330fc830680f5f78c121c3a11b68abf3c6aaac22
F20101222_AABBQQ ferrara_o_Page_040.tif
8b71d299afa7795133c0d5aeddcede40
930b30b802f7e46533750542d836b8b681b3f96b
6729 F20101222_AABAMZ ferrara_o_Page_169thm.jpg
ae6a1e502a12593b8144b073778c57a9
3c7b70f5cd716481b7a29503d1263af656e39a8a
2013 F20101222_AABAOC ferrara_o_Page_072.txt
147d1b5d2b931f18890dc393b7208028
9e78f452fa3d8efe26ab78acc55f66fadd93fb1e
7366 F20101222_AABANO ferrara_o_Page_107thm.jpg
51f32ccdf5b25415b5af4fa956036722
dc70987751199a4fcbc587c301b33c0d3082b228
880357 F20101222_AABBRF ferrara_o_Page_018.jp2
8f16eae8d14106b0e942b358ea99cf48
027ecaa8fe3379dc9c843c1f297480650d433461
107734 F20101222_AABBQR ferrara_o_Page_151.jpg
cf63eb4bdec08bbb9b8aa4e7a38f780b
617760b72d41a9b02261e8707c72f72f7f8403c7
F20101222_AABAOD ferrara_o_Page_043.jp2
30a8543d0f6887916c6bc7aef211e025
88478d8f0bacdf580bde53244e1e2d1827544d5b
1051954 F20101222_AABANP ferrara_o_Page_062.jp2
ffeb6738dda7c31462d9d16b19659e7f
27b1ff018442916668ab1512c664df831cf5362c
57003 F20101222_AABBRG ferrara_o_Page_080.pro
eecd0bb03ed78b77803496bebf858d9f
1634b838dd3f223c6ba17faca6a4ca4d7011a5f5
26607 F20101222_AABBQS ferrara_o_Page_158.QC.jpg
fd650c6ec3e7dd135c552c0fcc57e204
84f8635404c04cad69a5b6eff1e21c8879ae0c92
598 F20101222_AABAOE ferrara_o_Page_004.txt
38c2f5908bcb6eafef658e257fae7edf
c346548c827d302b524e9b78ca5acf9665dfa7c4
F20101222_AABANQ ferrara_o_Page_173.jp2
40f05114807116022c0a6136cfc7029d
a04f5c8f78532b51fd9453d4ec67b63dbe5c6c76
8686 F20101222_AABBRH ferrara_o_Page_144thm.jpg
6eec6ce84a95576b3e83b4bcdeab21be
26b19993733d11ef9766b6cf7b244c833fba7d8a
2430 F20101222_AABBQT ferrara_o_Page_176.txt
dc657e1bbb3e0b1cf3caceb18593d09a
c81a642e03b6f1ef256ac30114d6b8d1c4341b49
27323 F20101222_AABAOF ferrara_o_Page_175.QC.jpg
bf7babdd347ccff2f41672187fc51d4f
bb0c254660533698089c81c503853bed68d64ffe
108623 F20101222_AABANR ferrara_o_Page_135.jpg
d4d7b1520e23a526a0a0407cdfcca671
9bdf8b49ec97367499f066f49adc841bfefc0025
53314 F20101222_AABBRI ferrara_o_Page_148.pro
10e2c690e409f6019088abdfbd5ca65c
5f15aca8ad9174e264a9628d1146ad203473a571
F20101222_AABBQU ferrara_o_Page_146.tif
86d84f5ba231d354bad571d17a84c900
f752fe1e9869af3734785705c00840b9e5c01345
114996 F20101222_AABAOG ferrara_o_Page_013.jpg
009e6142a03b23f1bd53662c4714d45f
20ac10ef1e8d2433ca0a6ae53ec38790c9c45b0a
2219 F20101222_AABANS ferrara_o_Page_165.txt
27308d61ff37e124c69476bf212faff7
20b096e0c34c2c3e3230c0108dd702f2a38250ad
33329 F20101222_AABBRJ ferrara_o_Page_038.QC.jpg
1919f97cf97b2e368ef3f503597ae9c6
37bd75041d8361b291eeb5898766682956bab7c5
27119 F20101222_AABAOH ferrara_o_Page_160.QC.jpg
16f22c616cb61cf7bad4264b8e3e254b
72589c372305d1b4f42ff08eedd50e63173f87cb
F20101222_AABBRK ferrara_o_Page_002.tif
169a6ad66bb2921701b3b1fac07f54e7
404479b1e4923b14b8c1b3db116e3a7a64ed491d
9407 F20101222_AABBQV ferrara_o_Page_087thm.jpg
0bcde3356d95f7dbc0558a3647e8b02f
63eb036d322899e3bf01adb54d60b2378a0acf0e
8299 F20101222_AABAOI ferrara_o_Page_033thm.jpg
50330bd184a4b3b12f7615fb76ebcf23
4be334e5a4026059a36dd2a5674b1e43d0c8bc5b
F20101222_AABANT ferrara_o_Page_132.tif
db1115401838596d31b70ea636bea624
8864d1b3e92fa79c6c0ad0a4b42f185a546f0a7e
F20101222_AABBRL ferrara_o_Page_033.tif
24260cb873877e2a7284010dfd531771
41bcb8d2de8d4b26538d40f538bcd2252a67ff0c
F20101222_AABBQW ferrara_o_Page_120.tif
289df329de4bb5e2cbcc772b92544ca4
d84903463190cf03700a68d35f3705e88aaa8f7e
F20101222_AABAOJ ferrara_o_Page_099.jp2
dcd582194bf018eb6b23140e968a7ebc
72d93d8ae5c1748a055ff6442763479eef77de29
F20101222_AABANU ferrara_o_Page_092.tif
9b67aad68b8d04398a6e1ac012a18aff
739987c96bd3e93436ba904cd93ea1352d0ee5e5
8934 F20101222_AABBSA ferrara_o_Page_138thm.jpg
b9403b56e3dcd766a3a22e919634d0b7
60c04b7e3705fc2e80cd03742cebde70a23c084b
1755 F20101222_AABBRM ferrara_o_Page_124.txt
4b19c5ee1fbf966aaa2b74a594dc50f8
123df88322b67b867808798d50b3f9d67f20dc46
610328 F20101222_AABBQX ferrara_o_Page_155.jp2
7c2860fcb78d425a4cda178449c1a61e
7b5a6e8a58c45d6cd5a7598891aa0f935476acbe
982 F20101222_AABAOK ferrara_o_Page_045.txt
a568a6d7bccb6d9f6e66580391886567
96ac6f6b75418757f443ef35e827f8230a0f7997
2211 F20101222_AABANV ferrara_o_Page_056.txt
ab5fee57d23c36bcec1ef62b5a0cbff3
fecce09da99ab0903699e8cccacd26cda42f9c1f
34596 F20101222_AABBSB ferrara_o_Page_132.pro
4887f0961c9619579b3550d00f4d19b1
1d9e419ded27792b765190a77e5bc048091c8030
35282 F20101222_AABBRN ferrara_o_Page_121.pro
62c5abff1984df3e30eaab1ad42fc3db
b1393475ad37744b0cae08e1353c9955ed85da39
F20101222_AABBQY ferrara_o_Page_010.tif
fe87b54cabf69f34730d16ed64e8fb6a
af863aad40852a1ee8c5e248f4aaeab60b539238
42605 F20101222_AABAOL ferrara_o_Page_136.pro
8260d1b0fdf4afdd4870d2f4b679d56f
51f8e0dfe2b1013fc3cd4b344a4e43d969daacc4
59172 F20101222_AABANW ferrara_o_Page_182.jpg
aa0a0cf759aee398245367b6493e2657
bdddf943dd92044847b1c0d9b24012fd54ac74bc
8802 F20101222_AABBSC ferrara_o_Page_077thm.jpg
9281a0302c84f3cdbcaf8e530be48637
a4d8b147a4fd96bc3532281794779e2b61279849
31152 F20101222_AABBRO ferrara_o_Page_123.QC.jpg
27253572bf786cb78bfd588d081a7d81
7cca99571a15c52b34ab9255e123a4de77cc4a99
F20101222_AABBQZ ferrara_o_Page_066.jp2
01e769e0f6952602f27cfad9b7826a5f
7acd08ad82c407315d30e8aaa0745ca5812ab6de
1051948 F20101222_AABAPA ferrara_o_Page_052.jp2
b5d3195a6185f7d50fb61e4967e4943f
6ce356147b3cd3a38fe38f291e98c6b2459e2e2a
66629 F20101222_AABAOM ferrara_o_Page_104.jpg
9cc8cd0a742e6be2be736d1115d2d322
2ec3fecc250bc235de4be027470777e04af735e2
F20101222_AABANX ferrara_o_Page_082.tif
4c5250cfa95cf02c9904ada7ed682ee7
d064eb0ec62581cd5799980ba509fc2bee7448c5
28293 F20101222_AABBSD ferrara_o_Page_023.QC.jpg
adbd082abc79357aef362e44c6907805
08e22d7abd6ce8f88aa74c533135949953fc31b7
1051964 F20101222_AABBRP ferrara_o_Page_164.jp2
0b612f8cd982c29c7780eb689a60c4f6
b80ea529d95f375d36592dd7f43a657d2af3db69
34924 F20101222_AABAPB ferrara_o_Page_022.QC.jpg
2ea5c2dddf8adbc5d142a0eda9d61cd2
78b48fcdab04fc57edb172ef6e9e2a7a3b163a1f
F20101222_AABAON ferrara_o_Page_039.tif
fb9b5428326a3e13d54b18af078716a9
29431b3e0af1fca31b517def56bff461a8d9095a
F20101222_AABANY ferrara_o_Page_001.QC.jpg
9e7d4fd44da929a122ea81c50d7a084f
96eddbb4c00b8f53e3054fe30846181a06f9dd55
1946 F20101222_AABBSE ferrara_o_Page_111.txt
02f692341a9dbc156f137a797385c733
f7571c5c68314e9d288c6602acff93d7168102af
109326 F20101222_AABBRQ ferrara_o_Page_041.jpg
453ccc8e58aa31de80d083c7fcad2c18
b2f7efd8bd5430c245bf5b830f130c9c94fa0102
13947 F20101222_AABAOO ferrara_o_Page_004.pro
60730aab4986869cb2d689b5d8145d7a
99fe651bd95f468ed8144755b149562c1fc56f9f
3327 F20101222_AABANZ ferrara_o_Page_005.txt
0458c4bad61fe0f0311279ef8f9c1848
b26d351e7a7172722b7c48efd1336d9674a8cc5c
F20101222_AABAPC ferrara_o_Page_084.pro
9dfa8fb7e9b43217ed14b41aabee8d35
f25a7950689640470910f62b96ac670e3da875d0
8845 F20101222_AABBSF ferrara_o_Page_040thm.jpg
f197f0609b79d95e3c19a7e446061744
c8ebb7262c70ad86112555b0c840d2f095602a51
F20101222_AABBRR ferrara_o_Page_086.tif
ff8a2a64a1e8d4c7a976ce4c2a1d3335
75f6844c766b63f0da158463821553591f89ce7a
2116 F20101222_AABAOP ferrara_o_Page_090.txt
b8f20a745c135d62ab046e3fd10809af
8191597af8b8bf5b988d20ff969d7df1d83dbf21
34559 F20101222_AABAPD ferrara_o_Page_127.QC.jpg
db83816bfb5badd7fdb6c186b1314aef
8e632c9c5d23bae84c3dc29b4a0f4f4640cef797
36015 F20101222_AABBSG ferrara_o_Page_181.QC.jpg
880644dbfbe9a1bca3526fa5ab05fbfe
a3d113276e231b7b1a7e505db8c6b628c111488a
F20101222_AABBRS ferrara_o_Page_046.jp2
38d76cd80b38ff8fc84f99b14ad11640
4163c6c26bba9e2c6fb2078c0ed9a148725852e9
996539 F20101222_AABAOQ ferrara_o_Page_106.jp2
78445a6ca233cf1168ccfa75497679cf
e2bbb4d908e7f9b9997e3fb13500907bf206a11d
F20101222_AABAPE ferrara_o_Page_181.tif
52c4000b7094364e8af48f89e4ac1d06
09ca0e7ac5f833a91ff01afa79fec0cb0287ecc7
211836 F20101222_AABBSH UFE0022607_00001.mets
d1793e81a8a81e671a5b268e63ec988b
03460f603943729a706910ae0a931cb91d0d2eed
135 F20101222_AABBRT ferrara_o_Page_003.txt
a0680226bcef719be9258d0b22cf5e29
98e7411dd66a33b7daad1ed65402094e3b3bbe05
8113 F20101222_AABAOR ferrara_o_Page_125thm.jpg
c89617c2dc32e7a530985d5cc5a2386f
15e0197d5fd525405906f4a813d24803e09b20ec
F20101222_AABAPF ferrara_o_Page_031.tif
aa328c177d8a6e848668dc4cf853ffe1
cfd4c4be9e53c1118a1117219452bcc60288664d
2091 F20101222_AABBRU ferrara_o_Page_116.txt
e33f45968c2fec812132d362e5afd1c8
9504bb602790aa3855ca23105e484f95547d2098
F20101222_AABAOS ferrara_o_Page_171.tif
62a60849fe3c3e8231bcfe10c5de9b0d
e06c151d4d127ec0cb02463dd7af83026976c7b3
1566 F20101222_AABAPG ferrara_o_Page_035.txt
248567de945433399e18cce09bb5b6cd
de7e1def60fcccc4494ee88cf442b1b329bc0d70
8488 F20101222_AABBRV ferrara_o_Page_015thm.jpg
54ca18c627293f7027bbe8d61b14693a
1eb237f6d0f4e1cf575aaa1b30493a66dc657b6a
F20101222_AABAOT ferrara_o_Page_174.tif
bca5d4c56fea275d512c5f38ffb1d5d6
0fdd4a0de8f8b088bec8612cefd735c1b7da40eb
37591 F20101222_AABAPH ferrara_o_Page_159.pro
b2ba91aa4124c9953f1ca7bed3b90ad2
3123c840ea33e00946d213057adac59139ca6bc1
92994 F20101222_AABBSK ferrara_o_Page_010.jpg
1b6777e20730da9a78d86247a41436fe
d8f80ab510af89eecbc524e1155af9064e5c1f43
375746 F20101222_AABAPI ferrara_o_Page_183.jp2
5eaa24e92f3d20db27845b0bc667f979
94f1f1e2f8cd53e63cba43db995394b75a883ff1
99306 F20101222_AABBSL ferrara_o_Page_015.jpg
697c2b84af46185179d6c3668b85ae8b
0b1c42cd842e7668ed1c94efa23d4e3a8b2c0971
53301 F20101222_AABBRW ferrara_o_Page_089.pro
b1dfd0595ee52625faf7419477640dfe
d47f9e75b93b68a6314093cb174299ae1cea1b63
8481 F20101222_AABAOU ferrara_o_Page_099thm.jpg
0defec0019f412c3913221db3368636b
2104416aaad860ec8fec14ec51202c9e2db21a36
26773 F20101222_AABAPJ ferrara_o_Page_124.QC.jpg
9849741ed4f34bec31bb2fe4fd3b82b9
3eab18d5c005b166fe377aa635dd8c8fe6f9aaf6
100942 F20101222_AABBTA ferrara_o_Page_070.jpg
655ea326690c3befc6ded7dcb9b09c12
64a02f539617374b7a1be53ad14857f3e21a606e
82318 F20101222_AABBSM ferrara_o_Page_018.jpg
0315be85221a3bcfa4a9aae36b459aae
174f114e526ca56ac836c91c295ca3468b7dc96a
F20101222_AABBRX ferrara_o_Page_101.tif
914ed97460917a8c87b0857d95319dc8
9c9f524e0bfe3eed34d529451dd9e737d13cf7f5
1756 F20101222_AABAOV ferrara_o_Page_137.txt
a685f3442c86147c4754dd64e1ca7c2e
8328c18a6636efcdb4660dfb2ae41faf9f2fbf8c
F20101222_AABAPK ferrara_o_Page_075.tif
ffb9dbbefcb4fbfc2af96dbd13055967
35d1a21bf6f49f9104516528afc928b19ce3b8e6
98150 F20101222_AABBTB ferrara_o_Page_073.jpg
c592f97e3ce6cc0c492b9754b22ae2b5
270f675d4966e60f97882da9caf78fa292be1688
111139 F20101222_AABBSN ferrara_o_Page_024.jpg
ee7adb788ad0cc07a8d18cda88d36a3c
a94e3f685a2226421398eebdc7520ec9f32b442f
F20101222_AABBRY ferrara_o_Page_148.tif
1bd4603b8a2007c5ea1e569af431d860
542626c1d57fda59e0f0b505c80c202d9d21ef1c
F20101222_AABAOW ferrara_o_Page_056.tif
ebbb7d96cd1e90e4ff7d6cf577e824d6
38bee274462aa801aa0d0b1863574cac6f08b0e4
94651 F20101222_AABAPL ferrara_o_Page_108.jpg
cfb449de98dc0aa15ed5da3347cc13a8
c1627ace82b3039c4995a1d62f5f023a16479c54
109449 F20101222_AABBTC ferrara_o_Page_077.jpg
a0f4372b423b7de85703bd95cd244b64
3af3cf00262a523bbd829bb7e59393f75aac79e3
96379 F20101222_AABBSO ferrara_o_Page_025.jpg
02c5a7a6ac807fe0c706d3ce4d1bfcbb
307b63d04dd4c7ecec55374a097fc31a566ae8e1
37755 F20101222_AABBRZ ferrara_o_Page_137.pro
635255b93087e496e6888dac94e4aa9c
e7dd053597a4da464a6756e64c579aeaf422140d
8031 F20101222_AABAOX ferrara_o_Page_157thm.jpg
84b1cc6b4921b2f79373acb3dbda879c
febed1a71cd26a173896f4fbc6a944d992ad1268
F20101222_AABAQA ferrara_o_Page_167.jp2
4b45ef89690a98093a2d2d4e41385976
8a539cb9f796ad86ccb44096173605359d73f44c
28588 F20101222_AABAPM ferrara_o_Page_110.pro
3ac4b638cf1db3a0fac97ae956149b11
39a8838bd1604309e460d5a2b70a4e7e2f6d5802
111711 F20101222_AABBTD ferrara_o_Page_078.jpg
46ba87b2f572d6bec0851820ac6d4d57
06a5190b22790232dfffb2e940f824e656dc1163
110858 F20101222_AABBSP ferrara_o_Page_027.jpg
f48766ccc4635bafdf496c6f8c196c7d
5767017cfcaba51e8baa2776081e1481c404719e
53194 F20101222_AABAOY ferrara_o_Page_102.pro
649845c30590d9791eba400c1d0c6db5
72d916cabb22d73561b0a45b324dcd56cead60ee
8896 F20101222_AABAQB ferrara_o_Page_114thm.jpg
8ea8e1414cc9ffaaa5f2145c9b88ba34
a8d2a247b270c713291b03ff11df6cc7742c225e
F20101222_AABAPN ferrara_o_Page_062.tif
ec7e72ad90288b292f0c82bc4b13f326
04760564a6575463064a2ce209b20b1b92b1a63f
111769 F20101222_AABBTE ferrara_o_Page_082.jpg
b7524f9d6c0c7e8e775c8bf56fcfb1c1
68b6b75dba90554d41a8d4891890ec68fd7379e5
109941 F20101222_AABBSQ ferrara_o_Page_036.jpg
736e98a631d44b33e1f0de21774ca5fc
c1178d822d55a82c8778ebf27270734b20ad34dc
F20101222_AABAOZ ferrara_o_Page_014.tif
ad2025eb7ba96675e978ead9e60110aa
8e38d43c10360c97759a7afbc47f9cece0272461
329225 F20101222_AABAQC ferrara_o_Page_004.jp2
5a9d9feb2742adb42b33d4153e3890c5
01e5690da604ae6c0dbf0a6566810c45cb05eae0
35942 F20101222_AABAPO ferrara_o_Page_083.QC.jpg
e7e544d8941c7e1ad3134ed16162d1c8
d94b773ed9d3d326a11d51045e4cad2b46191371
106499 F20101222_AABBTF ferrara_o_Page_085.jpg
1dd068bc06dfd059788bf60130277c37
99cedb256c8f23958b65d60448d5f3dbe6919fdb
106762 F20101222_AABBSR ferrara_o_Page_039.jpg
e20e810266d228c59a9b04f0cc6e0ff2
ef7e931212c88746f9cb293180078ccd6bde5119
37510 F20101222_AABAQD ferrara_o_Page_142.QC.jpg
e33b0226721c4653ac47e0efd00fb2b4
953f106c30139f612b6e90beed91d50a689462a1
30059 F20101222_AABAPP ferrara_o_Page_109.QC.jpg
84a0341961944f10e61db831924c31a6
c4ec3e1bb1c06a009d8948a6cdaea08b50fd46c0
107334 F20101222_AABBTG ferrara_o_Page_086.jpg
040fa3d8be54f202ac9a6eeaa3ccd105
e52d544388df77e71eb172172eb12efddbe2d3ea
108113 F20101222_AABBSS ferrara_o_Page_043.jpg
e430ea569e876e70bcc4d934571faad5
2dd64e5a2f8c3aa693bdc96d2fead1f28b8673f8
8604 F20101222_AABAQE ferrara_o_Page_141thm.jpg
2a33f7667fc3c06129548f712c9a930f
d2bfbc415368cc9be04b8ff99002b9e5fa22acd6
6137 F20101222_AABAPQ ferrara_o_Page_003.jpg
53d097aa7eac4298120edb13e3a5aca8
67f62a52974f416f7624e8fd7f8230e8f536d967
114124 F20101222_AABBTH ferrara_o_Page_087.jpg
b0de26dd8f17f9ed60919248475e88d8
3514bb5838331ef1ff02bef511bb8eafdb934b88
104886 F20101222_AABBST ferrara_o_Page_049.jpg
fbdc6b2e767748c5825d69bf06d954e2
17f5f554b6d237d50889cbd521394b8a2d91f744
36856 F20101222_AABAQF ferrara_o_Page_066.QC.jpg
c8efd81b2cc7e692785d7f9b99417d47
40a3ca2e6327b0fe2cad00f150110f4f1bdc13a4
32590 F20101222_AABAPR ferrara_o_Page_163.QC.jpg
1b6fc7822eab2a0167d1fd42ca769d69
e54d16fd57957704ff61f192eba63f9b9cfd2523
107274 F20101222_AABBTI ferrara_o_Page_091.jpg
559d2b0fd04fd668c574945340785bfb
7fdd2faed14bf5146ded3c26aac9ac1176c1df33
102074 F20101222_AABBSU ferrara_o_Page_052.jpg
33f8082221f078fe27cbee70c13e0a43
c0c65f7a8439a8445da24f3b4606ef0e4052979b
27455 F20101222_AABAQG ferrara_o_Page_057.QC.jpg
3f0b80d6c23b56b5da4c861616bcd42b
ade247576634d2c8032628e8a8c9bb01343a843e
F20101222_AABAPS ferrara_o_Page_008.jp2
f81b1da4d467309ed98bc5c9e450701f
5f849cea7670058170295c4c94fba52514fb9fa8
105671 F20101222_AABBTJ ferrara_o_Page_093.jpg
b576c11e8f8a4a1f5e82743f2e59ad4f
bcfbcc95d91aa157c974d0f916a858f8eb125a9c
95944 F20101222_AABBSV ferrara_o_Page_054.jpg
fa1460fdf911363cf44eab9cbe9a896e
764ee4626e722106f4c7588bce4ed81e1df8ef5d
1051902 F20101222_AABAQH ferrara_o_Page_078.jp2
9ecc9a6f4bff978271a67e7ab16b3a3e
699e4f5942f2752788bc5e869468744056f88534
8388 F20101222_AABAPT ferrara_o_Page_072thm.jpg
2fe58dfc8bd1d33a5450340ed058bb42
8e6b5c96b2e00f9cf416eb7fb3f35b966db48bfc
106783 F20101222_AABBTK ferrara_o_Page_099.jpg
27563a3aa9767a50965eb33885542c6e
1ad6e77951f9adbe6020872596233ccb183749ac
109112 F20101222_AABBSW ferrara_o_Page_059.jpg
af3bd3dcc5eb7293fd02ada58fba343e
898c730743d4baf8987a05ed729095244af2bd35
959117 F20101222_AABAQI ferrara_o_Page_140.jp2
898f4d88e48472731e2dd70ff9809966
aaad9d6e4497155f5102b24b68a644c36b0d2bd9
104262 F20101222_AABAPU ferrara_o_Page_012.jpg
e90ee206e71f0a7f42d672d9244121b5
ca316990ff3f3f9be38337f6204bbbb40d9f11d3
106768 F20101222_AABBTL ferrara_o_Page_101.jpg
962ba5e60976bea6671d783fea7ff740
a146778038c40a8050a513de7ab0e540854c7a8f
F20101222_AABAQJ ferrara_o_Page_092.txt
9c0f1fddf819b84e91d0847155d58057
41c063c07765a4c5e09d464b892efcbaa646596b
125417 F20101222_AABBUA ferrara_o_Page_152.jpg
d0d9eddb274ff184bd75425440dd7594
50278cf9d5f69605ffa8bf18e0f31dd7bf58c66b
105754 F20101222_AABBTM ferrara_o_Page_102.jpg
232e9878e7860a02e3e7fd7920332146
2cbd97e0ba3ed576d165eb793e5ebebeb1a9bc9d
85550 F20101222_AABBSX ferrara_o_Page_060.jpg
9df87d3a9a63b7cbe2c3193b3b6a4e56
e44e0aeb051a0ee3b1f53065b196c5d6ee4bba4b
6224 F20101222_AABAQK ferrara_o_Page_158thm.jpg
12a453dd52c6113668197f9a76c969e1
31e3f2d8426b81f89eaff549209208ebcb73fddd
F20101222_AABAPV ferrara_o_Page_150.tif
1fda64e20408a2660df5df7a9b6519fb
5876892b618fe388b3887a380f1357d026ec7933
95781 F20101222_AABBUB ferrara_o_Page_153.jpg
60b8d80fc250168a41c9c1f4bcb4f4df
81f3e20e3d3f39c4623742edd00420e578c9c854
89368 F20101222_AABBTN ferrara_o_Page_107.jpg
6dfaf795b71dfd57fcfba62d0752ed5d
e47651325009a52a95985c25826e31657bb50c9f
84697 F20101222_AABBSY ferrara_o_Page_064.jpg
8e81ca3effda8121b2c1d08a61b5b064
ce1cd75b2441e758e2118fe6bb75a2854c617b13
9700 F20101222_AABAQL ferrara_o_Page_009thm.jpg
e87dc69697b09cc82407c5289d49f43e
f1cdc6393267dcd9d5dfee7de1c2571fe97c1ce8
110527 F20101222_AABAPW ferrara_o_Page_126.jpg
93cf3b74401c3655f376fc056b06c456
64689686bfc27b271c0d39f3c271b448f5003de7
63988 F20101222_AABBUC ferrara_o_Page_154.jpg
292133b2a6cc80c3671ba0484c77b6e2
c44af69117479d4f848372b02fc47816cdd5acdf
92369 F20101222_AABBTO ferrara_o_Page_109.jpg
4de2c6eb1f1109f89dff5e19a81f70db
5477baf6941b78951bcf46263b7f21190ee0172f
113993 F20101222_AABBSZ ferrara_o_Page_066.jpg
544347dc5bb7ec5b725843cd6222ea4f
3975ddcf50dc6f1e9050c28ddacbdd20637bc92f
85079 F20101222_AABARA ferrara_o_Page_011.jpg
4319b9e8c39cf0ca7f7d230d682ef098
ef1988d85d265e81bd718c05ec8cccd5c04ffec3
F20101222_AABAQM ferrara_o_Page_080.tif
1b95521ecdcff0c35be2a33e6b1b9fad
3917d34948ee6c79e958ac1968ec543033263375
F20101222_AABAPX ferrara_o_Page_172.tif
13e9bd7c8b83e1082fe414d196048071
6ad5633a621e73062f92c097e0da7271a0bfcc5d
80775 F20101222_AABBUD ferrara_o_Page_161.jpg
ffc466c6ea0e554a7fd1bbe8e43f1f2d
efec89057845903aea729f707ea9e6441621aa4d
108430 F20101222_AABBTP ferrara_o_Page_114.jpg
598e46d092e82a5f928e06a368c45919
07694647a9eee364b0049ebb855262c78eca5c96
2070 F20101222_AABARB ferrara_o_Page_067.txt
d6332add6e88ccdaa6ad90921d1691d4
2079ac802b24b93deb16b5eb8b4ccc1fd0012be7
36227 F20101222_AABAQN ferrara_o_Page_040.QC.jpg
5168d574f8fd15cc56db87fb2f0798ab
86e10444e73910440cd343561ffbe8dd8853257a
F20101222_AABAPY ferrara_o_Page_163.tif
98d53c85b1eb96ea8b84dc6ef57f364c
bdcd5b3bb65a2c74a9833b448e53109b3daae7d2
113026 F20101222_AABBUE ferrara_o_Page_164.jpg
4412d63735586ffb203f4e14bed9ad47
c907cb05c79f4685fbf434144b8f8f6f132104f8
106381 F20101222_AABBTQ ferrara_o_Page_116.jpg
8e6c06ba73f435069fd61490eeb875d8
b8ff3754a197bf19e93dbb058ab0bde74416c746
F20101222_AABARC ferrara_o_Page_174.jp2
6656c8aaec583a5fe742b29be3051fc4
d991361e05a2b265b2e6116d5f810b636e2db8a2
97282 F20101222_AABAQO ferrara_o_Page_131.jpg
ddde077273e7fdf8740dca84c0e8e791
020df998fa80f332f73d55b7175ee292c7f9f394
52400 F20101222_AABAPZ ferrara_o_Page_098.pro
d9320fbefcc2363098dfb008ec7d789d
ff9f2769bf7789dcd83035edc14b93a9c6267b3f
51101 F20101222_AABCAA ferrara_o_Page_096.pro
32c155b10471456f9e13df2c5ddc2a41
10fa341f775c4c8f54970dcdea72e062695deab9
95680 F20101222_AABBUF ferrara_o_Page_167.jpg
502165bb3452b3ecf4b8c98d627ddf0a
3854adbecacf7bfafbd50c8656ee60299228f1d2
99622 F20101222_AABBTR ferrara_o_Page_117.jpg
8a9235ceb18bbafb5b6850ff935e580f
2ae296445a4b2227cc46f12f914af162b9509b09
861984 F20101222_AABARD ferrara_o_Page_124.jp2
e91b2181d51270467854fc8be48a4ad4
1660582abffa012b36863c4a0d5a90bfbf3958cc
F20101222_AABAQP ferrara_o_Page_060.tif
7b5ac2a1e7c8e50c1f95c527cbe9a94c
b4989bd498afc20089169a30f38bdaacd8ede085
50830 F20101222_AABCAB ferrara_o_Page_097.pro
f13b7094e6452c6aed252bd3eb116a86
d9eba9e3e88b6c33c78c8980f984d25c77c0aed8
105700 F20101222_AABBUG ferrara_o_Page_172.jpg
2d0ed908d2d4e6e9f27f73aef87e958f
7c19d070369487b873b7bdcd5bbb70131bad3e95
83246 F20101222_AABBTS ferrara_o_Page_118.jpg
855b0834e17d1869383e16943cecefe2
e3962a2e26c16e0a7ca4ee6faf3fdd6ec9de251b
36875 F20101222_AABARE ferrara_o_Page_031.jpg
1dff033fa1c185a03cc7a61fea018615
894d4793a49be9dae5faa106c4b2097f5efe9992
96090 F20101222_AABAQQ ferrara_o_Page_158.jpg
23c7ce9d8da18b3762a696ec5289ca6b
11e3746838c1f59078a3bbc776c0e75663657813
55095 F20101222_AABCAC ferrara_o_Page_099.pro
746f0eb01dee2e1c8c53290bdab2072d
5100b5ecb470ed105645f7e5671d8ca46dd443e9
123853 F20101222_AABBUH ferrara_o_Page_180.jpg
367b7582f7867b5fe795f3c5acec52ba
4fa0cefb7003f88a2d335daa22312af96ce98b07
112932 F20101222_AABBTT ferrara_o_Page_120.jpg
abc0592cec7613474fcbe54ee1f419ed
ac37f9509bc6a5292c577b23d40f8144bd9aa1aa
8610 F20101222_AABARF ferrara_o_Page_096thm.jpg
c113a55972d864a9d16dbabcbb073d3c
1f60cf2e5b2c0cd14d978ca5eaf24a4f5ec57e9b
F20101222_AABAQR ferrara_o_Page_162.tif
bba2f3c91e178c3d7c3b6109fb34fe5f
191d1a5eb4b7c9e6f4692d42189e36cc105feec9
48588 F20101222_AABCAD ferrara_o_Page_103.pro
be39c45d4eb7983546848d36119190ff
0efd285238fef49ccbf66a5992f9f3ef05119e9a
131026 F20101222_AABBUI ferrara_o_Page_181.jpg
c4ff546c87b4b7150e484d1dfc1e2fe6
553ed58653f863353bd956547f764579363e1ca6
82058 F20101222_AABBTU ferrara_o_Page_124.jpg
a28936740c78502932960ffdb1f571e3
f2b079abe3c5c7eae9c8bfd9e66d7e7eb747d39e
807093 F20101222_AABARG ferrara_o_Page_067.jp2
9ac27d735f0b942360b23a47a1174beb
90214e4ad241a4cd39b587b60c0e969f2800d757
1051931 F20101222_AABAQS ferrara_o_Page_007.jp2
004287b71e5987cc4aa038213df1a28d
6ca07601d5f1cb0cccc795c42e95cd1ef6a3e1b5
23686 F20101222_AABBUJ ferrara_o_Page_002.jp2
cdfefd941f5f4469617319359c0fed9b
80862411e20a934a28e447b55af269d8995c216c
98260 F20101222_AABBTV ferrara_o_Page_129.jpg
2bf199ff085729f2f68c6efd1623c1e2
219f4441916b5480255965f25b36289c866a6340
2104 F20101222_AABARH ferrara_o_Page_096.txt
086b7857728df61e27788e16a95315ff
aff47d020464863a816b0686bb02578ee1ff92f0
26534 F20101222_AABAQT ferrara_o_Page_170.QC.jpg
cbf905acb1442601be28cf1cb01e6be4
fb2da6c5f64d2bfd70711847f7e850586d08356a
42516 F20101222_AABCAE ferrara_o_Page_107.pro
e726e01ed0ab9fd132561b5f9d5e8d51
015be96f06c83c70dc7905038ebaf5fa020a8edf
1001352 F20101222_AABBUK ferrara_o_Page_010.jp2
4fbc0fc1ff78a90ba1259afdbea302c9
d4b9abef2eac50653365ffc656f97b28ae379f1d
110380 F20101222_AABBTW ferrara_o_Page_138.jpg
499403f4eb617e3a07b8b747e8821074
ced28ca73b980732b98e1dcfe5b338de99a4c772
117208 F20101222_AABARI ferrara_o_Page_178.jpg
aa2d95fa61c080bddb39367f36f4359f
c5735396f137a0a9f1990a2d524260ce74823f63
1051953 F20101222_AABAQU ferrara_o_Page_026.jp2
fe42bc1018d4f79c251b5b06e90baba0
2f6468755874f762dbdde81fd42cf8764d5840c3
47608 F20101222_AABCAF ferrara_o_Page_111.pro
a66367e7c036a71e87bfa7005a724faf
06b38fa4cc4e16352173de1ccb13967e4d47b913
1051962 F20101222_AABBUL ferrara_o_Page_012.jp2
50c22c8b296dcfabdff7212b1cd74db9
837eba1f50bae618bbdf3181c731efc3968585b8
92343 F20101222_AABBTX ferrara_o_Page_140.jpg
9161f38c976a03e597e4dfa3ca68c3f6
cd05271302e4d2797f7d99302ea9aaaa56447e89
20683 F20101222_AABARJ ferrara_o_Page_154.QC.jpg
ebdfbbd818fe755d20e08ea4ae860244
3a96d6180a96639d376dee82978cbc55cc7ef326
122893 F20101222_AABAQV ferrara_o_Page_165.jpg
c761b0be4ac799a73f06edda01bc6f2e
3fbe738cf2e874e4a38869403576aa9d2212f546
51639 F20101222_AABCAG ferrara_o_Page_112.pro
9ff5cd16735e1c53a90b1b49bfccb693
25fc2b770ed6f89277cc14f970928d1185ecd278
950854 F20101222_AABBVA ferrara_o_Page_068.jp2
dad55dae9b5875ac658ea3adcd84fced
e7b0a73d8948593abf96b526c69c638d82cab604
1051932 F20101222_AABBUM ferrara_o_Page_019.jp2
6e3eff0ed2cafc24e15075013b87b354
fd15b59388c7d18263744ab474a4fdbd97b8c86f
F20101222_AABARK ferrara_o_Page_153.jp2
4d100e3ed8a031f41a1608924d69b0c9
2170981d6abf34e97ea3a3da595ccbec86a492a1
54309 F20101222_AABCAH ferrara_o_Page_114.pro
421825276f98e1b024ac59666424460f
5c0a88a6b743389aeaa6d5b89b92feec4f8fbaac
F20101222_AABBVB ferrara_o_Page_070.jp2
9bce12deb610b959e4c88b45f833f269
14f932de2390be97a4773295f8b4e3acdc6f2a35
F20101222_AABBUN ferrara_o_Page_020.jp2
003c9d8231d1c64bdc516e10e34d1e68
e0c85efdb05e5448845f1e1f38323c9b27ab400b
117607 F20101222_AABBTY ferrara_o_Page_142.jpg
17a952f97157f771c807842d7f49c183
ef0d5894e6d57434383d6bd742fabba0f7c03c9a
F20101222_AABARL ferrara_o_Page_143.jp2
2f2e4c08a8efafbf1fd62094ad85ada3
ed209e2413b11d11831b096483c99d68dda46fdc
2169 F20101222_AABAQW ferrara_o_Page_082.txt
47f75d2debc16b176e54dd6b1bd6f8ab
bc437f757f529298e356f55c59059734cbd061f7
54024 F20101222_AABCAI ferrara_o_Page_119.pro
d61b13ca558ed8a7896fe3977080c34a
8373fc5064a23934b7915fd92acc2d23bd244af0
F20101222_AABBVC ferrara_o_Page_075.jp2
d19df97bbaea701d45bee680e12156b1
f0acc5f2590a64bdce6987af1a97afcb6b20ec91
F20101222_AABBUO ferrara_o_Page_021.jp2
72bf867839f37f0370c013dc85280381
d921159bb2d865162d03de323fa1fc93c8ec6efe
108046 F20101222_AABBTZ ferrara_o_Page_148.jpg
e62c66a390be07cf15329a4d9b60d31a
66c332d83f440e68ccc3616d53966ed0400fedea
8672 F20101222_AABARM ferrara_o_Page_059thm.jpg
5fbb0d79d000ad582061a418455d1617
9078d21fc4ba3e7ac36e124c2126ca10ddd4621b
917269 F20101222_AABAQX ferrara_o_Page_064.jp2
1fa00ef054ad156e01c0dbabc3e4677b
54e26b262b4de58a93b68674d634f5ee330e0c16
8620 F20101222_AABASA ferrara_o_Page_146thm.jpg
bc55ba7c1d90de3bfce7fd44f298c927
acfc94f5402d120f8238fbfd46924f8572620c82
48149 F20101222_AABCAJ ferrara_o_Page_125.pro
8c0abdb68c27bdbf445848adb290365b
df5e1c99268d32ad4ed502437fa49e44aef21d7c
F20101222_AABBVD ferrara_o_Page_086.jp2
fa6e2185b109f92acd8c82d1f6f55fb8
b7b98bc4f7defe4878227aac167f20cd97775ddb
1051857 F20101222_AABBUP ferrara_o_Page_022.jp2
34037ae719c3572ca864533fd0867cce
580dba15035977cd4f4af3a93499561255a4976a
50971 F20101222_AABARN ferrara_o_Page_072.pro
26b138e6e03ae2b8a55d2eb422022202
15c89708b311b06fdce09a41ab2275ff61ca0491
108869 F20101222_AABAQY ferrara_o_Page_006.jpg
3b212726e56e7c17d7a9caade18fd689
d6eb3bab8e5155fa058d675f7e98c9fda0234c73
95909 F20101222_AABASB ferrara_o_Page_136.jpg
ba7239ed3a867f8a151eab0d48a17bc4
2ad196b64aecda0ec10410369770287859c49456
53603 F20101222_AABCAK ferrara_o_Page_126.pro
952e426f800820acc7c4038573bfe1d1
1ca1898b323b58df3053cb318b42ca131c58f9a6
F20101222_AABBVE ferrara_o_Page_088.jp2
442646836d70403433036a8b963c3c90
20b1e8b3f72c2f1b1e4693c6890689dc141d0db2
1051942 F20101222_AABBUQ ferrara_o_Page_024.jp2
c3d4fe613fa5b5391a1d2afcbc24be14
d5d97dfc8ddbaf137b548060824c8ee7a65f66cb
109680 F20101222_AABARO ferrara_o_Page_079.jpg
26028bb9af608695c6213ec2d0b34e14
b5405cdabf5923ac8ff66db480632494fbb82d7f
658 F20101222_AABAQZ ferrara_o_Page_051.txt
219608923181d4e9fc64160c03f690f7
9b03cfa6e748d82b49593d6ba34e7b6e4384fc18
2181 F20101222_AABASC ferrara_o_Page_020.txt
fcd77510da79b1cd56933d9f8940c7fd
5b1270e4169f26b22a3784625bf62e5ca4b61a4e
60261 F20101222_AABCBA ferrara_o_Page_163.pro
afd22aa9c0ed088aaa69213676c73a04
c2a703d40fa8f9605897b93796f2598ff26ebe54
51966 F20101222_AABCAL ferrara_o_Page_127.pro
3e1f96333c17a753ffe6b83347773590
2e9d174483cfcffe2dbc552a16c28c71e9ea138e
F20101222_AABBVF ferrara_o_Page_089.jp2
0f7bf9dd90ca9203ee75e72d64c462fc
a9cb8a2e684082ed470f4df567644ba4fe6d093f
F20101222_AABBUR ferrara_o_Page_028.jp2
c559d96b28f585b3889c63b0944908b0
0ba1448f3dac3a1a547bbb46ba4bbe011d421404
686 F20101222_AABARP ferrara_o_Page_031.txt
655a296845acb9e92eccc8b775b5cd50
b9b1b14b345a3d17d34a635b778718e76fec35cc
21356 F20101222_AABASD ferrara_o_Page_104.QC.jpg
429a0ddb9a5e431f4d2746d6242cb76c
3e7df0ccdd7af253275c2f98128d86d22b21d002
57764 F20101222_AABCBB ferrara_o_Page_164.pro
f2828f60de583756c07b8944d8ccba98
ea2d2fa209313057d69922c0ae4ba4ec1ab7df90
36184 F20101222_AABCAM ferrara_o_Page_130.pro
b435fbe316d8697a4b01d2de2bb2ce43
e1d981364c3c831487380e3f69802fd99abfa05a
1046188 F20101222_AABBVG ferrara_o_Page_092.jp2
208bbf3e0fb564b5c633107fe256e71d
583855ac99230a4773604079cfcee1fb90d24821
1051944 F20101222_AABBUS ferrara_o_Page_030.jp2
24bef1a9cbbb264e1d6b4ba84da109d0
d6da43623c1e676ede284ce5efa33c529284920c
35926 F20101222_AABARQ ferrara_o_Page_075.QC.jpg
c84a330f19a9e1ee945acc32e1776e0b
ec3be11423ad349eee674d9bae5ca0d64423524f
34743 F20101222_AABASE ferrara_o_Page_044.QC.jpg
37b9d9bf6e2236410b7214863a31f871
a8ff1220e7cf101f313d759c62d9599e17d79137
55036 F20101222_AABCBC ferrara_o_Page_165.pro
9a6343543e1dc15556515b526d0114cc
d3e213ddfe2ef6b5fc2b1d3a23a1a05d413fa05c
40406 F20101222_AABCAN ferrara_o_Page_131.pro
c8b456428031cd467c223bd0b29da5a0
47e534212d934be1f261b03392f74a7e3e20b050
F20101222_AABBVH ferrara_o_Page_095.jp2
8731efe15be1693bfbe6a5f840d96969
50de1f51183d45f67c3e468cbf7c5be5a12b28e7
F20101222_AABBUT ferrara_o_Page_034.jp2
1c64d0d0935af75249dbe859334cef0c
5570bea4bf2d89ff2e5160c465913bcfa70b6c76
24154 F20101222_AABARR ferrara_o_Page_182.pro
f5083c6b7e81d1d678c1712052e52210
46ffad46cf4cc2a67add355dceca14ce9f857d85
F20101222_AABASF ferrara_o_Page_022.tif
ef42be5aaa02d44b3736b1ea42913136
2d086f0151e0ca4c60a0d9355dc6ea8bdb8959c7
54869 F20101222_AABCBD ferrara_o_Page_166.pro
c7b80969c1a17dde7e31df98ca20a122
6c1e7a0f5274af8646b9a0cacda2d5b4b3bd2a2e
36115 F20101222_AABCAO ferrara_o_Page_134.pro
df84834e2e2b614b1cebbac16f16f3cc
8be74013008145d937bac2501d87c915288e30e0
F20101222_AABBVI ferrara_o_Page_100.jp2
27379d8f9466146023e511e998cf35f3
9c3c1a7f0cfcd19cf9f3b52af49c137bb9f92f60
706197 F20101222_AABBUU ferrara_o_Page_037.jp2
68909cc8c98b9ab640541d63bf48cf5b
df7d78b8c9a73535164bb53e4f6fc43ab09156b3
F20101222_AABARS ferrara_o_Page_079.jp2
d09fae4cb57040064aedff0f8c022c89
10d1eb6b1e05fbae2bec22946c936ee0b4a18f37
F20101222_AABASG ferrara_o_Page_126.jp2
3bdbc60f52855ce173fc2b45b7ec2654
be292f332f8baaad65a2774d0355991f432d94e1
43568 F20101222_AABCBE ferrara_o_Page_169.pro
aa4c5abe0265f6d2a50d3cf6fb6a0ff5
d11e6924b8681b22449b40a14596819b7ce69a5d
44888 F20101222_AABCAP ferrara_o_Page_140.pro
c5aa362a14b5dc3b16caa7e69f4b78ca
2f79ffb45f0631ec85f76679e0db624ec13cb062
F20101222_AABBVJ ferrara_o_Page_101.jp2
28ff5291b085491e174de577f0d2b85e
b46613f0cfa409a40453d4800de0cd1cd6da52c8
F20101222_AABBUV ferrara_o_Page_039.jp2
23b9e56bbc80350c78c4e9830f54b00f
a698b78cad58fd8f1765c744bad445e609535a4d
36190 F20101222_AABART ferrara_o_Page_082.QC.jpg
d674dc407fc42f4f89542a13a929a052
1b5987ee9beae563dd9abd3933467fad3563d109
32301 F20101222_AABASH ferrara_o_Page_141.QC.jpg
613106953d93bb540460324a37d0e75c
f8b29862d58807986906764f4bf386cfda583b4a
35106 F20101222_AABCAQ ferrara_o_Page_141.pro
6fcf023af20b594d7cd654af1dbe64f4
8baa3001beeeab2fadc041c5009ef9b902e50d6b
949062 F20101222_AABBVK ferrara_o_Page_105.jp2
ba7f729a90394e355d99c76cb2e043fd
d53b8dc217fcf6c32fdc929ce3f0023f303b7c12
1051984 F20101222_AABBUW ferrara_o_Page_041.jp2
bdd89d64ecda2c22c5c84d862431b0ce
3f4cb04c07b289e1d298b505cd04006c9a40bf46
8655 F20101222_AABARU ferrara_o_Page_029thm.jpg
699e5be2be7cabf7a5583ba59e0f43a7
b0ee426d199fb4c7f667e655aa41d2d60b45c5ce
52534 F20101222_AABASI ferrara_o_Page_174.pro
7cb00f9cee9869a6b1de1c165fd86bb4
64ffce2421c8314af6be1de52006f3fda631c34a
39907 F20101222_AABCBF ferrara_o_Page_170.pro
0d46d69914b0829180702346972090a7
b05abde04e0c1aa190c7722dd47996fe106810ee
59642 F20101222_AABCAR ferrara_o_Page_142.pro
7b3aad7c3ca6b1cc435ec2736d6be450
1f99f7fa8c8b049e06b0ddc1a7753f643cc2bee0
950348 F20101222_AABBVL ferrara_o_Page_107.jp2
6fc599aee95130a853d9c85ecf2a36ba
ea7f39aba350a8d968f26a21870aaf8b3cfcf01d
F20101222_AABBUX ferrara_o_Page_050.jp2
68b7106e412a6cc96903902b6110935f
0e7b3f6c76aabb799ad652a7e2b25b68760845c2
F20101222_AABARV ferrara_o_Page_122thm.jpg
b84cd6002e2c9f2a856c7aca121ad233
799af3d9de4fa6ea0f6a2c47533f1cbdcd9e113e
56374 F20101222_AABASJ ferrara_o_Page_056.pro
509958d82a33e450b9ef2b862160596f
b7f32839cbcc90078682f631b556e2deeb2366dc
44329 F20101222_AABCBG ferrara_o_Page_171.pro
b470b9365612505a21dd93b79d03a05b
23f07c79a61abb2ada5a2504c14ad4a2db9edab6
38861 F20101222_AABCAS ferrara_o_Page_143.pro
acdcc2205a27f8d41312b92663678727
0e32727ffecb7f23200de1a965d0c1c991c0f7bd
673233 F20101222_AABBWA ferrara_o_Page_154.jp2
50a78a9ee8cbd8b843c5454c17fa2c1f
616675897c8be63dc204415b74e96634bc8f9571
F20101222_AABBVM ferrara_o_Page_112.jp2
5d28a3696d6a455a638fbbb2885cf8b3
c015eccb01d94b6608e6c14b5895c11a89adf902
656556 F20101222_AABBUY ferrara_o_Page_051.jp2
115d0710306c12e5e2a6b1273393f006
0d4e4f3064841d235e1c6a564e066e07c15060f7
6428 F20101222_AABARW ferrara_o_Page_173thm.jpg
6a13a672791e3fc8fdb35666f1086e46
5cf0a55714be2db60e33a7f64f1e7facea90dd4d
F20101222_AABASK ferrara_o_Page_033.txt
5d6108bf06a1de7ec2bd01e7b897239f
4b37b602d5efb3b2dda2166ca6ab13e5fa899016
59165 F20101222_AABCBH ferrara_o_Page_176.pro
e012640dd0101c7565721592581ba5d8
8922bba8bd8deb046666e0e714f3035bdd65d024
48380 F20101222_AABCAT ferrara_o_Page_145.pro
6264ac314a7e396dc91244075dd8e68b
9cf2eb9cf164381c8b737fc75ce3234935070f43
1051858 F20101222_AABBWB ferrara_o_Page_157.jp2
0282560db7781bede3fa0fbb3a47f6e6
07888f034803065990d82e62cea7c8bfb35c8000
1046048 F20101222_AABBVN ferrara_o_Page_113.jp2
dd88dccbcf6c4eb447b6b4507e896c14
91b183a1e6e51ac7ac33c0877d062b58df2f1273
F20101222_AABASL ferrara_o_Page_125.jp2
6fc83d0bed7dd8ae4dd5f564e16ae3fc
2248ea5a89ee2896f94e12b0e2f6fb710968cc38
16068 F20101222_AABCBI ferrara_o_Page_183.pro
f6bc281ee0c9baf36168ef2f5c32005b
2803d57e32b17640080e6893009b8d928a18ba7a
55318 F20101222_AABCAU ferrara_o_Page_150.pro
864cd091381c5f09dec4b7aa40b46cf5
172cd8615ab21eb7d9d1346270d21c983b9606d4
F20101222_AABBWC ferrara_o_Page_158.jp2
cac10757a7987473a09fdc3d0d49339f
dde76405933aa2675bb1a8d2a64993062269b959
1051918 F20101222_AABBVO ferrara_o_Page_115.jp2
59df382565054826dbfaa7a2c0529f85
0299c8375eea7baa07b05ac190eb24d629fb3dc6
957942 F20101222_AABBUZ ferrara_o_Page_065.jp2
e6f254f0c2c3ffd738c154e1ec14a8a5
067927e533767d83f4b6379b00185859dee2a76c
112332 F20101222_AABARX ferrara_o_Page_022.jpg
5539215bec64a8679df54aff544a6beb
2c85b92740fec3b5869e0875250131fc2430ea4f
2145 F20101222_AABATA ferrara_o_Page_079.txt
5381fb908baa2f8a2c9990e69a8ef6f6
81e03ebe3188e04fdfc79d3dd38a83769dec80b7
31121 F20101222_AABASM ferrara_o_Page_023.pro
ac04541161e824b0fa56d09f169022d5
361528b095a314d249c7d73be301e7c940da30d4
481 F20101222_AABCBJ ferrara_o_Page_001.txt
9181abbec8eb490d76c71bf8edc2a4a6
b76c7aceb4be9477bb97637a31a846f591db6506
72045 F20101222_AABCAV ferrara_o_Page_152.pro
c0843ee17baf5960993f8753a7dd3878
be717ffdaa794c23a260386d7dba9eb1159b187c
941568 F20101222_AABBWD ferrara_o_Page_159.jp2
3fbc6263bb7bc95faa56f14c1eec1779
0b9c955563a49179b0f853030345b0e4c8c8b739
F20101222_AABBVP ferrara_o_Page_116.jp2
1c1b979c8e6614d1e0e657427f476402
a789dc54e06df95c69ebc9d56af3569a69048c9b
95313 F20101222_AABARY ferrara_o_Page_048.jpg
2262f9f5fcb9fd81d0016df84814b495
44b097f6e37ef267b8c39e4a756f83a02e015ca7
801 F20101222_AABATB ferrara_o_Page_071.txt
acc61af1995a33effcac374f114390a4
ba28c0da0d2ee2422cd3a26589b6804b33699672
1934 F20101222_AABASN ferrara_o_Page_129.txt
12a59034e45d0b11d69be684487957d7
9b8e264c94519bcd088545a7a8194759dea72a50
2452 F20101222_AABCBK ferrara_o_Page_008.txt
60dc99dd4fbb46b13da72e36f74d3a85
11f4cae382f9bc22c81d225ea9e9601909d83707
20998 F20101222_AABCAW ferrara_o_Page_155.pro
340de51864fe901366e071aee83c4acf
51bffca2fd1b4f9964baa5f53e6740ee779b8cb4
1031900 F20101222_AABBWE ferrara_o_Page_169.jp2
7db5f69b6b9819295bd552fbf89bdb84
adb47bb03cc6f0bae1a09720d0baec3f53eb94c3
1024220 F20101222_AABBVQ ferrara_o_Page_118.jp2
42d662eee6e56462757684a5eb4ffe83
352b38a1de44a472b6a6b279bea6556e1790f7cc
F20101222_AABARZ ferrara_o_Page_119.tif
a9f820357594ab011029c0e0ff3810cc
87c8e942e491e1970c1739d5d3726dcd2866bff1
F20101222_AABATC ferrara_o_Page_050.tif
7f018e3d1e982baa710b146a99f92036
6be43ca31e849547840007957aef1e661a8e9369
36675 F20101222_AABASO ferrara_o_Page_183.jpg
77cad50e923759cbe2b3003d992961d9
f689d16707b6b1e1ec5f4e1adfc0f2af604e4ffa
1827 F20101222_AABCCA ferrara_o_Page_068.txt
501570a60fbf2c305e13c00972eea5b6
4d24a4993c9074d08563def42fc6e332cd270a0c
1931 F20101222_AABCBL ferrara_o_Page_010.txt
dabff458ffe9ec208f0268c118a102d0
d42138ad805643f486314def7ffaac31624c37ae
12433 F20101222_AABCAX ferrara_o_Page_156.pro
d2838485cb95745dcf7680113e042158
545ff075710f6f8c9df2b3bb856af9e72eb59ffd
999045 F20101222_AABBWF ferrara_o_Page_170.jp2
e0df5224983d9057dcf29c82a8eb6821
298a7316127ea6aa4ef4cc288f7ebf3ba1e457db
1007529 F20101222_AABBVR ferrara_o_Page_121.jp2
87f85c100d5c4ff839b74e7508f75fa2
4e0a589ae83d14725e102493da743efdcc517702
9190 F20101222_AABATD ferrara_o_Page_068thm.jpg
8c38992dfdd791b54065fe5cc0a603e2
24f9e927c1f3b496726ac540976df343115ca95d
48647 F20101222_AABASP ferrara_o_Page_073.pro
05ada80cc4eb335bdb55dbbd387cc5d6
e681f2d28246f376dc84b1380bf2c2057fe3f3c1
1267 F20101222_AABCCB ferrara_o_Page_070.txt
b12f5aa34e086ce67646d08eb4429a83
b14ce801fccbdaabc58db84549811edd412ee25b
2405 F20101222_AABCBM ferrara_o_Page_013.txt
b1bad56fb66cec6c01d6bad84cc38624
0c5a4bec4c33fa870d131e2528fef048be97bec0
43659 F20101222_AABCAY ferrara_o_Page_161.pro
b407693f0c1b7229f20cf669b8ccfe6e
bea140c3fa0be6a27db60998f61b36182dbd61ad
F20101222_AABBWG ferrara_o_Page_177.jp2
fbcd530e8bd7e8399f9c510427c1b34e
4c8617a200979bf1ba5670483fc4336b110dd2f1
1034852 F20101222_AABBVS ferrara_o_Page_129.jp2
3d0272bfbb908fe3a7c1b6031523e2e3
870ba3e8df08f25c2fbacb290b7fffab8459817e
31910 F20101222_AABATE ferrara_o_Page_097.QC.jpg
a7975e2a41f1c93f2e28c31267dd61f8
95eb68fb3720daf2e3aee25b6ac8221ac26afa6a
F20101222_AABASQ ferrara_o_Page_114.tif
78edc10f496374405ce438cc8f5990b0
ba60ee20a573471774383f0cb10f5781b09981ed
2052 F20101222_AABCCC ferrara_o_Page_073.txt
c6d1da698346d9de6eb70d789c3c7d64
5dc6fd6d0b084851dbc0a4cd076829c63b821420
F20101222_AABCBN ferrara_o_Page_022.txt
1256185a45bce49abf5d40671de6f771
6874c860e4c15de8e2be523da3df5ae6763da7ac
50246 F20101222_AABCAZ ferrara_o_Page_162.pro
dd0f521807163aa9f92b9a7f85c81b42
dcb6b842653531f8d4482fcd98c306824e093a01
F20101222_AABBWH ferrara_o_Page_179.jp2
ddf50d79b00a5c5d4eedf75987d7469f
b77160d6e1d467f7511507cc011759f217b2619a
973708 F20101222_AABBVT ferrara_o_Page_134.jp2
3c0b594222b36daf27d26084f66617a6
c42966400238e145466e5b5c2b1844b23a9804ae
904739 F20101222_AABATF ferrara_o_Page_060.jp2
269f20d458e1f7bff621c90b3dd87895
3b3ccd7cb7388111a912590c382b6dc19676af80
F20101222_AABASR ferrara_o_Page_015.tif
728f8aab9c63aac24529be73926d4d3c
5723a2114486cf3e879cda5292d7c9466aed01fb
F20101222_AABCCD ferrara_o_Page_074.txt
9b280cae0b98d6d011903fbdc5799631
820440629109c688d084438e3051c75474da729a
2205 F20101222_AABCBO ferrara_o_Page_024.txt
456bc2690f24e332dbe21b154b486a73
07165af5c922c98466ca363f3ea34a7e9a518415
F20101222_AABBWI ferrara_o_Page_181.jp2
aebfe11aa85f0ba6ab406b6fc894a8db
63bf3dfc5123121f10630a66c69b3285cc8b97f7
F20101222_AABBVU ferrara_o_Page_135.jp2
b85a487d78d9f25b13acc4aa6cb82d74
b0da8a0ddba7bd2534f96c3644a5276a83bb9bb5
27746 F20101222_AABATG ferrara_o_Page_104.pro
39629e2463ab475535d1c815ddbaa07e
c0902c1a9fe714a48f359a8d06d38af29ab3e1f3
5759 F20101222_AABASS ferrara_o_Page_162thm.jpg
1cff9b1434226ba818a43d7d2dc29c21
1cb327f348aa4dc626db1894b776d37294aa509e
F20101222_AABCCE ferrara_o_Page_075.txt
3171d44996cff781fbb8ce728cd45d85
fbbfd07c1ed7f00414855f5856d8082452f4ab24
2165 F20101222_AABCBP ferrara_o_Page_027.txt
6ab2368b479b40a7f6d3146ce89e533c
f8e36ffde5354d3a5cf133b97539b4c0a04be92c
F20101222_AABBWJ ferrara_o_Page_001.tif
83d4689e1c8e0339ee6866f85d4a37fe
043540e25d7fc54f51462900e410d61c0f4f2149
888009 F20101222_AABBVV ferrara_o_Page_139.jp2
98224e5f7552af40c864df395af427f9
d9a8d718754b9cc2ec9243d6f8ab9dc8a7509bf0
126139 F20101222_AABATH ferrara_o_Page_163.jpg
d81bb6d2d6148daa369fe5360ed40fd1
ea7012a0cd5ff0780588081be25b76ace770d4a3
8350 F20101222_AABAST ferrara_o_Page_112thm.jpg
a174901428b036aea844573c75cce207
196acf0f2dbd63cd609fb27c91741f737b9ec6e0
2124 F20101222_AABCCF ferrara_o_Page_077.txt
81a074348e128c589f371471684a2af7
021deb1cd66a42f7d229bcd0edd4098143c09379
2193 F20101222_AABCBQ ferrara_o_Page_036.txt
844e0959737f704dd8ea83781ff72f64
e33e251d2bd6d6804466dc6ab1d6a5fa7583176e
F20101222_AABBWK ferrara_o_Page_003.tif
7e7e1cec0b36edb9ff8fb28eea91b455
840b0c5e1ebb788f988b2ee9c5a563fd3cd6e893
F20101222_AABBVW ferrara_o_Page_141.jp2
0756f7ed268f5b7c1ad3432c711ee9a9
44bfe1ca90bed05b5fbabd1784aa95dafe47afe8
35472 F20101222_AABATI ferrara_o_Page_084.QC.jpg
21abe92fd0033ac61ac8c58506a960c9
e71f61a5ed5370f39deb914a846afad1817df73b
F20101222_AABASU ferrara_o_Page_101.pro
f8072c16389f83deb1d8b3fcfbdc2a83
9281dcfc86e9dffd81d900dbcfeef44d7584871d
2073 F20101222_AABCBR ferrara_o_Page_041.txt
88b4aca24e8d6832c4723e3d95cd2895
af88cc418364156dd6d99723669a318afb76b7b4
F20101222_AABBWL ferrara_o_Page_006.tif
940e3912774726b0ac4c11402e0fd324
6aab82a224ce7bf4ee0ab8cc7e883c4fab75d2d1
F20101222_AABBVX ferrara_o_Page_146.jp2
6a0bc0d0e334d9c984635f7b71da0762
aa552c83252603149b971c89a81cfeb19c095090
6293 F20101222_AABATJ ferrara_o_Page_175thm.jpg
7619ed757179604b23bfc7707c8351b4
e6a46f030cf6dade8881101c40f91b9b4d65dac9
F20101222_AABASV ferrara_o_Page_131.tif
5ef17fba1fe64919a3292f7239a6cf41
b364afd31eb9e3714d9060390e09e16db000a902
F20101222_AABCCG ferrara_o_Page_081.txt
5308b4b0fcbad23d786c9364786e5764
1b5d81676b568652eb54ea1af2da60e32345ca57
1995 F20101222_AABCBS ferrara_o_Page_042.txt
3927bae17ad2c1f95cdafc1b7be6b453
97245db62c80247d10a2df9c1ea918429f99a613
F20101222_AABBXA ferrara_o_Page_043.tif
72ff9e14bd327387e7aceeb43b68f0f3
f4819db7790d13e6669af35315dc727ec4c202cb
F20101222_AABBWM ferrara_o_Page_007.tif
c2543034996fe555de285dedfbe0f2f9
26d6d482d4ad0eab2b88f4bea672cc7559d66496
F20101222_AABBVY ferrara_o_Page_147.jp2
f0288053fc5bac933469b424122aa43b
954d1626aba0907d4748fd6e2521ceff7574c352
90749 F20101222_AABATK ferrara_o_Page_170.jpg
6dc8a2e75ef6b05ec586ac1141f83a58
a2634d650e0b3461b37cf70f32eaacbeaa50ab2b
F20101222_AABASW ferrara_o_Page_052.tif
897f4c8f6d5f2a6dec0bae1aa94c39df
b1e3f55b1b3bce372ac4ae13fd4b3817888463b1
F20101222_AABCCH ferrara_o_Page_083.txt
38736fcfc72c86f52fe536f20d06ab1d
59ddddafdb1778c2a29ef4c8507c9ea030ec7ad0
2065 F20101222_AABCBT ferrara_o_Page_043.txt
bec6ec7bd9ec8fc9e41349fcf1d51bba
6226698c9c592312ec213aca1baa90bf30fe174b
F20101222_AABBXB ferrara_o_Page_044.tif
f9525c6617df12cc3d572fa57e437e58
d13367fde18c6f7e929bf0ee61c85c0fd451d530
F20101222_AABBWN ferrara_o_Page_011.tif
4ab0dc7b6878d498faa13c6bc8523186
d3c6044a8f77455918bbb25976e8f2aff94a3c06
F20101222_AABBVZ ferrara_o_Page_148.jp2
f9e0c15088a0e51b3869eccc19feb2a5
d1e30574a9a4f4afe11cb0026d2b4f089eccd91e
1553 F20101222_AABATL ferrara_o_Page_037.txt
d1a0d52ff3ab60b8c2c627346ed658eb
f1b45f59ad497e7cd8436268570093d332964272
F20101222_AABASX ferrara_o_Page_084.tif
a2312ce423324f6defe3824c95a4ffd0
b4e35a9edb4ba9a2307f2da67ce783eb952df225
F20101222_AABCCI ferrara_o_Page_084.txt
592c2776f3f2a3e923f6b828b7f7285c
4be357d8190650b9e6d4d4b9255f74277efd4f97
1803 F20101222_AABCBU ferrara_o_Page_044.txt
253e36ae2d12a48376b2e7f3786bdd82
bb72d8e527d26e585a48433bd2eea8b16cf038ee
F20101222_AABBXC ferrara_o_Page_046.tif
d99df9aa4fd00cdce31d1c19ad09f25d
1fd0323ba19853397eab0fe40d0d2655dc81f7d1
F20101222_AABBWO ferrara_o_Page_012.tif
f055d8c636a8ec4e842b4703a5c4575a
8128adda709d8e3cf4aa60db9ac96fc8adc0aba5
F20101222_AABATM ferrara_o_Page_032.jp2
0d82d1b99e3b1183f162d08165e5f7dd
f3bc7b4fe223478ec5f7f8ebd5a1eb205a345514
2413 F20101222_AABAUA ferrara_o_Page_142.txt
9791e35250d9a6b28b7ec7bb048a9cc7
eedac0a45085603f62199b3c31567d6e1418b33b
F20101222_AABCCJ ferrara_o_Page_086.txt
f1b473379196d7597215eb36a8045cf1
2ac599fac0ab0044e1d1372fa7083940a8273abe
1334 F20101222_AABCBV ferrara_o_Page_047.txt
73a8b49b4ac325be36505f071c752052
df334c73151e0783a804f3009923821bca24822e
F20101222_AABBXD ferrara_o_Page_047.tif
e4a7457c7919d024e0017ec21b8d261b
216899dc55eff90456431646685da1d11683f753
F20101222_AABBWP ferrara_o_Page_016.tif
f9ced652a8b35b4cba9a42403abe9a4f
f403eb4cd00e707ff02435bf18717463506fb0cb
60205 F20101222_AABATN ferrara_o_Page_155.jpg
093fba8f630b462476830218c0983084
4fe3b483fe6a43c4f18a2181f119fa3eeb2ee9f1
6599 F20101222_AABASY ferrara_o_Page_167thm.jpg
8f0d488b41794303029ad5e4a1cbe720
3182a6cdd23eef5563ad53658a14c7d26c9058b0
109841 F20101222_AABAUB ferrara_o_Page_150.jpg
87d40b9a01b103ae44d8cf4f345cc7d2
cc9fb57cd8e5b4f65057d8eb96bf3435aeed4d69
F20101222_AABCCK ferrara_o_Page_087.txt
fa055f819db25ed4d278538e44eb8a85
88cc527510e2e9d111bee84c1cddaa3cf1fc40a3
F20101222_AABCBW ferrara_o_Page_048.txt
c2fd8f49f051b3a141ef8d50a3b4e67e
c50c17eec1445cc59b797d98109ab89230613701
F20101222_AABBXE ferrara_o_Page_049.tif
58bf8ecca3fb5a86717f4c4ee45e5b8f
45b65eac636a89c1f1c1ac5b29b05549adf988b5
F20101222_AABBWQ ferrara_o_Page_018.tif
59452a56c53b8d24fb7d94c3e386edb4
c16c236de13b711989b21c4307ba8203ed9e3715
F20101222_AABATO ferrara_o_Page_084.jp2
df82d8fcd31fe7a346a5abb3e914e462
d056dba321323dcc3f5e5d36161b2e7806ef5dcc
8731 F20101222_AABASZ ferrara_o_Page_036thm.jpg
dc22283d0c0d94a25c2945ea07f7114d
237546f439f40531d9e0213de7cde6f7d25a7ef5
51926 F20101222_AABAUC ferrara_o_Page_085.pro
cd748f44724d7f3e7f8f85f4b1f4ecf5
f541e53a814f3816202c6878a417a7c390bdda21
1904 F20101222_AABCDA ferrara_o_Page_143.txt
e7fdc33cf1abd63ff0e53906fad76c16
801676a919802f8721886148dfa2650317c4892d
2096 F20101222_AABCCL ferrara_o_Page_089.txt
fb85cf89e4bf984683c93e8c5b4a4bb4
2fa35a0cf3b01b75a6dc5ac9c74bb2583e13d2e4
1863 F20101222_AABCBX ferrara_o_Page_050.txt
c3f810fe0d878b2c4ba28c37491d362d
dab6e3187003072ecc71e21f52d301132736f96d
F20101222_AABBXF ferrara_o_Page_053.tif
c2891807a0357aaf548197aa3c3b68b1
2f638579de9a873315a64f2811200aa9e0cb2666
F20101222_AABBWR ferrara_o_Page_019.tif
964d9348c70a2fcc97cddd1e143179d2
4cd5c1109cf475e726057c627e6d925ede69b9f1
32516 F20101222_AABATP ferrara_o_Page_096.QC.jpg
11925f3422013d6d6ba6823d95752323
540b1fa5cc6e6ba6c72bc0627a61eed15cf6e488
F20101222_AABAUD ferrara_o_Page_182.tif
a0332a4bf66ca677c5a59f64195fa366
eb24eab1df4d65b0db04a645a8bce3388cea3da1
1918 F20101222_AABCDB ferrara_o_Page_145.txt
82e4604d487945a5c93a9d52e1f7e356
b0e438258fceca194449aa2c6361e2079e3ed73c
F20101222_AABCCM ferrara_o_Page_091.txt
9a37b898312e99ce3b32228a06e7a750
748a672023797c0791b9b307ca5ce99eaba4497b
2108 F20101222_AABCBY ferrara_o_Page_059.txt
c9c9fa14ee81104bd3c6999c0a7b7510
ff8eb5d771135416cfefdc76de7535a7dfca0c83
F20101222_AABBXG ferrara_o_Page_058.tif
d0c5e8f2c1522fee116c2323eb23f52f
3dd075cf7af13509224f4607f34725a8d37ca64e
F20101222_AABBWS ferrara_o_Page_024.tif
e27480d4bc506e3ca0fc7080af7a3ee9
0f0c950ea7834e07808c51d56bee3ba0c05c1e9d
52551 F20101222_AABATQ ferrara_o_Page_075.pro
0511c16c5a251b324bd6bba4ddd6ca5c
b468ffaca4f422fb9ad29260f46610ec05567523
38792 F20101222_AABAUE ferrara_o_Page_124.pro
59587bc8a3b8144132a009dc7a7429ab
33a63dcea36cbfc66c7007b6cbe4f9eebfce06fb
2118 F20101222_AABCDC ferrara_o_Page_146.txt
5051e72e733d0df3715d02a7cfc60412
8ec6f773f8c6879c09dbedd56750891584d502af
2161 F20101222_AABCCN ferrara_o_Page_093.txt
7183a70a65b13792247b0f9f7211c47e
fbfccd9aa4b3b453f7012149be16b824309ebeff
803 F20101222_AABCBZ ferrara_o_Page_063.txt
9ccd2e49214f6e6a3045aabd1c2b31bc
9346744fe8f03d82073a100882f4d460cec747c4
F20101222_AABBXH ferrara_o_Page_064.tif
d9cc3914d133d61f16ea9f8417119f14
7f28521ccbb3dd2b9774591861c7fcab1fa9e248
F20101222_AABBWT ferrara_o_Page_025.tif
615b464fedf73d9f2b3ca1f25be5029a
fb0a56eab69f0b4f0c8e5a0b7762866488862e7a
F20101222_AABATR ferrara_o_Page_166.tif
8a5a47441dcac7361359413d622e5002
d724a9e025a9c51f7e35dae1612fe18313a10ea7
39251 F20101222_AABBAA ferrara_o_Page_048.pro
0fba988e086d1b25af7bd2b38993a371
d4b0bd767c1e49cb3960fcae02fd877499f53167
F20101222_AABAUF ferrara_o_Page_156.tif
cb8e0b38acd93302fc0ed868ce7c491a
3d8455be0fd35ab7f55c29f440d674e19ddb6d47
F20101222_AABCDD ferrara_o_Page_153.txt
f02230b154b05fd4e475b09b2d480747
b359247883e8259b97d9b3fd45147ff1b83d94bc
2053 F20101222_AABCCO ferrara_o_Page_097.txt
9676bf09652a013c2d711a871800d425
00c86f6393cad1ecd938071593e8331ed9e7ef3e
F20101222_AABBXI ferrara_o_Page_067.tif
b8283112f790cd985d86b9ffc8213e80
b8c6f4ca1f7daf709dad39ecbfb72fb73223be0a
F20101222_AABBWU ferrara_o_Page_026.tif
3aea70ca77be70a7f75b0fabec838afa
3c106bfb83de3c31eb383ae16f03e7e213bcc58b
2046 F20101222_AABATS ferrara_o_Page_085.txt
dd61bc6fd2da1a4aadc8f0d10ef612e6
bad4f0f1177e512f8a621d29fa8d8a6d433b17fb
101015 F20101222_AABBAB ferrara_o_Page_145.jpg
9e2d26f30b60156841e75f1a5c89d910
008830dbb579392e9d4d0166c73a196dea1ce376
6513 F20101222_AABAUG ferrara_o_Page_170thm.jpg
cfe0b479b841bba21d7a60d955062629
402391a72baa8b461b0f03086003ab655c47efbc
526 F20101222_AABCDE ferrara_o_Page_156.txt
1f7825cca861f1a870672734beb8e01b
ac75e1f3b499b7b0d471505a4f37003d7e773f4c
2182 F20101222_AABCCP ferrara_o_Page_098.txt
814de6832c53f0c5d5e8c2e280e659b3
d93150bc2f1d1c197f0296832f07927949c7bb43
F20101222_AABBXJ ferrara_o_Page_070.tif
0a495a6b8742556f57a184d09a82e246
fc219ea85aacf98ca0a15cd23618387ea7179e79
F20101222_AABBWV ferrara_o_Page_027.tif
06b3cff0127988901dba746e6ff535bc
3cfb494fdac6a7e4573c5114309cf46519486a7a
1626 F20101222_AABATT ferrara_o_Page_038.txt
2331c05a08347bbbd3bf543851a3d88b
ce605b40ee70c0c5a8a37bad23aefbd5528098e9
85890 F20101222_AABBAC ferrara_o_Page_063.jpg
4e8d976fb3b91e4ce3ed657baabe1c6b
b165cb1026e51b0c6eee2ffdf786e3c159f4af98
1051929 F20101222_AABAUH ferrara_o_Page_149.jp2
87e64838da2fa7a1badf6410afa79278
82a2e72603762cf4bdd5bd0cc0e37d1fe8b99ab9
1981 F20101222_AABCDF ferrara_o_Page_160.txt
434c45d112238044d4357ff92549ea7e
0e0a6c1f8f1a9d4246a270a55934492293ef6eee
F20101222_AABCCQ ferrara_o_Page_102.txt
d914c29e75d4e6af5c1aca9f87f23527
5ca3347b274fd6ed17f708dafaaee5df3ad33542
F20101222_AABBXK ferrara_o_Page_074.tif
b5e88741af482244317dd68d698aa889
fd0e193cb3225fbc8f176cd96794b84f3eefc888
F20101222_AABBWW ferrara_o_Page_028.tif
632f59c55c536021632ff4ce2f25b836
703c48cbe6e2647dd16e780bf80c1834983a3741
7357 F20101222_AABATU ferrara_o_Page_010thm.jpg
6b5c1bf3766a386ebc851ec18b01dc7b
4809ffaed9d16f4c15c06940596c8e49c6c6fdfa
92765 F20101222_AABBAD ferrara_o_Page_035.jpg
535b2e698ea3abba35060fba1c869f6d
960d08326ca36497e8f01c1df2ad1c0b0803b194
1051842 F20101222_AABAUI ferrara_o_Page_165.jp2
ef5df2e0cc4d9c5a0211dbc0cbb1a7fa
8ce64f545420689c2516ab1e5047a3cc0c11b03e
1696 F20101222_AABCDG ferrara_o_Page_161.txt
1473d4296fddc46dd98c2d331c4cbc7e
f6fe1be3291eee13e36efb29d42f7130d071c6d6
1858 F20101222_AABCCR ferrara_o_Page_107.txt
5d2c932a8996184b8eadce4e599bafd8
0d1a0c5ef577e33a9b94d79694f10ced5d363c77
F20101222_AABBXL ferrara_o_Page_077.tif
49c90fcbbf0ae1227c330a8de956eb7b
eedd7dfabd280ab60ae23c84abafa0fd2d61daef
F20101222_AABBWX ferrara_o_Page_032.tif
e7d05ff709b37d35b817eecd904ba8ed
0a8c3e3cff0df96e9d6e777f65ad3e3a2c07847d
116575 F20101222_AABATV ferrara_o_Page_095.jpg
c859d3739037e9ec504d024fcf2ff97d
00cb722e55ff48f405f93b3f6c8a2ae98e2ed3e3
33291 F20101222_AABBAE ferrara_o_Page_015.QC.jpg
b90f0fc6f9d200e5f18398e6ae8dfdfc
d076c1ac4cb688fce0f839f0dc6fe7158c7cd6b1
8553 F20101222_AABAUJ ferrara_o_Page_119thm.jpg
3605fb2169c305199b014c232f7b169d
f15313d1c652c505bd1bd72a4f946f6a23f3f0f0
1907 F20101222_AABCCS ferrara_o_Page_108.txt
28b0a3fa4725ec71c5dc2f4298b2c3a6
c28bd4713867994e190efb3217b2379d2dae2268
F20101222_AABBYA ferrara_o_Page_106.tif
0544937f5f91a4dff462b56ed08d5b13
6877ec79b8c5c816ff764dbdcb4468b5ca23a134
F20101222_AABBXM ferrara_o_Page_078.tif
78869e29e4edeb2571e6cc139614ddd3
f3834c5c7c7bfef1e11372d30fed6a15518db2bb
F20101222_AABBWY ferrara_o_Page_036.tif
25c281304cc07131d5a49450b5a41e65
29efb3ce7faa037cef3c5dfc5936fb02a9e3cd76
50367 F20101222_AABATW ferrara_o_Page_012.pro
687a5beb58e181bf29accfaeefa17949
c6748b35d524410195ccf03e3923bf7079df8b2b
22739 F20101222_AABAUK ferrara_o_Page_118.QC.jpg
dac30d140e93df5f3eac6b50ffbfe7d2
ba0b2fa6240b579fe126177723e3524a26c7ce2b







EXPORT DEMAND AND PROMOTIONS OF U.S. BEEF: IMPACT OF FOOD SAFETY
AND PROTECTIONISM.

















By

OSCAR FERRARA


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008






































O 2008 Oscar Ferrara



































To my wife, Jaquelina; and my children, Sofia, Nicolas, and Marco.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My deepest gratitude goes to Jaquelina, Sofia, Nicolas, and Marco for their understanding

and constant encouragement. This academic endeavor wouldn't be possible without them.

I thank Dr. Ronald W. Ward for his generosity and friendship. As mentor and professor, he

helped me to pull this project together. His valuable guidance and patience are deeply

appreciated. I would also like to address very special thanks to Dr. Charles Adams, Dr. Jeff

Burkhardt, and Dr. Jim Morris for their generous assistance.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


IM Le

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. ...............4.....


LI ST OF T ABLE S ........._..... ...............7..____ ......


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............8.....


AB S TRAC T ............._. .......... ..............._ 10...


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............12......... .....


Importance of Agricultural Trade ........_................. ............_........1
International Beef Market ........_................. ........_._ .........1
International U. S. Beef Promotions ................. ...............19......... ....
Problem Statement and Research Objective ........_................. ........._._ ....... 2
Scope..................... ..............2
Research Methodology .............. ...............24....
Armington Trade Model .............. ...............25....
D ata Set............... ...............29..
Outline of Chapters ........._._.... ...............30..._ .........


2 WORLD BEEF TRADE AND PRODUCTION ...._.__... ........_.. ...._._.. .........3


Introducti on ........._...... .......... .. ...............32.....
International Beef Trade Data .............. ...............32....
The Intemnational Beef Market. ........._........ .... .....__... ...............34....
Volume, Share, and Growth of Global Production .............. ...............35....
Beef Trade Patterns ...................... ...............37
Pacific Rim Demand for Beef Products. ........._._........... ...............42...

Republic of South Korea .............. ...............43....
Japan ........._ _. ....... ._. ... ....... .............4
Republic of Taiwan and Hong Kong ........._._.... ...............48.._._.. ....
International Beef Supply .............. ...............52....
United States............... ...............52.
A ustralia .............. ...............55....
New Zeal and .............. ..._.. ...............56....
Rest of the World.. ............. .... .......... ....__ ..........__ .....__ ..............58
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (B SE): Impact on Beef Trade ................. ................. 59
Consumption Levels and Market Shares ................ ...............59........... ...
Expenditures on Beef by Country of Origin ................. ...............65........... ..
Pre and Post-BSE Pattern of Trade .............. ...............69....












3 LITERATURE REVIEW .............. ...............73....


Introducti on ........._. ._...... .. ...... .. ........ ...............73.
International Beef Demand and Food Safety ...._.. ................ ............ ...... 7
Trade and Beef Markets Issues ................. ...............78......._ ....
International Beef Promotions ..............._ ...............81..._..._......
The Armington Trade Model ........._._._..... ..... ...............88...


4 EMPIRIRICAL TRADE MODEL FOR BEEF PRODUCTS ......___ .........._ ...........93


Introducti on ................ ... ........... ...............93......
Beef Trade Schematic Representation............... .............9
Adapting the Armington Model to Beef Trade ................. ...............95........... ..
The Constant Ratio Elasticity of Substitution .............. ...............100....
Analysis of Trade Variations ................ ...............107...............

5 EMPIRICAL RESULT S ................. ...............113...............


Introducti on ................. ...............113................
Data Set................. .... ..............11
Product Demand Equation ................. ...............114................
M odel Results ................. ...............115......... ......


6 SIMULATION ANALY SIS ................. ...............125................


Introducti on .................. .. ......... ...............125......
Total Product Demand Trend .............. ...............128....
Product Demand Simulations .............. ... ..... ..............13
Pre- and Post-BSE Market Distribution Simulations .............. ...............141....


7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............. ...............146....


APPENDIX


A CONSTANT ELASTICITY OF SUBSTITUTION (CES) ................ ................ ...._.152


B TSP PROGRAM: ARMINGTON SPECIFICATION AND SIMMULATIONS ................157


LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............176...............


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................. ...............183......... ......











LIST OF TABLES

Table page


1-1 Top 5 exported beef cuts during 2006. ............. .....................16

1-2 Trade status and B SE trade impact in millions of U. S. dollars by beef product ...............17

2-1 Compared world production levels and trade .............. ...............36....

2-2 Ratio import to export quantities by regions. ....__ ......_____ .......__ ..........4

2-3 U. S. beef imports and exports volumes ................ ........._.__......__......._. ...52

5-1 Parameter estimates and t-values ......_. ................ ........._.._ ....... 11

5-2 Summary statistics product demands parameters .............. ...............124....

6-1 South Korea: estimated base values ........._._.._................_.._ ..........12

6-2 Japan: estimated base values............... ...............126

6-3 Taiwan: estimated base values ....__. ................. ........._.._....... 12

6-4 Hong Kong: estimated base values ........._._. ...._... ...............126..

6-5 Estimated variations in market demand distribution .............. ...............142....










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1-1 Domestic consumption of beef products in Asian regions .. ......._._ .... ...._............15

1-2 Economic impact of the BSE Ban across U.S. beef export products as January,
2006............... ...............18..

1-3 Beef trade participation of selected countries ................. ...............23......__. ..

2-1 Total beef production and shares by region ....._.__._ ............. ...............35

2-2 Relative variation in growth rate of production. ................. .....__. ............. .....3

2-3 Pre and post- B SE beef trade levels by region. ................. .....__. ...............3

2-4 Republic of Korea beef market indicators.. ................ ....__. .......... .........4

2-5 Average CIF prices for fresh beef products in Korea. ........._ ....... __ ...............45

2-6 Japan beef market indicators. ........... ..... ._ ...............46..

2-7 Average CIF prices for fresh beef products in Japan. ......____ .... ... ._ ...............47

2-8 Taiwan and Honk Kong beef market indicators. ............. ...............48.....

2-9 Average CIF prices for fresh beef products in Taiwan ......____ ........._ ..............51

2-10 Average CIF prices for fresh beef products in Hong Kong. ..........._.. ......_. .........51

2-11 U. S. production, consumption, and exports of fresh/chilled and frozen beef. ................... 54

2-12 Australia production, consumption, and exports of fresh/chilled and frozen beef. ...........55

2-13 New Zealand production, consumption, and exports of fresh/chilled and frozen beef. ....57

2-14 Rest of the world (ROW) production, consumption, and exports of fresh/chilled and
frozen beef. ............. ...............58.....

2-15 Korea imported beef consumption per-capita and market shares.................... ...............60

2-16 Japan imported beef consumption per-capita and market shares............... .................6

2-17 Taiwan imported beef consumption per-capita and market shares ................. ................63

2-18. Hong Kong imported beef consumption per-capita and market shares ................... ..........64

2-19 Total expenditures on beef products from the U.S. by country. ........._._.... ....._.........65











2-20 Total expenditures on beef products from Australia by country. ........._..._.. ............... .67

2-21 Total expenditures on beef products from New Zealand by country. ........._..... .............67

2-22 Total expenditures on beef products from the ROW by country ............... .............. .68

2-23 Pre-BSE ban trade scenarios for fresh/chilled and frozen beef in selected Asian
nations. .............. ...............70....

2-24 Post-BSE ban trade scenarios for fresh/chilled and frozen beef in selected Asian
nations ........... __..... ._ ...............71....

4-1 Schematic representation of the Armington trade system for beef products in selected
countries of the Pacific Rim region. ..........._ .....__ ...............94.

5-1 South Korean product demand parameters for beef imports (US-AU-NZ) ................... ..121

5-2 Japan product demand parameters for beef imports (US-AU-NZ). ............... ..............122

5-3 Taiwan and Hong Kong product demand parameters for beef imports (US-AU-NZ). ...123

6-1 Estimated fresh U.S beef product demands across time in selected Asian markets........129

6-2 Estimated frozen U. S beef product demands across time in selected Asian markets......130

6-3 Estimated fresh Australian beef product demands across time in selected Asian
markets ................. ...............131................

6-4 Estimated frozen Australian beef product demands across time in selected Asian
markets ................. ...............132................

6-5 Estimated fresh New Zealand beef product demands across time in selected Asian
markets. ........... _. .... __ ...............133..

6-6 Estimated frozen New Zealand beef product demands across time in selected Asian
markets. ........... _. .... __ ...............134..

6-7 South Korea beef market demands and price elasticities in 1998, 2002, and 2006.........136

6-8 Japan beef market demands and price elasticities in 1998, 2002, and 2006. ........._........137

6-9 Taiwan beef market demands and price elasticities in 1998, 2002, and 2006. ........._......139

6-10 Hong Kong beef market demands and price elasticities in 1998, 2002, and 2006..........140

6-11 Pre-B SE market distribution of fresh and frozen beef products. ................ ................. 141

6-12 Post-B SE market distribution of fresh and frozen beef products. ................ ................143









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

EXPORT DEMAND AND PROMOTIONS OF U.S. BEEF: IMPACT OF FOOD SAFETY
AND PROTECTIONISM.

By

Oscar Ferrara

August 2008

Chair: Ronald W. Ward
Maj or: Food and Resource Economics

Trade disruptive policies have been used for a long time to address a large number of

politic, economic, and food safety issues. Policy shocks (i.e., embargoes or export bans) have

significant short-and long-term effects on trade relations and production of agricultural

commodities, shaping the economies of producing countries as well as the direction and

magnitude of trade flows. The consequences of the first case of BSE in North America in

December 2003 exemplify how food safety issues significantly affect consumer preferences and

producer welfare. After the announcement of the first case of BSE in North America in

December 2003, almost immediately 53 countries banned imports from the United States to

prevent the disease from entering their countries and to safeguard human health. The resulting

negative shift in aggregate market demand for U. S. beef products and the loss of export markets

were the immediate consequences of either government-imposed trade restrictions or changes in

import demands.

Today, U.S. beef exports show an increasing trend thanks in part to trade liberalization

policies and information campaigns (i.e., promotions) aimed to expand the presence of U. S.

products in maj or beef importing countries. The obj ective of this research is to analyze import









demands for beef products in selected Asia's countries using a model of product differentiation

by country of origin and to estimate empirically the impact of U. S. beef promotions on re-

capturing pre-ban market levels. Based on Armington's specification (1969), the model for this

research assumes a two-stage budgeting allocation and a product's imperfect substitutability

between export sources. Hence, this study presumes that beef produced in the United States

presents unique attributes (i.e., superior quality and taste) and that foreign consumers can

perceive this difference from competing beef sources.

Departing from Armington's Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) specification, this

work proposes the use of a Constant Ratio Elasticity of Substitution (CRES) that allows

elaticities to vary proportionally while the substitutability is not necessarily identical. This

research includes eight countries divided into four exporting and four importing countries

respectively. Based on countries' import/export yearly data, the entire dataset includes almost

2000 observations with information recorded over time across selected countries during an 11-

year period (January 1995 to December 2006). Resulting product demand, market share, and

elasticity estimates determine the degree of substitution among competing beef products and

provide the coefficients to measure the economic impact of trade barriers and effectiveness of

market access and promotion policies in four maj or markets for U. S. beef: Japan, Republic of

Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

During the past three decades, globalization and trade liberalization have contributed to

reducing the isolation of domestic economies but also have permanently changed the channels of

food distribution, raising important questions about the safety and quality of agricultural goods.

Political and economic changes have forced countries around the world to abandon the

complexity of old trade structures and incorporate open mechanisms in which legal and

monitoring protocols are highly standardized. Under this new world order, transactions are set to

be dynamic in order to encourage the exchange of goods and services produced across the

borders and reduce government participation. During the past two decades, the development of

new technologies in areas related to communication and logistics has facilitated, innovated, and

consequently accelerated the way that countries trade around the world. In addition, a number of

international institutions have played an important role in promoting free trade including the

World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

(GATT). The latter, was succeeded in 1995 by the World Trade Organization (WTO) (Jung

2004). In addition, Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) such as the Asia Pacific Economic

Cooperation (APEC), European Union (EU), the Mercado Comun del Sur (MERCOSUR), and

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have boosted trade among countries within a

particular region of the world.

International commodity markets represent an important focus of attention for the U.S.

agricultural sector. Recognizing the significance of the factors affecting the flow of agricultural

products is necessary in order to take advantage of the current commodity trade structure and

predict its future evolution. New international trade policies, food security issues, and shifting









consumers' preferences have changed the international food scenario, and domestic demands for

agricultural commodities have become highly dependent on international markets.

International beef trade has a long history of up and downs, but recent decades have seen

fast growth of trade in terms of volume and value. Changes in trade policies have stimulated this

trend; and associated with these changes, changes in diets, distribution technology, and

multinational business structures have changed the global scenario of beef trade, either as causal

factors or as consequences of liberalized trade (USMEF 2007).

Importance of Agricultural Trade

Globalization has affected the way that basic consumers' needs are satisfied in every

corner of the world from developed to developing countries, and it has also affected production

and distribution of agricultural products around the world. For example, soaring world prices of

wheat have caused a 30 % increase in the prices of pasta in Italy; and in Mexico, during the year

2006 unprecedented high prices of corn they almost quadruplicated have led to the worst

tortilla crisis in its modem history 1(Gumbel 2007, Roig-Franzia 2007).

Sanitary and protectionist trade barriers have strongly influenced agricultural trade.

Sanitary standards are extremely important determinants of food related trade. For example, the

distinction between countries free of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and those that are not free

largely defines world trade in fresh, chilled, or frozen beef and pork. The danger of transmitting

diseases to humans has also led to segmentation of the beef trade based on sanitary rules. The

incidents of BSE virtually ended Britain' s beef exports in the late 1990s and have since barred

beef exports from much of Europe to other parts of the world. In the U. S. case, after December

2003's outbreak, it closed the most important markets for U.S. beef around the world (OIE 2007).

SIncreasing prices are the result of a reduced supply. In the case of wheat (up 60% over the past year), this increase
is due to a persistent drought in Australia, weak production years in Ukraine and Argentina, and in the case of corn it
is due to an increased use of this conunodity in the production of ethanol in the U.S.









After almost three years of BSE-related trade restrictions and absence from key beef consuming

markets, the beef industry is seeing some normalization in trade flows although it is still bearing

many costs of increased product requirements and limited product eligibility (FAS, USDA

2007). Finally, in the last few years consumers in some markets focused their concerns on

production oriented processes that emphasize issues related to animal welfare (e.g., the use of

hormones and antibiotics, or the presence of genetically modified ingredients in feed rations)

which increasingly have become a basis for regulatory barriers to trade (Dyck and Nelson 2003).

Recent advances in trade liberalization emphasize open access to world markets and

expanding trade of agricultural commodities and processed food products. The evolution of

world and regional trade agreements have lowered protectionist barriers and facilitated the flow

of commodities. The 1994 WTO Agreement on Agriculture negotiated in the Uruguay Round

addressed specific commitments to improve market access and reduce trade-distorting subsidies

in agriculture. Under this agreement, non-tariff trade barriers are being converted into tariff

equivalents, which gradually are being reduced or eliminated over some period of time. Import

tariffs are considered more transparent than non-tariff measures, and because of that they have

been a preferred policy instrument in multi-lateral trade negotiations (Miljkovic and Jin 2006).

However, significant protectionist barriers still remain, such as high tariffs, tariff-rate quotas, and

non-tariff barriers, which prevent or inhibit significant potential trade in meats and are designed

to discourage imported beef from competing with domestic products.

International Beef Market

Foreign demand for U.S. beef products has become an important factor affecting the U. S.

domestic beef industry. Although the domestic market remains the dominant source of overall

meat demand, exports continue to account for a growing share of U. S. meat production. Despite

higher prices, international beef consumption has climbed as global economic growth supports









































-EastAsia -SouthAsia -SoutheastAsia














I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I


increases in demand especially in Asian-Pacific markets where the explosive economic


expansion has contributed to an increase per capital income, encouraging reductions in trade

restrictions and a shift in dietary preferences for animal-source proteins (Capps et al. 1994).

Economic development brings with it increased household income and consequently

higher utility levels. With increased incomes, households can purchase more superior quality

foods, such as beef. As in the cases of Japan and Korea, the growth in meat consumption pushes

up prices of domestic beef, and increases the possibility of a market for imported beef. The

importance of dietary changes to beef imports is shown by the case of Pacific Rim countries

where import growth reflected the rapid increase in beef consumption that occurred there

between 1980 and 1995, when consumption per capital increased almost six times. Consumption

increased faster than production, and imported beef supplied the difference.


Domestic Consumption (1000 MT)


10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000


1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Years


Figure 1-1. Domestic consumption of beef products in Asian regions. Source: FAS-USDA.
November 2007.

While meat consumption growth appears to have leveled off since the late 1990s in

western developed regions (e.g., Europe and the United States), meat consumption is currently

growing in maj or parts of East, Southeast, and South Asia as economic expansion proceeds










(FAOSTAT 2007). Rising consumer demand for beef, aided by trade liberalization and changes

in technology (i.e., shipping and storage) has helped beef to grow across the globe (Figure 1-1).

Beef trade mainly is in cuts or parts, not in the form of live animals or carcasses which generate

extra revenue per animal. The slaughter of a meat animal automatically generates a full set of

muscle meat cuts, as well as trimmings, offal, and other byproducts (Table 1-1). The value of a

carcass is the composite value of the cuts and other products taken from it, and the derived value

of a meat animal is the composite value of the carcass and byproducts from the animal, less

processing and transaction costs (Dyck and Nelson 2003).

Table 1-1. Top 5 exported beef cuts during 2006. Ranked by the extra value generated.
Cut Domestic % U.S. Value International Total Extra
Type Use Export ($kg) Value ($kg) Value ($ M)
Short Ribs Trim 57 1.39-2.09 4.00-10.00 338

Tongue Pet Food 70 0.22 9.92 328
Outside Skirt Trim 61 2.09 3.50-6.00 166

Short Plate Trim 68 0.96 1.74-2.65 63

Chuckeye Roll As is 11 2.62-2.68 3.50-6.00 43
Source: USMEF. September 2007.

In recent years, U. S. beef exports represented 12.4% of the production generating an

additional value equivalent to 18% of the total value of a feed steer or the equivalent of an

increase of almost one billion dollars out of the top five export beef cuts. Forecasts from the U. S.

Meat Export Federation (USMEF) show that for the next five years a total increase of almost

90% in the volume of beef exported is expected and that Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Korea

are among the top five destinations (USMEF 2007).

Trade issues have become increasingly important for the U. S. beef industry, in particular

those referred to as food safety have significant effects, either through government-imposed

trade restrictions or changes in import demand (Verbeke and Ward 2001; Jin and Koo 2003).










After the discoveries of BSE, commonly referred to as mad-cow disease, in the United Kingdom

in 1998, Japan in 2001, and Canada and the United States in 2003, the response of the

international community has permanently affected the world market for beef and led to a

significant drop in beef import demand. These BSE cases prompted a number of traditional U. S.

beef-importing countries to ban almost all products from the United States, opening new markets

or in some cases, increasing existing market shares of competing beef producing nations like

Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, and Argentina.

The USDA-ERS reported significant differences between the Pre- and Post-BSE ban of

U.S. beef exports to these traditional markets showing an impressive loss in value of almost $2.4

billion dollars. On the other hand, 2006 data from the USMEF show losses of approximately $1

billion or a total of 63 0,000 metric tons, which clearly shows the importance of these markets for

the U. S. industry and the need to recuperate its position as primary supplier of beef products

(Table 1-1 and Figure 1-2).

Table 1-2. Trade status and BSE trade impact in millions of U. S. dollars by beef product.
Total Bone-in Bone Process Variety Date Open Trade Diff. Pre- Notes
Country Val '03 less meat meats Opened Status Post
Japan 1,391.2 50.1 1,103 13.5 224.5 12/05 1,391.2 Partial All
Ban <21m
Korea 814.5 291.5 49.0 8.7 65.2 9/06 449.0 Partial 365.5 Bone
Ban less
<30m
Hong 90.8 19.4 48.4 .521 22.3 12/05 48.4 Partial 42.3 Bone
Kong Ban less
<30m
Taiwan 76.3 13.5 55.9 .873 5.9 4/05 55.9 Partial 20.3 Bone
Ban less
<30m
ROW 1,482.6 1,357.6 -125.0
Total 3,855.6 -----3,302.3 -553.3
Source: USMEF. September 2007.

Figure 1-2 provides value loss share and illustrates the economic impact of the BSE on

each segment of U. S. beef exports during the year 2006. As expected, fresh/chilled and frozen










beef products represent the largest share in exports revenues due mainly to premium prices paid

by international consumers for U. S. beef cuts.




Tallow Other Ruminant
$47,033 Products
Fats and Greases (5%) $25,755
$31,929 (3%)









Meat and Bone Meal
$143,957Beef Products
(15%)$553,303
(57%)


Live Cattle
$31,929 Total Banned Amount = $ 970,495



Figure 1-2. Economic impact of the BSE ban across U. S. beef export products as January, 2006.
Source: USMEF. September 2007.

Today, U.S. beef exports primarily reflect demand for high-quality fed beef, with most

U.S. beef exports typically going to Mexico, Canada, and markets in Pacific Rim nations. The

global U. S. beef exports are proj ected to increase slowly and recovery is assumed in the Japanese

and South Korean export markets up to volumes similar to those before the first U.S. BSE case

in December 2003. Beef trade flows among countries and world regions are determined largely

by differences among countries in their resource base, their preferences for cuts, food safety

issues, the extent and character of barriers to trade, and the industry structure. Future growth of

beef trade depends on further liberalization of protectionist barriers, eradication of animal

diseases, economic development, and population growth.









International U.S. Beef Promotions

Purchase decisions are based on predictions of product performance. Consumers base their

predictions in part on product cues and are accurate to the extent that they have properly learned

the relationship between the cues and performance (Van Osselaer and Alba 2000). If consumers

learn the relationship between product attributes and quality, they will differentiate among goods

that possess different attributes and treat as close substitutes those that share the same attributes.

During the past twenty years, the U.S. beef industry has experienced a slow transition from

a traditional commodity-selling perspective to a more contemporary marketing-driven sector.

This evolution has encouraged the industry to differentiate its products, review production

processes, reorganize its value chain, and use a mix of price and non-price marketing strategies

in order to increase market share. Competition has become much more intense and the demands

for red meat products, in particular fresh, chilled, and frozen beef reveal the distinctive

characteristics in product quality and production technology across exporting countries.

Although only 12 % of the beef produced in the United States is exported, international market

participation has an important impact on the industry because it raises the value of all products. It

increases the number of customers which consequently boosts prices through a positive shift in

aggregate demand and it allows packers to sell differentiated products according to preferences

in each international market, thus obtaining higher rents from those customers willing to pay

global prices (Kinnucan et al. 1995).

Advertising and promotion provide useful information necessary to facilitate purchasing

decisions, and in some cases they are even used to change the underlying preference function for

a particular product or service. Commodities in general, and specifically beef products, can be

differentiated according to how consumers acquire information and how this information affects

consumers' perceptions towards the products' performance. In places like Korea, Japan, Hong










Kong, and Taiwan, U.S. beef is highly appreciated because of its particular characteristics of

taste, fat content, tenderness, and consistency which have influenced consumers' preferences for

more than two decades (USMEF 2007). Studies before the BSE outbreak have shown that the

most important characteristics for consumers of U. S. beef in these markets are that it tastes good,

it looks fresh, does not have a lot of waste, and that it is USDA certified and inspected.

Marketing oriented to recuperate market shares should reinforce these attributes, emphasizing the

characteristics of the product in order to re-build the positive perception about U. S. beef

products. Promoting U.S. beef as a brand might be necessary to reach pre-ban levels of

consumption in these countries using product differentiation based on the attributes of the

product rather than simply selling beef as a commodity. The U. S. beef checkoff promotion

programs have been an instrument for providing consumers with information about the attributes

of U. S. beef. As in many promotion programs, the main obj ective of the beef checkoff program

is to increase the demand for beef products in the domestic market as well as internationally. The

USMEF, the international arm of the U. S. beef board, has launched several marketing campaigns

abroad to keep U.S. beef products in front of consumers in markets that are still closed or to

increase existing demand. Lately, efforts are aimed to overcome the trade barriers imposed by

the EU on U. S. beef over the issue of using hormones in cattle production, and age restrictions

imposed by several countries in the Pacific Rim region.

Problem Statement and Research Objective

International beef trade has shifted from a domestic or sometimes regional commercial

activity to a global network of buyers and sellers that continues to grow in complexity and

importance. The international marketplace for beef products is influenced by several aspects

including changes in consumer demand and preferences, national and international trade policies,









macroeconomic characteristics of the country, and the increasing concern about the quality and

safety of the food reaching each household.

Many studies have used trade models to estimate the impact of tariff and non-trade barriers

(NTB) policies on international commodity markets (e.g., Webb et al. 1989; Brester 1996; and

Devadoss et al. 2006), where international grain embargoes, domestic price insulation policies,

and food safety issues were the main reasons for trade disruption. These studies assumed that

allocation of expenditure within a sector takes place in two stages corresponding to two levels of

a utility function. The upper level defines preferences based on the origin of the product

differentiating domestically produced output and an aggregate of imported goods from all

sources. Once expenditure is allocated to aggregate imports, the lower level defines preferences

over different sources of supply.

An empirical measurement of the import demands in each country is necessary to evaluate

the impact of agricultural policies and to outline their implications. For this research, a

Computable General Equilibrium model structure (CGE) based on previous research by Paul

Armington (1969) is suggested. This specification is based on a theory of demand for products

that differentiates them according to their kind and country of origin. The specification includes

a one-product, eight-region model in which elasticities of substitution for beef products from the

United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Rest of the World (ROW) to markets such as Japan,

Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan are calculated based on annual data for 1995 to 2006.

Elasticities of substitution are known to be key behavioral parameters for trade policy

analysis; hence, estimation and analysis of these parameters is necessary since it provides

essential information to understand better the demand for beef and trade policies. Changes in

trade policy affect the availability of a product in a particular market; and the size of those










impacts largely depends on the magnitude of the elasticity. Specifically, the elasticity of

substitution in the Armington model is assumed to be imperfect according to a single constant

elasticity of substitution and homotheticity of preference. These elasticities will provide a

benchmark for CGE models of beef trade providing information about market share decrease, the

effect of tariff and non-tariff barriers (NTB) (e.g., beef import ban), and other factors affecting

the import demand for U. S. products.

Under the assumption of national product differentiation, the main obj ective of this study

is to look into the international beef market, analyze the impact of the BSE outbreak (December,

2003) on the import demand for U. S. beef products in selected markets, and determine the role of

U. S. beef promotions on recovering pre-2003 international market levels in terms of value and

volume.

Specific obj ectives for this research are:

1. Describe the condition of the beef industry in the United States and overseas.

2. Analyze the structure of the international beef market.

3. Develop the theoretical demand and export supply models for beef products in selected
countries. Model specifications should reproduce demand differences across countries
due to differences in consumers' preferences, product quality, and non-tariff barriers. The
specifications should also reproduce the supply capacity of each exporting nation and the
responsiveness to changes in average prices.

4. Perform an empirical demand analysis on beef using econometric models in order to get
the input parameters or elasticities required to estimate the impact of trade disruption or
'shocks" and the effectiveness of U. S. beef promotions in selected markets.

5. Suggest potential improvements for beef marketing overseas and provide trade policy
recommendations.
Scope

The purpose of this research is to estimate empirically the import demand and supply for

beef products for some of the most important beef trade partners of the United States. The model

suggested takes into account factors such as governmental non-tariff barriers policies, relative










prices and values, total market size of the industry, and expenditures on promotions and other

marketing activities.

Yearly export and import data collected from the World Trade Atlas (Global Trade

Information Services, Inc.) during the 1995 to 2007 period is used in this research. The quantities

and prices of beef products from the four producing regions to the four importing countries will

be analyzed at the H.S. 0201 and 0202 levels that define meat of bovine animals as fresh or

chilled and frozen. Market shares for each region will be estimated within the construct of the

model to allow for the estimation of consistent parameter estimates. The analysis will clearly

illustrate how consumers in selected markets differentiate products by their origin of production

and how promotions can affect market shares for U.S. products.

Percentage of global market share
60.096
-Percentage of World Exports (U.S., Australia, and New Zealand)




40.090
34.8%











1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007
Years

Figure 1-3. Beef trade participation of selected countries from 1980 to 2007. Source: USDA-
ERS. November 2007.






2 Harmonized System code of the product (HS).









Finally, it is important to mention at this point that the scope of this research is limited to

four importing countries: Japan, Republic of Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan; and four exporting

countries or regions: United States, Australia, New Zealand, and the Rest of the World (ROW).

Using the data set obtained from the United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign

Agricultural Service (USDA,FAS), Figure 1-3 shows that in 2007 those four importing countries

accounted for 22% of all beef imports and the three exporting countries provided almost 35% of

all beef exports in that year. Together, these two groups of countries are considered among

today's top global beef importers and exporters respectively, which clearly justify their inclusion

in this research.

Research Methodology

A comprehensive literature review of the international agricultural trade, in particular the

beef industry, and commodity promotion theory will be conducted to formulate hypotheses and

evaluate empirical findings. Topics related to international livestock production, beef processing,

retailing, and beef marketing management will be discussed to provide a theoretical background

and facilitate a further analysis of the resulting data.

For this study, an empirical demand analysis is conducted on beef products in selected

markets. A parametric analysis that includes a global trade model based on one outlined by

Armington in 1969 will be used to evaluate changes in trade flows in general equilibrium

models. Parameter estimates from empirical demand models (i.e., elasticities of substitution) are

used to simulate exogenous trade impacts (i.e., BSE, NTB, etc.) and marketing efforts aimed to

compensate for trade anomalies. Price elasticities measure the responsiveness of trade flows to

price changes. Elasticities of substitution provide the cross-price elasticity between products

from different origin and measure the degree to which lower prices would provide some goods

greater market share in a particular market. Since one of the obj ectives of this research is to









measure the impact of restrictive policies on beef trade, the size of those impacts largely depends

on the magnitude of the elasticity (McDaniel and Balistreri 2002).

The methodology suggested for this research distinguishes products by place of origin and

uses a Constant Ratio of Elasticity of Substitution (CRES) functional form to bring prices,

quantity, and other factors into the model, in order to measure trade allocation and demand

preferences for beef products. In this model, total import demand for beef will be determined for

each country and then it will be independently allocated among competing sources of supply

(Sparks and Ward 1992). However, this model represents a non-linear system with a set of

equations that are non-linear in the parameters and their corresponding restrictions within each

set of equations.

Econometric procedures will be used to estimate product demands and market share

equations to assure consistency results. The resulting model and its estimates will be used to

develop a sensitivity analysis to examine the effects of changes in selected factors on beef trade

and consumption.

Armington Trade Model

In the international food market, countries are assumed to behave competitively and

commodities like beef are usually seen as homogeneous goods. That is, similar products from

different origins are considered perfect substitutes and the corresponding price ratios are constant

in that particular market. However, reality shows that consumers tend to behave and adopt food

products based on well defined personal preferences constructed upon perceptions of the

attributes of the product which, at the end, make competing products behave as imperfect

sub stitutes.



3 The assumption of perfect substitution among products implies the presence of infinite elasticities of substitution.









A model which recognizes that commodities may be imperfect substitutes was developed

by Paul Armington in 1969 to analyze the world trade demand for machinery and chemical

products using Japan and France as differentiated sources of production. Moving away from the

assumption of perfect substitution, Armington' s model differentiates between products within

goods representing a group of products such as machinery, meats, or appliances. Within a group

category, products are not considered perfect substitutes; they are differentiated based on their

region or country of production, but due to similarities in their core attributes, they belong to the

same category. Consequently, this model suggests that one country's beef market is likely to be

composed of demands for beef products originated in several distinct and independent regions.

The strength of these individual product demand functions is largely determined by the size of

the market in the demanding country and the size of each country's beef market is affected by

many variables with the most important including national incomes, average beef prices in the

region, population levels, and the prices of substitute goods.

Armington proposed that in order to determine the overall demand for any product in any

particular trade area and calculate market shares, some fundamental assumptions must be

considered. First, the demand for products within each good' s market is independent of those

demands for products in other goods markets (e.g., U.S. beef and Australian beef). Thus in any

exporter nation, each industry produces only one product and this product is different from the

product of any other country (i.e., separability assumption) (Lloyd and Zhang 2006). Second, the

model assumes that as long as the prices of products within a category remain constant relative to

each other, the shares of those products will not be affected by changes in the size of that market.

This assumption implies that changes in prices of competing products affect product demands

only indirectly through their influence on the total market size and that market shares are not









affected by price fluctuations (i.e., homotheticity assumption) (Yang 1993). What determines

these initial shares in the Armington model specification is, however, of major interest for this

study.

Armington noticed that some issues of substitutability might arise as a consequence of the

presence of large number of supplying areas competing in the same market. Consequently, in

order to make the model empirically feasible, additional assumptions were introduced in the

specification to limit the substitutability and simplify product demand functions: (a) elasticities

of substitution between products competing in any market are constant (i.e., Constant-Elasticity-

of-Substitution (CES) assumption), therefore they do not depend on market shares; and (b) the

elasticity of substitution between any two products competing in a particular market equals the

elasticity of substitution between any other beef products in the same market. These assumptions

yield a specific and very restrictive form for the relation between demand for a product, the size

of the corresponding market, and relative prices; and the only price parameter in this function is

the single CES coefficient in that market (Armington 1969).

However, as argued in previous studies, while these assumptions are very useful in

limiting the number of parameters in the model and facilitating the estimation process, they are

extremely restrictive and somewhat unrealistic (Winters 1984; Alston et al. 1990). The

separability assumption omits prices of substitutes which are likely to be correlated with the

own-price elasticity (i.e., positive cross-price elasticities). When prices of substitutes are omitted,

the own-price parameter estimates are positively biased so that the own-price elasticities would

be underestimated (Green 2003). Although the homotheticity assumption simplifies the model

specification, if a good is differentiated, a change in the buyer' s budget may not be allocated in

the same proportion to all products. If an increase in the budget is realized, it would be allocated









more to the more preferred product. In other words, expenditure elasticities may not be unitary

(Hayes et al. 1990).

The single CES assumption restricts responses of the import demand of each product to

the price change relative to the price index for the good to be the same for all products

(Weatherspoon and Seale 1995). In addition, under the CES assumption the level of

differentiation among products is only established by the place of production which implies the

presence of a weak separability between different import sources that entails the consumer' s

decision process viewed maybe as occurring in two stages (Varian 1992). As a result, in 1989

Webb et al. solved this issue by treating the importer's utility function as separable and

introduced a two-step process to estimate the demand for the product examined. In a first step,

the demand/expenditure of a group is determined regardless of the source of origin. In a second

step, given the assumption of independence, this demand/expenditure is allocated among the

identified suppliers based on the place of origin and/or the form of the product. This stage is a

function of relative exporter prices, and it determines the market shares that each exporter will

have in each importing region. Therefore, one of the maj or considerations of the Armington

model is that the marginal rate of substitution between any two products of the same kind is

independent of the consumption of other kinds of products (Alston et al. 1990; Blonigen and

Wilson 1999).

In reality, product differentiation is based not only on country of origin but also is based on

differences in quality levels between products produced in different countries and the type of

products consumed in a particular country (Reinert and Roland-Host 1992). A more realistic and

less restrictive approach was suggested by Artus and Rhomberg in 1973 using a Constant Ratio

of the Elasticity of Substitution (CRES) in which the elasticities of substitution between any pair









of competing products might vary by a constant proportion, but the substitutability between

every product is not necessarily identical (Hanoch 1971). This framework would allow for those

suppliers who produce unusually high or low quality beef and those whose products are

distinguishable, but not highly differentiated (Sparks and Ward 1992). The theoretical

groundwork for a model that deals with the differentiated commodities as suggested by

Armington (1969) has generally been limited to using single equation estimation techniques

(Artus and Rohmberg 1973). However, Winters (1984) estimated the demand and supply of

these exports using both single equation and systems techniques. However, most of these studies

showed little recognition of external shocks or underlying structural changes that could produce

changes in the perceived differentiability among the competing goods.

This study proposes the use of a CRES functional form to estimate the parameters of a beef

trade model which distinguishes products according to their country of production and measures

the impacts of exogenous policy shocks and generic promotions on import demands for beef

products in selected U.S. markets. The choice of the CRES as the appropriate system estimation

procedure is justified given that it allows a constant ratio of elasticity of substitution between any

pair of competing beef products, without restricting the substitutability to be the same between

every product. Hence, the CRES function will fully exploit the mathematical attributes of

Armington's theoretical framework and will yield more consistent parameter estimates than

would a single CES functional form.

Data Set

This study will examine world trade in beef products over several years and evaluate

several databases to cross-verify the quality of the information used in the analysis. Yearly data

covering the period 1995 through 2006 were obtained from the United States Department of

Agriculture, Foreign Agriculture Service, using the World Trade Atlas program developed to









collect U.S. and international export and import data on agricultural trade. In addition, selected

demographics, national economic indicators, and information on tariff and non-tariff barriers

were collected using the FAOSTAT database from the United Nations, the U.S. Department of

Commerce, and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE).

For each of the selected international beef markets, the World Trade Atlas database records

import shipments using the Harmonized System code of the product (HS)4 at the 0200 level, the

volume in metric tons, the CIF5 value in US dollars, the country of origin, and a text description

of the product. In addition, yearly information collected from country specific sources (i.e., U.S.

embassies, U.N., and OIE regional/country offices) through field representatives is used to

complement the original dataset. Missing data information is the result of lack of appropriate

statistical records at country levels and in our case they represent a minimal proportion of the

total data set. Finally, the total dataset for this research includes around 25,000 observations from

which market share equations are estimated using more than 2,230 observations containing

information on total import and export quantities and country's specific economic and

demographic variables.

Outline of Chapters

The importance of trade as the underlying force behind globalization has been presented

emphasizing some of the factors affecting today' s world agricultural commerce in particular

those affecting international beef markets. Chapter 1 thus provides the background for this

proj ect. Chapter 2 discusses the international beef industry and the characteristics of each import

and exporting market during the period between 1995 trough 2007. This chapter reviews each

beef supply industry, demand for beef in each importing nation, and international regulations.

4 Governments use HS codes to classify trade into discrete categories for customs duties and for cataloging
exports/imports.
5 CIF prices include cost, insurance, and freight.










Chapter 3 provides a review of the relevant literature on agricultural trade and promotions.

Chapter 4 deals with the theoretical model, based on Armington's theory of demand

distinguished by place of production including a full description of the conceptual model and

discussion of the relevant econometric issues of the model. In Chapter 5, the final econometric

models are estimated and statistical, graphical and economical interpretations of the findings are

presented. Chapter 6 presents simulations of the effects on the beef markets of the changes in

exogenous variables. Finally, Chapter 7 presents the summary and conclusions of the study.









CHAPTER 2
WORLD BEEF TRADE AND PRODUCTION

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to present an overview of the world beef market based on

descriptive statistics and trade data gathered from public and private international organizations.

In particular, in this segment the objective is to describe trade flows between a particular set of

countries that were previously defined as regions of interest. The discussion that follows includes

a description of the data set with specifications on classification and characteristics of the traded

beef products. In addition, country-specific demographics will be presented accompanied with an

analysis of relative prices, expenditures on beef products by country, volume traded, market

shares, and values of export-imports during the period 1995 to 2007.

International Beef Trade Data

For this research, the data set is based on international trade statistics from four importing

and three exporting countries who reported quantities, import-export values, and average prices

for beef products in their respective markets. All trade data are expressed in metric tons (MT)

and values in thousands of U. S. dollars. The data set for world meat trade was obtained from The

United States Department of Agriculture, the Foreign Agricultural Service, and the Economic

Research Service using the World Trade Atlas Program. This data set was developed by Global

Trade Information Services, Inc. (GTI, 2007) to provide information on international

merchandise trade to governments and corporations.

Existing studies on international food trade suggest that agricultural world trade can be

divided into regions using the criteria of geographic differences, the pattern of trade flows, and

political boundaries. Accordingly, today' s international beef trade scenario is divided into seven

regions: South and North America, Asia which includes South and South East Asia, East Asia,









the European Union (EU), Oceania, and the Rest of the World (ROW) which includes less

significant beef producing regions/countries.

In order to collect and analyze the information from this data set, beef products are

classified using the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS) of tariff

nomenclature, which represents an internationally standardized system of names and numbers for

classifying traded products (WCO 2008). According to this nomenclature, fresh/chilled and

frozen red meats belong to the 02 group containing meat and edible meat offal. At this level, the

code 02 is made up of all aggregate meat products and the obj ective of this study is to provide an

analysis at a more specific level. Consequently, meat products of bovine animals are defined as

part of the 0201 group if they are fresh or chilled; as part of the 0202 group if frozen; and as part

of the 0203 group if they are meat of swine (fresh/chilled or frozen). The reasons for selecting

these classification levels are mainly twofold. First, products within the 0201, 0202, and 0203

codes are the maj or U. S. meat export categories. Second, they provide an excellent base for

applying the Armington specification for product differentiation. In particular, for this research

the 0203 code is mentioned only as a reference since the main obj ective is to focus on the impact

of the BSE disease which only affects bovine animals.

In addition, selected demographics, national economic indicators, and information on tariff

and non-tariff barriers are included using the FAOSTAT database from the United Nations, the

U.S. Department of Commerce, and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE).

Information on international beef promotions from the Cattlemen' s Beef Board Promotion and

Research Board are included in this research to evaluate their impact on beef demand in selected

foreign markets.









This study deals with total trade data without regional bi-lateral trade and re-exports (i.e.,

Japan exports to Hong Kong or U.S. imports from Australia) to avoid the problem of double-

counting and demonstrates the relative strength of each country in the international beef market.

Therefore, exports of any given country to any partner country (or importing country) are

defined as exports without intra-regional trade.

The International Beef Market

During the 13-year period under consideration, a number of significant changes have taken

place in the world trade environment. One of the most important changes is the significant shift

in the demand for resources, in particular with respect to food and energy, from western

economies to emerging Asian economies like India, China and many other nations on the Pacific

Rim. These emerging economies are absorbing a large portion of the world supply of agricultural

commodities helped by technological improvements in storage and transportation methods. For

example, the average beef consumption in places like Hong Kong and Taiwan has increased

almost 63% during the past 10 years while other developed western nations have shown an

opposite pattern during the same period. Beef exporting nations have shown a significant change

in trade flows during the past decades. Before the 2003 BSE outbreak, the U.S. was considered

among the top three beef exporting countries in the world with significant presence in Asia,

Africa, and Central America. Today, Brazil is considered the largest exporter of red meats

products followed by Australia, which clearly shows the economic impact of food safety issues

and how countries around the globe are adapting their policies to prevent future outbreaks. In

order to see the impacts of these policy changes on trade patterns, this section shows beef trade

flows between selected countries during the period 1995 to 2007 in terms of quantities traded,

market shares, prices and expenditures, and consumption levels for the years before and after the

BSE market restrictions policies took place.



























































I


y Regon
m 1995 m 2007


Volume, Share, and Growth of Global Production

Tables 2-1, 2-2, and Figure 2-1 show the world total production by region, the share of

each region, and the rate of growth for the years 1995 and 2007 in terms of quantities and

percentages respectively.

The world beef production totaled 48.53 millions of metric tons (M.MT) during the year

1995 and 54.48 M.MT during the year 2007, representing an increase of almost 11%. The

Americas region concentrated more than one half of the world production with more than 50% of

the share in 1995 and almost 53% in 2007, where the South American portion has shown the

largest boost in production share with almost a 4% increase. In particularly, the North American

region, which includes the U.S., Canada, and Mexico emerged as the largest producing region,

while the South American region that includes Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, etc., appears as the

world's second largest producing region during the same years, Figure 2-1.

M orld Beef Production by Regon (M.MT)


16.00

12.00

8.00


m 1995 12007


S America N. America Asia* East Asia Eur~opean U Oceania ROM
Regions

.-1. Total beef production and shares by region. Source: USDA-FAS. January 2007.


Figure 2


Share of Total M orld Production b


rl










In 1995, the next largest share was for the European Union (EU) region with 18.5%

followed by East Asia (10.3 %), Oceania (4.8%), Asia (2.6%), and the rest of the regions of the

world with 13%. In 2007, however, East Asia (15.7%) surpassed the EU (14.7%) as the second

largest producing region of the world followed by Oceania, Asia, and the rest of the world. With

the exception of the EU and some small producing regions included in the ROW category, all

other regions of the world show important advances in terms of quantity produced which

guarantees a healthy supply and demonstrates the increasing importance of this commodity in

people's diet around the globe.

Table 2-1. Compared world production levels and trade from 1995 to 2007
1995 2007 2007/1995
Region 1000 MT % of World 1000 MT % of World Ratio
S. America 9,975 0.206 13,235 0.243 1.327
N. America 14,363 0.296 15,514 0.285 1.080
Asia* 1,239 0.026 2,724 0.050 2.199
East Asia 5,003 0.103 8,574 0.157 1.714
European U 8,985 0.185 8,000 0.147 0.890
Oceania 2,347 0.048 2,921 0.054 1.245
ROW 6,626 0.137 3,521 0.065 0.531
World 48,538 1.000 54,489 1.000 1.123
Source: FAS-USDA. January 2008. Asia* represents values of South and Southeast Asia.

Table 2-1 shows the imports to exports ratio 2007/1995, which is interpreted as a growth

rate indicator for production levels. Thus, production grew globally at a rate of 1.123 from 1995

to 2007 or in other words, the 2007 production level was 1.123 times the 1995 level. The Asian

region shows the largest improvement in terms of production and that traditional beef-producing

regions, like North America and the EU, have been surpassed by competing regions, like South

America and Oceania showing an important shift in the world beef supply. Using Figure 2-2 to

support the discussion, production levels have increased at a rate of 1.2, 0.71, 0.33, and 0.25

times in Asia, East Asia, South America, and Oceania respectively, while the North American

region, the EU, and the rest of the world (ROW) have shown small or negative increments during

the same period.












Percentage of Variation
1.60-
o% Change

1.20
1.20-



0.80 -07





00.08
0.005

0-0.1



-0.40-
-0.47


-0.80
S. America N. America Asia* East Asia European U Oceania ROW

Region


Figure 2-2. Relative variation in growth rate of production (2007/1995). Source: FAS-USDA.
January 2008.


Beef Trade Patterns


This section presents a general description of each region in terms of trade, trends, and


ratios between imports and exports volumes. Figure 2-3 and Table 2-2 are used to compare levels


of trade and explain the significance of each region in terms of imports and exports. The dataset


shows that beef trade has expanded over time and that market shares between regions have


changed. Rising demand for meat products in different parts of the world and increasing


concerns about the safety of the beef supply chain have prompted nations to re-define trade


alliances in order to satisfy beef consumers and ensure the quality and safety of the products


being traded. Using trade statistics for the seven regions previously defined, it is possible to


identify trade trends for the years before and after the BSE outbreak in December 2003.












Volume of Trade in 1995, 2003, and 2007 (1000 MT)


3500


3000-
Imports (Dark) and Exports (Light)


2500-


2000-


1500


1000-







South North Asia* East European Oceania ROW

America America Asia Union
Region




Figure 2-3. Pre and post- BSE beef trade levels by region. Source: USDA-FAS. February 2008.

Exporting regions like North America, South America, Oceania, and Asia revealed


significant levels of growth in their export markets, although in the case of the North America

this trend drastically changed after 2003. Other regions such as Europe and the ROW presented


an opposite trend, which is interpreted as a loss in market participation due to the negative


impact of food safety issues affecting their supply chain, like in the case of the BSE epidemic in

the United Kingdom with almost 1,000 new cases per week January 1993 (OIE 2007). Figure 2-3


presents the import and export quantities for years under consideration. During the year 1995, the


maj or import regions were North America and East Asia followed by the European Union. These

three regions imported 1257, 1295, and 494 thousands of metric tons respectively representing

29.5% 30.4%, and 1 1.6% of the world imports respectively; during the year 2003, 2048


(39.6%), 1495 (28.9%), and 549 (10.6%) thousands of metric tons respectively; and in the year
1Percentage share of world imports/ exports for beef products.









2007 their import quantities were 2096 (37.3%), 1240 (22.0%), and 725 (12.9%) thousands of

metric tons respectively. Together they comprised 71.5%, 79. 1%, and 72.3% of the world

imports for beef products, which once again illustrates the importance of these regions in term of

beef trade.

The quantities of world exports originated in South America, North America, and Oceania

increased from 1995 to 2003 reflecting the growing demand for beef products in Asian nations,

while European exports decreased due to food safety issues. During the 2003 to 2007 period,

exports from South America dominated the world market, while exports from North America

plummeted. In fact, the strongest region in terms of export growth was the South American

Region. With a growth rate of more than 50% during the 1995 to 2003 period, South America

exported approximately 28.9% of world totals; and during the 2003 to 2007 period this rate

increased once again by almost 60% corresponding to a 44.2% of world totals. The North

America region, while it increased quantities exported and world market shares from 1995 to

2003 by 31% and 19.7% respectively, in the next period decreased to 24.8% showing an absolute

growth rate reduction of 9.2% in market share. Finally, Oceania also showed steady growth in

terms of volume exported (1606, 1789, and 1965 thousands of metric tons respectively),

although in terms of growth rates it showed a reduction during those years (29.4%, 26. 1%, and

28.3% respectively).

Table 2-2 presents the import to export ratio for each region considered for this study.

Thus, for a given year, a ratio with a value below 1 defines a particular region as net importer

and conversely, a ratio with a value above 1 describes a net exporting region for that year.

Analyzing the obtained ratios, it is clear that regardless of their production levels North America,

East Asia, and, lately, the EU are considered net beef importing regions in terms of volume










(quantity) traded, and that South America, Oceania, and Asia have maintained their

characteristics of traditional beef exporter over the 13 year period considered for this study.

Table 2-2. Ratio import to export quantities by regions from 1995 to 2007
Year S. America N. America Asia* East Asia EU Oceania
1995 0.175 1.169 0.470 12.103 0.400 0.010
1996 0.270 1.082 0.107 11.819 0.385 0.010
1997 0.179 1.110 0.585 14.567 0.427 0.007
1998 0.190 1.220 0.386 14.893 0.503 0.007
1999 0.076 1.196 0.552 28.180 0.441 0.007
2000 0.085 1.238 0.355 32.979 0.647 0.008
2001 0.062 1.329 0.304 26.396 0.684 0.009
2002 0.064 1.295 0.302 36.027 0.917 0.012
2003 0.041 1.307 0.294 41.528 1.253 0.010
2004 0.023 2.513 0.327 19.865 1.766 0.010
2005 0.020 2.241 0.222 14.842 2.810 0.010
2006 0.012 1.896 0.199 13.871 3.319 0.009
2007 0.010 1.784 0.221 12.525 4.143 0.009
Source: FAS-USDA. November 2007. Asia* represents values of South and Southeast Asia.

In the case of the of the North American region, it is clear that after the 2003 BSE scare the

trade ratio increased due to a significant reduction of the quantities exported by the United States

and Canada, and to a strong domestic demand in the EU. Of particular significance is the

situation in the East Asian market where the increasing import trend was disrupted and reduced

by more than 50% after the BSE outbreak. On the other hand, after December of 2003, a positive

ramification of this food safety issue can be perceived on the beef trade ratios from regions such

as South America and Oceania characterized by their grass-feed beef type products.

Consequently, it is important to describe the situations in the North American region and the East

Asian region, where the maj or U. S. beef markets are located; and the Oceania region where

competing beef products are produced in order to understand the dynamics of trade in this part of

the world.

Traditionally, the North American region has been considered one of the largest beef-

producing regions of the world. The United States has been always been characterized as a net

exporter of beef in terms of export values, which before 2004 had generated a large trade surplus









over the years. However, U. S. beef imports have exceeded exports in terms of volume. The

United States exports high quality beef products and imports a large quantity of beef that is used

to be combined with domestic beef to make ground beef. Much of the increase in beef imports

has been due to competitively priced ground beef from Australia and New Zealand, the

elimination of U.S. tariffs on beef from Canada, and the implementation of fresh beef quotas for

countries like Uruguay. Today, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada are the largest suppliers of

beef to the U. S. (ERS 2007).

Before December 2003, the East Asian region was the most important market for the

United States, importing 41.52 times more than it exported with most of the trade being

concentrated between the United States, Japan, and the Republic of Korea. Today, beef imports

from Australia and New Zealand have displaced the American beef presence in the Pacific Rim

region although consumers in these markets have always demonstrated a preference for U.S. beef

(USMEF 2007). Lastly, the 2001 and 2002 cases in England and Belgium had a highly

significant and negative impact on the EU beef industry causing EU exports to plummet.

To summarize, based on the volume of beef traded, the fastest growing regions on the

import side have been the United States, East Asia, and the European Union (EU), and on the

export side, South America, Oceania, and Asia have shown the strongest growth on beef exports

during the same period. Overall, trade restrictions due to decreased outbreaks have impacted

global beef trade and traditional trading relationships. These circumstances have generated

negative consequences for the United States and other beef suppliers but, in other cases, they

created new market opportunities as in the case of Brazil and Argentina. In 2001, these two

nations only accounted for 16% of the global beef trade, but today they account for more than

37% of the beef traded (FAS 2007).









Considering the recent political and economical changes worldwide, the supply advantages

of each meat producer country and the increasing demand in different region of the planet, this

study will focus its attention towards a beef trade model that includes four Asian importing

countries Republic of Korea (KR), Japan (JP), Republic of Taiwan (TW), and Hong Kong/

China (HK) and three exporting nations United States (US), Australia (AU), and New

Zealand (NZ) and a region that aggregates the rest of the beef exporting countries into a Rest of

the Word category (ROW). These countries were selected according to the following criteria: the

strength and manner of participation in the international meat market; the nature and scope of the

BSE ban on their beef trade patterns with the United States and its competitors; and the impact of

international checkoff programs on selected Asian nations.

The following sections of this chapter will describe the Pacific Rim Beef Market

characteristics. This analysis includes statistics generated from the dataset that will be used to

evaluate and compare the selected nations, and to provide the background necessary for the

study.

Pacific Rim Demand for Beef Products

Four Asian countries were selected according to the volume and value of beef products

imported and expenditure levels on beef promotions by the exporting country. In this section

each of the selected countries, Japan, the Republic of South Korea, the Republic of Taiwan, and

the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong/China is discussed separately in terms of

production, imports volume, and consumption levels. Figures 2-4 through 2-9 present these

statistics for the years 1995 through 2007 which are used to explain market characteristics of

each participating country and provide a background for the specification of the Armington

model .









Republic of South Korea

Almost one half of Korea' s beef demand is met by imports, which have seen an important

growth before and after the BSE scare in 2003. During the period between 1995 and the first half

of 1997, the strong economic growth in Korea positively affected the demand for beef impacting

prices and, consequently, stimulating domestic production (Figure 2-4). According to a report

prepared by the USDA-FAS in 1996, government regulated-import policies aimed to protect

Korea' s domestic livestock producers by restricting access to foreign beef products had a strong

impact on domestic cattle prices forcing the government to soften import regulations and allow

foreign beef to access the market at levels well above the established import quota level. The

economic crisis between the fall of 1997 and the beginning of 1999 further stressed this market

forcing imports and consumption to drop 44% and 11% respectively.

The effect of Korea's economic crisis on domestic cattle production revealed itself in

inventory trends and slaughter levels showing a peak of almost 1 1% in 1998. In 2000, beef

consumption declined almost 23% due to the Asian economic crisis that forced Korea' s economy

into a year-long downturn. Beef consumption plunged at the beginning of the crisis and then

gradually recovered during 2001 showing a significant consumer demand for beef given the

delicate economic situation. During the following years, total beef consumption grew steadily

mainly due to an improving economy that helped to boost the demand of food products in Korea.

Nonetheless, during the year 2003 a sharp decrease in beef consumption due to BSE concerns

affected the demand for imported beef products, in particular from the United States and Canada.

Official estimates indicate that beef consumption and import levels dropped sharply early in

2004 due to food safety concerns, including BSE and E. coli (FAS 2004), which is clearly

revealed in Figure 2-4.











In recent years, the demand for beef has been on the recovery showing rising consumption


and import levels. Today, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, and other beef-exporting countries


have displaced the United States as maj or beef supplier, although bilateral negotiations are being


conducted to reestablish the presence of American products in the Korean market.


With respect to relative prices in the Korean market, Figure 2-5 illustrates a similar trend


for American and world average prices for beef products during the past years. The increasing


demand for American beef before the 2003 BSE announcement has pushed prices up, which is


interpreted as a clear signal that consumers in Korea have a marked preference towards the


unique attributes available only on U.S. beef products (i.e., fat content, tenderness, flavor, etc).

Total B eef Pro duction, Im po rts, and C onsum ption (1000 MT)
7())
Republic of Ko rea
--Production -Imports -Consumption

6())



50)0
















1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Consumption 443 457 543 477 554 611 474 634 639 410 445 498 520
Imports 229 221 233 129 249 333 253 442 457 224 250 298 315
Iloduction 214 236 310 348 305 278 221 192 182 186 195 200 205


Figure 2-4. Republic of Korea beef market indicators. Source: USDA-FAS. November 2007.

In the Korean beef market, prices for Australian products have shown a fluctuating trend


with reduction of more than 42 % between 1999 and 2002. However, after the BSE outbreak in


North America, Australian beef prices returned to previous levels showing an increase of more











than 40%. These price fluctuations might be a consequence of the presence or absence of beef


products from competing nations in the South Korean market. Despite the higher prices, beef


products from New Zealand have shown an important participation in the Korean market,


although during the past eight years a strong market competition has forced its prices to drop


more than 44% to a point where today's prices for New Zealand beef are 22% below the average


beef import price.

CIF Prices for Fresh Beef in Korea ($ per Kg)
12-
U.S. o AU INZ --World Av.


10-











9- 9 20 01 02 20 00 05 20

8-a

7-ue25 vrg I rcsfrfehbe pout nKrafo 99t 06 ore

6-AFS ebur 08

5-pa











1999mpio 2000n196 n 2001 2002 2003r 200 2005 2006 mr hn .% Hwvr



















































-


-


Japan's domestic beef production continued its downward trend during the same period and


imported beef continued to account for a greater share of Japanese consumption.


The discovery of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in Japan in 2001 caused an


immediate drop in consumption and reduced import levels during the year; according to Japanese


household consumption statistics, beef consumption for April and May (immediately after the


BSE scare began) declined about 15% each month, while consumption of other meats declined


only slightly. On the production side, almost ironically, the data showed an increase of nearly


15% compared to the 2000's production level, perhaps motivated by concerns that imported BSE


infected beef may appear in the Japanese food supply.

Total B eef Pro duction, Im po rts, and C consumption (1000 MT)
180)0
Japan
--Production -Imports -Consumption
16(II


1 4 ( (


124)()


1)10 0


1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Consumption 1523 1444 1465 1499 1523 1575 1440 1234 1329 1148 1186 1175 1215
Imports 922 889 935 969 986 1045 982 697 833 634 686 678 715
ftoduedion 601 555 530 530 537 530 458 537 496 514 500 497 500


Figure 2-6. Japan beef market indicators. Source: USDA-FAS. November 2007.

After the 2003 BSE outbreak persistent concerns about the safety of imported beef forced


the Japanese government to impose an import ban for all fresh and frozen beef from North


America which deeply affected U.S. market participation since, prior to the ban, American beef











accounted for one-third of the beef consumption in Japan. Consequently, domestic production


and imports from different sources, in particular Australia and New Zealand, have increased


since then, but these sources of beef have been incapable of meeting the Japanese demand as


show in Figure 2-5, resulting in a tight supply situation. Today, according to estimates from the


USDA-FAS, Japanese beef imports are expected to increase more than 10% between 2007 and


2008. The U. S. presence in the Japanese beef market has been almost insignificant compared to


pre-BSE levels due to trade restrictions that constrained American exports to cattle under 21


months old, in addition to high U. S. beef prices and consumer anxiety.

C IF Pri ces for Fres h B eef in Ja pan ($ per Kg)
12-
U.S. o AU INZ --World Av.


10-











9- 9 20 01 02 20 00 05 20

8-a

7-ue27 vrg I rcsfrfehbe pout nJpnfo 99t 06 ore

6-AFS ebur 08

5- sepnieAsrla efhsbe a o atrafcigU .mre atcpto

4-teJpns akt speetdi iue -,Aeia efhsbe omrilzda

3-hrpie nrlto oAsrla ef- ewe 9 n 5 ihr-dpnigo h



































Republic of Taiwan
--Production -Im ports--Consumption



n 81 73 04 00 101 00 85 co 107 87 101 100 110
ts 75 o7 88 85 co 85 80 01 101 82 05 104 105
n 6 6 o 5 5 5 5 5 o 5 o 5







Hong Kong/ Republic of China
-Production -Im ports -Consum ption
-1


year considered. As in the Korean market, Japanese consumers have shown a strong preference

towards American beef, which is translated into higher price levels. Following the same price

trend, beef products from New Zealand have been priced above the average of U. S. and

international price levels showing an important increase, in particular, after the December 2003

BSE scare. This circumstance has positively affected the demand for beef from grass-feed cattle

since cattle produced under this condition are less likely affected by BSE.

Republic of Taiwan and Hong Kong

Total Beef Production, Imports, and Consum ption (1000 1\T)


1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Consumption 93 80 00 82 80 05 03 101 105 102 100 111 114
Imports 05 50 51 03 71 78 78 87 02 88 05 o~ 100
Itoduction 28 21 15 10 18 17 15 14 13 14 14 14 14
Year

Figure 2-8. Taiwan and Honk Kong beef market indicators. Source: USDA-FAS. November
2007.

Figure 2-8 includes data from the Republic of Taiwan and Hong Kong given that both

countries reflect marked similarities in production, imports, and consumption trends. First, both


620
510
40
30
20
10
50


120
110
80


620
10
40
30
20
10
50









countries do not have a significant beef livestock industry and depend heavily on beef imports to

satisfy their domestic demand. The primary meat consumed in Taiwan is pork, where its

consumption surpasses beef consumption by 17 fold.

After a substantial decline in 1996 due to the BSE scare, beef consumption and imports

rebounded significantly in 1997 showing an increase of more than 22%, as many consumers

substituted beef for pork following the March 1997 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD)

that devastated Taiwan's pig industry (FAS 2007). Beef imports increased again in 1999 by

almost 1 1.5 % to 96,000 tons to match increasing levels of domestic consumption. After 1999

and 2001, the substantial downward and upward trends on imported beef levels were the result of

Asia's 2000 economic crisis that sank Taiwan's economy into a year-long downturn and the

result of a growing economy that positively affected income levels leading to greater demand for

imported beef products.

During the year 2004, Figure 2-8 shows a sharp decrease in beef consumption 18.7 % -

mainly due to BSE concerns that affected the demand for imported beef products, in particular

for those originating in the United States. In recent years, import and consumption levels

returned to pre-BSE levels, but the negative consequences on U.S. market shares are

unquestionable since Australia and New Zealand are now the main suppliers of beef products.

In relation to Hong Kong, this special administrative region relies almost entirely on

China, which supplies 99% of Hong Kong' s live cattle which represents an average of more than

109,000 animals during the 1995 to 2007 period (FAOSTAT 2007). According to a report

prepared by USDA-FAS in 2004, Hong Kong is primarily a frozen beef market. This preference

is the result of changes in consumers' preferences, in particular working females who no longer









have the time to purchase fresh meat daily, and the expansion of the food service industry

(US1VEF 2007).

Figure 2-8 presents Hong Kong's beef market situation during the 13 years as particularly

stable even though beef consumption and imports were considerably down since early 1996 due

to consumers' concerns over food safety issues. In March 1997, an outbreak of E. coli in Hong

Kong's beef supply further discouraged consumers from buying beef though the E. coli bacteria

were detected in ground beef originating from locally produced cattle. Demand fell almost 14 %

for all types of beef products regardless of their origin (FAS 2004). After these food safety

incidents, Hong Kong' s beef demand has rebounded showing a steady upward trend in terms of

imports and domestic consumption with 49 % and 42. 1 % respectively.

The following Figures 2-9 and 2-10 show relative beef prices for Taiwan and Hong Kong.

Of particular significance are the U. S. price levels, since they present a significant difference

between pre- and post-BSE outbreak. American beef was considered a product of superior

quality compared to competing products due to the fact that consumers were willing to pay a

premium price. In fact, U.S. beef prices in Taiwan and Hong Kong were 15 % and 45 % more

than the world average.

Due to the 2003 BSE announcement, beef prices increased rapidly as a consequence of the

interruption in beef supply forcing traders to shift towards less expensive substitutes for U.S.

beef the Australian and New Zealand grass-feed beef to satisfy the increasing demand for

imported beef. In the case of Hong Kong, the market for U. S. beef responded quite differently

after 2003 showing its highest prices during the years that followed the BSE announcements.












CIF Prices for Fresh B eef in Taiwan($ per Kg)

- U.S. o AU INZ --World Av.


2006


2002 2003


2000 2001


2004 2005


Year


Figure 2-9. Average CIF prices for fresh beef products in Taiwan from 1999 to 2006. Source:
USDA-FAS. February 2008.

CIF Prices for Fresh B eef in Hong Kong ($ per Kg)


2005 2006


2004


2002


2000 2001


Year


Figure 2-10. Average CIF prices for fresh beef products in Hong Kong from 1999 to 2006.
Source: USDA-FAS. February 2008.


1999










International Beef Supply

The present research is based on a trade model specification that follows the Armington

model of product differentiation by country of origin using four exporting regions to formulate a

beef trade model that compares beef products. Traditionally, the three maj or suppliers of beef

products in the Pacific Rim region have been the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. All

other beef suppliers were aggregated and included in the model as part of the Rest of the World

category with countries such as Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, and the EU community

included in this last group. In the following sections each country or region is discussed showing

production capacity, consumption, imports (M) and exports (X) measured in metric tons (MT).

United States

As of December 2007, the United States is considered the third largest exporter of beef

products behind Brazil and Australia, and at the same time, it is also considered the largest

importer of beef, specifically ground beef imports from Australia and New Zealand. According

to official trade data on import and export volumes, the U. S. is clearly a net beef importer. The

ratios of imports-to-exports, during the last six years, support this statement in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3. U.S. beef imports and exports volumes between years 2002 and 2007 (1000 MT)
Year Imports (M) Exports (X) Ratio (M/X) %/Production
2002 1459.66 1109.94 1.31 9.0
2003 1363.50 1142.15 1.19 9.6
2004 1668.77 208.65 7.99 1.9
2005 1632.48 316.15 5.16 2.8
2006 1399.33 518.91 2.69 4.4
2007 1384.36 649.09 2.13 5.9
Source: USDA-ERS. February 2008.

Since 2002, the United States has imported, on average, 3.41 times more than it has

exported showing peak import levels right after the BSE outbreak. This represents the logical

consequence of the ban on U. S. beef products overseas and the increasing domestic demand in









the United States during past years. The import bans caused U.S. beef exports to drop, and

although some important markets re-opened during 2004, export quantities for that year declined

almost 82 % below 2003's record levels. Ninety percent of total beef exports or 2,026.88 million

metric tons were commercialized in Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Canada, and Hong Kong

markets during the years before the December 2003 BSE outbreak, but after that only Mexico

and Canada remained among the maj or markets for U. S. beef, accounting for more than 65 % of

total beef export volumes (ERS 2007). A report prepared for the Kansas Department of

Agriculture showed that in the very short run, cattle prices fell by about 16 % after the BSE

announcement and that some indicators predicted that U. S. domestic consumption could fall by

15 %. Nevertheless, in early 2004 U.S. domestic prices recovered showing that U.S. consumer

demand and confidence had been minimally impacted (Coffey et al. 2005).

Figure 2-10 illustrates the U. S. beef scenario in terms of total production, consumption,

and exports of fresh/chilled and frozen beef products during the 1995 to 2007 period. United

States domestic consumption increased by 8.5% over the period 1995 to 2007, while production

slightly decreased after 2004, by 3.3%, in part as a consequence of the loss of high quality beef

markets overseas (USMEF 2007).

Historically, the United States has exported about 10 % of its total production of

fresh/chilled and frozen beef. World statistics on beef trade show that the United States had been

considered the top beef exporter until the 2003 BSE scare, when Brazil and, in particular,

Australia, took the lead as world leaders. Today in most of the previously considered U. S.

markets, both Australia and New Zealand have taken an important lead while the United States is

struggling to re-gain market access. Current export volumes represent only one half of the 2003

monthly volumes due to trade restrictions imposed on U. S. beef by most of the maj or beef trade

















































-



-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-



-


partners (i.e., restricted to beef from cattle under 21 months of age in Japan, under 30 months of



age in Taiwan and Hong Kong, and a complete ban in Korea). Australia and New Zealand have


benefited from the absence of American beef in Japan and Korea, with 2006 exports increasing



17% over the 2003 volume (USMEF 2007). United States exports to traditional open markets



such as Mexico, Canada, and Russia have increased by 33% in value and 17% in volume since



2003. The importance of the United States as an exporter has decreased since 2004, when only



1.86% of its production was sent overseas. Since then, that level has increased to 5.43% in 2007



with most of the markets located in North America and Eastern Europe.


Millions of Metric Tons (M. MT)

United States
--Production -Consumption-Exports


13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4



2

1

0


1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Exports 0.83 0.85 0.97 0.99 1.09 1.12 1.03 1.11 1.14 0.21 0.32 0.52 0.65
Consumption 11.73 11.9 11.77 12.05 12.33 12.5 12.35 12.74 12.34 12.67 12.66 12.83 12.82
Iloduction 11.59 11.75 11.71 11.8 12.12 12.3 11.98 12.43 12.04 11.26 11.32 11.98 11.97

Year


Figure 2-11i. U.S. production, consumption, and exports of fresh/chilled and frozen beef 1995 to

2007. Source: USDA-FAS. February 2008.


The year 2007 marked the fourth year of BSE-related trade restrictions for U.S. beef



products. However, in 2006 the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) declared the U.S.


BSE risk status as a "controlled risk" country, which is expected to help increase market access











for U.S. beef in all countries. The OIE certification and the weak U.S. dollar have made U.S.


beef exports more competitive overseas, giving American beef products a competitive advantage


in relation to products from other beef-exporting nations. As a result, U.S. beef exports are


forecast to climb over 19 % in 2008 to around 775,000 metric tons due to continued strong


opportunities in the NAFTA countries (FAS 2007). Today, U.S. beef maintains a strong presence

in Canada and Mexico while slowly making inroads in Asian markets despite being impeded by


a 20 month or younger age restriction in Japan and the current suspension of exports to Korea.

Australia


Australia' s total production, consumption, and exports of fresh/chilled and frozen beef


products have increased at a steady rate during the past thirteen years.

Millions of Metric Tons (M. MT)
Australia
--Production -Consumptionl-Exports




















1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Exports 1.11 1.03 1.17 1.25 1.25 1.32 1.38 1.34 1.24 1.37 1.39 1.43 1.45
Consumption 0.64 0.71 0.77 0.73 0.74 0.67 0.68 0.72 0.81 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.76
Il-oduction 1.72 1.74 1.94 1.99 1.96 1.99 2.05 2.09 2.07 2.08 2.1 2.18 2.26
Year


Figure 2-12. Australia production, consumption, and exports of fresh/chilled and frozen beef
from 1995 to 2007. Source: USDA-FAS. February 2008.









The data set shows that Australian beef exports increased 23.4% and that domestic production

and consumption increased by 15.7 and 24.8 % respectively over this period. These numbers

reflect that Australia is a net beef exporter and that most of its production demand is located

outside the country. Today Australia is the second largest exporter of beef products in the world,

exporting almost 65% of its total production. Like the United States, Australia had focused its

attention on markets around the Pacific Rim where it has a clear advantage over the Rest of the

World beef exporting nations due to its proximity to most of the maj or markets in the region.

Since December 2003, Australian beef has captured two-thirds of the import market shares

in the region as it filled the large market left by the U.S. beef absence. The current situation of

absence or limited presence of U. S. beef in maj or Asian markets continues to present

opportunities for Australian products, limited supplies due to a prolonged drought, limited range

of cuts, and the increasing pressure from competitors (i.e., New Zealand) that have negatively

affected its ability to increase its market shares in the region. Finally, Australia's exports are

expected to decline by 3% during the next year as the United States regains markets in Asia and

as Australia production declines (USMEF 2007).

New Zealand

Although a small producer of beef if compared to the United States and Australia, this

nation has a significant importance as a world beef exporter due to its geographical location and

its relatively large exports levels in relation to domestic consumption and production. New

Zealand is a net beef export country, with around 79.3% of its production being exported

overseas on average over the past 13 years and showing its highest peaks right after the 2003

BSE scare in North America with more than 81% of its production being exported. The average

beef production during the period 1995 to 2007 was about 641,000 metric tons, showing a

significant increase of more than 16% in production levels after 2002, while domestic











consumption has remained stable within the same period representing 20.5% of its total


production or 149,600 metric tons on average between 1995 and 2007.

Millions of Metric Tons (M. MT)
New Zealand
--Production -Consumption-Exports


0.8-




0.6-




0.4-




0.2-





1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Exports 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.48 0.43 0.47 0.48 0.48 0.55 0.59 0.58 0.53 0.52
Consumption 0.11 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.17 0.13 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.16
Il-oduction 0.63 0.63 0.66 0.62 0.56 0.58 0.61 0.59 0.69 0.72 0.71 0.68 0.66


Figure 2-13. New Zealand production, consumption, and exports of fresh/chilled and frozen beef
from 1995 to 2007. Source: USDA-FAS. February 2008.


As illustrated by Figure 2-13, during the year 2004 beef export results reflected soaring


quantity levels to Korea and Japan as traders took advantage of the ban on U. S. beef.


Consequently, exports to Japan and Korea increased 92% and 99% respectively from January


through August 2004 compared to the same period in 2003. Despite increasing beef exports,


New Zealand has been only able to fill part of Japan' s and Korea's beef deficit due to its general


inability to provide specific cuts and the quality of beef that have traditionally been supplied by


the United States and Canada (FAS 2004).





















































-


-


-


-


-


-


-


Rest of the World


Brazil, Canada, Argentina, and other beef-producing countries around the world have



shown a solid growth in their exports levels, in particular after the year 2003 with an increase of


almost 28%. Economic growth in Asia, Eastern Europe, and nations from other parts of the



developing world has boosted the demand for beef products which has also triggered global



production. International trade has benefited from this economic bonanza as Figure 2-13 clearly


illustrates a steady and positive trend of those indicators during the past 13 years. Thus,


international beef trade, world consumption, and production levels have shown growth levels of



more than 35%, 9.6%, and 12.6% respectively during the 1995 to 2007 period.


LMillions of Metric Tons (M. MT)
50-
Row
45 -Production-Consumptionl-Exports


1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Exports 3.41 3.15 3.47 3.04 3.34 3.27 3.2 3.74 3.78 4.7 5.13 5 5.26
Consumption 35.09 33.68 35.42 35.54 36.55 36.18 35.5 36.74 35.86 36.41 37.44 38.16 38.81
ftoduedion 34.61 33.47 34.79 34.55 35.34 35.45 35.02 36.14 35.28 37.27 38.33 38.89 39.6

Year


Figure 2-14. Rest of the world production, consumption, and exports of fresh/chilled and frozen
beef from 1995 to 2007. Source: USDA-FAS. February 2008.


40


35


30


25


20


15


10



O









Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE): Impact on Beef Trade

This section presents an analysis of the impact of 2003's BSE announcement on maj or

beef markets, the consequences for American beef exports, and how this food safety issue

affected patterns of trade. To facilitate the interpretation, each importing market is analyzed from

the consumption and market share perspectives, while country-specific expenditures per capital

on beef are used to understand BSE consequences in exporting nations. Figures 2-15 through 2-

18 illustrate pre- and post-BSE per capital consumption of imported beef, as well as market share

information for Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Figures 2-19 through 2-22 introduce the

amount of U. S. dollars expended on imported fresh/chilled and frozen beef products in each of

the four importing market with respect to a specific exporting country. Finally, Figures 2-23 and

2-24 present a pre- and post-BSE trade volume matrix that represents trade patterns between

each of the eight areas considered for this research.

Consumption Levels and Market Shares

According to the USDA-FAS dataset used in this study, the Republic of South Korea was

considered the third largest market for U.S. beef products before the BSE announcement and

accounted for roughly 19% of all U.S. beef exports on a volume basis and 22% on a value basis.

In numbers, Korea imported more than $ 816 million worth of U. S. beef products during 2003,

which represented a consumption level of 17.42 Kg (38.3 lb) per capital.

The United States accounted for 69% of Korea' s beef market, followed by Australia, New

Zealand, and the rest of the world (ROW) with 21%, 8%, and 2% of the import market share

respectively (Figure 2-15). The same data indicated that more than 90% of Korea' s imports from

the United States and its competitors were concentrated in the following categories according to

their total volume: frozen boneless and bone-in beef, fresh/chilled beef, and frozen edible offal.













Foreign B eef C onsum ption per C apita in Kg
20.00

17.42
US 69.0%

15.00 20

NZealand 8.0%


Australia 21.0%
10.00


Australia

5.00





0.00 N. Zealand
Pre-B SE ban Post-B SE ban22%
2003 2007
Year Import Market Shares for Beef Products in Korea



Figure 2-15. Korea imported beef consumption per-capita and market shares. Source: USDA-
FAS. February 2008.


After the December 2003 BSE scare in North America, U.S. beef exports to Korea were


reduced to a little more than one million dollars during the year 2004. Consumption levels were


also impacted as a result of this food safety issue, as presented in Figure 2-15, showing a


decrease of more than 44% to 9.7 Kg per capital during 2007. Korea has the highest average price


for beef products in the world, and the continued absence of U.S. beef has kept the domestic


market undersupplied and prices high, resulting in a reduced overall per capital consumption. As


expected, beef market shares have also changed as Australia and New Zealand captured the


market portion lost by the United States. Hence, in 2007 Australia accounted for 71.7% of the


import market followed by New Zealand, the U.S., and ROW with 22.2%, 4 %, and 2%


respectively. Although the ban on U.S. beef was removed in September 2006, in practice,












products are not yet moving into the market as Korea has been very strict in its enforcement of


its boneless import requirements (USMEF 2007).


Figure 2-16 summarizes pre- and post-BSE beef consumption and markets shares for the


Japanese market. Prior to the BSE incident, Japan was the most important market for key U.S.


beef products. In particular Japan represented the main market for products such as guts,


tongues, intestines, and edible offal, as well as the traditional fresh beef, and frozen boneless and


bone-in beef (USMEF 2007). Using the data available from the USDA-FAS, the differences in


volumes of U.S. beef exported to Japan between June 2003 and June 2005 indicate that the loss


of this particular market accounted for more than $967.3 million representing 46.8% in market


share loss. Before December 2003, Australia accounted for 42% of the market, followed by the


U.S., ROW, and New Zealand with 40%, 15%, and 3% of the import market share respectively.





Fo rei gn B eef C onsum pti on per C apita i n Kg US 40.0%
14.00

11.87
12.00

-OW 15.0%
10.00
Australia 42.0%/ N. Zealand 3.0%

8.00


6.00


4.00-y Australia
82.0%

2.00


0.00 8 I .0%
Pre-B SE ban Post-B SE ban
2003 2007
Year Im port Market Shares for Beef Products in Japan



Figure 2-16. Japan imported beef consumption per-capita and market shares. Source: USDA-
FAS. February 2008.









The loss of confidence in the safety of beef products along the entire marketing chain and

elevated levels of general concern for food safety have deeply damaged the position of American

beef products in the Japanese market. U.S. beef exports to Japan have been limited to less than

8% of the 2003 monthly shipments since the market re-opened on July, 2006 (ERS 2007). In

2007, the United States accounted only for 6% of the market and Australia, the big winner,

accounted for 82% of the import market while New Zealand and the ROW accounted for 8% and

4% respectively. Figure 2-16 also illustrates the changes in consumption within the Japanese

market. Shortage of beef supply, unfavorable media reports, together with an unsatisfied

Japanese preference for feedlot-type beef produced in the U. S. accounted for the 18.5% overall

decline in Japanese beef consumption during the period between 2003 and 2007.

Taiwan is mainly a pork-meat-consuming country and one of Asia' s largest pork

producers. Therefore, it dependence on imported beef as major source of red meat is relatively

small if compared to other Asian nations. This characteristic explains the reduced impact of the

BSE announcements on consumption levels and consumers' confidence towards imported beef

products.

As shown in Figure 2-17 consumption levels dropped a little more than one kilogram per

capital between 2003 and 2007. Taiwan opened its market for U.S. beef products in February

2006, and by the end of that year total exports of U. S. beef to Taiwan increased 176% in volume

and 142% in value over the previous year (USMEF 2007), which clearly shows the acceptance of

American beef among beef consumers in this country. Before the BSE scare, market conditions

were relatively stable and Australia accounted for more than 37.4% of the beef market in

Taiwan, followed by New Zealand, the United States, and the ROW with 31.3%, 25.3%, and

6. 1% of the import market share respectively. At the end of 2007, the United States maintained a













20% share of the Taiwan import market for fresh and frozen boneless beef, though bone-in cuts


and beef variety meat are still banned. As illustrated in Figure 2-17, Australia remains the largest


player in the Taiwanese beef market followed by New Zealand with 26% and the ROW with


13%.





Australia
Foreign B eef Consum ption per C apita in Kg 37 4%
8.00






7.00-YI6.1%

4.00





0.00~~N N. ealnd .0

2003200




FA. ebury208

On the ther hnd, thesituaton in Hng Kon is quie diffrentif copae t hersto














maktsae olwdbyNwZaan n utrlawt 12% Zand 5%o sae epetvey















ROW 50.0%
Foreign Beef Consumption per Capita in K~g
25.00-

20.60 ustralia 5.0%

20.00-
17.4 N. Zealand 12.0%

US 33.0%
15.00-








0.00 '




Pre-BE ba Pos-BSEban mport Marlat Shares for Beef Products in Hong Kong
2003 2007
Year


Figure 2-18. Hong Kong imported beef consumption per-capita and market shares. Source:
USDA-FAS. February 2008.


China's impressive economic growth and Hong Kong' s stable macro-economic indicators


(per capital income growth and currency appreciation) contributed to a steady increase in the


demand for imported beef products during the following years. In late 2005, Hong Kong


resumed imports from the U.S. of boneless beef products from cattle under 30 months of age


only, while main China declared itself open for U. S. beef in 2006. In that year, Hong Kong


imported 20 times more than the rest of China, which corresponded to 80,000 metric tons versus


4,800 metric tons respectively (FAS 2007). This difference was also translated in terms of


consumption levels of imported beef where China consumed only 5.4 kg per capital of imported


beef, while Hong Kong consumed 20.6 Kg during 2007. In terms of market participation, the


ROW group has been the largest winner from the U.S. export ban absorbing 81% of the share










from early 2004 through 2007. Th U.S. market participation decreased to 7% while Australia and

New Zealand kept a modest 6% of the market respectively.

Expenditures on Beef by Country of Origin

In this section, expenditure levels on imported beef are used to analyze the position and

relevance of each exporting nation. Figures 2-19 through 2-22 show related statistics in terms of

U.S. dollars per capital for both the pre- and post-BSE announcements.

Expenditures on U.S. Beef ($ per capital)
40.00-
Importing Countries 36.90
I Kilr.- I Tapan I Taiwn-n TT~nne K~nn

30.00 -



20.00-

15.00-

10.00 -90







0.00 1
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
BHong Kong 303 559 577 586 582 844 781 746 928 780 005 088 378
Taiwan 164 2 15 259 297 266 287 245 231 280 191 1 17 274 337
Japan 1374 1565 1100 1196 1035 1193 1074 698 770 387 000 004 102
Korea 720 674 637 373 598 1051 680 1252 17 12 200 008 000 088

Figure 2-19. Total expenditures on beef products from the U.S. by country. Source: USDA-FAS.
February 2008.

In the case of expenditures on U.S. beef products, Figure 2-19 clearly illustrates that

Japanese and Korean consumers have a manifest preference for grain-feed U. S. beef products.

Before the BSE announcements, these two countries were considered among the top three

destinations for U.S. beef. During the year 2000, both Japan and Korea increased their

expenditures on American beef by almost 14% and 43% due to the steady economic growth in










Japan and trade barrier reductions in Korea. Although the 2001 BSE crisis in Japan affected

domestic rather than imported beef, food safety concerns among Japanese consumers had a

dramatic impact on imports and expenditures on U.S. and Canadian as well. In Korea, changes in

expenditures levels on U.S. beef products were related to the 2000 economic crisis that affected

the country and erroneous government policies rather than related to food safety issues. The

failure of these policies and the rebound of the economy helped U. S. exports and by the end of

2003 expenditures on U. S. beef were at their historic maximum. After 2003 BSE

announcements, the top U. S. beef markets were Taiwan and in some degree Hong Kong. As, of

December 2007, these two countries plus the little trade with Japan represent expenditure levels

of only $ 9.05 per capital down from the $ 36.90 level in 2003.

Figures 2-20 and 2-21 illustrate a similar trend on expenditure levels on fresh/chilled and

frozen beef from Australia and New Zealand, in particular during and after the year 2003. In

2004 expenditure levels on beef from these two countries increased more than 31% and in 2005

they increased once again by 27.6% and 11.4% respectively. However, during the next two years

expenditures on New Zealand beef decreased first 5% and then 23.3%, while expenditures on

Australian beef increased 5% in 2006 but decreased 15.8% in 2007. These figures also illustrate

that Australia and New Zealand have different beef trade partners. In the case of Australia, Japan

has been the maj or consumer per capital of its beef products. Before 2004, Taiwan was its second

trade partner, but after the BSE scare Korea captured the status of Australia' s second trade

partner. For New Zealand, Taiwan has been its maj or trade partner for the last ten years, as

Korea and Hong Kong interchanged second place until December 2003. Since then, Korea has

become the second largest market for New Zealand beef due to the complete ban on beef imports

from the United States, which forced Korean traders to locate alternative sources of beef.













Expenditures on Australia beef (5 per capital)
40.00-
Importing Countries
mKorea 'Japan 'Taiwan O Hong Kong
35.00 _34.50
32.73

30.00 -29.77






20.00 -61

15.00 14.43 15.29 15 53 141
13.13
11.46 126

10.00-


5.00-


mmm-mmmHMH

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Hong Kong 000 000 000 225 2 11 199 200 200 159 239 352 331 362
Taiwan 0 00 0 00 0 00 3 65 3 57 3 44 3 38 3 28 3 98 4 19 433 5 32 3 96
Japan 10 05 8 78 7 04 7 29 6 81 7 76 7 55 5 61 6 89 10 47 14 68 12 98 13 16
Korea 3 08 2 69 2 68 1 24 2 80 2 88 2 60 3 92 3 69 6 62 10 20 12 89 9 03


Figure 2-20. Total expenditures on beef products from Australia by country. Source: USDA-
FAS. February 2008.

Expenditures on New Zealand Beef (5 per capital)
14.00-
Importing Countries
SKorea I Japan I Taiwan iDHong Kong

12.0 1.6

10.32
10.00-



8.00
6.91

6.00-



4.00- 3


2.17 1.87 m.3 H
2.00-



0.0 0MMuu
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Hong Kong 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.63 2.62 2.89 2.54 2.03 2.53 2.62 1.89 2.19 2.23
Taiwan 0.00 0.00 2.10 1.91 1.78 2.48 1.83 2.05 2.64 4.19 5.08 4.69 3.34
Japan 0.73 0.72 0.56 0.56 0.40 0.38 0.37 0.29 0.37 0.77 1.19 1.11 1.03
Korea 1.43 1.15 0.70 0.18 0.36 0.56 0.46 0.81 1.37 2.74 3.49 3.11 2.40


Figure 2-21. Total expenditures on beef products from New Zealand by country. Source: USDA-
FAS. February 2008.













Finally, Figure 2-22 shows expenditure levels of each importing nation on beef products


from countries clustered in the Rest of the World (ROW) category. Until 1997 Hong Kong was


part of the Commonwealth of England and all of it imports were made through the British


authority. Since 1998, Hong Kong became part of China and most of it imports started to arrive


from different places in the world, in particular from Latin American countries, which after the


2003 BSE scare through 2007 remained the maj or beef supplier of Hong Kong in terms of


expenditures per capital. The ROW region has been an important source of beef products for


Japan during the years previous to the BSE announcement, but since then this region has lost


importance for Japanese traders due mainly to the lack of enforcement of international food


safety regulations and OIE standards.


Expenditures on Rest of the lWorld Beef ($ per capital)
24.00230
Importing Countrir "0
m Korea = Japan = Taiwan c I I..I1' lIl*


2"-**~


21.00


18.00


,I


I ~~


1111


1.1~1
1.11~


1.1'.1


12.00-


9.00-


6.33
6.00-
5.24 47







1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Hong Kong 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.86 8.39 13.18 11.47 9.73 9.84 15.25 13.23 18.86 21.65
Taiwan 0.00 0.00 1.05 1.16 1.13 1.72 1.34 0.91 1.32 0.51 0.41 0.83 0.63
Japan 5.07 6.06 3.34 4.18 3.83 4.27 3.52 2.38 1.91 1.15 0.36 0.42 0.57
Korea 0.17 0.27 0.34 0.22 0.49 1.53 0.55 0.78 0.46 0.07 0.24 0.37 0.22


Figure 2-22. Total expenditures on beef products from the ROW by country. Source: USDA-
FAS. February 2008.









Pre and Post-BSE Pattern of Trade

Figures 2-23 and 2-24 present trade quantities by country and by trade partner nation for

the years 2003 and 2007, which represent pre-BSE and today's beef scenarios. Each figure

represents a coordinate system indicating three axes that represent trade quantities by importing

and exporting country for the pre-and post-BSE announcements periods. Thus, the planes X, Y,

and Z represent the demand, supply, and the quantities traded. Each market is identified with a

particular color. As an example, looking at Figure 2-23, and the U. S. and Korea as beef trade

partners, during the pre-BSE year 2003 Korea imported 224,000 metric tons of fresh/chilled and

frozen beef products from the U. S. This comprised 21.7% of the region' s total beef imports

within this category for that particular year. This also represented 68.7% of Korea' s total

fresh/chilled and frozen beef imports and 46% of all U.S. exports to the region during that year.

Following the same criteria to analyze trade relations among participant nations, Figures 2-23

and 2-24 are contrasted and discussed in the following pages.

Recall that before the BSE scare the total supply of beef products in this category was

about 1,031,000 metric tons and the United States was by far the largest exporter to the region.

Figure 2-23 reveals that more than 47% of all beef imported in this region originated from the

United States and that Australia had a little more than 33% followed by the ROW and New

Zealand with 13% and 7% respectively. In terms of value and volume traded, Japan was the main

market for U. S. products but Australia was the leading beef supplier of this country during that

year. New Zealand' s exports to Korea represented 38% of its total exports during that year, while

exports to Japan represented 26%. In the case of Taiwan and Hong Kong, the figures show that

they obtained a large percentage of their beef from the same set of suppliers, with Australia

being the largest supplier to Taiwan and the ROW region in Hong Kong.











To tal Vo lume of Beef Expo rts Pre-BSE
1000 MT 0


200 0
150 -- 1000
~250
100 --
50 --- 'r" ~ .- ii ~ 71200








Fiue22. r-S a taeseaiosfrfehci le an frzn efinelcedAsa
naios. Sore SAFS.Fbur 08









of the beef. spply chain hrad a signicantimpac onr tr/he demand frorran-fe beef proelctductsi





regardless of their origin. As a consequence, previous patterns of beef trade changed

dramatically. Governments of almost all beef importing nations took drastic positions towards

imported beef from North America, imposing a complete ban on all types of exports from the

United States and Canada, which have a direct impact on the total volume of beef available for

consumption in the region.

Comparing Figures 2-23 and 2-24, the negative shift on beef supply can be quickly

observed. Total fresh/chilled and frozen beef supply was reduced from 1,03 1 million of metric










tons (M.MT) in 2003 to 754 M.MT in 2007; the U.S. market shares decreased 40%, while

Australian exports increased almost 38% during the same years.


Total Volume of Beef Expo rts Po st-BSE Ban



300
400











Figur 2-4 otBEba rd cnrisfrfehchle n rze efi eeteAsa
natins. oure: UDA-AS. ebrary 008
Fiue22 lutaesta utaiNwZelnadohrgas-edbe rdcn

nation seized this cicmsac to exan thei marke poiin ihego.Tusn20

Autai wscnierdterginslres efsupirwthams 9%o h otlspl

for frs/hle n rzn ef utai a areypoie rmte bec fUS efi












98, 000 metric tons,-S whic traepseaio resentiled and increase ofe 29. % it rsecte to20 ees and









having Japan and Korea as its main export destinations. Imports from the ROW region decreased

46% in all countries but in Hong Kong where traders concentrated their imports on alternative

sources, such as South America, resulting in a significant 50% increase during the year 2007.

Finally, although beef products from North America were totally banned shortly after the

December 2003 BSE announcement, the United States managed to maintain a small market

participation, especially after 2005.

Today U. S. beef exports are benefited by the strong economic growth of the Asian region

as rising incomes lead to greater demand of high quality beef (USMEF 2007). For example,

record U. S. beef exports of fresh/chilled and frozen beef to Taiwan during 2007 have surpassed

2003 volumes by 26%, for a total of 19,000 metric tons. In contrast, Japan, Korea, and Hong

Kong today only represent 8% of the 2003 United States total annual volume of exports; while

before the BSE scare they represented 97% of total U. S. beef exports. This significant difference

is the result of trade restrictions that allowed only boneless beef and no variety meats under 21

months of age in Japan and under 30 months of age in the rest of the markets (USMEF 2007). As

a consequence of those restrictions, the United States has lost almost 40 % of the region' s market

for fresh/chilled and frozen beef between December 2003 and the end of 2007, which represents

a loss in value and quantity traded of $1.627 billion and 431,000 metric tons respectively.

According to USMEF and USDA-FAS estimations, U.S. beef exports globally are

expected to continue to increase, especially in Japan, Korea, China, and Russia fueled by

continued economic growth, increasing incomes, and, more important, the OIE announcement

that declares the United States as a "controlled risk" BSE country that will help increase market

access for U.S. beef in all countries.









CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This chapter presents a review of previous research on areas related to agricultural trade,

food safety issues and policies, commodity advertising and promotion programs, and the

Armington model and its applications. Since this study focuses on international trade and

marketing the discussion in this chapter will provide a foundation for evaluating some of the

issues affecting market access efforts and import demand for beef products from the United

States, Australia, New Zealand, and the Rest of the World in markets such as South Korea,

Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong

International Beef Demand and Food Safety

International beef consumption has increased considerably over the last three decades due

to trade liberalization and more effective food safety policies. Since food is a necessity,

consumers value the fact that their food is free of toxins, foreign material, and pathogens. Food

safety concerns have increased as wealth has risen. Now that many consumers in the

industrialized world have adequate quantities of food, they (or their governments) can spend

resources to ensure that their food is safer (Jin et al. 2004).

As of December 2007, the world has already been impacted by several food-borne disease

outbreaks where BSE, Avian Influenza (AI), Salmonella, and E. coli are among the most

notorious and controversial. In the United States, the BSE disease remains a serious concern to

the cattle and beef industry as traditional U.S. beef importers such as Korea and Japan have not

yet fully opened their markets to American beef products. Coffey et al. (2005) argue that in the

event of a widespread BSE occurrence there will be a large decline in domestic and foreign

demand since consumers' reactions to BSE cases around the world have permanently changed









international beef markets. According to this report, the economic significance of animal disease

outbreaks is also influenced by the degree of consumer response: fears that the disease can

spread to humans can lead to sharp drops in consumption as was reported in Pacific Rim nations.

Similarly, Peterson and Chen (2005) explored the impact of BSE on the Japanese retail

meat demand using a Rotterdam model that allowed beef product differentiation and found that

effectively, the scare affected the demand for domestic beef (wagyu beef), domestic dairy beef,

and imported beef from the United States and Australia. According to this research, Japanese

retail meat demand underwent a two-month transition period following the initial announcement

and continued to adjust subsequently until it reached a new state within five months of the BSE

announcement.

Devadoss et al. (2006) employed a general equilibrium model to analyze the economic

impact of the BSE outbreak on the U.S. cattle-and beef-related industries using different demand

scenarios in the domestic and international market. This study found that only if domestic

demand declines significantly will the economic hardship in the U.S. industry be very large.

Using a trade model that allows for imperfect substitution between goods, three different

scenarios were analyzed in which the decline in foreign demand was in all cases 90 % and the

decline in the U.S. market was 0%, 10%, and 25% respectively. Results showed that the impact

of the BSE outbreak even in the worst-case scenario was not as damaging as it was in Canada,

whose industry depends largely on the foreign market and exports prices dropped significantly.

In the case of the United States, since it only exports 10 % of its beef, reduction in foreign

demand did not have a long term effect on the domestic industry in general, although cattle

futures and beef cash prices declined 19% in the days following the BSE announcements.










In 2007, Mutondo and Henneberry addressed the competiveness of U. S. meat products in

Japan and South Korea using a Restricted Source Differentiated Almost Ideal demand system

(RSDAIDS). Economic (e.g., prices and expenditures) and non-economic factors, (e.g.,

seasonality and outbreaks) estimate coefficients were used to evaluate the demand for meat, and

they showed that in the case the Japan the impact of the BSE outbreak had a larger and negative

impact in terms of total beef consumption and the imports of U. S. product market shares, while

in South Korea the impact only affected American beef products while total consumption

remained at the same level.

In the United States, the effects of the BSE events on feed and feeder cattle prices were

analyzed by Marsh et al. (2008) using a structural econometric model that implies a system of

simultaneous equations to estimate relevant supply and demand elasticities at the feedlot and

cow-calf levels of the marketing chain; and based on annual time-series data from the USDA

between 1970 and 2005. They found a strong correlation between trade disruptive policies (e.g.,

Minimum Risk-Regional Rule MRR), market share sizes, and feed and feeder cattle prices.

The results indicated that the demand for U.S. beef was affected to a much greater degree by the

reactions of foreign governments to the BSE announcements than by the reactions of U. S.

households.

Food safety incidents, in particular those related to meat products, have captured the

attention of the media which have led to permanent changes in consumer perceptions about food

safety and their food purchasing patterns. In the cases of Europe and Asia, where the public

outcry has been particularly strong, there have been changes in government regulations that have

directly affected the demand for domestic and/or imported food products. For example, several

studies have approached the impact of BSE on consumers' demand for beef products. In the









United Kingdom, Burton and Young (1996) investigated the impact of BSE on the demand for

beef and other meats using an AIDS model which included indices of media coverage of BSE.

They found that the influence of negative press had significant effects on the allocation of

consumer expenditures among the meats. A short-run impact was identified that accounted for a

large portion of the perceptible drop in the market share of beef in the early 1990s. Results also

showed that there also appears to be a significant long-run impact ofBSE, which by the end of

2003 had reduced the beef market share by 4.5%.

Kinnucan et al. (1997) investigated the impact of health information and generic

advertising on U.S. meat demand using a Rotterdam specification and concluded that this

demand is affected by prices, expenditures, and health information, but the effect of generic

advertising is less clear and not robust. Health-information elasticities in general were larger in

absolute value than price elasticities, which suggest that small percentage changes in health

information have larger impacts on meat consumption than equivalently small percentage

changes in relative prices.

In 1998, Latouche, Rainelli, and Vermersch conducted a survey using a contingent

valuation method to analyze consumer behavior in France after the BSE outbreak in the United

Kingdom. Their survey revealed that the BSE disease raises the problem of loss of public

confidence, in addition to the fact that beef consumers expected greater transparency from the

industry and that they would accept paying for a system that guarantees the safety of the beef

products consumed (willingness to pay).

Similarly, Verbeke and Ward (2001) investigated fresh meat consumption in Belgium

during the period from 1995 through 1998 using an AIDS model which incorporated a media

index to measure the BSE impact. They found that health safety scares have a strong and










negative impact on beef demand, mainly because of the negative publicity from the press and in

particular the TV coverage of the issue. They results also showed that as consequence of the

negative media, pork consumption increased significantly.

Adda (2002) investigated the effects of past consumption of risky goods on current

consumption patterns in France, using the BSE crisis as a natural experiment. He found that new

health information interacts with prior exposure to risks. Consumers with intermediate levels of

past consumption decreased their demand for beef and sought higher quality products, while

low- and high-stock consumers did not alter their behavior after the crisis. In a number of

experiments and surveys, consumers have indicated that they would be willing to pay more for

food with lower risks of disease. Hence, previous studies have found that U.S. consumers were

willing to pay a premium of 15% to 30% per meal to reduce their risk of becoming ill from their

meal and that consumers are willing to pay a premium for reduced pesticide residues in produce

(Buzby 2003).

In a previous study, Jin and Koo (2003) suggested a three-way approach to the BSE effect

on consumer's preferences using contingent evaluation methods, analyzing structural changes in

consumers' or producers' welfare, and evaluating the economic consequences of the outbreaks.

A non-parametric approach was used by them to show that there has been an ongoing structural

change in Japanese consumers' preferences for meat and that consumers' tastes for meat have

systematically moved away from beef to its substitutes. Ishida et al. (2006) investigated the

impacts of the BSE and Bird Flu on the demand for meat products in Japan using the Almost

Ideal demand system. As expected, they found evidence that the appearance of BSE and Bird Flu

cases in Japan deeply affected the structural demand for beef and chicken and have a positive

impact on the demand for their closest substitutes (e.g., pork and fish products). This research









showed that in the Japanese market, Bird Flu concerns negatively impacted beef s market shares,

although BSE fears increased consumer demand for chicken products. Empirical results also

showed that both impacts do not persist over time and that in the short-run the impact dissipates

depending on the characteristics of the disease (e.g., incubation period, cure rate, and infection

risk) and the ability of the government to efficiently respond to an outbreak.

Trade and Beef Markets Issues

Global food trade will likely increase due to expected increases in income levels around

the world, improved transportation networks, and growing populations requiring greater and

safer quantities of food. In addition, the creation of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade

(GATT) has integrated global markets into an overall framework that affects not only the volume

of goods traded but also the diversity of products flowing across nations. As a result, this

ongoing process of trade liberalization has raised consumers' concerns about the safety of food

products (Bureau et al. 2002).

The USDA-ERS published a report (Regmi 2001) that studied structural changes in

international trade and consumption as a result of food safety incidents. It argued that following

the resolution of the problem that caused a maj or international incident, consumer perceptions

about the implicated food product and about the exporting country's ability to produce safe food

may be slow to change, and these perceptions have a lasting influence on food demand and

global trade. Consumers value a safe food supply, and recently food safety scares like the BSE or

problem or the E. coli outbreak have raised awareness about food safety issues.

Food safety regulations and the perception of risk are different among countries. Even if

the food safety risks are the same across countries, countries may perceive and handle these risks

differently, which can lead to persistent trade frictions and even reduce food trade (Buzby 2003).

Although little disruption to trade has occurred for food safety reasons (considering the total









volume of food trade), trade issues related to food safety are wide ranging. These issues and

crises challenge policymakers and industries to both protect domestic food supplies and nurture

international markets. Meanwhile, consumers in developed countries are demanding safer food,

which lately has become an important issue in public policy both domestically and

internationally. The safety of food is a credence characteristic which gives rise to a particular

form of market failure involving either asymmetric information and moral hazard or symmetric

imperfect information (McLaren 2006). Risk reduction measures and quality certification

programs can not only anticipate food safety crises, but can better position exporters in emerging

overseas markets (ERS 2007).

Beef trade represents a complex pattern of business and regulations that have dramatically

changed during the past years as a consequence of raising trade barriers aimed to increase food

safety and protect domestic production. As result of these circumstances, trade between the

United States and its maj or trading partners is deeply distorted by a wide variety of foreign

measures. These distortions include a growing disparity in the respective regulatory regimes

between trade partners, particularly with respect to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE),

and a diverse array of tariff and subsidy policies that influence global beef trade flows.

In the past, different studies have approached the circumstances affecting the flow of

products between regions and countries. Economic theory has explained trade based on

comparative and absolute advantage assumptions, resource allocation and factor endowments,

and government policies that affect the degree to which trade is conducted among nations.

Basically, international trade allows countries to specialize in the production of those goods

(commodities or products) in which they have a comparative advantage, thus increasing

domestic welfare in terms of production and capital returns (Bhuiyan 1993). At the same time,









industries and governments are constantly seeking and enforcing the policies necessary to

participate in the international market while protecting local markets from foreign competition.

Many studies from different countries have focused their attention on beef trade and the

economic impact of the policies designed to address food safety issues. For example, in 2003

Poulin and Boame from the Canadian Business and Trade Statistics Department focused their

efforts to measure the economic impact of the May 2003 BSE announcement on cattle

production, domestic prices, and beef exports to United States and Mexico, since Canada

exported more than 92 % of its production to these countries. As a consequence of this outbreak,

beef exports fell virtually to zero during the following months affecting entire supply chain from

the breeders to the meat packing plants. The immediate loss in terms of trade represented almost

$ 1 billion, with most of this loss concentrated in the fresh beef U. S. market where 30% of the

beef imported came from Canada. Other impacts were found at the domestic level where the

collapse of exports triggered an increase in beef supplies and a fall in prices that generated a 50%

drop in cattle prices, although consumers did not see a significant drop in the price of beef at the

retail price which clearly shows a price asymmetry effect of the embargo.

Differences in what food products countries want and what they will accept in imported

food ultimately affect patterns of food demand and global trade, and complicate the development

of workable trade rules that are acceptable to different trading partners (Buzby, 2003).The effect

of trade barriers on consumer demand for traded goods of different quality was approached by

Bureau et al. (2005) under the assumption that specific tariffs and tariff-rate quotas (TRQ) have

an effect in the composition of imported goods due to a variation of the price ratios between

products of different quality. The study used a standard Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES)

function to deal with differentiation, where the parameters represented consumers' relative










preferences for the different qualities in beef product imports. Using EU' s beef imports data

from Mercosur countries, the study shows that TRQs have a significant impact on the average

quality of exports demonstrating that under specific tariff reduction low-quality beef (Brazil) is

maximized, while high-quality beef (Argentina) trade is maximized with large TRQs. The

research concludes that the use of tariff dispersion policies impose a proportionally higher

protection on low unit value products, and have a quality upgrading effect on imports. A cut in

these tariffs may therefore change the composition of imports towards lower unit value products.

Coffey et al. (2005) analyzed the BSE incident on the wholesale sector of the U. S. beef

industry. Specifically, the research estimated economic losses to the U.S. beef industry caused by

increased regulatory costs and reduced exports to Japan and South Korea. These losses were

estimated using excess demand and excess supply relationships coupled with price elasticity

estimates previously reported in other studies. Changes in the excess demand and supply

functions caused by the BSE cases were used to calculate changes in producer and consumer

surplus.

International Beef Promotions

Agricultural commodities are considered less differentiated goods and are generally

advertised through some type of cooperative effort that includes several sectors of the supply

chain such as producers, processors, and exporters (Forker and Ward 1993). Under this

cooperative scenario, advertising and promotion of commodities is known as generic advertising

and it was defined by Forker and Ward as the promotion of a nearly homogeneous product to

disseminate information about its underlying characteristics to existing and potential consumers

for the purpose of strengthening demand for the commodity.

Competition in the international agricultural market has become much more intense,

triggering innovation and transformation inside the industry. As a result of this, a non-segmented










production sector of "cooperative goods" with little or no branding history has become a more

sophisticated industry. In this contest, commodity advertising is used to influence market shares

and, where necessary, to increase the volume of information about product attributes demanded

by consumers (Ward and Lambert 1993). Agents, along the food supply chain, have learned how

to differentiate and increase the value of their products (e.g., live animals and meat products) in

order to build demand and increase financial profits for the firm. Advertising and promotions,

which often highlight production and marketing practices, are examples of the methods that

companies and individuals have utilized to set their product apart in order to meet the needs and

desires of specific consumer segments (Allen and Pierson 1993). The fresh beef market is a good

example of this practice where exporting countries and their agents have learned to differentiate

their beef cuts using the product' s particular attributes as central message in their marketing

campaigns (e.g., U.S. "We Care" and Australian "Clean and Safe" beef).

In markets such as Japan, the USMEF launched its "We Care" campaign to help rebuild

consumer confidence in U. S. beef using a range of advertising and consumer events. According

to the USMEF, the obj ective of the campaign was to counter the negative emotions generated by

the media by putting a "human face" on the U.S. industry. The campaign highlighted the

concerns of the entire U. S. beef industry in delivering safe and quality beef products for

consumers and retailers, and provided updated information on BSE prevention systems being

implemented in U.S. plants (USMEF, 2007).

Commodities in general, and in our case beef products, can be differentiated according to

how consumers acquire information about them and how this information affects consumers'

perceptions towards the products' performance. For search goods consumers have an active

participation searching out the product attributes which can be observed at the time of purchase










(e.g., price, color, size). Alternatively, experienced goods are those where the attributes can be

observed at the time of consumption (e.g., taste, tenderness, fat content) and influence

consumers' satisfaction with a particular meat product. Finally, credence goods include attributes

that are not explicitly observed in the product (e.g., safety: antibiotic and pesticide residues;

health: cholesterol levels; environmental: "green" production techniques/conditions) but

consumer credibility of the claims made about the product is influenced by a high level of

confidence in the effectiveness of the systems in charge of creating and monitoring the product

(Codron, Stems and Reardon 2003).

Purchase decisions are based on predictions of product performance. Consumers base their

predictions in part on product cues and are accurate to the extent that they have properly learned

the relationship between the cues and performance. If consumers leamn the relationship between

product attributes and quality, they will differentiate among products that possess different

attributes and treat as commodities those brands that share the same attributes. Once the

predictive rule is learned, it may be applied to any existing or new product that possesses the

same set of attributes (Van Osselaer and Alba 2000).

Advertising and promotion provide this information facilitating purchasing decisions, and

in some cases they even change the underlying preference function for a particular product or

service. Depending on the characteristics of the product, potential buyers, and the scope and

beneficiaries of the marketing campaign, there are two types of advertising and promotion of

commodities: generic alheill iving. a cooperative effort among producers designed to collectively

increase the primary demand (i.e., the size of the pie) of a product by advertising the attributes

and characteristics of the product, without influencing the market share of any producer (e.g.,

Beef checkoff program, Florida citrus, Washington apples); and brandadvertising, designed and









funded by a specific firm with the intent of benefiting that firm's demand by differentiating the

product from other suppliers in order to increase the market share of the brand within the same

industry (Ward 1997).

For example, previous market studies conducted by the USMEF (2007) on beef demand in

Japan have shown that the most important characteristics of food products were that they taste

good and be guaranteed safe to eat, while the most important characteristics of beef products

were that they look fresh, not have a lot of waste, be certified as USDA inspected, and be free of

chemical residues and foodborne hazards. New marketing programs sponsored by the US1VEF

and the United States beef council promotion programs (e.g., "Iowa Beef" and "Beef from

Nebraska") are reinforcing these attributes, emphasizing the characteristics of the product,

adding value, and improving presentation in order to build a positive perception about branded

products.

In the case of U. S. beef exports, producers and trade agents have been able to differentiate

American products from other sources (e.g., Australia and New Zealand) due to continued efforts

to keep the "U.S. brand" recognition in key markets such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Hong

Kong. If safety is a concern, experimentation is not an option and consumers look for assurance

about the safety. Quality assurance through industry seals and government inspection may solve

some of the problem. Even with safe products, some attributes cannot be judged through

experience. These credence attributes must be identified through means other than consumption,

and branded beef products may capture shares of a market through a consistent message about

one or more credence attributes (Ward and Lambert 1993). For example, brands emphasizing

U. S. produced beef may capture some loyalty even with the generally homogeneous nature of the

product group. Thus, specific beef products within a generally common product category may









evolve. Then, consumers' desire for safety, quality, and consistency will contribute to some

growth in product differentiation within the beef group.

In 2008, Kinnucan and Myrland disputed the concept that country-of-origin or 'brand'

advertising should be more profitable than generic advertising in that it enhances product

differentiation and reduces free riding. They argued that unlike generic advertising, brand

advertising decreases the demand for competing imports and lowers their prices when supplies

are upward sloping. In addition to inviting retaliation, the decline in the prices of competing

products erodes the price of the advertised product through second-round or 'market feedback'

effects. Using the U.S. beef promotion program in Japan they showed that generic advertising is

more profitable in most cases and that the gross benefits are distributed across exporters in

proportion to the expenditure elasticities.

Herrmann, Thompson, and Krischik (2002) examined the impact of generic promotions on

"Bavarian" beef demand during the BSE outbreak in Europe and empirically evaluated the

potential off-setting effects of advertising and promotion (positive) and heightened food safety

awareness (negative). Previous studies have treated advertising as a slope shifter that alters the

price elasticity of demand. For this research, they introduced an information variable as an

intercept shifter. This new variable consisted of generic promotion as well as BSE information

that allowed a direct comparison of their respective effects on the demand for "Bavarian" beef.

Model estimates showed that advertising expenditures increased (4.6%) consumer demand for

Bavarian beef and the benefit-cost ratio of the program was well above unity. Despite this

success of the program, the negative demand effects of food safety concerns as measured by BSE

information were stronger (6.9%). Hence, generic promotion could only compensate partly the









inward shift in per capital beef demand induced by both BSE information and longer-term

consumer preference changes away from beef (15.2%).

Mangen and Burrell (2001) investigated a structural change in Dutch consumers'

preferences for meat (e.g., beef and pork) and fish, following the U.K. government' s

announcement. They used a switching AIDS model and a sample period that covered January

1994 through May 1998. Preference shifts due to the BSE scare reduced expenditure shares for

beef, minced meat, and meat products by 2.5, 3.3, and 7.9 percentage points respectively. There

were offsetting gains in the shares of pork, prepared beef, and fish. They concluded that

changing preferences over the whole period reduced beefs share by 4.9 percentage points and

increased those of poultry, prepared meat, and fish by 4. 1, 4.9, and 5.2 percentage points

respectively.

Cong, Kaiser, and Tomek (1998) evaluated the effectiveness of the U. S. government non-

price promotion programs on U. S. exports of red meat to the Pacific Rim: Hong Kong, South

Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan using pooled time-series and cross-sectional data. An estimated

import demand equation was used for in-sample simulations to address the question of what

would have happened if the current promotion expenditures had been reallocated among the four

countries. The calculated rates of return to promotion investment were computed and estimates

showed that a 50% increase in expenditures increased returns by $47 on average. Also, they

found that South Korea is the only market in which meat promotion appears to be effective.

Generic advertising describes promotional activity in markets that are comprised of

homogenous, highly substitutable products. Often, such products are not branded, so consumers

are not inclined to choose one variety over another. However, in the case of the promotion of

U.S. beef products, it may imply higher product differentiation and represent an important









transition from the generic idea of selling beef as a commodity to a campaign involving market

segmentation and target marketing of specific consumer segments. According to Phillip Kotler

(2002), market segmentation may be described as an assumption that all consumers are unique

and the needs of individuals may not be satisfied with a mass marketing approach. Similarly,

target marketing may be defined as a market segment profied by its demographic, economic,

and psychographic characteristics so that marketing opportunities may be evaluated. The precise

identification of a product's functional benefits and attributes, as well as the demographic and

non-demographic variables influencing consumer selection and decision-making process, would

be useful in developing marketing and merchandising strategies.

Chakravarti and Janiszewski in 2004 examined the influence of generic advertising on

primary demand and brand preferences. They concluded firstly that generic advertising can

increase or decrease the perceived differentiation among competing branded products and, thus,

influence consumers choice. Second, increases in differentiation occur because generic

advertising increases or decreases the weight consumers place on differentiating or non-

differentiating attributes. Generic advertisements that discussed a differentiating attribute

decreased access to information about the non-differentiating attribute, which resulted in an

increase in the importance of the differentiating attribute and increased price responsiveness.

The importance of U. S. beef promotion programs within the four Asian nations considered

in this study differs considerably and likely has evolved over time representing major

implications for the beef industry and its marketing strategies. Brands may segment the market

and may or may not grow total demand for the product category. Such programs are often

mandatory, where producers or exporters of a promoted good (i.e., beef) must contribute to the

marketing programs through a "check-off' system designed to avoid free-riders. In 2005,









Carwell estimates that for every $500 million spent each year on U.S. agricultural promotion

programs, the average cost to farmers is U.S. $1000.

The Armington Trade Model

Using economic models to evaluate changes in agricultural trade policy generally requires

the conversion of policy changes into price effects. The Armington model uses these price shifts

to determine how policy is expected to affect output, employment, trade flows, economic

welfare, and other variables of interest (Jung 2004). The direction and magnitude of a trade

policy change on individual variables depends on the size of the shock as well as the behavioral

relationships present in the economy. When evaluating policy shifts within an economic model,

these behavioral relationships largely take the form of elasticities reflecting price responsiveness

of one set of variables to a change in a second set (McDaniel and Balisteri 2002).

Prices of goods produced in different countries do not typically move together. This

behavior was first pointed out by Armington (1969). Ever since, it has become a standard

practice among empirical trade researchers to treat goods produced in different countries

differently and to assume a constant elasticity of substitution among them. Such elasticity for

example, the elasticity of substitution between the basket of U. S. goods and that of Australian

goods is referred to as the Armington elasticity (Lloyd and Zhang 2006). As a result, a key

relationship for model analysis is the degree of substitution between goods according to their

origin. In general, knowledge of elasticities is important for policy considerations. Changes in

tariffs and taxes will affect a country' s trade opportunities, level of income, and employment.

The size of these impacts will largely depend on the magnitude of elasticities.

In 1990, Duffy, Wohlgenat, and Richardson studied the price elasticities of export demand

for U. S. cotton and estimated feedback effects of U. S. prices on competing countries. The usual

Armington framework was extended to account for finite elasticities of export supply from U.S.










competitors. The resulting "total" elasticities were more realistic for evaluating the effects of

U. S. policy changes. Accounting for feedback effects of the U. S. price on other countries' cotton

prices had a significant impact on the estimated export demand elasticity. They concluded that

for commodities such as cotton, for which the United States accounts for a large share of total

world trade, the conceptually relevant elasticity for policy analysis is the total export demand

elasticity because it takes into account the feedback effects of the U. S. price on other countries'

prices.

Solomon and Kinnucan (1993) estimated the effects of government-subsidized export

promotion on the demand for U. S. cotton in the Pacific Rim (e.g., Japan, South Korea, Taiwan,

Thailand, Hong Kong, and the Philippines) using an Armington-type trade model. The results of

this study showed a significant relationship between promotion expenditures and U.S. market

share in four of the six countries examined. One of the two countries exhibiting a non-significant

effect had very low promotion expenditures (Taiwan), suggesting that a minimal level of funding

may be necessary to achieve a market response. The results also showed that export promotions

have a carryover period lasting beyond one year, contrarily to what previous studies showed.

They concluded that non-price promotion is a viable policy instrument for increasing agricultural

export and that the impact of export promotion on domestic producers and taxpayers still is

unclear.

Shiells and Reinert (1993) disaggregated U. S. imports into those from the NAFTA

members and those from the rest of the world (ROW). Using quarterly data over 1980-1988, they

obtained estimates for 128 mining and manufacturing sectors. Elasticities were estimated using

three specifications: (1) generalized least squares estimation technique, based on a Cobb-Douglas

price aggregator; (2) maximum likelihood estimation using a CES price aggregator; and, (3) a









simultaneous equation estimator that uses a Cobb Douglas price aggregator and employs a

distributed lag model. Shiells and Reinert found the estimates to be relatively insensitive across

the three alternative estimation procedures.

Satyanarayana and Johnson (1998) empirically estimated the impact of export credit

guarantee programs on U. S. wheat exports to maj or international recipients. An Armington

demand specification was used to estimate U. S. shares of the wheat import market in six

countries including the values of the credit guarantees as an additional explanatory variable and

used as a utility shifter proxy. An optimization framework was formulated to address the

allocation of credits guarantees to optimize U.S. exports revenue. Results indicated that export

credit guarantees raised the U.S. share in all six markets and based on the optimal allocation of

the credit resources a revenue increase of $200 million should be expected if compared to

previous years. Marginal effects showed that countries such as Brazil and South Korea are less

responsive to credit guarantees increase, while market shares in Mexico and Tunisia will quickly

respond to any increase in credit guarantees.

Kapuscinski and Warr (1999) estimated the elasticities of substitution between imported

and domestically produced forms of over 30 commodities in the Philippines that were intended

for use in a 50-sector computable general equilibrium (CGE) model for the Philippine economy.

Changes on tariff applied to imports were also included in the model to determine the resource or

expenditure allocation between goods from different origins. For this research, an OLS based

Armington specification was contrasted with other models to overcome the problem of

incomplete adjustments in the market prices. Partial Adjustment Models (PAM) and Error

Correction Models (ECM) were estimated. The PAM model attempts to measure economic cost

in response to quantity adjustments due to price changes. The ECM model emphasizes the time









series characteristics of variables and postulated that non-stationary variables may form a

stationary relationship in the long-run that is called co-integrating relationship. Results showed

that dynamic models in estimation of Armington elasticities are preferred and, in this particular

research, the ECM provided the most adequate characterization of the process of substitution

between imports and domestic production.

Gallaway, McDaniel, and Rivera (2003) developed a disaggregated set of Armington

elasticity estimates. The authors consider explicitly the long-run aspect that is applicable to

applied partial and general equilibrium modeling. They provide estimates for 311 industries at

the 4-digit SIC level over the period 1989 to 1995. Significant long-run estimates range from

0.53 to 4.83. Long-run estimates are up to five times as large as short-run estimates, and on

average twice as large as the short-run estimates. This is important since long-run estimates are

more appropriate for most trade policy analysis than short-run estimates.

Saito (2004) used two versions of Armington specifications (one for studies using

multilateral trade data, and the other for those using bilateral trade data) to identify discrepancies

between elasticities obtained from multilateral trade data and those obtained from bilateral trade

data especially when trade consist largely of intermediate inputs. The author argued that the

growth of outsourcing and associated changes in the composition of intermediate inputs trade

may not be captured in multilateral trade data and hence may result in a bias in the estimates

obtained from these data.

The Armington specification certainly attracts most of the critics on the CGE approach. In

fact, this specification entails two main constraints: first, it imposes an unique and constant

substitution elasticity between all pairs of goods from the different countries (including domestic

goods), while there are good reasons to consider the case of changing elasticity of substitution









among some goods and that substitution elasticities may evolve with quantities (Hillberry et al.

2006); and second, this specification does not acknowledge zero trade flows (Femenia and Gohin

2007). In order to tackle these two issues simultaneously, the study's starting econometric point

is the methodology explained by Golan, Perloff and Shen (2001) who estimate by Generalized

Maximum Entropy (GME) an AI demand system for the Mexican meat consumption allowing

zero purchases by individual households. As they demonstrate, this GME approach is really

useful in order to introduce (in) equality constraints on the parameters and thus is well suited to

the analysis of corner solutions.

In summary, the present study of the world beef trade will simultaneously estimate market

and product demands as well as the market shares for each of the competing beef suppliers.

Following Armington' s (1969) utility approach, total market demand for beef is determined and

independently allocated among competing sources of supply or beef products. The use of a

systems estimation technique will yield parameters that are less biased than if the simple

Armington Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) were used. Instead, a CRESH specification

based on previous work by Sato (1967), Hanoch (1971), and Sparks and Ward (1992) will be

applied to calculate the impact of non-trade barriers (NTB) based on food safety issues. Analysis

of the demand parameters will likely indicate the future pattern of trade between the nations

considered. Results will be used to understand the forces driving the international market for

beef products and analyze the implication of the policies applied to prevent the dissemination of

food born diseases.









CHAPTER 4
EMPIRIRICAL TRADE MODEL FOR BEEF PRODUCTS

Introduction

In this chapter the conceptual framework is to estimate the demand for fresh/chilled and

frozen beef products in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong from the United States,

Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the world. Specifically, this study estimates the impacts

of economic variables (prices and expenditures) and non-economic variables (animal disease

outbreaks and beef promotions) on product demands and market shares for U.S. beef products

compared with beef from other sources. Using an Armington specification, the model suggested

for this study is based on the premise that changes in trade flows can be distinguished not only

by their kind but also according to their origin or place of production.

Beef Trade Schematic Representation

Before turning to the specific nature of the substitutability among beef products, it is useful

to employ a generalized trade system that will be adopted for the present study. Accordingly, the

schematic representation in Figure 4. 1 displays the causal relationships between prices and

quantities of beef products (fresh and frozen), two market regions (supply and demand markets)

consisting of a set of four exporting countries and four importing countries respectively, which is

set forth for a one-way trade. Figure 4. 1 shows the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and

the Rest of the World as suppliers of beef products (X.i) with prices (P4). The total supply of

beef products is constrained to equal total demand in the importing markets for beef products

(Xi.), which in this trade system is formed by South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. The

average price paid for beef in a given importing country is (Pig) and is defined in Equation 4.7.

Thus, the obj ective of this model is to obtain product demands and market shares in each

importing market for beef products differentiated by the country of origin.









































Xz;(Product Demand) X~j(Product Demand) X,i(Product Demand) X4;(Product Demand)
Xzy/X,.(Mkt. Shares) X~j/X2.(Mkt. Shares) X,i/X,.(Mkt. Shares) X4;/X,.(Mkt. Shares)



Figure 4-1. Schematic representation of the Armington trade system for beef products in selected
countries of the Pacific Rim region.

Prices are the crucial link to allocate products and their impact on product demands, and

market shares are presented in Equations 4-17 and 4-19 respectively and are considered

exogenous variables. Within this framework, there are several relationships operating to

equilibrate product demand and supply. The resulting econometric model represents a non-linear

system and parameters restrictions within each set of equations. Econometric procedures will be

used to estimate product demands equations and assure the consistency and un-biased









characteristics of the results. Model estimates are used to develop a sensitivity analysis and

examine the impacts of trade policies on beef consumption in selected Asian markets.

Adapting the Armington Model to Beef Trade

The Armington model is used to estimate demand elasticities between products from

different sources and then used to simulate the effect of exogenous demand shocks from normal

marketing efforts, from food safety scares such as BSE, and from trade restrictions. This

approach is flexible and provides cross-price elasticities between imports from different sources

using estimates of the aggregate price elasticity of demand for imports (Jung 2004). Furthermore,

demand elasticities as well as estimated coefficients of non-economic variables can be used to

formulate effective policies targeted towards expanding sales and market shares for U.S. beef.

Price elasticities measure the responsiveness of trade flows to price changes. Elasticities of

substitution provide the cross-price elasticity between products from different origin countries

and measure the degree to which price changes could influence market share among the

importing countries to a specific importing country. Since one of the obj ectives of this research is

to measure the impact of restrictive policies on beef trade, the size of those impacts largely

depends on the magnitude of the elasticity (McDaniel and Balistreri 2002).

The Armington specification presents a two-stage budgeting procedure in which

consumers allocated their total expenditures in a sequence of steps. In the initial step, a consumer

or buyer decides how much of a particular product defined as Xie- to buy (Equation 4-1). Next,

given the total amount demanded, the buyers decide how much to import from each country

(Equation 4-2). Using i to represent the four demand regions and j to represent the four supply

regions, the product import demand functions for beef for each region can be represented as in

Equation 4-1 where the dot denotes the summation over all beef imports. This general demand

function assumes that market demands for beef products are functions of the average price in the









region, income, population levels, and other demand drivers consistent with the underlying

theory. Consequently, the following models specification is presented:

Xi. = f (P,., GDPi, Pope, Zi) (4-1)

where Xi. is the total demand for all beef products in region i, Pi. is the average market prices of

beef products in region i, GDPi is the gross domestic product in region i which represents

national income, Pop, is the population of region i, and Zi captures other import demand

variables (e.g., consumer's preferences, promotions, etc). Following Armington' s framework

total demands Xi. are derived given budget constraints, utility maximization, and price of

competing products (See Appendix A).

Product demands (Xii) are functions of the market demand (Equation 4-1) and the price

ratio between the prices of the beef products in the ith market as shown in Equation 4-2:


Xii = f (Xg, )i =12.. (4-2)

where Pii is the price in the ith market for beef produced in j which includes the costs of tariff

and preferential treatments (Sparks and Ward 1992), and Pi. is the price of all imported beef

consumed in country i 1. Equation 4-3 shows that products are distinguished by place of

production, and product demands in a particular market (Xii) are functions of market size and

the ratio between product price and average price in that market. Thus, market shares equations

can be derived to represent the percentage of total beef imports by a specific market and show

that an improvement through pricing strategies should yield an increasing share and vice versa

(Armington 1969):

Xg/g @ ).i j12.. (4-3)

i Prices include the costs of tariff and preferential treatments and are expressed in U. S. dollars to avoid problems
with fluctuations in exchange rates. For convenience, prices are deflated in importing countries by the national CPlI
index to the base year 1995.









Within this framework, there are several relationships operating to equilibrate the demand

and supply of beef products and their most general functional representations are discussed

below. Since this model assumes that import demand must equal supply we have an equilibrium

condition from which two restrictions can be obtained:

Xi. = Ci Xii, and Xi = Cixi X, (4-4)

Differences in import prices among demanding (importing) countries are driven by

asymmetries in cost of insurance and freight, quality of products, market structures, non-tariff

barriers to trade, and information. Non-tariff barriers (or NTB) are mechanisms that impede the

flow of international goods by imposing unilateral and arbitrary restraints to normal trade. The

most common NTB are import quotas, exchange controls, subsidies, boycotts or bans, technical

barriers, and voluntary restraints among others.

A tariff is a tax levied by the government in country i on goods imported into that country

from country j (or import duty). The main obj ective of a tariff rate is to make country i products

more competitive by increasing the price at which the goods from country j are sold. The effect

of tariff rates on prices of products from country j in market country i is quantified as:

Pi1 = (1 + Tr y) Cr y (4-5)

where Pii is the market price of the products, Tii is the cost of tariff expressed in percentage

terms, and Cii represents import prices (CIF) that are a function of FOB prices and a proxy

variable (V) created to capture the variation in cost over time:

Cii = f (Fiy, V). (4-6)

Then, the average price paid for beef in a given importing country is defined as follows:


2 A product produced and consumed domestically does not incur in cost associated with shipping and barriers to
entry. Consequently, this price is assumed to be equal to the average of all export prices in a particular market
(Sparks and Ward 1992).



























































3 See Appendix A


Pi. = C;(Pil Xii)/Xi. (4-7)

At this junction it is very important to reiterate that prices included in the data set collected

for this study are in fact product prices (Pii) in U. S. dollars for each beef product in each of the

four markets and that these prices already include all tariff leved by the importing country.

In the case of a model with a large set of products being traded, most of the equations

already presented would not have practical solutions due to the large number of parameters in the

model. A way to simplify this equation is to introduce the assumptions that (a) import demand is

separable among import sources, (b) elasticities of substitution between all pairs of products

within a group and within a market are constant (i.e., Constant Elasticity of Substitution CES),

and (c) the elasticity of substitution between any two products competing in a market is the same

as that between any other pair of products competing in the same market (Armington 1969).

Equation 4-8 represents the Armington specification that imposes the CES functional form on

the product demand function ( Equation 4-3) implying the separability among product sources

(Alston et al. 1990). In terms of utility function specification, these assumptions are equivalent to

the specification that the 0(;s 3 is a COnstant elasticity of substitution (CES) having the form:




where fig; is a share parameter, o-, is the single CES in the its market, Xi. is the demand function

for goods (i.e., beef products) in country i and Xii is the import demand in the ith market for a

product produced in the j country. In order to "collapse" the utility function (U) into Equation 4-

3 the necessary and sufficient conditions are that (a) the Marginal Rate of Substitution (MRS)

between any pair of products competing in the it" market is independent of demand for any other

products) in that market which is known as the assumption of independence, and (b) the










quantity index 0(i representing the aggregative character of the function is linear, homogeneous,

and shows a CES.4

Although the homotheticity assumption simplifies the model specification and the

separability assumption reduces multicollinearity problems, the Armington assumptions of

separability and homotheticity are strong restrictions for practical applications. In the first

assumption, if a good is differentiated, changes in consumer's budget might not be reflected in

the same proportion to all products. If an increase in the budget is realized, it would be allocated

more to the more preferred product. In other words, expenditure elasticities may not be unitary

(Hanoch 1971). In the case of the second assumption, if prices of substitutes are omitted, the

own-price parameter estimates are positively biased so that the own-price elasticities would be

underestimated (Jung 2004). Finally, in the case of the CES, this assumption restricts responses

of the import demand of each product to the price change relative to the price index for the good

to be the same for all products.

In order to specify the equations of the system in more specific functional forms,

assumptions must be made regarding product substitutability. As discussed earlier, the

assumption of a constant and equal elasticity of substitution (CES) between all products in a

particular market may be overly restrictive. However, restrictions on the elasticities of

substitution which force them to vary by a common, constant proportion, yet allowing for

differences in substitutability between products, are more reasonable and embedded in the CRES

function. Since these restrictions are placed on product substitutability, they reduce the number

of parameters to be estimated, and yet retain some flexibility. The imposition of the CRES



4 The form Ogi(x(s)) is regarded as a quantum index of all elements that belong to the ith market. For convenience,
please refer to Appendix A for a detailed specification of the CES and the derivation of Armington' s product
demand function.









technical relationship determines the functional nature of the product demands and market

shares, while the other relationships in the model remain unaffected by the use of the CRES

function (Sparks and Ward 1992).

The Constant Ratio Elasticity of Substitution

An important aspect of the CES assumption is that it implies the separability between

different import sources which entails that the consumer' s decision process may be viewed as

occurring in two stages (Varian 1992; Webb et al. 1989). In the initial stage, the importer decides

how much of the good Xi. is going to be imported (Equation 4-1); and then, in the second stage

(Equation 4-2), given the total amount imported, the importer decides how much product to

import from each country Xii (Davis and Kruse 1993). The single CES restricts responses of the

import demand of each product to the price change relative to the price index for the good to be

the same for all products (Winters 1984; Weatherspoon and Seale 1995). Therefore, the issue of

substitutability must be addressed in order to formulate a more specific system.

Previous studies applied to agricultural trade analysis have raised questions about several

properties of the Armington model. Studies by Alston et al. 1990; Moschini et al. 1994; Seale et

al. 1992; Weatherspoon and Seale 1995; and Winters 1984 all showed the biased character of the

Armington specification when it is based on the CES functional form. Furthermore, Yang and

Koo 1993 suggested a less restrictive set of assumptions on demand relationships than those of

the Armington model in order to avoid inconsistent parameter estimations.

In order to bring prices, quantities, and other factors into the model, this study suggests a

functional form: one-product, many-suppliers demand function using a more flexible form, the

Constant Ratio of Elasticity of Substitution (CRES) (Mukerji 1963, Hanoch 1971). That is, its

Elasticity of Substitution (ES) varies along a mapping of isoquants (i.e., all input bundles that









produces exactly y units of outputs) and differs between factors (Varian 1992). The choice of the

CRES rather than the CES is justified because it allows the estimation of parameters without

restricting the substitutability to be the same between every product, and consequently fully

exploiting the attributes of the Armington's theoretical framework (Sparks and Ward 1992).

The CRES technical relationship determines the functional nature of the product demands

and market shares from competing supply regions. For this study, we assume that the CRES

function permits variations of the elasticities of substitution among competing beef products in a

market i to vary by a constant proportion, thus allowing for differences in substitutability

between products of different origin within a market. This assumption increases the flexibility of

the model by reducing the number of parameters to be estimated.

Following earlier specifications used by Mukerji (1963), Hanoch (1971), and in particular

Sparks and Ward (1992), the derivation of the product demand functional form from the CRES

technical relationship is developed as follows:




where the Xi.is the product import demand for beef in region i in period t, and Xii is the ith

market' s import demand for beef from country j. The Pii is the share or distribution parameter

and is a function of the exogenous variables affecting the system (e.g., market structure), while

the parameters agyi and ati~are substitution parameters that are functions of variables like generic

advertising, country origin, and information.

The degree of substitutability between imported beef from different sources of supply is

captured by the CRES. Consequently, the higher the value of this parameter, the closer the

degree of substitution. In other words, a high value of this parameter means that beef products

from all sources are considered by consumers to be virtually identical. Conversely, a low value









of the parameter means that the two products are dissimilar or, that they are weak substitutes

(Kapuscinski and Warr 1999).

The imposition of the CRES technical relationship on the markets clearly shows that all

elasticities of substitution (aii) vary proportionately with the common factor of proportional

change That is, the elasticity of substitution oil and the value share Sii of the jth beef product

in the ith beef market are represented as



where
Sq = Pii Xii/C JPii Xi (4-11)

These elasticities play a significant role in trade modeling, especially when analyzing the

impact of trade policies. For example, when a tariff applied to beef imports is increased to

protect the domestic beef production in a country such as South Korea, this change automatically

raises the domestic price of the imported beef. Nevertheless, the effect that this change in the

tariff has on the price of the domestically produced beef is what determines its domestic resource

allocation effects (Armington 1969). In the special case of specific tariff applied to U. S. beef

products competing in Asian markets, if all competing beef products are perfect substitutes, then

the price of beef from the United States will necessarily change (increase) by the same

proportion as that of the other suppliers change (decrease). However, if the goods are imperfect

substitutes, prices may not change by the same proportion. Thus, the impact that changes in trade

policy have on the str-ucture of the markets (e.g., market shares) basically depends on the degree

of substitutability between imported beef, and this is what the model that is suggested for this

study captures (Kapuscinski and Warr 1999).

5 Previous studies by Mukerji (1963), Gorman (1965), Sato (1967), and in particular the paper by Hanoch (1971)
suggested that all ot; could vary proportionately, with a conunon factor being defined as: 1/ Ci Sijaii = 1/il,
where a is a weighted average of {ai} with the factor shares (Si} as weight.









The a and P coefficients have particularly important meanings in the CRES function. First,

the p shows that each country has an initial share of the import markets and those shares can

differ for a fixed level of import demand. Clearly, P does not just happen. It must depend on

many conditions such as non-tariff restrictions, previous trade history, infrastructure, food safety

concerns, preferential treatment, etc. Second, the product category also differs across countries

and shares change as the imports Xii change. Both ail and ai. reflect those differences and like

the p's they do not just happen. They reflect true quality and other attribute differences among

exporting countries as well as perceptions about a particular product Xii from country j in

country i. For example, information influences perception and knowledge about a product' s

attributes. Anything that enhances this knowledge also impacts the ax's (e.g., generic advertising,

product attributes). Later in the chapter, more specific forms for capturing the levels of both p's

and a's are developed showing that both coefficients may change over time.

Given the CRES market demand function, Equation 4-9, the following optimization steps

will define the product demand function for beef products. The first order condition for optimum

product mix implies

Ps y = Pi. (aX,./aXg y), (4-12)

where Pi. is the price level in the ith market and


=x .i~ i (4-13)


Thus, the partial derivatives in Equation 4-13 depend only on ratios of quantities of

products demanded in the its market, and these ratios in turn depend only on ratios of the

product prices which mean that market shares must depend only on relative prices of the

products in the market (Armington 1969). The fulfillment of this condition determines the









optimum quantities of beef imported by country i. Substituting Equation 4-13 into 4-12 can be

written as:



Pii = (aiPiii .(~~ (4-14)


Rearranging terms in Equation 4-14, the market clearing condition for which, the Marginal Rate

of Substitution (MRS) between competing products are equal to the price ratios (Varian, 1992)

can be written as:

=i a.i (4-15)



Further substituting Equation 4-15 the following expressions are obtained:

X.(1-agy) Piya ) (Xg)(as.- (4-16)


then,




At this point, given Equation 4-9 and using the previous equation it can be shown the

functional forms for product demands are:


X,=1(a ) Xi(a.1)(s-) (4-18)


where the Xii function clearly shows the relation between the CRES and the market clearing

condition that the MRS between competing products are equal to their price ratios. Re-arranging

the function's exponents in Equation 4-18,

(1/(g, 1) = tg7,(4-19)

then the corresponding market share equations can be defined as












Equations 4-18 and 4-20 specify the functional forms of the product demand and market

share equations imposed by the CRES technical relationship on the markets and hence non-linear

estimation techniques must be used to quantify the parameters (Sparks and Ward 1992)6. Using

the log function to express the Armington model's product demand functions, Equation 4-18, the

following form is obtained:

In(Xii) = xJi (In ai. In aii In #g y) + us; (In Pii InPg.)






In(Xii) = i-1) (In ag. In a1;-In #g ) + (i1) (In Pg; In





If ai, ail, and pii are in turn functions of events and changes, then clearly the product

demand is highly non-linear and must be solved using a non-linear technique. Since the obj ective

of the model is to estimate coefficients of demand, the first estimate is of the differing and

substituting country intercept and slope coefficients using exponential and logistic function, and

the results are incorporated into Equation 4-21 to obtain the corresponding estimates of the

model. Since the double-log functional form is used to estimate each country product demand,

the final coefficients were the estimated elasticities of the corresponding variables. Therefore, for

convenience and to incorporate the impact of promotions, food safety and other factors into the

analysis, the final product demands Equation 4-21 can be written as follows:



6 See Chiang 1987 for detailed explanation of the log function properties.









In(Xg y) = eoij + e11] (In(Pg y) In(Pi.)) + 021j In(Xi.) + uii (4-22)

where the first component, Goij, is a constant of integration that represents the effects of

distribution and differentiating coefficients on market shares; the second component, 81i is the

estimated value of the product demand relative price elasticity and is given by myi; the third

component, 92ij, is the estimate value of the product demand market size elasticities; and the last

component, uii, is a white noise error of the estimable model and allows for error in the

adjustment of the inputs to their utility maximization level. Thus, comparing Equations 4-18 and

4-21 the following identities are obtained:




8luj = (1/(aii 1)) = 7my and (4-24)

82ij= Ke~ag 1) 1).(4-25)

Equation 4-22 and its corresponding identities clearly show that the parameters

90tjl 8luj, and 92ij arT HOH-linOrT, HOn-constant and may change over time; that is, these

parameters are some measure of the coefficients of the cross function (Sparks and Ward 1992).

The adjustment process captured with these relations are the most revealing part of the model,

since it shows whether or not the parameter is moving in a particular direction representing the

changes in beef demand. Thus the system for beef trade as specified for econometric estimation

will obtain elasticities of substitution to analyze the impact of the parameter coefficients included

in the CRES function.

Recalling the previously defined Equations 4-7 and 4-22, the price elasticity can be

obtained substituting them back into Equation 4-22 as follows:

In(Xii) = Boil + Bzzy In(Pii) Bzzy In(Pii Xi/Xi.) + 821j In(Xi.). (4-26)












Taking derivatives with respect to Pii and dividing the system by Xii the following relationship

is obtained:

1 aXgy Org OrgP /Xgy P
Xii 8Pt P v Pi. Xi. PPt


(BV Xi. Pg (4-27)

Finally, substituting Equation 4-11 into Equation 4-27 the price elasticity can be written as:


Xii 8Pi] Xi. Pi./


Eii ly 1 (1 Sil) 97,7(1 Share value). (4-28)

In summary, Armington (1969) proposed that the elasticities of substitution among

suppliers are constant and equal for any given pair in each market and the corresponding price

ratios are constant over the time. However, the literature examined for this study suggests a

different approach implying that the elasticity of substitution will vary proportionally to maintain

a fixed ratio, but they are allowed to be different between any two pairs of products competing in

the same market (Artus and Rohmberg 1973). These functional forms known as CRES technical

relationships are considered less restrictive than the CES approach in terms of the degree of

product substitutability in addition to a reduction in the number of parameters to be estimated

and allow some flexibility in the model.

Analysis of Trade Variations

In the Armington (1969) framework, trade flows are explained by a behavioral function

that includes the imperfect substitutability of the good supplied by competing exporters via the

elasticities of substitution. One of the limits of many studies using Armington' s specification is

that the reasons for aii, ai. and fiig are not fully explained and exploited. In this context, this









study introduces a CRES technical relationship to analyze trade anomalies or exogenous

"shocks" and the impact of commodity advertising on the demand for beef products during the

period 1995 trough 2007.

At this junction, it is clear that three components of the CRES technical relationship (4-9),

as7,l ag. and Pii determine the functional nature of beef product demands and market shares.

The parameter ail represents a non-constant (i.e., non-fixed) elasticity or "intra-class" elasticity

among imported goods that is a function of variables such as generic advertising (G), country

origin (0), and the parameter ati represents the "inter-class" among variables indicating changes

on product' s characteristics (C). Likewise, the parameter Pii represents a function of variables

affecting countries' market share equations among which safety issues (S) can be included (e.g.,

beef import ban due to B SE) and market size (M). Thus, a maj or consideration at this point is

that both the differentiating coefficients ai., as; and the share distribution coefficients Pii are

influenced by exogenous conditions. Consequently ail, ai. and Pii can be represented in a

functional form as:

ati. = f (K, ...., C), (4-29)

aii = f (G, ...., O) and (4-3 0)

S, = (S,.... M).(4-31)

The parameter coefficients would be expected to cause shifts in product demand and in

consumers' sensitivity to variations in price and quality. The extend of the shifts will depend on

the existing state of knowledge about the product, real attributes of the good, current levels of

consumption, and the quality and intensity of agyi, ati and Pii That is, these coefficients could

lead to a reduction or increase in the elasticities of demand, along with absolute shifts on the









demand for beef products. Further, without much loss in generality the previous Equations 4-29,

4-30, and 4-31 can be also written as:

ai. = K(Z), (4-32)

agyi = G(Z) and (4-33)

Pii = H(Z) (4-34)

assuming that 0 I ai., aii I 1, and Pii 2 0; and that the (Z) variable represents a set of dummies

and variables representing promotions and the type of beef. In order to take into account the

"uniqueness" effect of each parameter, this study suggests the use of a logistic regression to

capture the impact of each of the factors affecting ail, asi and an exponential form to estimate the

effect of the variables affecting PgJ. In both cases, a set of dummy variables are introduced in the

model to understand fully the effect of each parameter. For the sake of clarification and without

distracting the attention from the main model specification, the logistic function can be written as

F(z) =; and F(z) = e-zi, (4-35)

where F(z) represents each of the parameters ail, ai. and Pii ; and the "input" (zi) indicates a

regression model containing the respective subset of variables and dummy variables representing

the market and product characteristics. The logistic function is useful because it can take as an

input, any value from negative infinity to positive infinity, whereas the output is confined to

values between 0 and 1. The variable (zi) represents the exposure to some set of trade factors,

while F(z) represents the likelihood of a particular parameter, given that set of factors. The

exponential function is used because F(z) in this case is always positive (a required assumption

for Pii parameters), although it gets arbitrarily close to zero. Thus, the parameter agyi, ai., and Pii,

can be written as:









= (1 + exp(Kot. + Kui. DI, + K21. 2I )-1 (4-36)

a s; = G (Z)

= ((1 + exp (Go.; + Ga.;DX, + G2.jDX2 + 3.jDX3

+ G4~(ll)DIz + Gs(..)DF, + G6(..DG) 1-1, and (4-37)

Pif = H(Z)

Pij = exp (H1(.4) + H2(.4) (Y2) + H3(.4) (Y3) + H4(.4) (Y4)

+H5(.4) (DYRs) + H6(.4) (DYR6) + H7(.4) (Y7) + HS(.4> (DYRs)

+H9(.4) (Y9) + H10(.4) (DYRlo) + Haz.4) (DYR11)

+H,(.zz (DX, DYR,) + H2(.1) (DX, *h DYR2) + H,(~,> (DX, DYR,)

+H4(.x) (DX1 DYR4) + Hs(.1) (DX1 DYRs) + H6(.1) (DX1 DYR6)

+H7(.1) (DX1 DYR;I) + H8(.1) (DX1 DYR8) + H9(~1> (DX1 DYR9)

+Hio(.l) (DX1 DYRlo) + Hzz(.zz (DX1 DYR11)

+H2(.2)(DX2 d DYR1) + H3(.2) (DX2 DYR2) + H4(.2) (DX2 DYR,)

+H5(.2) (DX2 a DYR4) + H6(.2) (DX2 a DYRs) + H7(.2) (DX2 DYR6)

+H8(.2) (DX2 7 YR) + H9(.2) (DX2 DYR,) + H10(.2) (DX2 9 Y ,

+H11(.2) (DX2 DYRio)

+H2(.3) (DX, DYR2) + H,(3)> (DX, DYR,) + H4(3)> (DX, DYR4)

+Hs(.s) (DX3 DYRs) + H6(.3) (DX3 DYR6)+H7(.3) (DX3 DYR7)

+Hs(.3) (DX3 DYRs) + H9(.3) (DX3 DYR9) + Hio(.s) (DX3 a DYRlo)

+Hig(.3) (DX3 *DYR11) ) (4-38)









where i, j =1,2,3,4; DIi are dummies representing each importing country (equal to 1 if belongs

to Ii, O otherwise); and DXi are dummies representing each exporting country in the its market

or country (Guj arati, 2003).

Dummy variable devices classify data into mutually exclusive categories. Each variable is

defined in such a way that if the qualitative variable has m categories, it introduces only (m 1)

as a dummy variable. One approach for dealing with dummy variables is to drop one of the

variables in each category, such as dropping the first year in the case of time trend variables, one

of the beef types (i.e., frozen), or one of the importing or exporting countries (i.e., Rest of the

World). The category in which no dummy variable is assigned is known as the base and all

comparisons are made in relation to it. The intercept value represents the mean value of the base

category. The coefficients attached to the dummy variables are known as the differential

intercept coefficients because they tell by how much the value of the intercept that receives the

value of 1 differs from the intercept coefficient of the base category (Guj arati, 2003).

Since Equations 4-29, 4-30, and 4-31 are multiplicative, they can be expressed as follows:

In ait = In K(Z), (4-3 9)

In aii = In G (Z) and (4-40)

In aii = In H(Z). (4-41)

At this point, it is easy to combine Equations 4-18 or 4-20 with Equations 4-3 8, 4-39, and

4-40 to fully estimate the impact of beef promotions on Pacific Rim markets. However, before

doing that we must substitute identities 4-24 and 4-33 into Equation 4-42 to obtain the link

necessary to evaluate the effect of promotions and other non-economic indicators into the

product demand functions. The suggested link can be expressed as:

1i = -- (4-42)









Finally, substituting Equations 4-32, 4-34 and 4-42 into Equation 4-21 is written as

In(~i = [In Pi Pi.> In K(Z) InG(Z) InH(Z)
G(Z)-1 G(Z)-1 G(Z)-1 G(Z)-1


+G(ZI-)-1 + Egy (4-43)

The use of a non-linear regression model to estimate the parameters of the model will yield

consistent estimates in the market share equations for the years 1997 to 2007 for the beef

exporting countries considered in the study. These parameters will measure the strength of the

influence of food safety, non-trade barriers, and other factors on the demand for differentiated

products, and measure the substitutability between beef products within each Pacific Rim market

considered.

Given the increased competition and the disease-driven restrictions imposed on U.S. meats

by its traditional importers, understanding and differentiating the importance of economic and

non-economic factors is crucial in determining the changes in demand for U.S. beef. For

instance, if the government of the Republic of South Korea were to impose or increase its tariffs

on imported beef in order to protect its domestic beef production, the impact on its major beef

suppliers could be estimated. The model can also assess the impact of economic crisis on the

international beef markets. In particular, in the case of 1997 Asian financial crises that heavily

affected country and household incomes and weakened the demand for imported beef, the model

can measure the effect on products originated in the United States and determine the extent of the

damage in terms of market share lost. In short, any of the independent variables of the model

could be shocked and their corresponding impact measured. In terms of U. S. beef exports, this

can yield important insights into the consequences of policy measures aimed to prevent food

born diseases and impact of commodity advertising campaigns designed to communicate the

quality and safety characteristics of the product.









CHAPTER 5
EMPIRICAL RESULTS

Introduction

This chapter presents results of the model introduced in Chapter 4. The product demand

equation (WQQ) for beef products in the Pacific Rim region includes a relative price component,

a variable indicating the domestic demand for beef in each importing country, a set of parameters

indicating market share differentiation and the substitutability among products, and the

assumption that defines a constant rate elasticity of substitution in the demand for differentiated

beef products. The initial estimation of the beef trade model was carried out using a non-linear

single equation regression where the obj ective function is the sum squared residuals and the

resulting regression coefficients are the proposed changes in the parameters (Hall and Cummins

2005).

Data Set

The trade data used in this study were originally organized in terms of quantities and

export values by country and trade partner fresh/chilled and frozen beef (HS codes 0201 and

0202) during the period 1995 to 2007. There were some missing data points on the world trade

data, which complicate the econometric estimation of the model. The maj ority of the missing

values was concentrated in the earlier years (1995 and 1996) and could not be confirmed by

other data sources. This circumstance was more evident in countries such as Taiwan and Hong

Kong, in particular, for beef products from New Zealand and Australia. Therefore, the decision

was made to use only data from 1997 to 2007 in the creation of the final data set. Since missing

data will result in the entire observation in which the missing data are contained being thrown

out and with only 343 observations, missing prices and quantities for the year 1998 were

calculated.










Import prices were regressed on world product prices for all of the years of the data and the

estimated relationship was then used to estimate an import product price for a year when it was

missing. Finally, missing values in the original data set were approximated through linear

interpolation between existing quantities (Chiang 1997). Manipulations were carried out on these

data sets, after which they were merged by year and by country to create the final data set. These

manipulations resulted in a data set that shows space as well as time dimensions, which are

typical characteristics of panel data sets where the same cross-sectional unit (such as a country)

is surveyed over time. Thus, import quantities are expressed in thousands of metric tons and

values in thousands of U. S. dollars per metric ton. Both quantities and values are used to derive

import prices. Given the nature of the data, prices are treated as exogenous variables and already

include the corresponding tariff schedules for beef products originated outside the country.

For any given year, the data on beef trade represent a cross-sectional sample. Then, in the

case of fresh beef, for any given year there are 16 observations and 1 1 time series observations;

thus there is in all (16xl l) = 176 (pooled) observations on fresh beef (Guj arati 2003). Thus,

combining cross-sectional and time series data into a pooling data set gives more degrees of

freedom, reduces or eliminates the issue of multicollinearity among variables, and minimizes the

bias that might result from aggregation.

The rest of the data consist of country-specific statistics such as GDP, CPI, population

levels, total food imports, and country domestic beef production and consumption levels that

were obtained from the UN and FAO data bank and arranged in a country by country basis.

Product Demand Equation

The product demand equation WQQ = Xii is calculated assuming that there is a product

differentiation among beef products and that the rate of substitutability is no constant across









country and time period. Using Chapter 4's notation, the equation used to estimate the

corresponding product demands can be written in its simple form as follows:

In WQQ = In(Xij) = Goij + 8tij (In(Pii) In(Pi.)) + 921j In(Xi.). (5-1)

Each of the theta (0kij) was estimated separately and is some function of ai., aii and Pii as

set forth in the previous chapter. Once estimates of ai., aii and pii are known, then the 9's are

determined. Equation 5-1 is estimated with a pooled-time-series-cross-sectional estimator and is

double-log form. After their calculation, these parameters were incorporated into Equation 5-1 to

obtain the corresponding product demands. Note that for a given set of 8's, one can easily show

the corresponding elasticities. The resulting model had one equation for each country and type of

beef product (Fresh/Chilled or Frozen). The obj ective is to compare the results from each

country and draw conclusions regarding the behavior of their parameters in terms of their values,

signs, significance, and consistency with the economic theory.

The reminder of this chapter will discuss the result of the non-linear single equation used

to estimate the parameters of the product demand equations. All model estimates were obtained

using TSP software, as well as the statistics indicating the performance of the model. The

magnitudes of the estimated parameters or elasticities will be discussed and contrasted with the

economic theory as they indicate the responsiveness of the dependent variable (product demand)

to the explanatory variables. In general, the results of the estimation are good in that they make

economic sense and generally correspond with what one would expect given the trading situation

described in earlier chapters.

Model Results

The following section describes the parameter estimates for the product demands functions

(Xii) or as defined in the TSP programming, the WQQ dependent variable. As presented in









Chapter 4, Equation 4-18, product demands include a set of product and market differentiation

parameters, domestic demands (Xi.), and a price ratio between average domestic prices (Pi.) and

import prices (Pg y).

This set of parameters is considered the base of the model and defines the elasticities of

demand among products competing in a specific market. Therefore, using (4-3 8) and the

corresponding dummy variables specified in Equations 4-35 through 4-37, the model calculates

their coefficients, including those for beef promotions and type of beef, and their corresponding

T-values and supportive statistics as illustrated in Table 5-1. The t-values are compared at 1.96

for a two-tail 95% confidence level, which means that any value greater than |1.96| will show

evidence against the null hypothesis that the parameter is equal to zero, and hence conclude that

the parameter is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.

Since these are estimates from logistic and exponential regressions, one cannot

immediately infer that the coefficients indicate a dimensional change in the dependent variable.

Conclusions in this regard are presented later in the simulation chapter. In general, the statistics

of the model correspond to what one would expect given the annual data. The Durbin Watson

statistic is close to two, suggesting little or no serial correlation in the data. With respect to the R2

value, it is reasonably high for the type of model (highly non-linear regression) and data (panel)

and implies that about 76% of the variation in the (log of) product demands parameters is

explained by the (log of) relative sub-parameters, type of beef, and commodity promotions.

Therefore, from a purely statistical viewpoint, the estimated regression fits the data quite well

(Greene 2003).

Table 5-1 illustrates three sections representing the parameter estimates for the ai., aii

and figy components of the CRES function applied to the Xii product demand Equation 4-17.









The top portion of the table represents estimates for the sub-parameters for K (Z) related to

the ait parameters; the estimates in the second portion of the table belong to the sub-parameters

G (Z) and are components of the aii parameters; and the estimates in the last portion of the table

are the sub-parameters H (Z) related to the Pii parameters. Note that in Table 5-1 the last

category of the coefficients within any ati and ail dummy class is not shown, as well as the first

category within a Pii dummy class. As explained in Chapter 4, one of the variables of each

category was dropped to facilitate the estimation of each parameter and avoid issues of perfect

multicollinearity (Gujarati, 2003).

The signs of the parameter estimates for the statistically significant variables are

theoretically consistent. However, in terms of the direction of the impact (positive or negative

signs), they cannot be fully evaluated at this stage since they are components (sub-parameters) of

the product demand parameters (Equation 4-21). Their impact on the model's elasticities

(Equation 4-22) will be analyzed in Chapter 6 where the final simulations of the models are

presented. Nevertheless, Figures 5-1 through 5-4 are introduced in this section to illustrate the

behavior of the ais, aii and Pii product demand parameters across time.

In order to determine whether there has been a significant change in the variables affecting

substitution and market participation, the G, K, and H parameters and sub-parameters are

analyzed using their corresponding t-values to detect significant changes with respect to the

mean. The majority of the coefficients presented in Table 5-1 are statistically significant when

compared to their mean value at the 95 % level of confidence. However, there are some

exceptions of particular relevance that might require some consideration.














Estimate
4.573
-4.633
-0.740
3.693
1.189
0.990
1.028
-5.160
-0.330
0.621
-1.610
-0.667
-0.254
-0.260
-0.332
-0.623
-0.746
-1.981
-1.021
-1.190
-2.033
1.717
0.484
0.092
0.065
0.141
0.387
0.485
0.639
-5.262
-3.899
0.662
1.566
1.122
0.861
1.155
1.359
1.388
3.073
2.109
2.288
3.091
0.801
0.299
0.214
-0.028
0.122
0.454
2.239
1.188
1.313
2.107


t-value
0.471
-0.482
-1.423
0.375
4.522
3.778
4.185
-0.530
-2.371
0.744
-4.575
-1.920
-0.759
-0.771
-0.970
-1.771
-2.081
-4.761
-2.915
-3.217
-4.850
3.094
0.636
0.122
0.086
0.185
0.511
0.640
0.869
-5.956
-4.878
0.899
2.768
2.058
1.572
2.037
2.335
2.368
4.778
3.440
3.736
4.711
1.491
0.570
0.416
-0.054
0.239
0.863
3.842
2.202
2.410
3.580


Table 5-1. Parameter estimates and t-values
Parameter Description
Ko. Beef demand in Hong Kong
Kg Beef demand in South Kore
K21. Beef demand in Japan (JP)
GO(4.) Demand for Rest of World i
G1(1.) Demand for U.S. products
G2(2.) Demand for Australian proc
G3(s.) Demand for N. Zealand pro
G4(11) Demand for U.S. products i
Gs.. Type of beef products (Froz
G6.. Commodity promotion (1: )
H1.4 ROW market share (1997)
H2.4 ROW market share (1998)
H3.4 ROW market share (1999)
H4.4 ROW market share (2000)
H5.4 ROW market share (2001)
H6.4 ROW market share (2002)
H7.4 ROW market share (2003)
H8.4 ROW market share (2004)
H.4~ ROW market share (2005)
Hio.4 ROW market share (2006)
He14 ROW market share (2007)
Hi~x U.S. market share (1997)
H2.1 U.S. market share (1998)
H3.1 U.S. market share (1999)
H4.1 U.S. market share (2000)
Hg~z U.S. market share (2001)
H6.1 U.S. market share (2002)
H7.1 U.S. market share (2003)
Hg~z U.S. market share (2004)
Hg U.S. market share (2005)
Hio.1 U.S. market share (2006)
H,, U.S. market share (2007)
H2.2 AU market share (1998)
H3.2 AU market share (1999)
H4.2 AU market share (2000)
H5.2 AU market share (2001)
H6.2 AU market share (2002)
H7.2 AU market share (2003)
H8.2 AU market share (2004)
H9.2 AU market share (2005)
H10.2 AU market share (2006)
H11.2 AU market share (2007)
H2.3 NZ market share (1998)
H3.3 NZ market share (1999)
H4.3 NZ market share (2000)
H5.g NZ market share (2001)
H6.g NZ market share (2002)
H7.3 NZ market share (2003)
H8.g NZ market share (2004)
H9.3 NZ market share (2005)
Hio.s NZ market share (2006)
Hz .3 NZ market share (2007)
NOB 343
DW 1.678
R2 0.763


(HK)
a (KR)

products

ducts (AU)
ducts (NZ)
n S. Korea
:en)
yes, 0:no)









In the case of ag.~ both the differential intercept and dummy coefficients are statistically

insignificant for all parameters; however, the signs of the parameters for Korea and Japan are

negative indicating an inverse relationship between these estimates and the parameter ag..

With respect to the aii estimates for U. S. products in South Korea, the results show

negative and insignificant values, while all exporting countries show positive and significant

estimates. In the particular case of the United States, the estimates are positive and very

significant when comparing with the mean but at this point it does not indicate either the size or

importance of the observed variable or its impact on the elasticities. However, these results could

indicate a tendency for beef importing countries to become somewhat more responsive to the

origin of the product and changes in consumers' perceptions of imported beef. Dummy variables

for Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong were initially included in the model to see whether these

countries had different impacts on ai. and ail parameters. However, these variables were all

statistically insignificant and showed clear symptoms of multicollinearity; therefore they were

not reported.

The type of beef, defined by the parameter DF l, is statistically significant, but again the

effect of this variable will be discussed in Chapter 6. However, it is possible to assume that the

form of the product (fresh or frozen) has a substantial indirect impact on aii, which should be

translated in the elasticities between fresh and frozen beef products. On the other hand, estimates

for beef promotions (GGl) show a negative and insignificant value with respect to the mean (first

year), which somehow refutes initial expectations of the effect of this variable on the demand for

differentiated beef products.

The Pii can be interpreted as influencing the share that the exporter j has in the ith import

market when Pii equals Pi Theoretically, Pii must be positive, should sum "on average" to









one, and each estimate should be in the (0, 1) interval (Armington 1969). However, when their

impact across time on U.S. market shares is illustrated, the range is above one in the first year

(Figures 5-1 through 5-3). This circumstance is the result of including the Hz(.x (DX, DYR,)

term in the model specification, which allows the market share parameter for beef imported from

the United States to have a higher initial value.

At this stage, it is important to mention that the BSE effect is nested on the time trend as

shown in the last portion of Table 5-1 and that the significance of these parameters is relatively

more important in the evaluation than the sign of the dummies. In the case of Pii, the base used

to compare the estimates is the Rest of the World. With this in mind, it is clear that U. S market

shares have been affected by the BSE scare when comparing the t-values after the BSE

announcements. All Pii sub-parameters show insignificant values with respect to the mean,

except for the first year and the post-B SE coefficients. Also, the effect of the B SE

announcements in North America shows a significant effect on the Australian and New Zealand

market participation compared to previous years. The Eigures below illustrate the significance of

the estimates in Table 5-1 and their impact on the parameters ai aii nd Pii across time.

One of the most revealing aspect of these figures is the fact that in each import market the

parameter values of asi are constant across beef suppliers and time. That is, all ai 's values for

the South Korean beef market are about 52%; for the Japanese market these values are about 2%,

and for Taiwan and Hong Kong the ai. values are 1% respectively. In the particular case of the

ai. parameters there are two point to be considered: first, it is suitable to think that regardless of

the origin of the beef product and how much is available for consumption, markets demands

show constant rate of substitution between beef and all other goods in that market and that

consumers substitute beef for other goods at a proportional rate across time; and second, they




















LL 1117 Unite States
1.00-

0.80-
0.0 -.56 0.599 0.581


0.282
0.20-
0.002
0.00 ,-
1.00-
Austrli
0.80-
0.646
0.0 -.60P 0.589 *- '0.629
/ .599 1 0.575



0.20 029

0.00
1.00-
New haland
0.80-
0.600 0.580 0670.620
0.60-

0.40 _-0.511 0.515
0.259
0.20 --0.00 ---- .. """- --*0.215

0.00 0.121

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year


Figure 5-1. South Korean product demand parameters for beef imports (US-AU-NZ).


In the case of the aii's coefficients, it is clear that only in the case of the South Korean


Market there is some variation across time, although the range of this variation is only about 2


percentage points. For example, Figure 5-1 shows ail values for the United States, Australia,


and New Zealand. In the case of U.S. beef, these values vary between 56% and 58%; between


61% and 63% in the case of Australian beef; and between 60% and 62% in the case of beef from


New Zealand. In the rest of the markets the fluctuation of the aij's coefficients is almost


insignificant (+/- 1%), which is clearly shown in Figures 5-2 and 5-3.


have a measurable impact on the elasticity parameters only in the case of the South Korean beef


market.


Parameter Value (%)


-AID -AIJ -BIJ













-.11 Unie States








.00 0.002 100


Austrli



0.599 70.575




-.021 0.021


New Zaland




0.259
0.20 --- --../ """ ---*0.215
0.021- -- 0.021
0 ago0.122


Parameter Value (%)


-AID IAIJ IBIJ


1.20
1.00

0.80
0.60

0.40
0.20
0.00
1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20


1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00


1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year


Figure 5-2. Japan product demand parameters for beef imports (US-AU-NZ).


With respect to the Pii parameters, all figures show a clear fluctuation across time and


across beef suppliers. Comparing the Pii coefficient results for the United States, Australia, and


New Zealand, the minimum and maximum Pii value for each of these suppliers were 0.2% (2005


to 2006) and 1 11% (1997) for U. S. beef products; 20% (1997) and 60% (2005) for Australian


beef; and 12% (2002) and 26% (2004) for New Zealand beef. In addition, although it is


impossible at this point to identify the full impact of these coefficients, it is evident that the BSE


announcements in 2003 have an important effect on the Pii trend.













-.11 Unie States








0.00 0.002


Austrli



-- 0.599 70.575




-.00S 0.010


New Zaland




0.2590.215
- .201 .2 ,.
0.005 0.009


Parameter Value (%)


-AID IAIJ IBIJ


1.20
1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40
0.20

0.00
1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00


2002

Year


2003


2004 2005 2006 2007


1998 1999 2000


Figure 5-3. Taiwan and Hong Kong product demand parameters for beef imports (US-AU-NZ).


The BSE largest impact is, undoubtedly, on U. S. beef products showing a decline in


market participation of 57% across markets between the years 2003 and 2005. Overall, the Pii


trend shows a reduction of 83% in U. S. beef market participation between 1997 and 2007.


Figures 5-2 and 5-3 also show the other side of the BSE scare on these Asian Markets. In the


case of beef products from Australia and New Zealand, the overall upward trend on the Pii


coefficients is very clear, showing an increase of almost 38% in the case of Australia and 15% in


the case of New Zealand between 1997 and 2007. In particular, after the BSE announcements the


increment on the Pii trend was almost 22% and 14% respectively. This upward trend reflects, in










theory, the growth in market shares of these two suppliers during the last years, but the real

magnitude of their impact will be disclosed in the simulation chapter.

Table 5-2 presents summary statistics for ai, agyi and Pii in all markets during the 10-year

period of this research. Although, there is a difference in significance between the minimum and

maximum values, numerically they show the variation of each parameter across time. Thus, for

the ai. parameter the range of variation is about 63.6 percentage points, the variation between the

aii parameters is about 5 1 percentage points, and in the case of the Pii parameter the range of

variation is approximately 111 percentage points.

Table 5-2. Summary statistics product demands parameters
Parameter Mean Std.dev. Minimum Maximum
ai. 0.142 0.219 0.010 0.646
(1.162) (4.261)
ar; 0.163 0.266 0.005 0.515
(0.158) (23.749)
/?ty 0.353 0.298 0.002 1.113
(0.485) (4.177)

As stated before, it is impossible to immediately infer the impact and direction of the

parameter coefficients shown in Tables 5-1 and 5-2. Their analysis will require a chapter alone

(Chapter 6), with simulations showing the magnitude and impact of these parameters on product

demands, market shares, relative prices, and elasticities of substitution among beef products. The

set of figures introduced in Chapter 6 reproduce the results discussed before and place them

under different scenarios in order to draw the conclusions of the study.









CHAPTER 6
SIMULATION ANALYSIS

Introduction

The previous chapter concentrated on a general discussion of the econometric estimates

obtained using the Armington model and the CRES assumption about the elasticity of

substitution. In this chapter, a more detailed analysis of the significance of the different

parameters and sub-parameters estimates from Chapter 5 will be presented. Thus, the obj ective is

to simulate the model specified in Chapter 4 in order to evaluate the effect of changes in relative

prices, quantities demanded across time, and commodity promotions on product demands across

four beef markets in the Pacific Rim region. Under different price, promotion, and trade flow

scenarios, this section will compare the product demands and market shares relative to variations

in the mean or average price or quantity.

The simulation process involves a set of preliminary steps that were conducted using the

TSP program, where all the variables of the model are set to the mean level (all dummy variables

are set to zero) in order to compare the changes in the dependent variable when one of the

independent variables varies, and all other input parameters are held constant at their mean value.

The following step is then to predict product, market share demands, and elasticities using

calculated relative prices, commodity promotions, and quantities at their mean values. When

calculating these values for each of the variables, their respective means were included and

multiplied then by an adjusted parameter set to one for simulation purposes (i.e., relative price

= MEANRP*AD _RP .

The simulations measured the strength of the relationship between the independent and

dependent variables. Tables 6-1 through 6-4 illustrate the base values estimated for each beef

exporter in each beef market.










Table 6-1. South Korea: estimated base values
Country of Origin Product Demands' Elasticity
Fresh Frozen Relative Price Fresh Frozen
United States 129.03 44.17 1.3416 -1.68 -0.78
Australia 8.75 4.46 0.9455 -2.34 -2.03
New Zealand 6.63 3.56 1.0200 -2.33 -2.01
In Millions of Metric Tons. +U.S. dollars per Metric Tons.

Table 6-2. Japan: estimated base values
Country of Origin Product Demands' Elasticity
Fresh Frozen Relative Price+ Fresh Frozen
United States 74.96 53.41 1.3416 -0.65 -0.75
Australia 23.19 16.54 0.9455 -0.93 -0.95
New Zealand 20.66 14.74 1.0200 -0.93 -0.95
In Millions of Metric Tons. U.S. dollars per Metric Tons.

Table 6-3. Taiwan: estimated base values
Country of Origin Product Demands Elasticity
Fresh Frozen Relative Price+ Fresh Frozen
United States 18.80 13.43 1.3416 -0.21 -0.44
Australia 5.80 4.15 0.9455 -0.83 -0.88
New Zealand 5.17 3.70 1.0200 -0.84 -0.89
In Millions of Metric Tons. U.S. dollars per Metric Tons.

Table 6-4. Hong Kong: estimated base values
Country of Origin Product Demands' Elasticity
Fresh Frozen Relative Price Fresh Frozen
United States 14.76 10.55 1.3416 -0.21 -0.44
Australia 4.55 3.26 0.9455 -0.83 -0.88
New Zealand 4.06 2.91 1.0200 -0.84 -0.89
Millions of Mletric Tons. U.S. dollars per Metric Tons.

Product demand measures a country's demand for another country' s beef products. Recall

that the models used for this study distinguishes products by their region of production and that

they are a function of the size of its market demand and of product prices. Keeping this concept

in mind, the set of tables above show that on average, the total fresh beef market in all four

importing countries was 1.8 times bigger that the frozen market (316.36 M.MT vs. 174.9 M.MT)

and that the largest demand for fresh products was in South Korea with more that 45% of the

market, followed by Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong with 37.5%, 9.4%, and 7.3% of the total

fresh product demand. On the other hand, during thel1997 to 2007 period the largest demand for









frozen beef products was in Japan with more than 48% of the market, followed by South Korea,

Taiwan, and Hong Kong with 29.8%, 12. 1%, and 9.5% of the frozen product demand. On the

supply side, the United States was by far the largest supplier of fresh and frozen products with

75% and 69% of the market respectively, while Australia provided 13.3% and 16.2%

respectively and New Zealand 11.5% and 14.2%.

The importance of these results from the U. S. point of view is that in order to re-gain

market access, private (consumer level) and public (government level) confidence need to be

improved. Empirical results seem to indicate that trade regulations based on food safety

concerns, not price, drive the presence of U. S. beef in these four markets. At the government-to-

government level, negotiations and inspections of the beef supply chain have been done to re-

assure that U.S. beef is produced to the highest levels of safety and quality. With respect to

private efforts, they are mainly focused on promoting U.S. beef in these markets using several

types of marketing campaigns that reinforce the attributes of quality, characteristic U. S. beef

taste, and the safety of the products.

Surprisingly, the results from this study show beef promotions parameters that are

statistically insignificant and with positive sign (see Table 5-1), which can be credited to the

characteristics of the data used. Because the null hypothesis of no relationship between product

demand and promotions cannot be rej ected for any of these countries, theoretically their product

demands would be unaffected by changes in the level of promotions. Given the lack of statistical

significance, simulations for beef promotions will be not discussed since they provide unreliable

results.

Simulations for the parameters in Table 5-1 are considered in the following sections of the

chapter. A comparison will be made to their mean values as relative prices and quantities









demanded change across time and country, and the corresponding impacts of these variables are

graphically presented for their analysis. It is important to mention that some variables may be

statistically significant but numerically unimportant when predicting probabilities.

Total Product Demand Trend

Estimated trade responses across time for the United States, Australia, and New Zealand

are presented in Figures 6-1 through 6-6 in terms of beef product demands in each of the

importing countries across time. Product demands were estimated using the methodology

introduced in Chapter 4, which includes relative prices, domestic demands for beef in general,

and the CRES parameters. The repercussion of the BSE announcements and the rapid increase of

diagnoses across the European Union (EU) during the 1997 to 1998 period had an important

impact on beef trade around the world. In particular, in the case of feed-lot beef-producing

countries such as the United States, the BSE scare in Europe has had an important and negative

effect on their beef exports. That is, Figures 6-1 and 6-2 show a significant decrease in the

demand for this type of beef in all Asian countries selected for this study. Estimates for the 1997

to 1998 period show that product demands for U.S. fresh beef in South Korea declined more than

34%, while in Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong the reduction was around 17%. With respect to

frozen beef and as expected, the South Korean market showed the largest negative impact (29%)

while in the other markets the impacts were about 16%.

After a considerable period of stability, the 2003 BSE announcements in North America

had a massive negative impact on U.S. beef products to the point that during the 2004 to 2006

period every U.S. export market of any significance closed their border to U.S. beef and cattle

(US1VEF 2007).

As shown in Figure 6-1 U.S. product demands in all four markets fell rapidly to virtually

zero as the result of a complete ban on U.S. beef exports based on animal age restrictions and the






























-
U S.Fresh Jeef Yolume
-
-S Korea Japan- Taiwan -Hong Kong
-

-

-

-



-

-

-

-

-

-


type of beef (see Table 1-2 for a full description of the restrictions). However, during the year



2006, a gradual re-opening of trade was translated into an increased product demand for U. S.


beef products across countries, in particular in Japan where consumers have shown a marked



preference for imported, grain-feed, beef from the United States.


11.41


1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Hong Kog14 76 12 27 12 54 12 13 12 18 11 64 11 35 3 82 () (3 () ( 3 71
Tanvan 18 8 15 63 15 96 15 44 15 51 14 82 14 45 4 87 () (3 0)11 4 72
Japan 74 96 62 31 63 66 61 58 61 84 59 11 57 61 19 4 0)13 0)45 18 83
S Korea 129 (3 84 93 89 14 82 68 83 48 75 38 71 11 6 (5 () ( 5 66

Year



Figure 6-1. Estimated fresh U.S beef product demands across time in selected Asian markets.


As of September 2007, the increase in U. S. product demand represented 32% of the pre-



BSE levels; and market prediction by the USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service and the US1VEF



showed a positive trend in the volume of beef exported, as well as in the value of export to Japan



for the incoming years.



In the case of South Korea, the situation is far more complex and driven by policy rather



than market demand. As previously mentioned, South Korea is the largest importer/consumer of



beef in the region and even though the complete ban on U. S. beef has been lifted by the


150

140

130

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20











government, the strong opposition among politician and radical consumer groups has affected


the normal flow of U. S. beef to this country. As Figure 6-1 illustrates, the 2007 product demand


levels are only 8% of the pre-BSE level for both fresh and frozen beef products.

1000 MT
100-
U.S Frozen Beef Volue


80-

70-

60-

50





20-




1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Hong Kon 10 55 8 78 8 97 8 67 8 71 8 33 8 12 2 74 0 02 0) 06 2 66
Talwan 1343 11 17 1141 1104 1109 106 1033 349 002 008 338
Japan 53 41 44 42 45 38 43 89 44 08 42 14 41 07 13 86 0 1 0 32 13 46
S Korea 44 17 31 06 32 35 30 37 30 61 28 09 26 75 3 36 0 0 3 17

Year


Figure 6-2. Estimated frozen U. S beef product demands across time in selected Asian markets.

Despite the difference in the quantity of U. S. beef products consumed, the markets in


Taiwan and Hong Kong show a quite similar behavior in terms of the results obtained in this


study. In both cases, the estimates for these markets show the same reactions to the BSE


announcements, showing a difference of 67.3% in product demands between the pre- and post-


BSE announcements. Considering that these two countries share the same culture, these results


are not surprising and are much closer to what was expected not only in the case of the United


States but also with respect to products from Australia and New Zealand.



























-
A Istralian Fresh Br ef Yolun e *----...
-
*-S.Kore. -Japan -Taim n -Hong Kong
-

-

-

-

-

-

..........

-



-

-

-

/ ""***---.........---**** ----- M


Figures 6-3 through 6-6 show the other side of the BSE impact, as the demand for U. S.



beef products disappeared, the demand for beef originated in Australia and New Zealand shows



an upward trend during the same ten-year period.


1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Hong Kon 4 55 11 28 10 93 8 35 10 45 9 57 8 71 13 72 13 65 13 79 13 24
Tana 5 8 14 37 13 92 10 64 13 31 12 19 11 09 17 48 17 39 17 57 16 87
Japan 23 19 57 41 55 64 42 52 53 2 48 73 44 33 69 85 69 5 70 22 67 41
S Koe 8 75 87 51 80 79 40 8 72 12 57 7 45 38 143 97 142 18 145 91 131 56

Year



Figure 6-3. Estimated fresh Australian beef product demands across time in selected Asian
markets



Since 1998, South Korea has the largest market for Australian beef in the region, showing



a 9-fold increase with respect tol997, as exports to the other countries of the region also



increased more than 1.5-fold during the same period. During the next years and before the 2003



BSE scare in North America, Australian product demand estimates showed some upwards and



downwards trends, in particular during the 2000 economic crisis in Asia.



As expected, Figures 6-3 and 6-4 illustrate that the BSE announcements had a positive and



significant impact on Australian beef demand in the region. Only in South Korea, the BSE scare


150

140

130

120

110

100

90

80

7 0

60



40

30

20


10












represented an increase of more than 200% and in Japan, it corresponded to an almost 60%


increment in fresh beef product demand during the period 2003 to 2004.

1000 41T
100-
Aust alian Frzen Beef olume



80-

70-

60-

50 -






20-

10



1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Hong Kon 326 8 06 7 81 597 7 47 6 84 623 9 8 975 985 9 46
Tanvan 4 15 10 26 9 94 7 6 9 51 8 71 7 93 12 48 12 42 12 54 12 04
Japan 16 54 40 86 39 6 30 28 37 87 34 7 31 57 49 69 49 44 49 95 47 96
S Korea 4 46 30 05 28 12 15 97 25 6 21 28 17 44 45 39 44 92 45 9 42 12

Year


Figure 6-4. Estimated frozen Australian beef product demands across time in selected Asian
markets .


In the case of frozen beef products Figure 6-4 shows that Japan is the larger destination for


Australian products; however estimates for the South Korean market show that during the ten-


year period of this study product demand for frozen beef has increased almost 106% while in the


Japanese market that increase was about 34%. The difference between pre- and post-BSE


announcements in both, South Korea and Japan markets is remarkable; in the case of Australian


frozen beef there was an increment of 140% and 52% in the South Korean and Japanese markets


respectively, while in the case of Taiwan and Hong Kong that growth was about 50%.










M.MT


Figure 6-5. Estimated fresh New Zealand beef product demands across time in selected Asian
markets .

The demand for beef products that originated in New Zealand increased, after the 2003

BSE appearance in North America. As Figures 6-5 and 6-6 show, the strong pre-BSE presence of

U. S. beef in the markets of the region was reflected in low demand levels for New Zealand beef


products between 1998 and 2002. In particular, the South Korean demand for beef products that

originated in this country reached its lowest levels since 2002, when fresh and frozen product

demands barely passed one M.MT. However during the 2003 to 2004 period, Figure 6-5

illustrates that in Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong the demand for New Zealand beef products

almost doubled, while in South Korea it increased almost four times during the one-year period.


4 06 4 65 4 25 3 88 2 82 2 45 3 02 5 27 4 81 4 6 4 37
5 17 5 92 5 41 4 94 3 6 3 12 3 85 6 71 6 12 5 85 5 57
,0 66 23 65 21 6 19 73 14 36 12 47 15 39 26 82 24 46 23 38 22 26
6 63 9 29 7 41 5 92 2 69 1 89 3 2 12 69 10 09 9 02 7 98











1000 41T
New Zealand Frlozen Beef Tolume
-Korea Japan- Taiwan -Hong K~ong


1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Hong Kon 291 3 33 3 04 278 2 02 176 217 377 3 44 329 3 13
Tanvan 3 7 4 24 3 87 3 54 2 58 2 24 2 76 4 81 4 38 4 19 3 99
Japan 14 74 16 88 15 42 14 08 10 26 8 91 10 99 19 13 17 45 16 68 15 88
SKorea 3 56 4 71 3 91 3 24 168 126 19,4 6 1 5 05 46 4 15

Year


Figure 6-6. Estimated frozen New Zealand beef product demands across time in selected Asian
markets .

In all figures, it is very clear that as the United States started to re-gain market access in the


region during the year 2007, while Australian and New Zealand product demands started to

decline in all four markets. According to the estimates of the model, the demand for U. S. beef


products has its largest increase in Japan, 33% (fresh), and 32% (frozen), while its lowest

increase was in South Korea with only 8% (fresh) and 8% (frozen) with respect to the 2003


levels. Meanwhile, New Zealand product demands showed the largest decline in 2007 with a


range between 37% (South Korea) and 17% (all other markets) in the case of fresh products and

32% and 17% in the case of frozen products. Australia, however, did not show such a large


decline during 2007 and in both cases the decline was between 8% (South Korea) and 3.5% (all


other markets).


25



20










5



O









The most appealing explanation for this change is the size of the players in this particular

market. The United States is one of the largest players in the global beef market and, at any

point, its presence or absence in a particular market will affect the dynamics of the market. Beef

consumers in all four markets have shown preference toward American beef products, in

particular in Japan, where in addition to a strong consumer' s identification of better taste,

promotion campaigns should have reinforced the quality and safety attributes of all types of beef

products that originated in the Unites States by increasing the information and knowledge levels

of consumers.

Product Demand Simulations

To analyze the effects of changes in the relative price of beef on product demands before

and after the BSE announcements, beef prices from all three suppliers were allowed to shift

between 10% below and above the mean price, of each exporting country holding all other beef

prices at the mean. The simulation results for product demands are presented in Figures 6-7

through 6-10 and include the total amount of beef products demanded in each beef market during

the years 1998, 2002, and 2006, faced with a change in the prices of each beef supplier. As

defined in Chapter 4, a country' s product demand is a function of the relative size of its market

demand and of its product prices ratios, assuming that Xit is exogenous. The corresponding price

elasticities are included to illustrate how changes in prices lead to changes in the quantity of

product demanded.

Note that for all markets the price ratio of beef products relative to the average (mean)

across the four importing markets were $1.34 per Metric Ton (MT) for U. S. beef, $0.94 per MT

for Australian beef, and $1.02 per MT for New Zealand beef. With the exception of U. S. prices,

quantities, and elasticities for the post-BSE year of 2006, in general the figures below show that

as the price of beef from one exporter goes up, the quantity of beef products demanded goes












down, which is expected for beef products in Asian markets. However, there is a difference


between the estimated elasticities for the South Korean beef market and the elasticities for the


other beef markets in the way of the type of the elasticity. That is, the price elasticities for beef


products in Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong are classified as almost unit elastic, meaning that as


the price increases the quantity of beef product demanded decreases in the same proportion,


while in the case of South Korea the price elasticities are classified as elastic or in other words,


an increase in beef price is met by a more than proportionate quantity decrease (Nicholson 2002).


In the next sections of this chapter a detailed discussion of each of the beef markets in terms of


price and quantity changes, and the price elasticity of demand will be presented.

1000 MT
200.00-
outh Kore
180.00-Prc-Quntye
00.9 01 511.1
160.00-

140.00-

120.00-

100.00 ---

80.00 ---

60.00 ----

40.00 ----

20.00 ----



US1998 AUl998 NZ1998 US2002 AU2002 NZ2002 US2006 AU2006 NZ2006
0.9 1()1 34 116 53 12 ()2 89 94 76 83 2 45 0) )( 194 3() 11 68
1 84 93 87 51 9 29 75 38 57 7() 1 89 () 0)( 145 91 9 ()2
1.1 72 ()9 67 64 7 35 63 98 44 59 1 5() () 0) 112 77 7 14
Elasticity -2 31 -2 64 -2 56 -2 31 -2 64 -2 56 () 0)( -2 64 -2 57

Adjusted Price


Figure 6-7. South Korea beef market demands and price elasticities in 1998, 2002, and 2006.


Figure 6-7 includes the distribution of beef product demands among each beef exporter


country to the South Korean market, faced with a change in prices during the years 1998, 2002,












and 2008. The figure shows the impact of the complete ban on U. S. beef products that is


translated into a large and positive difference in Australian product demands between the pre-


BSE years and the year 2006. This difference represents more than 150% increase in product


demands. In the case of New Zealand, there was a decline of 3% in product demand between


1998 and 2006. As the relative prices of exported beef increase from 10 % below the mean or


average price to 10 % above the mean prices there was an identical decrease across time in the


quantity of beef product demanded of 28.8% in the case of U. S. beef, 41.9% in the case of


Australian beef, and 38.9% in the case of New Zealand beef.

1000 luT
100.00-
Japan
Price Quantity R~esponse
0-0.9 101 511.1
80.00-




60.00 ---




40.00 ------




20.00 -------




0.00 ------
US 1998 AU 1998 NZ 1998 US 2002 AU 2002 NZ 2002 US 2006 AU 2006 NZ 2006
0.9 67 37 64 27 26 25 63 91 54 55 13 83 0 48 78 60 25 95
1 62 31 57 41 23 65 59 11 48 73 12 47 0 45 70 22 23 38
1.1 57 96 51 88 21 52 54 98 44 03 11 34 0 41 63 44 21 28
Elasticity -1 01 -1 02 -1 02 -1 01 -1 02 -1 02 0 00 -1 02 -1 02

Adjusted Price


Figure 6-8. Japan beef market demands and price elasticities in 1998, 2002, and 2006.


The product demand responses to variation in the mean prices are more extreme in the case


of Australian beef, where in all cases a 10% reduction in the price of beef originated in this










country led to an increase of almost 25% in the quantity demanded. These results are anticipated

as the estimated relative price elasticities have values greater than two, as in the case of elastic

price elasticity of demands. The Japanese market was the second destination in terms of market

size for beef products that originated in any of the exporting beef countries. In relative terms, this

market represents 76% of the South Korean market when compared to the total product demands

across time. The United States was clearly the maj or player in this market until the BSE

announcements in 2003. Figure 6-8 shows, once again, how the impact of the complete ban on

U. S. beef products affected the scenario of the Japanese beef market. While U. S. beef

disappeared from the market in 2006, Australian and New Zealand beef products expanded their

presence one and a half times more and almost two times more than in the pre-BSE years.

In Japan, product demand variations with respect to changes in the relative price show a

behavior similar to the South Korean market. That is, as the price increased the quantity of beef

products demanded declined but in this case in almost identical proportional magnitudes.

Therefore, as beef prices increase from 10% below the mean or average price to 10% above the

mean prices there is an identical decrease across time in the quantity of beef product demanded,

of 14% in the case of U. S. beef, 19% in the case of Australian beef, and 18% in the case of New

Zealand beef. Since price elasticity estimates show values very close to one, these results are

plausible as they indicate a unit elastic price elasticity of demand. With the exception of the year

2006, similar unit elastic demand curves were obtained for all three beef exporting countries

across time.

Figures 6-9 and 6-10 show the differences in market size between the beef markets in

Taiwan and Hong Kong and the previous markets. In terms of product demands, the combined

sizes of these two markets represent less than one half of the Japanese market and one third of












the South Korean Market. That is, the amount of products demanded during the three years


considered was 90,000 MT in Taiwan, while in Hong Kong this amount was about 70,000 MT.


In addition, relative price elasticity estimates for Taiwan and Hong Kong show unit elastic


values, thus as beef prices increase from 10 % below the mean or average price to 10 % above


the mean prices there is an identical decrease across time in the quantity of beef product


demanded, of 14% in the case of U.S. beef, 19% in the case of Australian beef, and 18% in the


case of New Zealand beef.

1000 1\T
30.00-
Taiwan
Price Quantity Rlesponse
00 9 01 511.1
25.00-



20.00-



15.00 -- -



10.00 ------



5.00 --------



0.00 h
US 1998 AU 1998 NZ 1998 US 2002 AU 2002 NZ 2002 US 2006 AU 2006 NZ 2006
0.9 16 90 16 08 6 57 16 03 13 65 3 46 0 12 19 67 6 50
115 63 14 37 5 92 14 82 12 19 3 12 0 11 17 57 5 85
1.1 14 54 12 98 5 39 13 79 11 02 2 84 0 10 15 88 5 33
Elasticity -1 01 -1 02 -1 02 -1 01 -1 02 -1 02 0 00 -1 02 -1 02

Adjusted Price


Figure 6-9. Taiwan beef market demands and price elasticities in 1998, 2002, and 2006.

In summary, these simulation results correspond to the descriptive statistics which were


shown in Chapter 2 to be the largest import and export markets. Results show that product


demand responses to variation in the average market prices were more extreme after the 2003


BSE announcements, in particular in the larger markets, such as South Korea and Japan.












Considering product demand levels for beef products that originated in Australia and New


Zealand between 2002 and 2006, the figures above clearly illustrate this trend. In all these


scenarios it is clear that the absence of U. S. beef products has helped the expansion of Australian


products elsewhere, in particular in South Korea were consumers have set a strong position


against beef imports from North America.

1000 1\T
30.00-
Hong Kong
Price Quantity Rlesponse
00.9 01 511.1
25.00-


20.00-


15.00-


10.00 ---


5.00-



0.00 -
US 1998 AU 1998 NZ 1998 US 2002 AU 2002 NZ 2002 US 2006 AU 2006 NZ 2006
0.9 13 27 12 62 5 16 12 59 10 71 2 72 0 09 15 44 5 10
1 12 27 11 28 4 65 11 64 9 57 2 45 0 09 13 79 4 60
1.1 11 41 10 19 423 108X3 865 223 008 12 46 4 18
Elasticity -1 02 -1 02 -1 02 -1 01 -1 02 -1 02 0 00 -1 02 -1 02

Adjusted Price


Figure 6-10. Hong Kong beef market demands and price elasticities in 1998, 2002, and 2006.

This set of scenarios yields useful information to policy makers and beef industry


representatives attempting to understand the impact of restrictive trade policies affecting the


normal flow of agricultural commodities and that are based on arbitrary food safety concerns as


expressed in several occasions by World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)




SBased on the Terrestrial Animal Health Code, this international regulatory agency specifies all health measures to
be used by the veterinary authorities of importing and exporting countries to avoid the transfer of agents pathogenic
for animals or humans, while avoiding unjustified sanitary barriers. The OIE officially announced the U.S. as a
"controlled risk" country in May 2007.










Pre- and Post-BSE Market Distribution Simulations

In this section, market demands are analyzed according to the percentage of participation

of each of the three exporters in the four importing markets. In order to understand better the

impact of the BSE announcements in 2003, the following figures will present pre- and post-BSE

results for fresh and frozen beef products. In Figures 6-11 and 6-12, the reader can easily see the

results of the simulations and fully compare the impact of the BSE on the relative market

participation during the pre-BSE period (1997 to 2003) and after the BSE announcements (2004

to 2007).


Product 10100Product
Demands 0.90 ---- -- ----- --- ---90 Demands
Shares 08 -- -- _Shares

0.60 -- ..._ ... .. -I- C- I """`-'- -.... "'" 70
0.50 -- j-- ~'`--..,.`~~~~I ~"'-~-.,.~ L~~~ .6~~''~ .0.6
0.40
0.50
0.30-
0~ 0 )40

~i10 I 0.30.2

0.20













Figure 6-1 1. Pre-BSE market distribution of fresh and frozen beef products.

Using relative demand adjustments across time, beef market shares were simulated from

20% below the mean or average quantity demanded from each beef exporter to 20% above the

mean quantity. In order to illustrate the variations across countries, Table 6-5 presents the











corresponding market shares values above, at, and below the mean, while Figures 6-11 and 6-12

illustrate the values at the mean levels.

Table 6-5. Estimated variations in market demand distribution
United States Australia New Zealand
PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST
Fresh Frozen Fresh Frozen Fresh Frozen Fresh Frozen Fresh Frozen Fresh Frozen
S.K.
+20 0.697 0.273 0.001 0.001 0.432 0.175 0.883 0.461 0.031 0.019 0.086 0.046
0 0.714 0.269 0.001 0.001 0.456 0.176 0.895 0.463 0.032 0.020 0.091 0.046
-20 0.725 0.266 0.001 0.001 0.471 0.453 0.916 0.420 0.033 0.061 0.093 0.042
JP
+20 0.202 0.143 0.357 0.001 0.155 0.110 0.246 0.174 0.054 0.038 0.082 0.058
0 0.201 0.143 0.445 0.001 0.155 0.110 0.245 0.174 0.054 0.038 0.082 0.058
-20 0.201 0.049 0.511 0.047 0.154 0.174 0.245 0.168 0.054 0.067 0.081 0.056
TW
+20 0.449 0.321 0.089 0.003 0.345 0.246 0.546 0.390 0.120 0.086 0.182 0.130
0 0.449 0.321 0.112 0.003 0.345 0.246 0.546 0.389 0.120 0.086 0.182 0.130
-20 0.449 0.108 0.128 0.105 0.345 0.388 0.546 0.374 0.120 0.149 0.182 0.124
H.K.
+20 0.449 0.321 0.070 0.003 0.345 0.246 0.546 0.390 0.120 0.086 0.182 0.130
0 0.449 0.321 0.088 0.003 0.345 0.246 0.546 0.390 0.120 0.086 0.182 0.130
-20 0.449 0.109 0.101 0.105 0.345 0.388 0.546 0.375 0.120 0.150 0.182 0.124



Looking at the simulation results for the United States before 2003, it is clear that the

United States was the leader in percentage of product demanded in all four importing markets

and that the share of fresh beef was larger than the share for frozen products. That is, in South

Korea the difference between U.S. beef and products originated in Australia was 25.8% and

9.3% for fresh and frozen products respectively; in Japan the difference in product demand

shares was 4.6% and 3.3 %, and in comparison to New Zealand products the difference between

market shares was 68.2% for fresh and 24.9% frozen; and in Taiwan and Hong Kong this

difference was 10.4% and 7.5% in each market. Figure 6-11 illustrates that in 2003 New Zealand

beef, in all markets, has the smallest shares in terms of product demands representing a

combined share (fresh and frozen products) of only 5.2% in South Korea and 9.2% in Japan,

while in Taiwan and Hong Kong the combined share is 20.5% in each market.










Changing the perspective of the analysis, results show that there was a significant

difference between the types of product demanded. In the case of U. S. product shares, the

difference between fresh and frozen beef were 44.5% in South Korea, 5.8% in Japan, 12.8% in

Taiwan, and 12.8% in Hong Kong. These numbers show how markets differ in term of

preferences towards U.S. beef products, in particular when comparing the South Korea and the

Japanese market. In the first market, fresh U.S. beef product demanded are preferred, while in

Japan the figure shows that there is almost no difference in preferences between fresh and frozen

U. S. beef products. With respect to products originated in Australia, in South Korea this

difference is 28.1% in favor of fresh products, which reinforces the idea that consumers in this

market have a marked preference for imported fresh products.


Product 10100Product
Demands 0.90 ---- ---- --"-- -90 Demands
Shares 0.go ------ --'r.........~~ --- ""~``.. ....- Shares
(0/) 0.70 -- ---t-- `-`------*~~"~"*"0 80 %
0.60 --- --.70

0.50 -0
0.0.60

o 0.3 1 0.50
0 20 .40
0.30
20.0












Figure 6-12. Post-BSE market distribution of fresh and frozen beef products.

After the 2003 BSE scare the beef market changed radically for all beef exporters. Figure

6-12 shows that the complete ban on beef originated in North America eliminated all U.S.









market shares in the region. In all four markets, the BSE scare represented a total U.S. beef

export value loss of $2.4 billion during the 2003 to 2004 period (US1VEF 2007). Since then,

Australia has dominated the fresh and frozen beef market of the region, while New Zealand has

increased its presence in all beef markets on a much smaller scale. For example, in South Korea,

Australian fresh beef products represent 89.5% of the shares, while New Zealand is second with

only 8. 1% of the product demand shares. With respect to frozen products, the shares for

Australian beef are about 47% and 5% in the case of New Zealand. In relative terms, these

numbers represent an increase in product demands of 49% (fresh) and 61% (frozen) for

Australia; and 64% (fresh) and 57% (frozen) in the case of New Zealand products.

In the Japanese beef market, Australian shares are quite less compared to the South Korea

market showing only 24.5% of the total fresh market and 17.4% of the total frozen market.

Comparing pre-and post-BSE shares, this number represents a relative increase of 36% in

product demand shares in both the fresh and frozen market. In the case of New Zealand, the

results show market share levels of 8. 1% (fresh) and 5.8% (frozen), which represent a slight

increase with respect to pre-BSE product demand levels. Less expensive Australian and New

Zealand beef has helped these two countries to compete in the Japanese market, but strong

consumer preferences towards grain-feed production type of beef have helped beef products

coming from other parts of the world (i.e., South America) to establish a significant presence in

Japan. In addition, reports from the United States Department of Agriculture have shown a slow

but positive increase in the demand for U.S. beef products since 2007, which has become a main

focus of interest for U. S. producers and exporters due to the fact that Japan was the most

important market for U.S. beef products in general before December 2003.









In Taiwan and Hong Kong, the post-BSE markets show similar shares for Australian beef,

54.5% for fresh products, and 38.5% for frozen products, which represent an increase with

respect to pre-BSE levels of 20. 1% and 14.3% respectively. In the case of New Zealand beef,

Taiwan and Hong Kong also show similar market results. That is, New Zealand products

represent 18. 1% of shares for fresh beef and 13.1% of the shares for frozen beef in these two

markets, which correspond to 6.2% and 4.4% increase in fresh and frozen market shares with

respect to pre-B SE levels.

This chapter concentrated on a more detailed interpretation of the coefficients estimates

presented in Chapter 5. Simulations were conducted for each of the four importing beef markets

on the functional relationship presented in Chapter 4, except for simulations representing the

Rest of the World. That is, the parameters estimated with the non-linear procedure were used to

simulate the reactions of the dependent variable to changes in the explanatory variables, holding

all other variable constant (ceteris paribus). Three types of simulations were carried out on the

product demand equations. First, the product demands were analyzed across time and the effect

of the BSE announcements measured; second, the average prices were varied from 10 % below

the mean or average price to 10% above the mean prices (1997); and third, product demand

shares were simulated when the average quantity demanded varied from 20% below the mean or

average price to 20% above the mean prices (1997). The simulation results for the beef trade

model proposed in Chapter 4 make economic sense and yield insights into the trends observed in

Chapter 2. This speaks very well of the model; it captures the real world trends occurring in beef

trade during the 1997 to 2007 period.









CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This dissertation focuses on the economic impact of food safety issues, in particular the

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), on four of the most important international beef

markets and its repercussion on U.S. beef exports. Private and governmental efforts to re-gain

market access and promote the attributes of U. S. beef products in terms of quality and safety

have captured the attention of this study looking at the efficacy of these campaigns. This chapter

serves as a brief summary of the findings of this research, where conclusion and implications are

discussed.

To review briefly the dissertation, Chapters 1 and 2 examine the international beef market

and discuss the importance of agricultural trade and beef promotions. The literature review is

presented in Chapter 3, where previous research on beef demand, food safety, trade, and

promotions are discussed, as well as previous applications of the Armington model. The

theoretical basis of the model is presented and developed in Chapter 4, where the specific CRES

functional representation, along with a non-linear trade model, is defined to measure the

variations on product demand across time. In Chapter 5, the results of the econometric estimation

are presented and discussed. Figures of the actual data observed along with tables with the

parameter coefficients predicted by the model and the statistics indicating the performance of the

model are included. Chapter 6 presents the simulation results and their implications for beef

trade. Simulations were carried out on product demand and market share functional relationships

for each of the beef-importing markets.

All product demands calculated using the estimated parameters from Chapter 5 and

simulated in Chapter 6 show that model's specifications capture the general direction taken by

the actual data presented in Chapter 2. In addition to that, Chapter 5 and 6 include a number of










figures that plot predicted parameter values and the corresponding simulations showing that the

model captures the maj or trends and turning points in the trade of beef products in the Pacific

Rim region.

The model used for this research is based on Armington's theory of demand, in which beef

products are distinguished by place of production. This theoretical specification assumes that

beef products produced in different countries are considered not homogeneous products and

therefore perfect substitutes, implying that their elasticity of substitution is not infinite. The CES

function introduced by Armington in the derivation of the product demand equation, assumes

that products competing in a market have constant and equal elasticities of substitution. This

research, however, approaches the elasticity of substitution in a more flexible way. The degree of

substitutability between domestic and imported sources of supply for beef products is captured

by the CRES. The resulting functional relationships impose that all products competing in a

market have elasticities of substitution that vary by a constant ratio, allowing products

differentiated by their place of production to have varying elasticities of substitution among

products within a category.

Several types of data sets were needed in order to estimate the beef trade model and a

number of difficulties were encountered in obtaining reliable information, in particular, on

international beef promotions in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong due to the

confidential character of the information. In order to include this information in this study,

several sources of data were consulted, including official foreign government Web sites,

meetings with USDA representatives from the Foreign Agricultural Service, and consultations

with members of the U. S. beef board. The obtained information was used to create a global data









set on promotions expenditures, which turn out to be one the most important limitations in this

study due to the lack of applicability at the country level.

Using a combination of logistic and exponential functions, the aig, aii and Pity parameters

were obtained and applied to the product demand functional form specified in Chapter 4. The

resulting econometric model represents a non-linear system that shows estimates and supportive

statistics indicating that this trade system fits well the trade data (R-square = 0.763) and explain

the economics behind the international beef trade in the region. The resulting Durbin Watson

statistic values indicate little serial correlation among the parameters of the model. With the

exception of the econometric results on international promotions, the resulting trade model's

estimates resemble the economic trends of the beef trade in the region.

Because product demands are a function of product' s price relative to the average market

price and the size of the beef market in a particular country, any changes in market demands also

affect product demands. Thus, for each market, two set of simulations were conducted on the

product demands, where the trade volumes from each of the exporting countries was simulated

over time (1997 to 2007), relative prices were varied from 10% below to 10% above of their base

or mean price (US: $1.34 per MT; AU: $0.94 per MT; and NZ: $1.02 per MT), and market

demands were varied from 20% below to 20% above of their base or average quantity demanded

in each market (KR: 99.58 MT; JP: 286.55 MT; TW: 32.19 MT; HK: 25.26 MT). All product

demands show a negative slope in terms of price variations, that is as the average or mean price

increases, the quantity of beef products demanded decreases. For the simulations where the

average price was varied, the product demands for South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong

reflect a negative relationship between price and quantity demanded as expected by the

economic theory.









Considering the pre-and post-BSE periods, the results show an extreme change in market

composition in particular when considering the case of Australia that doubles its market shares

between 2002 and 2006. In general, price elasticities of the product demands are such that those

for the South Korean market are more elastic than those for Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong.

These results clearly indicate the volatility of the South Korean market, while the rest of the

markets are likely to remain relatively constant.

In the case of beef promotions, the simulation results show little or no effects on product

demands. Contrarily to what was expected, this research could not find a link between

promotions and increasing levels of the demand for beef products. As promotion expenditures

increased or decreased from the mean, products demands and market shares show very small

changes indicating that the positive parameter coefficient is no different than zero. Despite

marketing efforts aimed to promote and expand the presence of U. S. beef products in the region,

the negative demand effects of food safety concerns as measured by the embedded BSE effect

across time trend has been the single factor driving all beef import demands in these four

countries, giving little room for an effective and significant impact of the commodity promotion

programs aimed to compensate the inward shift in U.S. beef demand induced by both BSE

information and longer-term consumer preference changes.

Despite the negative press and the reduced presence in Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong,

U. S. beef is considered by consumers in these countries to be the high quality product while

Australian beef is considered to be the low quality product. However, with food safety being one

of the main drivers of the beef import demand, a high-quality characteristic may not be enough

to overcome the feelings towards the production process and the potential of food borne diseases

that are related to intensive grain-feed produced beef.









Future research will require more detailed data on beef promotion expenditures including

data from competing countries such as Australia and New Zealand in order to fully analyze the

relation between promotions and beef demand. In addition, the own nature of an international

commodity promotion program should be re-considered. Since the basic idea of such programs is

to expand the total demand for the commodity and not the demand for products from a particular

country, in an international scenario, it' s impossible to apply this concept without encountering

the problem of free riders. These countries get the benefits of increasing beef product demands

without an active participation in the promotion of their products. That could be one of the

explanations for the lack of significance of the promotion parameters in this research. Future

research must be able to disaggregate total international expenditures on beef promotions to fully

address their impact in a particular market.

Previous research on international commodity promotions conducted by Kinnucan and

Zheng (2004) and Piggott et al. (1996) suggested that market demands are insensitive to changes

in advertising expenditure, and that unless the beef exporter country has a surprising degree of

market power in a particular international market, the promotional campaigns may not have been

profitable, which clearly reflect the promotion results in this research, in particular in the case of

U.S. beef exports after the BSE announcements.

In all four markets considered in this study current market restrictions require that all

imported beef be produced from animals between 30 and 20 months of age or younger at the

time of slaughter and the ability of U. S. beef exporters to provide specific beef cuts could be

used as a marketing tool by turning around these restrictions into competitive advantages. The

highly integrated and efficient U. S. beef supply chain can easily satisfy the preferences of these

consumers in terms of age and type of beef cut in particular in sophisticated markets such as










Japan and South Korea. Imported beef from the United States has a competitive advantage in

these beef markets as well as in the rest of the markets of the region, because U. S. beef has

generally been viewed by consumers as being a higher-quality product, in terms of taste and fat

content, than beef imported from other sources.

In conclusion, as illustrated in Figures 6-11 and 6-12, the BSE announcement in December

2003 has definitively altered the landscape and patterns of international trade in beef products in

the Pacific Rim region. The reactions of governments through a total ban on U. S. beef products

increased and shifted the demand for grass-feed produced beef from Australia and New Zealand

as feedlot-produced beef from the United States disappeared from the markets. The complete ban

on U.S. beef products represented a total economic loss of about $ 2.4 billion between the

periods 2003 to 2004. According to USDA estimates, the U.S. might be able to reach pre-BSE

levels in terms of value of beef exports to the region but, it will never reach pre-BSE levels in

term of export volume due to the significant reduction in market shares with respect to other beef

exporters, in particular Australia.

Based on the results obtained in this research, the relevance of promotions among the U. S.

beef products can be evaluated from the stand point of the perceived importance that consumers

in the four international market considered attach to the product's safety features, attributes, and

even added values such as specific type of beef cuts. The perceived characteristics of the product

imply some degree of security and reliability which could potentially enhance the total demand

for that particular product. A maj or challenge for U. S. beef exporters is to satisfy the increasing

demand for more convenient products, as in the case of beef consumers in Hong Kong, and

value-added cuts consistent with the well defined preferences in markets such as Japan and South

Korea.










APPENDIX A
CONSTANT ELASTICITY OF SUBSTITUTION (CES)

The Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) function was first introduced by Arrow,

Chenery, Minhas, and Solow in 1961 using a two factor (capital and labor) production function

specification As its name suggests, the CES describe a particular output level given a constant

combination of inputs, which allows for greater flexibility since the value of the elasticity of

substitution can be chosen. Varian (1992) defined the CES production function as a general case

that comprises several other well-known production functions as special cases, depending of the

value of the parameter p (e.g., Linear production function -> p = 1 -> Perfect substitutes, Cobb-

Douglas production function -> p = 0, and Leontief production function -> p = -oo -> Perfect

complements). Thus, the higher the value of the elasticity, the closer is the degree of substitution

and vice versa.

In consumer theory, the same functional form can be found acting as an aggregator

function combining two or more types of consumption into an aggregate quantity and showing

constant elaticities of substitution. In 1969, Paul Armington used this aggregator function to

explain trade among countries and suggested a model that evaluates changes in trade policy by


This paper derives the CES as following: V = F(K, L), which is assumed to be H1, then we can say that V/L =
y and K/L = x thus, V a y = f(x).
Let the marginal product of labor (MPL) be w = f (x) xf '(x) and since a monotonic relation between y and w is
observed we have: y = 0(w). Differentiating this last term we obtain a differential equation (dfe): y = ~0( -
x dy/dx). Assuming a linear relationship between the logarithms of V/L and w, (i.e., log y = log a + b log w)
the dfe becomes: log y = log a + b log (y x dy/dx). After taking the antilog, solving for dy/dx, and integrating
the partial fractions we obtain: log x = log y 1/p log(1 ayP) + 1/p log # or XP = pyP/1 ayP, where we
set a = a-1/b and p = 1/b 1 for convenience. To be precise, b = 1/(1 + p) = a represents the Elasticity of
Substitution (ES). Solving this last expression for ypand then y we have: y = x(p + ax )-1/P = ( x-P + a)-1/p
Setting a + P = y-p and pyp = 6 we finally obtain a mathematical expression that defines all functions exhibiting
a CES for all values of K/L:
y = y[6x-P + (1 6)]-1/P or written out in Production function form, V = y[6K-p + (1 6)L- ]-/
where y (y > 0) is an efficiency or shift parameter, 6 (0 6 I mo) is a distribution or share parameter, p (-1
pt I p z 0) is the substitution parameter or function exponent, which permits the a parameter of elasticity to
range from 0 I a lot









allowing the conversion of these changes into price effects. The Armington specification

assumes that imports originating from different sources are imperfect substitutes of each other,

that the demand functions show constant elasticities of substitution (CES), and the elasticity of

substitution between any two products competing in a market is the same as that between any

other pair of products competing in the same market.

As in Preckel, Cranfield, and Hertel (2005) and Femenia and Gohin (2007), the most

convenient way of representing the explicit form of the Armington CES product demand

function is:

u~xiXn>= (CEPi.i.-P P A-1


where u denotes utility and xi denotes a vector of differentiated goods by their origin, and /7 and

p are the distribution and substitution parameters of the CES utility function. In order to simplify

the interpretation, Armington (1969) "collapsed" the Utility function assuming that any given

quantity-index function,0gi2, has the generalized CES form as previously defined. Suppressing

the arguments of u and rearranging Equation A-1 leads to the following implicit expression of

the same relationship:


Xi. = Oi(xi, ,...,xin)= ( ?=14t.xi-P) P, i=1, 2,...,n. A-2)

Since the utility is an ordinal measure, there is no consequence to normalize the pig parameters

by imposing their sum equal to one (1 ..z= Pi = 1). Thus, based on the theory of the utility-

maximizing consumer, where any given quantity of a good is to be obtained at least money cost,

we know that the marginal rate of substitution (MRS) between two goods must equal the ratios

of their prices (Varian 1992):


O r is assumed to be linear and homogeneous, thus all demands for Xi. products are the same (Armington 1969).
SThe CES technical relationship is defined as: X,. = 74 fit; X~'r










axii_ Pi fi.1+p i
= ~ =, / 1 2..n (A-3)


Solving Equation A-3 for X .,


Xg. X ,i=12,..,n.(A-4)


Using this function, Equation A-2 can be expressed as a relation between Xi. and Xii, and their

corresponding prices. Rearranging terms,

1 1
= i=,2,..,n(A-5)


from which it follows that the elasticity of substitution between Xii and any other product


competing in the same market is equal to the constant = ai, which denotes the elasticity of
1+p

substitution (Varian 1992)4. Thus, Equation A-4 can be expressed as follows:


Xg. PI = =12.., (A-6)


where ai (0 I ai I oo) defines the degree of substitution among products. For example, at the

limiting cases if ai = 0, the products are perfect complements or if ai = oo, the products are

perfect substitutes (Armington 1969). Substituting Equation A-2 into Equation A-6, and writing

pi in terms of ai we have:










4 The elasticity of substitution (ES) between Xi and Xi is:










Then, solving Equation A-7 for Xii


Using Equations A-2 and A-3 and rearranging terms we have,
1 1
Ps.= g;+ = Piig -Xii X ."i (A-9)


Then, substituting from Equation A-7

1 1 1-0




= Pg p "(A-10)

Therefore,





Finally, substituting Equation A-11 into Equation A-8 the Armington product demand function is

obtained assuming a Constant Elasticity of Substitution in each market:


XJ 9,y' Xg -ag(A-12)

As Armington (1969) suggested, the Equation A-12 can be used for different purposes;

for example written as


=Bj (P ^, or (A-13)


FL' xg;~ P 1- (A-14)
Pi. X. \P ,j

where market demand is expressed as the dependent variable. As is clear from Equation A-14,

value shares are constant if 0-g = 1 (Armington 1969). Taking logarithm of Equation A-14 we

have:










log wii = o- log bi + (1 o-) I j ,2,.. (A-15)

where wi denotes the market share of imports from source j. No expenditure term in the right

hand side in Equation A-15 implies homotheticity assumption. That is, the change in importer's

expenditure does not affect the market share (Yang and Koo 1993). As a result, all expenditure

elasticities within a group are equal and unitary and import market shares change only in

response to relative price changes.
























KOREA, 2= JAPAN, 3=TAIWAN, 4=HONG KONG';
IS IN MILLIONS';
ESTIC PRODUCT %';
RICE INDEX';
'ORTS INTO COUNTRY';
)OD IMPORTS INTO COUNTRY';
)DUCTION IN COUNTRY';
NSUMPTION IN COUNTRY';


APPENDIX B
TSP PROGRAM: ARMINGTON SPECIFICATION AND SIMMULATIONS

OPTIONS MEMORY=200 RESID;
TITLE 'OSCAR FERRARA BEEF TRADE DATA IN THE ASIA MARKETS';
ARM SIM#6.TSP
THIS NEW DATABASE NOW HAS ALL THE DATA STACKED BY WIMP,WEXP,WTYPE;

IN 'C:\ZSTUDENT\OFERRARA\TSPPRG\BF ARM#3';
IN 'C:\ZSTUDENT\OFERRARA\TSPPRG\BF ARM#3';
DBLIST 'C:\ZSTUDENT\OFERRARA\TSPPRG\BF ARM#3';


OC(REPLACE) YEAR 'YEARS';


TY 'COUNTRY 1=]
P 'POPULATION
P 'GROSS DOMI
I'CONSUMER P1
Imp 'TOTAL IMP
,dlmp 'TOTAL FO
:fProd 'BEEF PRO
:fCons 'BEEF CO~


_WL 'VALUE TO 1 FROM WORLD ($1000)- ALL FRESH BEEF';
_WL 'QUANTITY TO 1 FROM WORLD (KG) ALL FRESH BEEF';
_US 'VALUE TO 1 FROM UNITED STATES ($1000) ALL FRESH BEEF';
_US 'QUANTITY TO 1 FROM UNITED STATES (KG) ALL FRESH BEEF';
_AU 'VALUE TO 1 FROM AUSTRALIA ($1000) ALL FRESH BEEF';
_AU 'QUANTITY TO 1 FROM AUSTRALIA (KG) ALL FRESH BEEF';
_NZ 'VALUE TO 1 FROM NEW ZEALAND ($1000) ALL FRESH BEEF';
_NZ 'QUANTITY TO 1 FROM NEW ZEALAND (KG) ALL FRESH BEEF';
_WL 'VALUE TO 2 FROM WORLD ($1000)- ALL FROZEN BEEF';
_WL 'QUANTITY TO 2 FROM WORLD (KG) ALL FROZEN BEEF';
_US 'VALUE TO 2 FROM UNITED STATES ($1000) ALL FROZEN BEEF';
_US 'QUANTITY TO 2 FROM UNITED STATES (KG) ALL FROZEN BEEF';
_AU 'VALUE TO 2 FROM AUSTRALIA ($1000) ALL FROZEN BEEF';
_AU 'QUANTITY TO 2 FROM AUSTRALIA (KG) ALL FROZEN BEEF';
_NZ 'VALUE TO 2 FROM NEW ZEALAND ($1000) ALL FROZEN BEEF';
_NZ 'QUANTITY TO 2 FROM NEW ZEALAND (KG) ALL FROZEN BEEF';
_ROW 'VALUE TO 2 FROM OTHER EXPORTERS ($1000) ALL FROZEN BEEF';
_ROW 'QUANTITY TO 2 FROM OTHER EXPORTERS (KG) ALL FROZEN BEEF';
_ROW 'VALUE TO 1 REST OF THE WORLD ($1000)- ALL FRESH BEEF';
_ROW 'QUANTITY TO 1 REST OF THE WORLD(KG) ALL FRESH BEEF';
WL 'PRICE TO 1 FROM WORLD ($1000)- ALL FRESH BEEF';
US 'PRICE TO 1 FROM UNITED STATES ($1000) ALL FRESH BEEF';
AU 'PRICE TO 1 FROM AUSTRALIA ($1000) ALL FRESH BEEF';
NZ 'PRICE TO 1 FROM NEW ZEALAND ($1000) ALLFRESH BEEF';
WL 'PRICE TO 2 FROM WORLD ($1000)- ALL FROZEN BEEF';
US 'PRICE TO 2 FROM UNITED STATES ($1000) ALL FROZEN BEEF';
AU 'PRICE TO 2 FROM AUSTRALIA ($1000) ALL FROZEN BEEF';
NZ 'PRICE TO 2 FROM NEW ZEALAND ($1000) ALL FROZEN BEEF';
ROW 'PRICE TO 2 FROM OTHER EXPORTERS ($1000) ALL FROZEN BEEF';
ROW 'PRICE TO 1 REST OF THE WORLD ($1000)- ALL FRESH BEEF';
SCON INFO IND INFO FOREIGN PRO INFO EVAL DEVELOP PRG EXP USDA


OC(REPLACE) CN
OC(REPLACE) PO
OC(REPLACE) GD
OC(REPLACE) CPI
OC(REPLACE) Tot
OC(REPLACE) Foo
OC(REPLACE) Bee
OC(REPLACE) Bee
OC(REPLACE) V1
OC(REPLACE) Q1~
OC(REPLACE) V1
OC(REPLACE) Q1~
OC(REPLACE) V1
OC(REPLACE) Q1~
OC(REPLACE) V1
OC(REPLACE) Q1~
OC(REPLACE) V2
OC(REPLACE) Q2
OC(REPLACE) V2
OC(REPLACE) Q2
OC(REPLACE) V2
OC(REPLACE) Q2
OC(REPLACE) V2
OC(REPLACE) Q2
OC(REPLACE) V2
OC(REPLACE) Q2
OC(REPLACE) V1
OC(REPLACE) Q1
OC(REPLACE) Pl_
OC(REPLACE) Pl_
OC(REPLACE) Pl_
OC(REPLACE) Pl_
OC(REPLACE) P2_
OC(REPLACE) P2_
OC(REPLACE) P2_
OC(REPLACE) P2_
OC(REPLACE) P2_
OC(REPLACE) Pl_
PROM RESEARCH
ADMIN TOT EXP:










LIST WVARW
YEAR WCNTY WPOP WGDP WCPI WTotImp WFoodlmp WBeefProd WBeefCons
WV1_WL WPlWL WQ1_WL WV1_US WPlUS WQ1_US WV1_AU WPlAU WQ1_AU
WV1_NZ WPlNZ WQ1_NZ WV1_ROW WPlROW WQ1_ROW WV2_WL WP2_WL WQ2_WL
WV2_US WP2_WL WQ2_US WV2_AU WP2_AU WQ2_AU WV2_NZ WP2_NZ WQ2_NZ
WV2_ROW WP2_ROW WQ2_ROW WPROM RESEARCH WCONIFO WIND_INFO FOREIGN
WPRO INFO WEVAL DEVELOP WPRG EXP WUSDA WADMIN WTOT EXP WIMP WEXP WTYPE
WTT:

HIST(DISCRETE) WCNTY YEAR:


CORRECTING THE PROBLEM WITH ZERO PRICES WHEN
TRADE DID NOT OCCUR

DOT(CHAR=F) 1 2: ? TYPE FRESH/FROZEN:
DOT(CHAR=X) US AU NZ ROW:
SELECT WQ.F_.X>0:
OLSQ WP.F_.X CWP.FWL:
SELECT WQ.F_.X=0:
WP.F .X =COEF(1) + ~COEF(2)* WP.F WL:
SELECT 1:
ENDDOT: ENDDOT:


MAKING ALL MISSING QUANTITIES EQUAL ZERO

DOT(CHAR=F) 1 2: ? TYPE FRESH/FROZEN:
DOT(CHAR=X) WL US AU NZ ROW:
? MMM=MISS(WQ.F_.X):
? SELECT MMM=1:
? MMM2=WQ.F_.X:
? WQ.F_.X=0:
? SELECT 1:
WQ.F_.X = WQ.F_.X/1000; ? ALL QUANTITIES ARE NOW IN MILLIONS METRIC TONS (1000KG):
ENDDOT:ENDDOT:


CREATING THE MARKET SHARES Xij/Xi. & RELATIVE PRICES Pij/Pi.;

DOT(CHAR=F) 1 2:
WQ.FALL = WQ.FUS + WQ.FAU + WQ.FNZ + WQ.FROW :
WV.F ALL = WV.F US + WV.F AU + WV.F NZ + WV.F ROW :
WP.FALL = WV.FALL / WQ.FALL:

DOT(CHAR=X) US AU NZ ROW:
WSH.F_.X= WQ.F_.X / WQ.FALL: ? EXPORTER SHARE OF COUNTRY i MARKET:
WRP.F .X= WP.F .X / WP.F ALL: ? EXPORTERS PRICE RELATIVE TO THE AVERAGE:
ENDDOT: ENDDOT:


CREATING THE Q, V, P, AND SHARES IN GENERAL ACCORDING TO
WIMP, WEXP, WTYPE

DOT(VALUE=L,CHAR=F) 1 2:
DOT(INDEX=K,CHAR=X) US AU NZ ROW:










SELECT WEXP=K & WTYPE=L;
WQALL=WQ.FALL; ?THIS IS THE TOTAL QUANTITY EXPORTED TO WIMP BY TYPE;
WQQ = WQ.F_.X; ?THIS IS THE QUANTITY (MIL MTONS) EXPORTED FROM WEXP TO WIMP BY
TYPE;
WVV = WV.F_.X; THIS IS THE VALUE ($1000) EXPORTED FROM WEXP TO WIMP BY TYPE;
WSH = WSH.F_.X; ? THIS IS THE MARKET SHARE OF WEXPij EXPORTED TO WIMP BY TYPE;
WRP = WRP.F_.X; ? THIS IS THE RELATIVE PRICE OF WEXPij RELATIVE TO THE AVERAGE
PRICE TO WIMP BY TYPE;
SELECT 1;
ENDDOT; ENDDOT;

DOT(VALUE=L,CHAR=F) 1 2 3 4;
DOT(INDEX=K,CHAR=X) 1 2 3 4;
XF = (WIMP=L & WEXP=K);
MSD(WEIGHT=XF,NOPRINT) WRP;
PRINT L K ~MAN;
ENDDOT; ENDDOT;

WFOR1 = EXP(WFOREIGN/1000);
WFOR2 = EXP(WFOREIGN/10000);
WFOR3 = EXP(WFOREIGN/1000000);

MSD WFOR1 WFOR2 WFOR3;
SET CV1 = ~MAN(1) / @STDDEV(1);
SET CV2 = ~MAN(2) / @STDDEV(2);
SET CV3 = ~MAN(3) / @STDDEV(3);

PRINT CV1 CV2 CV3;
HIST(DISCRETE) WEXP WIMP;


CREATING WIMP AND WEXP DUMMY VARIABLES

DOT(VALUE= J) 12 3 4;
DI.=(WIMP= J); ? DUMMY VARIABLES FOR THE IMPORTING COUNTRIES;
DX.=(WEXP=J); ? DUMMY VARIABLES FOR THE EXPORTING COUNTRIES;
ENDDOT;

DOT(CHAR=I,VALUE=J) 1 2 3 4;
DOT(CHAR=X,VALUE=K) 1 2 3 4;
D.I.X=(WIMP= J & WEXP=K);
ENDDOT; ENDDOT;

DOT(VALUE=J) 1 2;
DF.=(WTYPE=J); ? DUMMY VARIABLES FOR THE FRESH VERSUS FROZEN;
ENDDOT;


TIME SPECIFIC VARIABLES SUCH AS BSE

SET YRBSE=2003;
B SE=(WYEAR>=YRB SE);
T 1= 0;
T1=(WYEAR-1994)*(WYEAR<=YRBSE) + (WYEAR>YRBSE)*T1(-1);
T2=B SE* (WYEAR-YRB SE);










SELECT WYEAR>1996;
DUMMY(PREFIX=DYR) YEAR;
DOT DYR1-DYR11;
MSD(WEIGHT=.) YEAR; ENDDOT;

DOT(CHAR=X) 1 2 3 4;
DOT(CHAR= #) 1-11;
DYR.# .X=DYR.# DX.X;
ENDDOT; ENDDOT;
SELECT 1;

AI= 1.00;
AIJ=1.00;
BIJ=1.00;
THO=1.00;
TH1=1.00;
TH2=1.00;

LWQQ = LOG((WQQ+.001)/1000);
LSHWQQ = LOG( (WQQ+.001)/ WQALL );

THE NEW ARMINGTON MODEL WITH DATA STACKED USING DUMMIES
TO IDENTIFY WIMP AND WEXP

?FRML EQ1 LOG(WQQ + .001) -[ THO + TH1*( LOG(WRP) ) + TH2*LOG(WQALL) ];
FRML EQ1 LWQQ = [ THO + TH1*( LOG(WRP) ) + TH2*LOG(WQALL/1000) ];
?FRML EQ1 LSHWQQ = [ THO + TH1*( LOG(WRP) ) + (TH2-1)*LOG(WQALL/1000) ];

? THERE CAN BE SEVERAL ALTERNATIVE SPECIFICATION FOR AI AIJ AND BIJ;

? 0 < Aij < 1.0 USING A LOGISTIC FUNCTION;
IDENT EQ2 AIJ = 1 / [1+ EXP[GO + GX1*DX1 + GX2*DX2 + GX3*DX3 + GIl*DI1 + GFl*DF1
+ GG1*"(WFOREIGN/10000) ] ] ;? + GI3*DI3 + GI2*DI2;

? 0 < AI < 1.0 USING A LOGISTIC FUNCTION;
IDENT EQ7 AI = 1/[ 1 + EXP[ KO + KIl*DI1 + KI2*DI2 ]]; ? + KI3*DI3;

? Bij > 0; USING AN EXPONENTIAL FUNCTION;
IDENT EQ3 BIJ = [EXP[
[HO + HYR2*DYR2 + HYR3*"DYR3+ HYR4*DYR4 + HYR5*DYR5 + HYR6*DYR6
+ HYR7*DYR7 + HYR8*DYR8 + HYR9*DYR9 + HYR10*DYR10 + HYR11*DYR11]
+ [HYR1X1 + HYR2X1*DYR2 + HYR3X1*DYR3+ HYR4X1*DYR4 + HYR5X1*DYR5
+ HYR6X1*DYR6 + HYR7X1*DYR7 + HYR8X1*DYR8 + HYR9X1*DYR9 + HYR10X1*DYR10
+ HYR11X1*DYR11]*DX1
+ [HYR2X2*DYR2 + HYR3X2*DYR3+ HYR4X2*DYR4 + HYR5X2*DYR5 + HYR6X2*DYR6
+ HYR7X2*DYR7 + HYR8X2*DYR8 + HYR9X2*DYR9 + HYR10X2*DYR10
+ HYR11X2*DYR11]*DX2
+ [HYR2X3*DYR2 + HYR3X3*"DYR3+ HYR4X3*DYR4 + HYR5X3*DYR5 + HYR6X3*"DYR6
+ HYR7X3*DYR7 + HYR8X3*DYR8 + HYR9X3*DYR9 + HYR10X3*DYR10
+ HYR11X3*DYR11]*DX3 ] ];
? + (HI1*DI1) + (HI2*DI2) + (HI3*DI3) ;? *(DX1=0 & DX2=0 & DX3=0)

IDENT EQ4 THO = [1/(AIJ-1)]*[ LOG(AI) LOG(AIJ) LOG(BIJ) ];
IDENT EQ5 TH1 = [1/(AIJ-1)];
IDENT EQ6 TH2 = [ 1/( AIJ -1) ]*(AI -1);
EQSUB EQ4 EQ2 EQ3 EQ7;










EQSUB EQ5 EQ2:
EQSUB EQ6 EQ2 EQ7:
EQSUB EQ1 EQ4 EQ5 EQ6:

PARAM KO .75 KI1 .75 KI2 .75 KI3 .75;
PARAM GO .75 GX1 .75 GX2 .75 GX3 .75 GF1 .75 GG1 .75 GI1 .75 :
? GI1 .75 GI3 .75 GI2 .050;
PARAM HO .75 :
? HI1 .75 : ? HI2 .75; ? HI3 .75 :
PARAM HYR2 .75 HYR3 .75 HYR4 .75 HYR5 .75 HYR6 .75 HYR7 .75 HYR8 .75 HYR9 .75
HYR10 .75 HYR11 .75 HYR1X1 .75
HYR2X1 .75 HYR3X1 .75 HYR4X1 .75 HYR5X1 .75 HYR6X1 .75 HYR7X1 .75 HYR8X1 .75
HYR9X1 .75 HYR10X1 .75 HYR11X1 .75
HYR2X2 .75 HYR3X2 .75 HYR4X2 .75 HYR5X2 .75 HYR6X2 .75 HYR7X2 .75 HYR8X2 .75
HYR9X2 .75 HYR10X2 .75 HYR11X2 .75
HYR2X3 .75 HYR3X3 .75 HYR4X3 .75 HYR5X3 .75 HYR6X3 .75 HYR7X3 .75 HYR8X3 .75
HYR9X3 .75 HYR10X3 .75 HYR11X3 .75;

SELECT (WYEAR>1996) & (MISS(WQQ)=0) & (MISS(WQALL)=0) & (MISS(WRP)=0) & (WRP>.50);
TREND TTT:
CORR DI1 DI2 DI3:
LSQ(HETERO) EQ1:
PRINT SCOEF: MAT NR = NROW(0 COEF): PRINT NR:
? SHOW ALL:
ANALYZ EQ4 EQ5 EQ6 EQ2 EQ3 EQ7:
MSD WQQ WQALL:

SET KKO = a COEF(1);
SET KKI 1 = a ~COEF(2):
SET KKI2 = a ~COEF(3);
SET GGO = a COEF(4);
SET GGX1 = a COEF(5);
SET GGX2 = a COEF(6);
SET GGX3 = a ~COEF(7);
SET GGI1 = a COEF(8);
SET GGF1 = a COEF(9);
SET GGG1 = a COEF(10);
SET HHO = a ~COEF(11);
SET HHYR2 = a ~i2COEF(12):
SET HHYR3 = a COEF(13);
SET HHYR4 = a COEF(14);
SET HHYR5 = a COEF(15);
SET HHYR6 = a COEF(16);
SET HHYR7 = a COEF(17);
SET HHYR8 = a COEF(18);
SET HHYR9 = a COEF(19);
SET HHYR10 = a COEF(20);
SET HHYR11 = a COEF(21);
SET HHYR1X1 = a COEF(22):
SET HHYR2X1 = a COEF(23);
SET HHYR3X1 = a COEF(24);
SET HHYR4X1 = a COEF(25);
SET HHYR5X1 = a COEF(26);
SET HHYR6X1 = a COEF(27);
SET HHYR7X1 = a COEF(28);
SET HHYR8X1 = a COEF(29);










SET
SET
SET
SET
SET
SET
SET
SET
SET
SET
SET
SET
SET
SET
SET
SET
SET
SET
SET
SET
SET
SET
SET


HHYR9X1
HHYR10X1
HHYR11X1
HHYR2X2 =
HHYR32=
HHYR3X2 =
HHYRS2=
HHYR4X2 =
HHYR72=
HHYR5X2 =
HHYR6X2 =
HHYR7OX2
HHYR81X2
HHYR9X2 =
HHYR10X2
HHYR11X2
HHYR2X3 =
HHYR83=
HHYR3X3 =
HHYR4OX3
HHYR51X3


a ~COEF(30);
a 2COEF(31);
a 2COEF(32):
a iiCOEF(33);
a ~COEF(34);
a ~COEF(35);
a ~COEF(36);
a ~COEF(37);
a ~COEF(3 8);
a ~COEF(3 9);
a COEF(40);
a COEF(41);
a COEF(42):
a COEF(43);
a ~COEF(44);
a ~i2COEF(45);
a COEF(46);
a COEF(47);
a COEF(48);
a COEF(49);
a COEF(50);
a COEF(5 1);
aCOEF(52):


AAID= 1/[ 1 + EXP[ KKO + KKIl*DI1 + KKI2*DI2 ]];
AAIJ = 1 / [1+ EXP[GGO + GGIl*DI1 + GGX1*DX1 + GGX2*DX2 + GGX3*DX3 + GGFl*DF1 +
GGG1*"(WFOREIGN/10000)1] ]
BBIJ = [EXP[HHO
+ [HHYR2*DYR2 + HHYR3*DYR3+ HHYR4*DYR4 + HHYR5*DYR5 + HHYR6*DYR6 +
HHYR7*DYR7 + HHYR8*DYR8 + HHYR9*DYR9
+ HHYR10*DYR10 + HHYR11*DYR11]
+ [HHYR1X1 + HHYR2X1*DYR2 + HHYR3X1*DYR3+ HHYR4X1*DYR4 + HHYR5X1*DYR5 +
HHYR6X1*DYR6 + HHYR7X1*DYR7 + HHYR8X1*DYR8
+ HHYR9X1*DYR9 + HHYR10X1*DYR10 + HHYR11X1*DYR11 ]*DX1
+ [HHYR2X2*DYR2 + HHYR3X2*DYR3+ HHYR4X2*DYR4 + HHYR5X2*DYR5 +
HHYR6X2*DYR6 + HHYR7X2*DYR7 + HHYR8X2*DYR8
+ HHYR9X2*DYR9 + HHYR10X2*DYR10 + HHYR11X2*DYR11]*"DX2
+ [HHYR2X3*DYR2 + HHYR3X3*DYR3+ HHYR4X3*DYR4 + HHYR5X3*DYR5 +
HHYR6X3*DYR6 + HHYR7X3*DYR7 + HHYR8X3*"DYR8
+ HHYR9X3*DYR9 + HHYR10X3*DYR10 + HHYR11X3*"DYR11]*DX3 ] ];

TTO= (1/(AAIJ-1) )*( LOG(AAID) LOG(AAIJ) LOG(BBIJ) );
TT1 = (1/(AAIJ-1) );
TT2 = ( 1/(AAIJ-1) )*(AAID -1);

SET I=0:


RESETTING THE SIMULATION VARIABLES BASE IS FRESH BEEF

DOT(CHAR=%/) SDI1 SDI2 SDI3 SDX1 SDX2 SDX3 SDF1 SWFOREIGN
SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
SET .=0: SET SDFl=1: ENDDOT:
MSD(PRINT) WRP FOREIGN:
SET MEANWRP=1.0; SET MEANWFOREIGN= MAN(2):
LL=(DIl=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,NOPRINT) WQALL: SET MEANWQALL1= MEAN










LL=(DI2=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,NOPRINT) WQALL: SET MEANWQALL2= MEAN:
LL=(DI3=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,NOPRINT) WQALL: SET MEANWQALL3= MEAN:
LL=(DI4=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,NOPRINT) WQALL: SET MEANWQALL4= MEAN:
LL=(DX1=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,PRINT) WRP: SET MEANWRPl= MEAN:
LL=(DX2=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,PRINT) WRP: SET MEANWRP2= MEAN:
LL=(DX3=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,PRINT) WRP: SET MEANWRP3= MEAN:
LL=(DX4=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,PRINT) WRP: SET MEANWRP4= MAN:

PRINT MEANWRP 1 MEANWRP2 MEANWRP3 MEANWRP4 :
SET ADJ_WRP=1.0; SET ADJWQALL=1.0; SET ADJ_WFOREIGN=1.0;
SET SWRP= [ (MEANWRP1-(1 -ADJWRP))*SDX1 + (MEANWRP2-(1 -ADJWRP))* SDX2
+ (MIEANWRP3-(1 -ADJWRP))*SDX3 + (MEANWRP4-(1 -ADJ_WRP))*(SDX1=0 & SDX2=0 & SDX3=0) ]
SET SWFOREIGN=MEANWFOREIGN*ADJ FOREIGN:
SET SWQALL= [ MEANWQALL1*SDIl*"ADJ_WQALL + MEANWQALL2*SDI2*"ADJWQALL
+ MEANWQALL3*SDI3*"ADJWQALL + MEANWQALL4*(SDIl=0 & SDI2=0 & SDI3=0)*ADJWQALL
]/1000;

PROC ZRESETZ:
DOT(CHAR=%/) SDI1 SDI2 SDI3 SDX1 SDX2 SDX3 SDF1 SWFOREIGN
SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
SET .=0: SET SDFl=1: ENDDOT: ? NOTE THAT WE HAVE SET THE DEFAULT TO FRESH WHERE
SDFl=1:
MSD(NOPRINT) WRP FOREIGN:
SET MEANWRP=1.0; SET MEANWFOREIGN= MEAN(2):
LL=(DIl=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,NOPRINT) WQALL: SET MEANWQALL1= MEAN:
LL=(DI2=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,NOPRINT) WQALL: SET MEANWQALL2= MEAN:AN
LL=(DI3=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,NOPRINT) WQALL: SET MEANWQALL3= MEAN:
LL=(DI4=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,NOPRINT) WQALL: SET MEANWQALL4= MEAN:
LL=(DX1=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,PRINT) WRP: SET MEANWRP l= MEAN:
LL=(DX2=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,PRINT) WRP: SET MEANWRP2= MEAN:
LL=(DX3=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,PRINT) WRP: SET MEANWRP3= MEAN:
LL=(DX4=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,PRINT) WRP: SET MEANWRP4= MAN:
SET ADJ_WRP=1.0; SET ADJWQALL=1.0; SET ADJ_WFOREIGN=1.0;
SET SWRP= [ (MEANWRP1-(1 -ADJWRP))*SDX1 + (MEANWRP2-(1 -ADJWRP))* SDX2
+ (MEANWRP3-(1 -ADJ WRP))* SDX3 + (MEANWRP4-(1 -ADJ WRP))* (SDX 1=0 & SDX2=0 &
SDX3=0) ];SET SWFOREIGN=MEANWFOREIGN*ADJ_WFOREIGN:
SET SWQALL= [ MEANWQALL1*SDIl*"ADJ_WQALL + MEANWQALL2* SDI2*"ADJ_WQALL
+ MEANWQALL3*SDI3*"ADJWQALL + MEANWQALL4*(SDIl=0 & SDI2=0 &
SDI3=0)*ADJWQALL ];

PRINT MEANWRP 1 MEANWRP2 MEANWRP3 MEANWRP4 :
ENDPROC:

MFORM(TYPE=GEN,NROW=5500,NCOL=50) MBEEFM=0:

SET SIMNUM=0:
SET SIMVAR=0:


SIMULATOR FOR PREDICTING BOTH Xij AND THE MARKET SHARES

PROC ZB SIMZ:
SET I=I+1:










SET SWRP= [ (MEANWRP1-(1 -ADJWRP))*SDX1 + (MEANWRP2-(1 -ADJWRP))* SDX2
+ (MIEANWRP3-(1 -ADJWRP))*SDX3 + (MEANWRP4-(1 -ADJWRP))*(SDX1=0 & SDX2=0 & SDX3=0) ]

SET SWQALL= [ MEANWQALL1*SDIl*"ADJ_WQALL + MEANWQALL2*SDI2*"ADJWQALL +
MEANWQALL3*"SDI3*ADJ_WQALL + MEANWQALL4*(SDIl=0 & SDI2=0 & SDI3=0)*ADJ_WQALL
]/1000;

SET SWFOREIGN=(MEANWFOREIGN)*"ADJ FOREIGN:
SET SAID= 1/[ 1 + EXP[ KKO + KKIl*SDI1 + KKI2*SDI2 ]];
SET SAAIJ = 1 / [1+ EXP[GGO + GGIl*SDI1 + GGX1*SDX1 + GGX2*SDX2 + GGX3*SDX3 + GGFl*SDF1
+ GGG1*(SWFOREIGN/10000)] ] :
SET SBBIJ = [EXP[HHO
+ [HHYR2*SDYR2 + HHYR3*SDYR3+ HHYR4*SDYR4 + HHYR5*SDYR5 + HHYR6*SDYR6 +
HHYR7*SDYR7 + HHYR8*SDYR8 + HHYR9*SDYR9
+ HHYR10*SDYR10 + HHYR11*SDYR11]
+ [HHYR1X1 + HHYR2X1*SDYR2 + HHYR3X1*SDYR3+ HHYR4X1*SDYR4 + HHYR5X1*SDYR5 +
HHYR6X1*SDYR6 + HHYR7X1*SDYR7
+ HHYR8X1*SDYR8 + HHYR9X1*SDYR9 + HHYR10X1*SDYR10 + HHYR11X1*SDYR11 ]*SDX1
+ [HHYR2X2*SDYR2 + HHYR3X2*SDYR3+ HHYR4X2*SDYR4 + HHYR5X2*SDYR5 +
HHYR6X2*SDYR6 + HHYR7X2*SDYR7 + HHYR8X2*SDYR8
+ HHYR9X2*SDYR9 + HHYR10X2*SDYR10 + HHYR11X2*SDYR11]*"SDX2
+ [HHYR2X3*"SDYR2 + HHYR3X3*"SDYR3 + HHYR4X3*"SDYR4 + HHYR5X3*"SDYR5 +
HHYR6X3* SDYR6 + HHYR7X3*SDYR7 + HHYR8X3*SDYR8
+ HHYR9X3*SDYR9 + HHYR10X3*SDYR10 + HHYR11X3*SDYR11]*"SDX3 ] ];

SET STTO= (1/(SAAIJ-1) )*( LOG(SAAID) LOG(SAAIJ) LOG(SBBIJ) ):
SET STT1= ( 1/(SAAIJ-1) ):
SET STT2 = ( 1/(SAAIJ-1) )*(SAAID -1);
SET SXIJ = [ EXP(STTO) [ SWRP**STT1 ] [ (SWQALL)**(STT2)] ];
SET SXIJSHARE = SXIJ/SWQALL:
SET ELIJ=STT1*(1 SXIJ SHARE*SWRP):
SET SIMNUM = SIMNUM:
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR:

SET J=1: SET MBEEFM(I,J)= SIMNUM:
SET J=2: SET MBEEFM(I,J)= SIMVAR:
SET J=3: SET MBEEFM(I,J)= SXIJ; ? PRODUCT DEMAND:
SET J=4: SET MBEEFM(I,J)= SXIJSHARE: ? MARKET SHARE BY QUANTITY:
SET J=5: SET MBEEFM(I,J)= ELIJ; ? ELASTICITY:
SET J=6: SET MBEEFM(I,J)= SWRP:
SET J=7: SET MBEEFM(I,J)= ADJ WRP:
SET J=8: SET MBEEFM(I,J)= SWQALL:
SET J=9: SET MBEEFM(I,J)= ADJWQALL:
SET J=10:SET MBEEFM(I,J)= SWFOREIGN:
SET J=11:SET MBEEFM(I,J)= ADJ FOREIGNN:
DOT(CHAR=#,INDEX=K) STTO STT1 STT2 SDI1 SDI2 SDI3 SDX1 SDX2 SDX3 SDF1 SDYR2 SDYR3
SDYR4
SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
SET J=K+11: SET MBEEFM(I,J)= .#: ENDDOT:
PRINT I;
ENDPROC ZBSIMZ:











STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR
SIM #1 IS THE BASE STARTING VALUES

SET SIMNUM = 1; ? BASE
ZRESETZ;
SET SIMVAR = 1;
ZB SIMZ;


STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR
SIM #2 TRADE BY IMPORTER AND EXPORTER


SET SIMNUM = 2;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR


1; SET SDIl
2;~~~ SE D
2; SET SDIl
1;~~~ SE D
3; SET SDIl
3;~~~ SE D

1; SET SDI2
2;~~~ SE D
2; SET SDI2


SET SDX1=
S SX=
SET SDX2=
S SX=
SET SDX3=
S SX=

SET SDX1=
S SX=
SET SDX2=
S SX=
SET SDX3=


SET SDX3=


ZB SIMZ;
ZB SIMZ;
ZB SIMZ;

ZB SIMZ;
ZB SIMZ;
ZB SIMZ;

ZB SIMZ;
ZB SIMZ;
ZB SIMZ;


? US TO KOREA;
? AUSTRALIA TO KOREA;
? NEW ZEALAND TO KOREA;

? US TO JAPAN;
? AUSTRALIA TO JAPAN;
? NEW ZEALAND TO JAPAN;

? US TO TAWAIN;
? AUSTRALIA TO TAWAIN;
? NEW ZEALAND TO TAWAIN;


ZBSIMZ;
ZBSIMZ;
ZBSIMZ;


? US TO HONG KONG;
? AUSTRALIA TO HONG KONG;
? NEW ZEALAND TO HONG KONG;


STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR
SIM #3 US TRADE OVER TIME TO COUNTIES

SET SIMNUM = 3;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDIl=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US TO KOREA;
DOT(INDEX=H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10
SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = H+1; SET .X=1; SET SDIl=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDOT; SET HH= SIMVAR;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR =1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US TO JAPAN;
DOT(INDEX=H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10
SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = H+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDOT; SET HH= SIMVAR;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR =1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US TO TAWIN;
DOT(INDEX=H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10
SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = H+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDOT; SET HH= SIMVAR;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR =1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US TO HONG KONG;
DOT(INDEX=H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10
SDYR11;










ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = H+1; SET .X=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDOT; SET HH= SIMVAR;


STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR
SIM #4 AUSTRALIA TRADE OVER TIME TO COUNTIES

SET SIMNUM = 4;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDIl=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA TO KOREA;
DOT(INDEX=H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10
SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = H+1; SET .X=1; SET SDIl=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDOT; SET HH= SIMVAR;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR =0+1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA TO JAPAN;
DOT(INDEX=H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10
SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = H+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDOT; SET HH= SIMVAR;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR =0+1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA TO TAWIN;
DOT(INDEX=H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10
SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = H+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDOT; SET HH= SIMVAR;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR =0+1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA TO HONG KONG;
DOT(INDEX=H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10
SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = H+1; SET .X=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDOT; SET HH= SIMVAR;


STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR
SIM #5 NEW ZEALAND TRADE OVER TIME TO COUNTIES

SET SIMNUM = 5;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDIl=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND TO KOREA;
DOT(INDEX=H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10
SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = H+1; SET .X=1; SET SDIl=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDOT; SET HH= SIMVAR;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR =0+1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND TO JAPAN;
DOT(INDEX=H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10
SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = H+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDOT; SET HH= SIMVAR;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR =0+1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND TO TAWIN;
DOT(INDEX=H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10
SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = H+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDOT; SET HH= SIMVAR;










ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR =0+1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND TO HONG KONG;
DOT(INDEX=H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10
SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = H+1; SET .X=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDOT; SET HH= SIMVAR;


STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR
SIM #6 RELATIVE PRICE ADJUSTMENTS IN KOREA
THIS SHOWS EACH EXPORTERS SHARE TO KOREA AS RELATIVE PRICES CHANGE


SET SIMNUM = 6;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1;
DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDIl=1; SET SDX1=1; ZB2
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;


SET SDIl=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ;


? US


ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1;
DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDIl=1; SET SDX2=1; ZB
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1;
DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDIl=1; SET SDX3=1; ZB
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;


SET SDIl=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;


SIMZ;


SET SDIl=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ;


? AUSTRALIA





? NEW ZEALAND;


STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR
SIM #7 RELATIVE PRICE ADJUSTMENTS IN JAPAN
THIS SHOWS EACH EXPORTERS SHARE TO JAPAN AS RELATIVE PRICES CHANGE


SET SIMNUM = 7;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET
DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDI2=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SI
DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDI2=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET S
DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDI2= 1; SET SDX3= 1; ZB SIMZ;
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;


SDI2=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US





DI2=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA





DI2=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND;











STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR
SIM #8 RELATIVE PRICE ADJUSTMENTS IN TAWAIN
THIS SHOWS EACH EXPORTERS SHARE TO TAWAIN AS RELATIVE PRICES CHANGE


SET SIMNUM = 8;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET
DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDI3=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;


SDI3=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US


ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1;
DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDI3=1; SET SDX2=1; ZB
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1;
DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDI3=1; SET SDX3=1; ZB
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;


SET SDI3=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;


SIMZ;


SET SDI3=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ;


? AUSTRALIA





? NEW ZEALAND;


STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR
SIM #9 RELATIVE PRICE ADJUSTMENTS IN HONG KONG
THIS SHOWS EACH EXPORTERS SHARE TO HONG KONG AS RELATIVE PRICES CHANGE


SET SIMNUM = 9;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1;
DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1;
DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1;
DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;


SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ;


? US


SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;





SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ;


? AUSTRALIA





? NEW ZEALAND;


STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR
SIM #10 RELATIVE TOTAL DEMAND IS ADJUSTMENTS IN KOREAN


SET SIMNUM = 10;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1;
DO ADJWQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;


SET SDIl=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US










SET SDIl=1: SET SDX1=1: ZBSIMZ:
ENDDO: SET H= SIMVAR:


ZRESETZ: SET SIMVAR = 1: SET SDIl=1: SET SDX2=1: ZBSIMZ: ? AUSTRALIA
DO ADJWQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1:
SET SDIl=1: SET SDX2=1: ZBSIMZ:
ENDDO: SET H= SIMVAR:

ZRESETZ: SET SIMVAR = 1: SET SDIl=1: SET SDX3=1: ZBSIMZ: ? NEW ZEALAND;
DO ADJWQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1:
SET SDIl=1: SET SDX3=1: ZBSIMZ:
ENDDO: SET H= SIMVAR:


STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR
SIM #11 RELATIVE TOTAL DEMAND IS ADJUSTMENTS IN JAPAN


SET SIMNUM = 11:
ZRESETZ: SET SIMVAR = 1: SET
DO ADJWQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1:
SET SDI2=1: SET SDX1=1: ZBSIMZ:
ENDDO: SET H= SIMVAR:

ZRESETZ: SET SIMVAR = 1: SET S
DO ADJWQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1:
SET SDI2=1: SET SDX2=1: ZBSIMZ:
ENDDO: SET H= SIMVAR:

ZRESETZ: SET SIMVAR = 1: SET S
DO ADJWQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1:
SET SDI2=1: SET SDX3=1: ZBSIMZ:
ENDDO: SET H= SIMVAR:


SDI2=1: SET SDX1=1: ZBSIMZ: ? US





jDI2=1: SET SDX2=1: ZBSIMZ: ? AUSTRALIA





jDI2=1: SET SDX3=1: ZBSIMZ: ? NEW ZEALAND;


STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR
SIM #12 RELATIVE TOTAL DEMAND IS ADJUSTMENTS IN TAWAIN


SET SIMNUM = 12;
ZRESETZ: SET SIMVAR = 1: SET
DO ADJWQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1:
SET SDI3=1: SET SDX1=1: ZBSIMZ:
ENDDO: SET H= SIMVAR:

ZRESETZ: SET SIMVAR = 1: SET S
DO ADJWQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1:
SET SDI3=1: SET SDX2=1: ZBSIMZ:
ENDDO: SET H= SIMVAR:

ZRESETZ: SET SIMVAR = 1: SET S


SDI3=1: SET SDX1=1: ZBSIMZ: ? US





jDI3=1: SET SDX2=1: ZBSIMZ: ? AUSTRALIA





jDI3=1: SET SDX3=1: ZBSIMZ: ? NEW ZEALAND;










DO ADJWQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDI3= 1; SET SDX3= 1; ZB SIMZ;
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;


STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR
SIM #13 RELATIVE TOTAL DEMAND IS ADJUSTMENTS IN HONG KONG


SET SIMNUM = 13;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; S
DO ADJWQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; S
DO ADJWQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; S
DO ADJWQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;


IET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US





ET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA





ET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND;


STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR
SIM #14 RELATIVE TOTAL FOREIGN PROMOTIONS IS ADJUSTMENTS IN KOREA


SET SIMNUM = 14;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDIl
DO ADJ FOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDIl=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDIl
DO ADJ FOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDIl=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDIl
DO ADJ FOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDIl=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;


=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ;


? US


=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA





=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND;


STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR
SIM #15 RELATIVE TOTAL FOREIGN PROMOTIONS IS ADJUSTMENTS IN JAPAN










SET SIMNUM = 15;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US
DO ADJ FOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDI2=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;


ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2
DO ADJ FOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDI2=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR;


=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;


? AUSTRALIA


ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ;
DO ADJ FOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDI2= 1; SET SDX3= 1; ZB SIMZ;
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;


? NEW ZEALAND;


STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR
SIM #16 RELATIVE TOTAL FOREIGN PROMOTIONS IS ADJUSTMENTS IN TAWAIN

SET SIMNUM = 16;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US
DO ADJ FOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDI3=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;


ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;
DO ADJ FOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDI3=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;


? AUSTRALIA


ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEAL
DO ADJ FOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDI3= 1; SET SDX3= 1; ZB SIMZ;
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;


STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR
SIM #17 RELATIVE TOTAL FOREIGN PROMOTIONS IS ADJUSTMENTS IN HONG KONG


SET SIMNUM = 17;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1;
DO ADJ FOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1;
DO ADJ FOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;


SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US





SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA










SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND;
DO ADJ FOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; SET H= SIMVAR;


STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR
SIM #18 RELATIVE PRICE ADJUSTMENTS AND TIME FOR THE US

SET SIMNUM = 18;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDIl=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET .X=1; SET SDIl=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET .X=1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET .X=1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET .X=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;


STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR
SIM #19 RELATIVE PRICE ADJUSTMENTS AND TIME FOR AU

SET SIMNUM = 19;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDIl=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AU
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET .X=1; SET SDIl=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AU
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;










ZRESETZ; DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET .X=1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AU
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET .X=1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AU
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET .X=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;


STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR
SIM #20 RELATIVE PRICE ADJUSTMENTS AND TIME FOR NZ

SET SIMNUM = 20;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDIl=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NZ
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET .X=1; SET SDIl=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NZ
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET .X=1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NZ
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET .X= 1; SET SDI3= 1; SET SDX3= 1; ZB SIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NZ
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; DO ADJ WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET .X=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;











STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR
SIM #21 RELATIVE DEMAND ADJUSTMENTS AND TIME FOR THE~ US

SET SIMNUM = 21;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDIl=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET .X=1; SET SDIl=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET .X=1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; DO ADJWQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET .X=1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; DO ADJWQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET .X=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;


STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR
SIM #22 RELATIVE DEMAND ADJUSTMENTS AND TIME FOR AU

SET SIMNUM = 22;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDIl=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AU
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; DO ADJWQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET .X=1; SET SDIl=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AU
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; DO ADJWQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET .X=1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AU
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;










SET .X=1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AU
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; DO ADJWQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET .X=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;


STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR
SIM #23 RELATIVE DEMAND ADJUSTMENTS AND TIME FOR NZ

SET SIMNUM = 23;
ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDIl=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NZ
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; DO ADJWQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET .X=1; SET SDIl=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NZ
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; DO ADJWQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET .X=1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NZ
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET .X=1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;

ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NZ
DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;
ZRESETZ; DO ADJWQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05;
SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;
SET .X=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ;
ENDDO; ENDDOT;

?WRITE(FORMAT=EXCEL,FILE= 'C:\Z STUDENT\OFERRARA\T SPPRG\ARMCOEF#6.XL S')
YEARR WIMP WEXP WTYPE AID AIJ BIJ THO TH1 TH2 AAID AAIJ BBIJ TTO TT1 TT2;

WRITE(FORMAT=EXCEL,FILE= 'C:\Z STUDENT\OFERRARA\T SPPRG\BEEFSIM#7_Fre sh. XL S') MBEEFM;

END;










LIST OF REFERENCES


Adda, J. "Behavior Towards Health Risks: An Empirical Study Using the "Mad Cow"
Crisis as an Experiment." Journal of Risk and thicertainty 35, No. 3 (2007): 285-
305.

Allen, J. W., and T. R. Pierson. Food Marketing and Distribution: Implications for
Agriculture, Food hidustry Reports; No. 9301. East Lansing, Mich.: Food
Industry Institute, Michigan State University, 1993.

Alston, J. M., C. A. Carter, R. Green, and D. Pick. "Whither Armington Trade Models? "
American Journal ofAgricultural Economics 72, No. 2 (1990): 45 5-67.

Armington, P. S. "A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of
Production." StaffPapers hIternational M~onetazry Fund 16, No. 1 (1969): 159-
78.

Arrow, K. J., H. B. Chenery, B. S. Minhas, and R. M. Solow. "Capital-Labor Substitution
and Economic Efficiency." The Review of Econontics and Statistics 43, No. 3
(1961): 225-50.

Artus, J. R., and R. R. Rhomberg. "A Multilateral Exchange Rate Model." StaffPapers -
hIternational M~onetazry Fund 20, No. 3 (1973): 591-61 1.

Bhuiyan, M. A. "Measuring Revealed Competitiveness: Applications to World Vegetable
Market." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, 1993.

Blonigen, B. A., and W. Wesley. "Explaining Armington: What Determines
Substitutability between Home and Foreign Goods?" The Canadian Journal of
Economics /Revue Canadienne d'Econontique 32, No. 1 (1999): 1-21.

Brester, G. W. "Estimation of the U.S. Import Demand Elasticity for Beef: The
Importance of Disaggregation." Review ofAgricultural Econontics 18, No. 1
(1996): 31-42.

Bureau, J. C., W. Jones, E. Gozlan, and S. Marette. "Overview and Conceptual
Foundation." In Global Food Trade and Consumer Demand for Quality, edited by
Barry Krissoff, Mary Bohman and Julie A. Caswell, 252. New York, NY: Kluwer
Academics/ Plenum Publishers, 2002.

Bureau, J. C., M. P. Ramos and L. Salvatici. "Tariffs, Trq's and Import Composition: The
Case of Beef Trade between the EU and Mercosur." In UM~R Econonzie Publique,
edited by INRA-INAPG, 28. Paris, France: European Trade Study Group, 2005.

Burton, M., and Trevor Young. "The Impact of BSE on the Demand for Beef and Other
Meats in Great Britain." AppliedEconontics 28, No. 6 (1996): 687 93.










Buzby, J. C. "International Trade and Food Safety: Economic Theory and Case Studies."
Agricultural Economic Report. No. 828.Washington DC, 2003.

Cameron, A. C., and F. A. G. Windmeij er. "An R-Squared Measure of Goodness of Fit
for Some Common Nonlinear Regression Models." Journal ofEconometrics 77,
No. 2 (1997): 329-42.

Capps, O., R. Tsai, R. Kirby, and G.W. Williams. "A Comparison of Demands for Meat
Products in the Pacific Rim Region." Journal ofAgricultural and Resource
Economics 19, No. 1 (1994): 210 -24.

Carwell, R. T. "The Importance of Dynamics in Commodity Advertizing Demand
Systems." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Saskatchewan, 2005.

Chiang, A. C. Fundamental Methods~~d~~dd~dd~ of2athematical Economics. Third edition. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 1987.

Codron, J. M., J. A. Sterns, and T. Reardon. "Strategic Choices in Produce Marketing:
Issues of Compatible Use and Exclusion Cost." Journal ofFoodDistribution
Research Volume 34, No. 03 (2003): 1-12.

Coffey, B., J. Mintert, S. Fox, T. Schoeder, and L. Valentin. "The Economic Impact of
BSE on the U.S. Beef Industry: Product Value Losses, Regulatory Cost, and
Consumer Reactions." In Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment
Station and' Cooperative Extension Service, 64: Kansas State University, 2005.

Cong, L.T., H. M. Kaiser, and W. Tomek. "Export Promotion and Import Demand for Us
Red Meat in Selected Pacific Rim Countries." Agribusiness 14, No. 2 (1998): 95-
105.

Davis, G. C., and N. C. Kruse. "Consistent Estimation of Armington Demand Models."
American Journal ofAgricultural Economics 75, No. 3 (1993): 719-23.

Devadoss, S., D. W. Holland, L. Stodick, and J. Ghosh. "A General Equilibrium
Analysis of Foreign and Domestic Demand Shocks Arising from Mad Cow
Disease in the United States." Journal ofAgricultural and Resource Economics
31, No. 2 (2006): 441-53.

Dyck, J.H., and K.E. Nelson. Structure of the Global Markets for Meat." In Agriculture
Information Bulletin, edited by Economic Research Service (ERS) Market and
Trade Economics Division, 24. Washington, DC: United States Department of
Agriculture, 2003.

Femenia, F., and A. Gohin. "Estimating Price Elasticities of Food Trade Functions: How
Relevant Is the Gravity Approach? ". 7RADEAG Working Papers, edited by INRA
France, 37. 2007.










Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAOSTA T. 2007.
Available from http://faostat.fao. org/? ali as=faostat.

Forker, O., and R.W. Ward. Conanodity Advertizing: The Economics and Mea~surement
of Generic Programs. New York, NY: Lexington Books, 1 993.

Gallaway, M. P., C. A. McDaniel, and S. A. Rivera. "Short-Run and Long-Run Industry-
Level Estimates of U. S. Armington Elasticities." The North American Journal of
Economics and Finance 14, No. 1 (2003): 49-68.

Golan, A., J. M. Perloff, and E. Z. Shen. "Estimating a Demand System with Non-
negativity Constraints: Mexican Meat Demand." The Review of Econontics and
Statistics 83, No. 3 (2001): 541-50.

Greene, W. H. Econometric Analysis. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall,
2003.

Guj arati, D. N. Basic Econometrics. 4th edition: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2003.

Gumbel, P. "Pasta Panic Strikes Italy." Fortune, November 26, 2007.

Hall, B. H., and C. Cummins. TSP 5. 0: User's Guide. Vol. 1. Palo Alto, CA: TSP
International, 2005.

Hanoch, G. "Cresh Production Functions." Econonsetrica 39 (1971): 695-712.

Hayes, D. J., T. I. Wahl, and G. W. Williams. "Testing Restrictions on a Model of
Japanese Meat Demand. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72, No. 3
(1990): 556-66.

Herrmann, R., S. R. Thompson, and S. Krischik-Bautz,. "Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy and Generic Promotion of Beef: An Analysis for "Quality from
Bavaria"." Agribusiness 18, No. 3 (2002): 16.

Hillberry, R. H., M. A. Anderson, E. J. Balistreri, and A. K. Fox. "Taste Parameters as
Model Residuals: Assessing the "Fit" of an Armington Trade Model are
Distributed across Exporters in Proportion to the Expenditure Elasticities."
Review oflnternational Economics 13, No. 5 (2005): 973-84.

Jin, H. J., A. Skripnitchenko, and W. W. Koo. "The Effects of the BSE Outbreak in the
United States on the Beef and Cattle Industry." Special Report, 17. Fargo, ND:
University of North Dakota, Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies,
2004.

Jin, H. J., and W. W. Koo. "The Effect of the BSE Outbreak in Japan on Consumers'
Preferences." Euro Rev Agric Econ 30, No. 2 (2003): 173-92.










Jung, J. "Understanding the Compass Model: Assumptions, Structure, and Elasticity of
Substitution." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, 2004.

Kapuscinski, C. A., and P. G. Warr. "Estimation of Armington Elasticities: An
Application to the Philippines." Economic M~odeling 16, No. 2 (1999): 257-78.

Kinnucan, H. W., P. A. Duffy, and K. Z. Ackerman. "Effects of Price Versus Non-Price
Export Promotion: The Case of Cotton." Review of Agricultural Economics 17,
No. 1 (1995): 91-100.

Kinnucan, H. W., H. Xiao, C. J. Hsia, and J. D. Jackson. "Effects of Health Information
and Generic Advertising on U.S. Meat Demand." American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 79, No. 1 (1997): 13-23.

Kinnucan, H. W., and Y. Zheng. Advertising' s Effect on the Market Demand Elasticity:
A Note." Agribusiness 20, No. 2 (2004): 181-188.

Kinnucan, H. W. and O. Myrland. "On Generic vs. Brand Promotion of Farm Products in
Foreign Markets." Applied Economics 40, No. 6 (2008): 673-84.

Kotler, P. Marketing Manan~gement. 11Ith edition. New York, NY: Prentice Hall, 2002.

Latouche, K., P. Rainelli, and D. Vermersch. "Food Safety Issues and the BSE Scare:
Some Lessons from the French Case." Food Policy 23, No. 5 (1998): 347-56.

Lloyd P.J., and X.G. Zhang. "The Armington Model." Productivity Commission Staff
Working Paper (2006): 30.

Mangen, M.J.J., and A.M. Burrell. "Decomposing Preference Shifts for Meat and Fish in
the Netherlands." 2001.

Marsh, J. M., G. W. Brester and V. H. Smith. "Effects of North American BSE Events on
U. S. Cattle Prices." Review ofAgricultural Economics 30, No. 1 (2008): 136-50.

McDaniel, C. A., and E. J. Balistreri. "A Discussion on Armington Trade Substitution
Elasticities." Office of Economics Working Paper (USITC), No. 2002-01-A
(2002): 17.

McLaren, D. "On Aspects of Food Safety and International Trade." Singapore Economic
Review 51, No. 2 (2006): 135-45.

Miljkovic, D., and J. Hyun. "Import Demand for Quality in the Japanese Beef Market."
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 35, No. 2 (2006): 276 84.

Mukerji, V. "A Generalized S.M.A.C. Function with Constant Ratios of Elasticity of
Substitution." The Review of Economic Studies 30, No. 3 (1963): 233-36.










Mutondo, J. E., and S. Henneberry. "Competitiveness of U.S. Meats in Japan and South
Korea: A Source Differentiated Market Study." Paper presented at the American
Agricultural Economics Association, AAEA, Portland, OR, July 29- August 1,
2007.

Nicholson, W. M~icroeconontic Theory: Basic Principles and Extensions. Eighth edition.
USA. South-Western College/Thomson Learning, 2002.

Peterson, H. H., and Y. J. Chen. "The Impact of BSE on Japanese Retail Meat Demand."
Agribusiness 21, No. 3 (2005): 313-27.

Piggott N. E., J. A. Chalfant, J. M. Alston and G. R. Griffith. "Demand Response to
Advertising in the Australian Meat Industry." American Journal ofAgricultural
Economics 78, No. 2. (1996): 268-279.

Poulin, D., and A. K. Boane. "Mad Cow Disease and Beef Trade." edited by Yvan
Gervais, 7. Ottawa, Canada: Statistics Canada, 2003.

Preckel, P. V., J. Cranfield, and T. W. Hertel. "Implicit Additive Preferences: A Further
Generalization of the CES." West Lafayette, Indiana: Dept. of Agricultural
Economics, Purdue University, 2005.

Regmi, A. "Changing Structure of Global Food Consumption and Trade." Agricultural
Economic Report WRS-01-1.Washington DC, 2001.

Reinert, K. A., and D. W. Roland-Holst. "Armington Elasticities for United States
Manufacturing Sectors." Journal ofPolicy Modeling 14, No. 5 (1992): 631-39.

Roig-Franzia, M. "A Culinary and Cultural Staple in Crisis." The Washington Post,
Saturday, January 27, 2007.

Saito, M. "Armington Elasticities in Intermediate Inputs Trade: A Problem in Using
Multilateral Trade Data." Canadian Journal ofEconontics Revue Canadienne
d'econontique 37, No. 4 (2004): 1097-117.

Sato, K. "A Two-Level Constant-Elasticity-of- Sub stitution Production Function." The
Review of Econontic Studies 34, No. 2 (1967): 201-18.

Satyanarayana, V., and D. Johnson. "Credit Guarantee Programs and U.S. Markets Share
in Selected Wheat Import Markets." Agricultural Econontics Report, No. 13.
Fargo ND, 1998.

Shiells, C. R., and K. A. Reinert. "Armington Models and Terms-of-Trade Effects: Some
Econometric Evidence for North America." The Canadian Journal ofEconontics,
Revue Canadienne d'Econontique 26, No. 2 (1993): 299-316.










Solomon, H. and H. W. Kinnucan. "Effects on Non-Price Export Promotion: Some
Evidence for Cotton." Australian Journal ofAgricultural Economics 37, No. 1
(1993): 1-15.

Sparks, A. L. and R. W. Ward. "A Simultaneous Econometric Model of World Fresh
Vegetable Trade, 1962-82: An Application of Nonlinear Simultaneous
Equations." Journal of Agricultural Economics Research 44, No. 2 (1992).

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (ERS). Foreign
Agricultural Trade of the thrited States. 2007. Available from
http ://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdReport.asx

-. U.S. Beef and Cattle hIdustry: Background Statistics and htfornzation. 2007
Avail able from http://www.ers.usda. gov/news/B SEC overage.htm.

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Thiderstanding
Korea's Beeflnaport System. Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade
No. 4. Washington DC, 1996.

-. Conanodity and Market Analysis: World Beef Trade Overview. 2004. Available
from http://www.fas.usda. gov/dlp2/circul ar/2004/04-10OLP/toc.htm.

-. Production, Supply and Distribution Online. 2007. Available from
http ://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdReport.asx

United States Meat Export Federation (USMEF). "The Value of U. S. Beef and Beef
Variety Meat Exports." 5. Denver, CO: USMEF, 2007.

Van Osselaer, S. M. and J. W. Alba. "Consumer Learning and Brand Equity." Journal of
Consumer Research 27, No. 1 (2000): 16.

Varian, Hal R. M~icroeconontic Analysis. 3rd edition. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, 1992.

Verbeke, W., and R. W. Ward. "A Fresh Meat Almost Ideal Demand System
Incorporating Negative TV Press and Advertising Impact." Agricultural
Economics 25, No. 2-3 (2001): 359-74.

Ward, R. W. "Advertising and Promotions." Agro-Food2\a~rketing, edited by et al
Daniel. I. Padberg, 319-48: CAB International, 1997.

Ward, R. W., and C. Lambert. "Generic Promotion of Beef Measuring the Impact of the
United-States Beef Checkoff. Journal ofAgricultural Economics 44, No. 3
(1993): 456-65.

Weatherspoon, D. D., and J. L. Seale. "Do the Japanese Discriminate against Australian
Beef Imports? Evidence from the Differential Approach." Journal of Agricultural
and Applied Econometric 27, No. 2 (1995): 536-43.










Webb, A. J., E. E. Figueroa, W. E. Wecker, and Alex F. McCalla. "Impact of the Soviet
Grain Embargo: a Comparison of Methods." Journal of Policy M~odeling 1 1, No.
3 (1989): 361-89.

Winters, L. A. "Separability and the Specification of Foreign Trade Functions." Journal
oflnternational Economics 17, No. 3-4 (1984): 23 9-63.

World Customs Organization (WCO). What Is the Harmonized System (HS)
Nomenclature?,2008. Available from
http://www.wcoomd. org/home wco topicslhsoverviewboxes.htm.

World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). WorldAnimal Health Situation Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), 2007.Available from
http ://www.oie.int/eng/info/en_esb .htm.

World Trade Atlas, GTIS. World Trade Atlas (Internet Version 4.3 e.) Global Trade
Information Services, Inc., 2007.

Yang, S.R. and W. W. Koo. "A Generalized Armington Trade Model: Re-specification."
Agricultural Economics, No. 9 (1993): 374-76.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Oscar Ferrara was born and raised in Asuncion, Paraguay. In 1992 he earned a B.S. degree

in agricultural engineering at the Universidad Nacional de Asuncion in Paraguay. In August

2001 he earned a B.S. degree in applied economics from the University of Minnesota and in

August 2005 he earned a M.S. degree in food and resource economics at the University of

Florida. In November 2007 he was admitted to candidacy for Doctor of Philosophy in food and

resource economics at the University of Florida. His research interests are focused on

agricultural marketing, trade and food safety.





PAGE 1

1 EXPORT DEMAND A ND PROMOTIONS OF U.S. BEEF: IMPACT OF FOOD SAFETY AND PROTECTIONISM. By OSCAR FERRARA A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Oscar Ferrara

PAGE 3

3 To my wife Jaquelina ; and my children Sofia, Nicolas, and Marco

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My de epest gratitude goes t o Jaquelina Sofia, Nicolas, and Marco for their understanding and constant encouragement I thank Dr. Ronald W. Ward for his generosity and friendship. As mentor and professor, he helped me to pul l this project together. His valuable guidance and patience are deeply appreciated. I would also like to address very special thanks to Dr. Charles Adams, Dr. Jeff B urkhardt and Dr. Jim Morris for their generous assistance.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 12 Importance of Agricultural Trade ................................ ................................ ........................... 13 International Beef Market ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 14 International U.S. Beef Promotions ................................ ................................ ........................ 19 Problem Statement and Research Objective ................................ ................................ ........... 20 Scope ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 22 Research Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 24 Armington Trade Model ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 25 Data Set ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 29 Outline of Chapters ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 30 2 WORLD BEEF TRADE AND PRODUCTION ................................ ................................ .... 32 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 32 International Beef Trade Data ................................ ................................ ................................ 32 The International Beef Market ................................ ................................ ................................ 34 Volume, Share, and Growth of Global Production ................................ ......................... 35 Beef Trade Patterns ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 37 Pacific Rim Demand for Beef Products ................................ ................................ .................. 42 Republic of South Korea ................................ ................................ ................................ 43 Japan ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 45 Republic of Taiwan a nd Hong Kong ................................ ................................ ............... 48 International Beef Supply ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 52 United States ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 52 Australia ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 55 New Zealand ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 56 Rest of the World ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 58 Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (B SE): Impact on Beef Trade ................................ ...... 59 Consumption Levels and Market Shares ................................ ................................ ......... 59 Expenditures on Beef by Country of Origin ................................ ................................ .... 65 Pre and Post BSE Pattern of Trade ................................ ................................ ................. 69

PAGE 6

6 3 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 73 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 73 International Beef Demand and Food Safety ................................ ................................ .......... 73 Trade and Beef Markets Issues ................................ ................................ ............................... 78 Internation al Beef Promotions ................................ ................................ ................................ 81 The Armington Trade Model ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 88 4 EMPIRIRICAL TRADE MODEL FOR BEEF PRODUCTS ................................ ................ 93 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 93 Beef Trade Schematic Representation ................................ ................................ .................... 93 Adapting the Armington Model to Beef Trade ................................ ................................ ....... 95 The Constant Ratio Elasticity of Substitution ................................ ................................ ...... 100 Analysis of Trade Variations ................................ ................................ ................................ 107 5 EMPIRICAL RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 113 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 113 Data Set ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 113 Product Demand Eq uation ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 114 Model Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 115 6 SIMULATION ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ................................ 125 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 125 Total Product Demand Trend ................................ ................................ ............................... 128 Product Demand Simulations ................................ ................................ ............................... 135 Pre and Pos t BSE Market Distribution Simulations ................................ ........................... 141 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................... 146 APPENDIX A CONSTANT ELASTICITY OF SUBSTITUTION (CES) ................................ .................. 152 B TSP PROGRAM: ARMINGTON SPECIFICATION AND SIMMULATIONS ................ 157 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 176 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 183

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 Top 5 exported beef cuts during 2006. ................................ ................................ .............. 16 1 2 Trade status and BSE trade impact in millions of U.S. dollars by beef product ............... 17 2 1 Compared world production le vels and trade ................................ ................................ .... 36 2 2 Ratio import to export quantit ies by regions ................................ ................................ ...... 40 2 3 U.S. beef i mports and exports volumes ................................ ................................ ............ 52 5 1 Parameter estimates a nd t values ................................ ................................ ..................... 118 5 2 Summary statistics product demands parameters ................................ ............................ 124 6 1 South Korea: estimated base values ................................ ................................ ................. 126 6 2 Japan: estimated base values ................................ ................................ ............................ 126 6 3 Taiwan: estimated base values ................................ ................................ ......................... 126 6 4 Hong Kong: esti mated base values ................................ ................................ .................. 126 6 5 Estimated variations in market demand distribution ................................ ....................... 142

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Domestic consumption of beef products in Asian regions.. ................................ .............. 15 1 2 Economic impact of the BSE Ban across U.S. beef export products as January, 2006.. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 18 1 3 Beef trade participation of selec ted countries ................................ ................................ ... 23 2 1 Total beef production and shares by region.. ................................ ................................ ..... 35 2 2 Relative variation in growth rate of production.. ................................ ............................... 37 2 3 Pre and post BSE beef trade levels by region. ................................ ................................ .. 38 2 4 Republ ic of Korea beef market indicators.. ................................ ................................ ....... 44 2 5 Average CIF prices for fresh beef products in Korea. ................................ ....................... 45 2 6 Japan beef market indicators.. ................................ ................................ ............................ 46 2 7 Average CIF prices for fresh beef products in Japan. ................................ ........................ 47 2 8 Taiwan and Honk Kong beef market indicators. ................................ ............................... 48 2 9 Average CIF prices for fresh beef products in Taiwan ................................ ...................... 51 2 10 Average CIF prices for fresh beef products in Hong Kong. ................................ .............. 51 2 11 U.S. production, consumption, and exports of fresh/chilled and frozen beef. ................... 54 2 12 Australia production, consumption, and exports of fresh/chilled and froz en beef. ........... 55 2 13 New Zealand production, consumption, and exports of fresh/chilled and frozen beef. .... 57 2 14 Rest of the world (ROW) pr oduction, consumption, and exports of fresh/chilled and frozen beef. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 58 2 15 Korea imported beef consumption per capita and market shares.. ................................ .... 60 2 16 Japan imported beef consumption per capita and market shares. ................................ ...... 61 2 17 Taiwan imported beef consumption per capita and market shares ................................ .... 63 2 18. Hong Kong imported beef consumption per capita and market shares ............................. 64 2 19 Total expenditures on beef prod ucts from the U.S. by country. ................................ ........ 65

PAGE 9

9 2 20 Total expenditures on beef products from Australia by country. ................................ ...... 67 2 21 Total expenditures on beef products from New Zealand by country. ................................ 67 2 22 Total expenditures on beef products from the ROW by country.. ................................ ..... 68 2 23 Pre BSE ban trade scenarios for fresh/chilled and frozen beef in selected Asian natio ns. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 70 2 24 Post BSE ban trade scenarios for fresh/chilled and frozen beef in selected Asian nations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 71 4 1 Schematic representation o f the Armington trade system for beef products in selected countries of the Pacific Rim region. ................................ ................................ .................. 94 5 1 South Korean product demand parameters for beef imports (US AU NZ). .................... 121 5 2 Japan product demand parameters for beef imports (US AU NZ). ................................ 122 5 3 Taiwan and Hong Kong product demand parameters for beef imports (US AU NZ). ... 123 6 1 Estimated fresh U.S beef product demands across time in selected Asian markets. ....... 129 6 2 Estimated frozen U.S beef product demands a cross time in selected Asian markets. ..... 130 6 3 Estimated fresh Australian beef product demands across time in selected Asian markets ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 131 6 4 Estimated frozen Australian beef product demands across time in selected Asian markets. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 132 6 5 Estimated fresh New Zealand beef product demands across time in selected Asian markets. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 133 6 6 Estimated frozen New Zealand beef product demands across time in selected Asian markets. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 134 6 7 South Korea beef market demands an d price elasticities in 1998, 2002, and 2006. ........ 136 6 8 Japan beef market demands and price elasticities in 1998, 2002, and 2006. ................... 137 6 9 Taiwan beef market demands and price elasticities in 1998, 2002, and 2006. ................ 139 6 10 Hong Kong beef market demands and price elasticities in 1998, 2002, and 2006. ......... 140 6 11 Pre BSE market distribution of fresh and frozen beef products. ................................ ..... 141 6 12 Post BSE market distribution of fresh and frozen beef products. ................................ ... 143

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy EXPORT DEMAND A ND PROMOTIONS OF U.S. BEEF: IMPACT OF FOOD SAFETY AND PROTECTIONISM. By Oscar Ferrara August 2008 Chair: Ronald W. Ward Major: Food and Resource Economics Trade disruptive policies have been used for a long time to address a large number of politic, economic, and food safety issues. Polic y shocks (i.e. embargoes or expo rt bans) have significant short and long term effects on trade relations and production of agricultural commodities, shaping the economies of producing countries as well as the direction and magnitude of trade flows. The c onsequences of the first case of BSE in North America in December 2003 exemplify how food safety issues significantly affect consumer preferences and producer welfare. After the announcement of the first case of BSE in North America in December 2003 almos t immediately 53 coun tries banned imports from the United States to prevent the disease from entering their countries and to safeguard human health. The resulting negative shift in aggregate market demand for U.S. beef products and the loss of export marke ts were the immediate consequence s of either government imposed trade restrictions or changes in impor t demands. Today, U.S. beef exports show an increasing trend thanks in part to tr ad e li be r a li za ti on p ol ic ie s and information campaigns (i.e. promotions) aimed to expand the presence of U. S. products in major beef importing countries. The objective of this research is to analyze import

PAGE 11

11 demands for be ef pro ducts in selected countries using a model of product differentiation by country of origin and to estimate empirically the impact of U.S. beef promotions on re capturing p re ban market levels. Based on ), the model for this research assumes a two stage budgeting allocation and a product's imperfect substitutability between export sources. Hence, this study presume s that beef produced in the Un ited States presents unique attributes (i.e. superior quality and taste) and that foreign consumers can perceive this difference from competing beef sources. work pr oposes the use of a Constant Ratio Elasticity of Substitution (CRES) that allows elaticities to vary proportionally while the s ubstitutability is not necessar i ly identical. This research includes eight countries divided in to four exporting and four importin g countries tire dataset includes almost 2 000 observations with information recorded over time across sele cted countries during an 11 year period (January 1995 to December 2006). Resulting product demand m arket share and e lasticity estimates determine the degree of substitution among competing beef products and provide the coefficients to measure the economic impact of trade barriers and effectiveness of market access and promotion policies in four m ajor markets for U.S. beef: Japan, Republic of Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION During the past three decades, g lobalization and trade liberalization have contributed to reducing the isolation of domestic economies but also have permanently changed the channels of food distribution, raising important questions about the safety and quality of agricultural goods. Poli tical and economic changes have forced countries around the world to abandon the complexity of old trade structures and incorporate open mechanisms in which legal and monitoring protocols are highly standardized. Under this new world order, transactions ar e set to be dynamic in order to encourage the exchange of goods and services produced across the borders and reduce government participation. During the past two decades, the deve lopment of new technologies in areas related to communication and logistics h as facilitated, innovated and consequently accelerated the way that countries trade around the world. In addition, a number of international institutions have played an important role in promoting free trade including the World Bank, International Monetar y Fund (IMF), and General Agreem ent on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The latter, was succeeded in 1995 by the World Trade Organization (WTO) (Jung 2004). In addition, Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) such as the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), Europe an Union (EU), the Mercado Comun del Sur (MERCOSUR), and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have boosted trade among countries within a particular region of the world. International commodity markets represent an important focus of attention for the U.S. agricultural sector. Recognizing the significance of the factors affecting the flow of agricultural products is necessary in order to take advantage of the current commodity trade structure and predict its future evolution. New international trade policies, food security issues, and shifting

PAGE 13

13 agricultural commodities have become highly dependent on international markets. International beef trade has a long history of up and downs, but recent decades have seen fast growth of trade in terms of volume and value. Changes in trade policies have stimulated this trend; and associated with these changes, changes in diets, distribution technology, and multinational business structures have changed the global scenar io of beef trade either as causal factors or as con sequences of liberalized trade (USMEF 2007). Importance of Agricultural Trade in every corner of the world from developed to developing countries, and it has also affected production and distribution of agricultural products around the world. For example, soaring world prices of wheat have caused a 30 % increase in the prices of pa sta in Italy; and in Mexico, during the year 2006 unprecedented high prices of corn they almost quadruplicated have led to the worst tortilla crisis in its modern history 1 (Gumbel 2007, Roig Franzia 2007 ) Sanitary and protectionist trade barriers have strongly influenced agricultural trade. Sanitary standards are extremely important determinants of food related trade. For example, the distinction between countries free of foot and mouth disease (FMD) and those that are not free largely defines world tr ade in fresh, chilled, or frozen beef and pork. The danger of transmitting diseases to humans has also led to segmentation of the beef trade based on sanitary rules. The ce barred beef exports from much of Europe to other parts of the wo rld. In the U.S. case, after December 2003's outbreak, it closed the most important markets for U.S. beef around the world (OIE 2007). 1 Increasing prices are the result of a reduced sup ply. In the case of wheat (up 60% over the past year), this increase is due to a persistent drought in Australia, weak production years in Ukraine and Argentina, and in the case of corn it is due to an increased use of this commodity in the production of e thanol in the U.S.

PAGE 14

14 After almost three years of BSE related trade restrict ions and absence from key beef consuming markets, the beef industry is seeing some normalization in trade flows although it is still bearing many costs of increased product requirements and li mited product eligibility ( FAS USDA 20 07). Finally, in the last few ye a rs consumers in some markets focused their concerns on production oriented processes that emphasize issues related to animal welfare (e.g., the use of hormones and antibiotics, or the presence of genetically modified ingredients in feed rations) wh ich increasingly have become a basis for regulatory barriers to trade (Dyck and Nelson 2003). Recent advances in trade liberalization emphasize open access to world markets and expanding trade of agricultural commodities and processed food products. The ev olution of world and regional trade agreements have lowered protectionist barriers and facilitate d the flow of commodities. The 1994 WTO Agreement on Agriculture negotiated in the Uruguay Round addressed specific commitments to improve market access and re duce trade distorting subsidies in agriculture. Under this agreement, non tariff trade barriers are being converted into tariff equivalents, which gradually are being reduced or eliminated over some period of time. Import tariffs are considered more transp arent than non tariff measures, and because of that they have been a preferred policy instrument in multi lateral trade negotiations (Miljkovic and Jin 2006). However, significant protectionist barriers still remain, such as high tariffs, tariff rate quota s, and non tariff barriers, which prevent or inhibit significant potential trade in meats and are designed to discourage imported beef from competing with domestic products. International Beef Market Foreign demand for U.S. beef products has become an impo rtant factor affecting the U.S. domestic beef industry. Although the domestic market remains the dominant source of overall meat demand exports continue to account for a growing share of U.S. meat production. Despite higher prices, international beef cons umption has climbed as global economic growth supports

PAGE 15

15 increases in demand especially in Asian Pacific markets where the explosive economic expansion has contributed to an increase per capita income, encouraging reductions in trade restrictions and a shift in dietary preferences for animal source proteins (Capps et al. 1994). Economic development brings with it increased household income and consequently higher utility levels. With increased incomes, households can purchase more superior quality foods, suc h as beef. As in the cases of Japan and Korea, the growth in meat consumption pushes up prices of domestic beef, and increases the possibility of a market for imported beef. The importance of dietary changes to beef imports is shown by the case of Pacific Rim countries where import growth reflected the rapid increase in beef consumption that occurred there between 1980 and 1995, when consumption per capita increased almost six times. Consumption increased faster than production, and imported beef supplied t he difference. Figure 1 1 Domestic c onsumption of beef products i n Asian r egions. Source: FAS USDA. November 2007. While meat consumption growth appears to have leveled off since the late 1990s in western developed re gions (e .g., Europe and the United States ), meat consumption is currently growing in major parts of East, Southeast, and South Asia as economic expansion proceeds 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Years Domestic Consumption (1000 MT) East Asia South Asia Southeast Asia

PAGE 16

16 (FAOSTAT 2007). Rising consumer demand for beef, aided by trade liberalization and changes in technol ogy (i.e., shipping and storage) has helped beef to grow across the globe (Figure 1 1) Beef trade mainly is in cuts or parts, not in the form of live animals or carcasses which generate extra revenue per animal. The slaughter of a meat animal automaticall y generates a full set of muscle meat cuts, as well as trimmings, offal, and other byproducts (Table 1 1). The value of a carcass is the composite value of the cuts and other products taken from it, and the derived value of a meat animal is the composite v alue of the carcass and byproducts from the animal, less processing and tra nsaction costs (Dyck and Nelson 2003). Table 1 1 Top 5 e xported beef c uts during 2006. Ranked by the e xtra value generated Cut Type Domest ic Use % Expor t U.S. Value ($kg) International Value ($kg) Total Extra Value ($ M) Short Ribs Trim 57 1.39 2.09 4.00 10.00 338 Tongue Pet Food 70 0.22 9.92 328 Outside Skirt Trim 61 2.09 3.50 6.00 166 Short Plate Trim 68 0.96 1.74 2.65 63 Chuckeye Roll As is 11 2.6 2 2.68 3.50 6.00 43 Source: USMEF. September 2007. In recent years, U.S. beef exports represented 12.4% of the production generating an additional value equivalent to 18% of the total value of a feed steer or the equivalent of an increase of almost one bi llion dollars out of the top five export beef cuts. Forecasts from the U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) show that for the next five years a total increase of almost 90% in the volume of beef exported is expected and that Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Ko rea are among the top five destinations ( USMEF 2007). Trade issues have become increasingly important for the U.S. beef industry, in particular those referred to as food safety have significant effects, either through government imposed trade restrictions or changes in import d emand (Verbeke and Ward 2001; Jin and Koo 2003).

PAGE 17

17 After the discoveries of BSE commonly referred to as mad cow disease, in the United Kingdom in 1998, Japan in 2001, and Canada and the United States in 2003, the response of the inter national community has permanen tly affected the world market for beef and led to a significant drop in beef import demand. These BSE cases prompted a number of tradit ional U.S. beef importing countries to ban almost all products from the United States, ope ning new markets or in some cases, incr easing existing market shares of competing beef producing nations like Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, and Argentina. The USDA ERS reported signific ant differences between the Pre and Post BSE ban of U.S. beef export s to these traditional markets showing an impress ive loss in value of almost $2.4 billion dollars. On the other hand, 2006 data from the USMEF show losses of approxim ately $ 1 billion or a total of 630,000 metric tons, which clearly shows the importance of these markets for the U.S. industry and the need to recuperate its position as primary supplier of beef products (Table 1 1 and Figure 1 2). Table 1 2. Trade status and BSE trade impact in millions of U.S. dollars by beef product Country Total Val Bone in Bone less Proces s meat Variety meats Date Opened Open Trade Status Diff. Pre Post Notes Japan 1,391 2 50 .1 1,103 13 .5 224 .5 12/05 1,391 .2 Partial Ban A ll <21m Korea 814 5 291 .5 49 .0 8 .7 65 .2 9/06 449 .0 Parti al Ban 365 .5 Bone l ess <30m Hong Kong 90 8 19 .4 48 .4 521 22 .3 12/05 48 .4 Partial Ban 42 .3 Bone less <30m Taiwan 76 3 13 .5 55 .9 873 5 .9 4/ 05 55 .9 Partial Ban 20 .3 Bone less <30m ROW 1,482 6 1,357 .6 125 .0 Total 3,855 6 3,302 .3 553.3 Source: USMEF. September 2007. Figure 1 2 provides value loss share and illustrates the economic impact of the BSE on each segment of U.S. beef exports during the year 2006. As expected, fresh/chilled and frozen

PAGE 18

18 beef products represent the larges t share in exports revenues due mainly to premium prices paid by international consumers for U.S. beef cuts. Figure 1 2. Economic impact of the BSE b an across U.S. beef export products as January, 2006. Source: USMEF. September 2007. Today, U.S. beef ex ports primarily reflect demand for high quality fed beef, with most U.S. beef exports typically going to Mexico, Canada, and markets in Pacific Rim nations. The global U.S. beef exports are projected to increase slowly and recovery is assumed in the Japane se and South Korean export markets up to volumes similar to those before the first U.S. BSE case in December 2003. Beef trade flows among countries and world regions are determined largely by differences among countries in their resource base, their prefer ences for cuts, food safety issues, the extent and character of barriers to trade, and the industry structure. Future growth of beef trade depends on further liberalization of protectionist barriers, eradication of animal diseases, economic development, an d population growth. Beef Products $553,303 (57%) Live Cattle $31,929 (3%) Meat and Bone Meal $143,957 (15%) Pet Food $136,629 (14%) Fats and Greases $31,929 (3%) Tallow $47,033 (5%) Other Ruminant Products $25,755 (3%) Total Banned Amount = $ 970,495

PAGE 19

19 International U.S. Beef Promotions Purchase decisions are based on predictions of product performance. Consumers base their predictions in part on product cues and are accurate to the extent that they have properly learned the relatio nship between the cues and performance (Van Osselaer and Alba 2000). If consumers learn the relationship between product attributes and quality, they will differentiate among goods that possess different attributes and treat as close substitutes those that share the same attributes. During the past twenty years, the U.S. beef industry has experienced a slow transition from a traditional commodity selling perspective t o a more contemporary marketing driven sector. This evolution has encouraged the industry t o differentiate its products, review production processes, reorganize its value chain, and use a mix of price and non price marketing strategies in order to increase market share. Competition has become much more intense and the demands for red meat produc ts, in particular fresh, chilled, and frozen beef reveal the distinctive characteristics in product quality and production technology across exporting countries. Although only 12 % of the beef produced in the United States is exported, international market participation has an important impact on the industry because it raises the value of all products. It increases the number of customers which consequently boosts prices throug h a positive shift in aggregate demand and it allows packers to sell differentia ted products according to preferences in each international market, thus obtaining higher rents from those customers willing to pay global prices (Kinnucan et al. 1995). Advertising and promotion provide useful information necessary to facilitate purchasi ng decisions, and in some cases they are even used to change the underlying preference function for a particular product or service. Commodities in general, and specifically beef products, can be differentiated according to how consumers acquire informatio n and how this information affects

PAGE 20

20 Kong, and Taiwan, U.S. beef is highly appreciated because of its particular characteristics of taste, fat content, tenderness, an more than two decades (USMEF 2007). Studies before the BSE outbreak have shown that the most important characteristics for consumers of U.S. beef in these markets are that it tastes good, it lo oks fresh, does not have a lot of waste, and that it is USDA certified and inspected. Marketing oriented to recuperate market shares should reinforce these attributes, emphasizing the characteristics of the product in order to re build the positive percept ion about U.S. beef products. Promoting U.S. beef as a brand might be necessary to reach pre ban levels of consumption in these countries using product differentiation based on the attributes of the product rather than simply selling beef as a commodity. T he U.S. beef checkoff promotion programs have been an instrument for providing consumers with information about the attributes of U.S. beef. As in many promotion programs, the main objective of the beef checkoff program is to increase the demand for beef p roducts in the domestic market as well as internationally. The USMEF, the international arm of the U.S. beef board, has launched several marketing campaigns abroad to keep U.S. beef product s in front of consumers in markets that are still closed or to incr ease existing demand. Lately, efforts are aimed to overcome the trade barriers imposed by the EU on U.S. beef over the issue o f using hormones in cattle production, and age restrictions imposed by several countries in the Pacific Rim region. Problem Statem ent and Research Objective International beef trade has shifted from a domestic or sometimes regional commercial activity to a global network of buyers and sellers that continues to grow in complexity and importance. The international marketplace for beef products is influenced by several aspects including changes in consumer demand and preferences, national and international trade policies,

PAGE 21

21 macroeconomic characteristics of the country, and the increasing concern about the quality and safety of the food rea ching each household. Many studies have used trade models to estimate the impact of tariff and non trade barriers (NTB) policies on international commodity markets (e.g., Webb et al. 1989; Brester 1996; and Devadoss et al. 2006), where international grain embargoes, domestic price insulation policies, and food safety issues were the main reasons for trade disruption. These studies assumed that allocation of expenditure within a sector takes place in two stages corresponding to two levels of a utility funct ion. The upper level defines preferences based on the origin of the product differentiating domestically produced output and an aggregate of imported goods from all sources. Once expenditure is allocated to aggregate imports, the lower level defines prefer ences over different sources of supply. An empirical measurement of the import demands in each country is necessary to evaluate the impact of agricultural policies and to outline their implications. For this research, a Computable General Equilibrium mode l structure (CGE) based on previous research by Paul Armington (1969) is suggested. This specification is based on a theory of demand for products that differentiates them according to their kind and country of origin. The specification includes a one prod uct, eight region model in which elasticities of substitution for beef products from the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Rest of the World (ROW) to markets such as Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan are calculated based on annual data for 1995 to 2006. Elasticities of substitution are known to be key behavioral parameters for trade policy analysis; hence, estimation and analysis of these parameters is necessary since it provides essential information to understand better the demand for beef and trade policies. Changes in trade policy affect the availability of a product in a particular market; and the size of those

PAGE 22

22 impacts largely depends on the magnitude of the elasticity. Specifically, the elasticity of substitution in the Armington model is a ssumed to be imperfect according to a single constant elasticity of substitution and homotheticity of preference. These elasticities will provide a benchmark for CGE models of beef trade providing information about market share decrease, the effect of tari ff and non tariff barriers (NTB) (e.g., beef import ban), and other factors affecting the import demand for U.S. products. Under the assumption of national product differentiation, the main objective of this study is to look into the international beef ma rket, analyze the impact of the BSE outbreak (December, 2003) on the import demand for U.S. beef products in selected markets, and determine the role of U.S. beef promotions on recover ing pre 2003 international market levels in terms of value and volume. Specific objectives for this research are: 1. Describe the condition of the beef industry in the United States and overseas. 2. Analyze the structure of the international beef market. 3. Develop the theoretical demand and export supply models for beef products in selected countries. Model specifications should reproduce demand differences across countries s, product quality and non tariff barriers The specifications should also reproduce the supply capacity of each e xporting nation and the responsiveness to changes in average prices. 4. Perform an empirical demand analysis on beef using econometric models in order to get the input parameters or elasticities required to estimate the impact of trade disruption or and the effectiveness of U.S. beef promotions in selected markets. 5. Suggest potential improvements for beef marketing overseas and provide trade policy recommendations. Scope The purpose of this research is to estimate empirically the import demand and su pply for beef products for some of the most important beef trade partners of the United States. The model suggested takes into account factors such as governmental non tariff barriers policies, relative

PAGE 23

23 prices and values, total market size of the industry, and expenditures on promotions and other marketing activities. Yearly export and import data collected from the World Trade Atlas (Global Trade Information Services, Inc.) during the 1995 to 2007 period is used in this research. The quantities and prices of beef products from the four producing regions to the four importing countries will be analyzed at the H.S. 0201 and 0202 levels 2 that d efine meat of bovine animals as fresh or chilled and frozen. Market shares for each region will be estimated within the construct of the model to allow for the estimation of consistent parameter estimates. The analysis will clearly illustrate how consumers in selected markets differentiate product s by their origin of production and how promotions can affect market share s for U.S. products. Figure 1 3. Beef trade p articipation of selected countries from 1980 to 2007. Source: USDA ERS. November 2007. 2 Harmonized System code of the product (HS) 34.8% 22.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 Years Percentage of global market share Percentage of World Exports (U.S., Australia, and New Zealand)

PAGE 24

24 Finally, it is important to mention at this point that the scope of this research is limited to four importing countries: Japan, Republic of Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan; and four exporting countries or regions: United States, Australia, New Zealand, and the Rest of the World (ROW). Using the data set obtained from the United States D epartment of Agriculture, For eign Agricul tural Service (USDA, FAS), Figure 1 3 shows that in 2007 those four importing countries accounted for 22% of all beef imports and the three exporting countries provide d almost 35% of all beef exports in that year. Together, these two groups of countries are considered among in this research. Research Methodology A comprehensive literature review of the international agricultural trade, i n particular the beef industry, and commodity promotion theory will be conducted to formulate hypotheses and evaluate empirical findings. Topics related to international livestock production, beef processing, retailing, and beef marketing management will b e discussed to provide a theoretical background and facilitate a further analysis of the resulting data. For this study, an empirical demand analysis is conducted on beef products in selected markets. A parametric analysis that includes a global trade mod el based on one outlined by Armington in 1969 will be used to evaluate changes in trade flows in general equilibrium models. Parameter estimates from empirical demand models (i.e., elasticities of substitution) are used to simulate exogenous trade impacts (i.e., BSE, NTB, etc.) and marketing efforts aimed to compensate for trade anomalies. Price elasticities measure the responsiveness of trade flows to price changes. Elasticities of substitution provide the cross price elasticity between products from diffe rent origin and measure the degree to which lower prices would provide some goods greater market share in a particular market. Since one of the objectives of this research is to

PAGE 25

25 measure the impact of restrictive policies on beef trade, the size of those im pacts largely depends on the magnitude of the elasticity (McDaniel and Balistreri 2002). The methodology suggested for this research distinguishes products by place of origin and uses a Constant Ratio of Elasticity of Substitution (CRES) functional form to bring prices, quantity, and other factors into the model, in order to measure trade allocation and demand preferences for beef products. In this model, total import demand for beef will be determined for each country and then it will be independently allo cated among competing sources of supply (Sparks and Ward 1992). However, this model represents a non linear system with a set of equations that are non linear in the parameters and their corresponding restrictions within each set of equations. Econometric procedures will be used to estimate product demands and market share equations to assure consistency results. The resul ting model and its estimates will be used to develop a sensitivity analysis to examine the effects of changes in selected factors on bee f trade and consumption. Armington Trade Model In the international food market, countries are assumed to behave competitively and commod ities like beef are usually seen as homogeneous goods. That is, similar products from different origins are considered perfect substitutes and the corresponding price ratios are constant in that particular market 3 However, reality shows that consumers tend to behave and adopt food products based on well defined personal preferences constructed upon perceptions of the attr ibutes of the product which, at the end, make competing products behave as imperfect substitutes. 3 The assumption of perfect substitution among products implies the presence of infinite elasticities of substitution.

PAGE 26

26 A model which recognizes that commodities may be imperfect substitutes was developed by Paul Armington in 1969 to analyze the world trade demand for machiner y and chemical products using Japan and France as differentiated sources of production. Moving away from the goods representing a group of products such as machine ry, meats, or appliances. Within a group category, products are not considered perfect substitutes; they are differentiated based on their region or country of production, but due to similarities in their core attributes, they belong to the same category. Consequently, this model suggests that one country's beef market is likely to be composed of demands for beef products originated in several distinct and independent regions. The strength of these individual product demand functions is largely determined b y the size of the market in the demanding country and the size of each country's beef market is affected by many variables with the most important including national incomes, average beef prices in the region, population levels, and the prices of substitut e goods. Armington proposed that in order to determine the overall demand for any product in any particular trade area and calculate market shares, some fundamental assumptions must be is independent of those demands for products in other goods markets (e.g., U.S. beef and Australian beef). Thus in any exporter nation, each industry produces only one product and this product is different from the product of any other country (i.e., separ ability assumption) (Lloyd and Zhang 2006). Second, the model assumes that as long as the prices of products within a category remain constant relative to each other, the shares of those products will not be affected by changes in the size of that market. This assumption implies that changes in prices of competing products affect product demands only indirectly through their influence on the total market size and that market shares are not

PAGE 27

27 affected by price fluctuations (i.e., homotheticity assumption) (Yan g 1993). What determines these initial shares in the Armington model specification is, however, of major interest for this study. Armington noticed that some issues of substitutability might arise as a consequence of the presence of large number of supplyi ng areas competing in the same market. Consequently, in order to make the model empirically feasible, additional assumptions were introduced in the specification to limit the substitutability and simplify product demand functions: (a) elasticities of subst itution between products competing in any market are constant (i.e., Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) assumption), therefore they do not depend on market shares; and (b) the elasticity of substitution between any two products competing in a partic ular market equals the elasticity of substitution between any other beef products in the same market. These assumptions yield a specific and very restrictive form for the relation between demand for a product, the size of the corresponding market, and rela tive prices; and the only price parameter in this function is the single CES coefficient in that market (Armington 1969). However, as argued in previous studies, while these assumptions are very useful in limiting the number of parameters in the model an d facilitating the estimation process, they are e xtremely restrictive and somewhat unrealis tic (Winters 1984; Alston et al. 1990). The separability assumption omits prices of substitutes which are likely to be correlated with the own price elasticity (i.e. positive cross price elasticities). When prices of substitutes are omitted, the own price parameter estimates are positively biased so that the own price elasticities would be underestimated (Green 2003). Although the homotheticity assumption simplifies the model the same proportion to all products. If an increase in the budget is realized, it would be allocated

PAGE 28

28 more to the more preferred product. In other w ords, expenditure elasticiti es may not be unitary (Hayes et al. 1990). The single CES assumption restricts responses of the import demand of each product to the price change relative to the price index for the good to be the same for all products (Weathe rspoon and Seale 1995). In addition, under the CES assumption the level of differentiation among products is only established by the place of production which implies the presence of a weak separability between different import sources that entails the con decision process viewed maybe as occurring in two stages (Varian 1992 ) As a result, in 1989 introduced a two step process to estimate the demand for the pro duct examined. In a first step, the demand/expenditure of a group is determined regardless of the source of origin. In a second step, given the assumption of independence, this demand/expenditure is allocated among the identified suppliers based on the pla ce of origin and/or the form of the product. This stage is a function of relative exporter prices, and it determines the market shares that each exporter will have in each importing region. Therefore, one of the major considerations of the Armington model is that the marginal rate of substitution between any two products of the same kind is independent of the consumption of other kinds of products (Alston et al. 1990; Blonigen and Wilson 1999). In reality, product differentiation is based not only on count ry of origin but also is based on differences in quality levels between products produced in different countries and the type of products consumed in a particular country (Reinert and Roland Host 1992 ) A more realistic and less restrictive approach was su ggested by Artus and Rhomberg in 1973 using a Constant Ratio of the Elasticity of Substitution (CRES) in which the elasticities of substitution between any pair

PAGE 29

29 of competing products might vary by a constant proportion, but the substitutability between eve ry product is not necessarily identical (Hanoch 1971 ) This framework would allow for those suppliers who produce unusually high or low quality beef and those whose products are distinguishable, but not highly differentiated (Sparks and Ward 1992). The the oretical groundwork for a model that deals with the differentiated commodities as suggested by Armington (1969) has generally been limited to using single equation estimation techniques (Art us and Rohmberg 1973). However, Winters (1984) estimated the deman d and supply of these exports using both single equation and systems techniques. However, most of these stud ies showed little recognition of external shocks or underlying structural changes that could produce changes in the perceived differentiability amon g the competing goods. This study proposes the use of a CRES functional form to estimate the parameters of a beef trade model which distinguishes products according to their country of production and measure s the impacts of exogenous policy shocks and gen eric promotions on import demands for beef products in selected U.S. markets. The choice of the CRES as the appropriate system estimation procedure is justified given that it allows a constant ratio of elasticity of substitution between any pair of competi ng beef products, without restricting the substitutability to be the same between every product. Hence, the CRES function will fully exploit the mathematical attributes of Armington's theoretical framework and will yield more consistent parameter estimates than would a single CES functional form. Data Set This study will examine world trade in beef products over several years and evaluate several databases to cross verify the quality of the information used in the analysis. Yearly data covering the period 1995 through 2006 were obtained from the United St ates Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agriculture S ervice using the World Trade Atlas program developed to

PAGE 30

30 collect U.S. and international export and import data on agricultural trade. In addition, select ed demographics, national economic indicators, and information on tariff and non tariff barriers were collected using the FAOSTAT database from the United Nations, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). For eac h of the selected international beef markets, the World Trade Atlas database records import shipments using the Harmonized System code of the product (HS) 4 at the 0200 level, the volume in metric tons, the CIF 5 value in US dollars, the country of origin, a nd a text description of the product. In addition, yearly information collected from country specific sources (i.e., U.S. embassies, U.N., and OIE regional/country offices) through field representatives is used to complement the original dataset. Missing d ata information is the result of lack of appropriate statistical records at country levels and in our case they represent a minimal proportion of the total data set. Finally, the total dataset for this research include s around 25,000 observations from whic h market share equations are estimated using more than 2,230 observations containing demographic variables. Outline of Chapters The importance of trade as the underlying force behind globalization has been presented those affecting international beef markets. Chapter 1 thus provides the background for this project. Chapter 2 discuss es the international beef industry and the characteristics of e ach import and exporting market during the period between 1995 trough 2007. This chapter reviews each beef supply industry, demand for beef in each importing nation, and international regulatio ns. 4 Governments use HS codes to classify trade into discrete categories for customs duties and for cataloging exports/imports. 5 CIF prices include cost, insurance, and freight

PAGE 31

31 Chapter 3 provides a review of the relevant literature on agricultural trade and promotions. distinguished by place of production including a full description of the conc eptual model and discussion of the relevant econometric issues of the model. In Chapter 5, the final econometric models are estimated and statistical, graphical and economical interpretations of the findings are presented. Chapter 6 presents simulations of the effects on the beef markets of the changes in exogenous variables. Finally, Chapter 7 presents the summary and conclusions of the study.

PAGE 32

32 CHAPTER 2 WORLD BEEF TRADE AND PRODUCTION Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to present an overview of t he world beef market based on descriptive statistics and trade data gathered from public and private international organizations. In particular, in this segment the objective is to describe trade flows between a particular set of countries that were previo usly defined as regions of interest. The discussion that follows includes a description of the data set with specifications on classification and characteristics of the traded beef products. In addition, country specific demographics will be presented acco mpanied with an analysis of relative prices, expenditures on beef products by country, volume traded, market shares, and values of export imports during the period 1995 to 2007. International Beef Trade Data For this research, the data set is based on in ternational trade statisti cs from four importing and three exporting countries who reported quantities, import export values, and average prices for beef products in their respective markets. All trade data are expressed in metric tons (MT) and values in t housands of U.S. dollars. The data set for world meat trade was obtained from The United States Department of Agriculture, the Foreign Agricultural Service, and the Economic Research Service using the World Trade Atlas Program. This data set was developed by Global Trade Information Services, Inc. (GTI 2007 ) to provide information on inte rnational merchandise trade to governments and corporations. Existing studies on international food trade suggest that agricultural world trade can be divided into region s using the criteria of geographic differences, the pattern of trade flows, and regions: South and North America, Asia which includes South and South East As ia, East Asia,

PAGE 33

33 the European Union (EU), Oceania, and the Rest of the World (ROW) which includes less significant beef producing regions/countries. In order to collect and analyze the information from this data set, beef products are classified using the H armonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS) of tariff nomenclature, which represents an internationally standardized system of names and numbers for classifying traded products ( WCO 2008). According to this nomenclature, fresh/chilled and frozen red meats belong to the 02 group containing meat and edible meat offal. At this level, the code 02 is made up of all aggregate meat products and the objective of this study is to provide an analysis at a more specific level. Consequently, meat products of bovine animals are defined as part of the 0201 group if they are fresh or chilled; as part of the 0202 group if frozen; and as part of the 0203 group if they are meat of swine (fresh/chilled or frozen). The reasons for selecting these classification level s are mainly twofold. First, products within the 0201, 0202, and 0203 codes are the major U.S. meat export categories. Second, they provide an excellent base for applying the Armington specification for product differentiation. In particular, for this rese arch the 0203 code is mentioned only as a reference since the main objective is to focus on the impact of the BSE disease which only affects bovine animals. In addition, selected demographics, national economic indicators, and information on tariff and no n tariff barriers are included using the FAOSTAT dat a base from the United Nations, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). nd Research Board are included in this research to evaluate their impact on beef demand in selected foreign markets.

PAGE 34

34 This study deals with total trade data without regional bi lateral trade and re exports (i.e., Japan exports to Hong Kong or U.S. imports from Australia) to avoid the problem of double counting and demonstrate s the relative strength of each country in the international beef market. Therefore, exports of any given country to any partner country (or importing country) are defined as exports wi thout intra regional trade. The International Beef Market During the 13 year period under consideration, a number of significant changes have taken place in the world trade environment. One of the most important changes is the significant shift in the dem and for resources, in particular with respect to food and energy, from western economies to emerging Asian economies like India, China and many other nations on the Pacific Rim. These emerging economies are absorbing a large portion of the world supply of agricultural commodities helped by technological improvements in storage and transportation methods. For example, the average beef consumption in places like Hong Kong and Taiwan has increased almost 63% during the past 10 years while other developed weste rn nations have shown an opposite pattern during the same period. Beef exporting nations have shown a significant change in trade flows during the past decades. Before the 2003 BSE outbreak, the U.S. was considered among the top three beef exporting countr ies in the world with significant presence in Asia, Africa, and Central America. Today, Brazil is considered the largest exporter of red meats products followed by Australia, which clearly shows the economic impact of food safety issues and how countries a round the globe are adapting their policies to prevent future outbreaks. In order to see the impacts of these policy changes on trade patterns, this section shows beef trade flows between selected countries during the period 1995 to 2007 in terms of quanti ties traded, market shares, prices and expenditures, and consumption levels for the years before and after the BSE market restrictions policies took place.

PAGE 35

35 Volume, Share, and Growth of Global Production Tables 2 1, 2 2, and F igure 2 1 show the world total production by region, the share of each region, and the rate of growth for the years 1995 and 2007 in terms of quantities and percentages respectively. The world beef production totaled 48.53 millions of metric tons (M.MT) during the year 1995 and 54.48 M.MT during the year 2007, representing an increase of almost 11%. The Americas region concentrated more than one half of the world production with more than 50% of the share in 1995 and almost 53% in 2007, where the South American portion has shown the la rgest boost in production share with almost a 4% increase. In particularly, the North American region, which includes the U.S., Canada, and Mexico emerged as the largest producing region, while the South American region that includes Brazil, Argentina, Par aguay, etc., appears as the g region during the same years, Figure 2 1 Figure 2 1 T otal beef p roduction and s hares by r eg ion. Source: USDA FAS. January 2007.

PAGE 36

36 In 1995, the next largest share was for the European Union (EU) region with 18.5% followed by East Asia (10.3 %), Oceania (4.8%), Asia (2.6%), and the rest of the regions of the world with 13%. In 2007, however, East Asia (15.7%) surpassed the EU (14.7%) as the second largest producing region of the world followed by Oceania, Asia, and the rest of the world. With the exception of the EU and some small producing regions included in the ROW category, all other regions of the world show important advances in terms of quantity produced which guarantees a healthy supply and demonstrates the increasing importance of this commodity in Table 2 1. Compared world production levels and trade from 1995 to 2007 Source: FAS USDA. January 2008. Asia* represents values of South and Southeast Asia. Table 2 1 shows the imports to exports ratio 2007/1995, which is interpreted as a growth rate indicator for production le vels. Thus, production grew globally at a rate of 1.123 from 1995 to 2007 or in other words, the 2007 production level was 1.123 times the 1995 level. The Asian region shows the largest improvement in terms of production and that traditional beef producing regions, like North America and the EU, have been surpassed by competing regions, like South America and Oceania showing an important shift in the world beef supply. Using Figure 2 2 to support the discussion, production levels have increased at a rate of 1.2, 0.71, 0.33, and 0.25 times in Asia, East Asia, South America, and Oceania respectively, while the North American region, the EU, and the rest of the world (ROW) have shown small or negative increments during the same period. 1995 2007 2007/1995 Region 1000 MT % of World 1000 MT % of World Ratio S. America 9,9 75 0.206 13,235 0.243 1.327 N. America 14,363 0.296 15,514 0.285 1.080 Asia* 1,239 0.026 2,724 0.050 2.199 East Asia 5,003 0.103 8,574 0.157 1.714 European U 8,985 0.185 8,000 0.147 0.890 Oceania 2,347 0.048 2,921 0.054 1.245 ROW 6,626 0.137 3,521 0. 065 0.531 World 48,538 1.000 54,489 1.000 1.123

PAGE 37

37 Figure 2 2. Relative v ariation in growth rate of p roduction (2007/1 995). Source: FAS USDA. January 2008 Beef Trade Patterns This section presents a general description of each region in terms of trade, trends, and ratios between imports and exports volumes. Figure 2 3 and Tabl e 2 2 are used to compare levels of trade and explain the significance of each region in terms of imports and exports. The dataset shows that beef trade has expanded over time and that market shares between regions have changed. Rising demand for meat prod ucts in different parts of the world and increasing concerns about the safety of the beef supply chain have prompted nations to re define trade alliances in order to satisfy beef consumers and ensure the quality and safety of the products being traded. Usi ng trade statistics for the seven regions previously defined, it is possible to identify trade trends for the years before and after the BSE outbreak in December 2003.

PAGE 38

38 Figure 2 3. Pre and post BSE beef trade levels by region. Source: USDA FAS. February 2008. Exporting regions like North America, South America, Oceania, and Asia revealed significant levels of growth in their export markets, although in the case of the North America this trend drastically changed after 2003. Other regions such as Europe a nd the ROW presented an opposite trend, which is interpreted as a loss in market participation due to the negative impact of food safety issues affecting their supply chain, like in the case of t he BSE epidemic in the United Kingdom with al most 1,000 new c ases per week January 1993 (OIE 2007 ). Figure 2 3 presents the import and export quantities for years under consideration. During the year 1995, the major import regions were North America and East Asia followed by the European Union. These three regions i mported 1257, 1295, and 494 thousands of metric tons respectively representing 29.5% 1 30.4%, and 11.6% of the world imports respectively; during the year 2003, 2048 (39.6%), 1495 (28.9%), and 549 (10.6%) thousands of metric tons respectively; and in the y ear 1 Percentage share of world imports/ exports for beef products.

PAGE 39

39 2007 their import quantities were 2096 (37.3%), 1240 (22.0%), and 725 (12.9%) thousands of metric tons respectively. Together they comprised 71.5%, 79.1%, and 72.3% of the world imports for beef products, which once again illustrates the importance of these regions in term of beef trade. The quantities of world exports originated in South America, North America, and Oceania increased from 1995 to 2003 reflecting the growing demand for beef products in Asian nations, while European exports decreased due to food safety issues. During the 2003 to 2007 period, exports from South America dominated the world market, while exports from North America plummeted. In fact, the strongest region in terms of export growth was the South American Region. With a growth rate of more than 50% during the 1995 to 2003 period, South America exported approximately 28.9% of world totals; and during the 2003 to 2007 period this rate increased once again by almost 60% corresponding to a 44.2% of world totals. The North America re gion, while it increased quantities exported and world market shares from 1995 to 2003 by 31% and 19.7% respectively, in the next period decreased to 24.8% showing an absolute growth rate reduction of 9.2% in market share. Finally, Oceania also showed stea dy growth in terms of volume exported (1606, 1789, and 1965 thousands of metric tons respectively), although in terms of growth rates it showed a reduction during those years (29.4%, 26.1%, and 28.3% respectively ) Table 2 2 presents the import to export ratio for each region considered for this study. Thus, for a given year, a ratio with a value below 1 defines a p articular region as net importer and conversely, a ratio with a value above 1 describes a net exporting region for that year. Analyzing the obt ained ratios, it is clear that regardless of their production levels North America, East Asia, and, lately, the EU are considered net beef importing regions in terms of volume

PAGE 40

40 (quantity) traded, and that South America, Oceania, and Asia have maintained the ir characteristics of traditional beef exporter over the 13 year period considered for this study. Table 2 2. Ratio import to export quantities by r egions from 1995 to 2007 Source: FAS USDA. November 2007. Asia* represents values of South and Southeast Asia. In the case of the of the North American region, it is clear that after the 2003 BSE scare the trade ratio increased due to a significant reduction of the quantities exported by the United States and Canada, and to a strong domestic demand in the EU. Of particular significance is the situation in the East Asian market where the increasing import trend was disrupted and reduced by more than 50% after the BSE outbreak. On the other hand, after December of 2003, a positive ramification of this food safety issue can be perceived on the beef trade ratios from regions such as South America and Oceania characterized by their grass feed beef type products. Conse quently, it is important to describe the situation s in the North American region and the East Asian region, where the major U.S. beef markets are located ; and the Oceania region where competing beef products are produced in order to understand the dynamics of trade in this part of the world. Traditionally, t he North American region has been considered one of the largest beef producing regions of the world. The United States has been always been characterized a s a net exporter of beef in terms of export valu es, which before 2004 had generated a large trade surplus Year S. America N. America Asia* East Asia EU Oceania 1995 0.175 1.169 0.470 12.1 03 0.400 0.010 1996 0.270 1.082 0.107 11.819 0.385 0.010 1997 0.179 1.110 0.585 14.567 0.427 0.007 1998 0.190 1.220 0.386 14.893 0.503 0.007 1999 0.076 1.196 0.552 28.180 0.441 0.007 2000 0.085 1.238 0.355 32.979 0.647 0.008 2001 0.062 1.329 0.304 26 .396 0.684 0.009 2002 0.064 1.295 0.302 36.027 0.917 0.012 2003 0.041 1.307 0.294 41.528 1.253 0.010 2004 0.023 2.513 0.327 19.865 1.766 0.010 2005 0.020 2.241 0.222 14.842 2.810 0.010 2006 0.012 1.896 0.199 13.871 3.319 0.009 2007 0.010 1.784 0.221 12.525 4.143 0.009

PAGE 41

41 over the years However, U.S. beef imports have exceeded exports in terms of volume The United States ex ports high quality beef products and imports a large quantity of beef that is used to be comb ine d with domestic beef to make ground beef Much of the increase in beef imports has been due to competitively priced ground beef from Australia and New Zealand, the elimination of U.S. tariffs on beef from Canada, and the implementation of fresh beef quo tas for countries like Uruguay. Today, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada are the largest suppl iers of beef to the U.S. ( ERS 2007). Before December 2003, the East Asian region was the most important market f or the United States, importing 41.52 times more than it exported with most of the trade being concentrated between the United States, Japan, and the Republic of Korea. Today, beef imports from Australia and New Zealand have displaced the American beef presence in the Pacific Rim region although consume rs in these markets have always demonstrated a preference for U.S. beef (USMEF 2007). Lastly, the 2001 and 2002 cases in England and Belgium had a highly significant and negative impact on the EU beef industry causing EU exports to plummet. To summarize, based on the volume of beef traded, the fastest growing region s on the import side have been the United States, East Asia, and the European Union (EU), and on the export side, South America, Oceania, and Asia have shown the strongest growth on beef exports during the same period. Overall, trade restrictions due to decreased outbreaks have impacted global beef trade and traditional trading relationships. These circumstances have generated negative consequences for the United States and other beef suppliers b ut, in other cases, they created new market opportunities as in the case of Brazil and Argentina. In 2001, these two nations only accounted for 16% of the global beef trade, but today they account for more than 37% of the beef traded (FAS 2007).

PAGE 42

42 Consideri ng the recent political and economical changes worldwide, the supply advantages of each meat producer country and the increasing demand in different region of the planet, this study will focus its attention towards a beef trade model that includes four Asi an importing countries Republic of Korea (KR), Japan (JP), Republic of Taiwan (TW), and Hong Kong/ China (HK) and three exporting nations United States (US), Australia (AU), and New Zealand (NZ) and a region that aggregates the rest of the beef exp orting countries into a Rest of the Word category (ROW). These countries were selected according to the following criteria: the strength and manner of participation in the international meat market; the nature and scope of the BSE ban on their beef trade p atterns with the United States and its competitors; and the impact of international checkoff programs on selected Asian nations. The following sections of this chapter will describe the Pacific Rim Beef Market characteristics. This analysis includes statis tics generated from the dataset that will be used to evaluate and compare the selected nations, and to provide the background necessary for the study. Pacific Rim Demand for Beef Products Four Asian countries were selected according to the volume and valu e of beef products imported and expenditure levels on beef promotions by the exporting country. In this section each of the selected countries Japan, the Republic of South Korea, the Republic of Taiwan, and the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong/C hina is discussed separately in terms of production, imports volume, and consumption levels. Figures 2 4 through 2 9 present these statistics for the years 1995 through 2007 which are used to explain market characteristics of each participating country and provide a background for the specification of the Armington model.

PAGE 43

43 Republic of South Korea growth before and after the BSE scare in 2003. During the period between 1995 and the first half of 1997, the strong e co nomic growth in Korea positively affected the demand for beef impacting prices and, consequently, stimulating domestic production (Figure 2 4). According to a report prepared by the USDA FAS in 1996, government re gulated import policies aimed to protect impact on domestic cattle prices forcing the government to soften import regulations and allow foreign beef to access the market at levels well above the established import quota level. The economic crisis between the fall of 1997 and the beginning of 1999 further stressed this market forcing imports and consumption to drop 44% and 11% respectively. The effect of Korea's economic crisis on do mestic cattle production revealed itself in inventory trends and slaughter levels showing a peak of almost 11% in 1998 In 2000, beef into a year long downturn. Beef co nsumption plunged at the beginning of the crisis and then gradually recovered during 2001 showing a significant consumer demand for beef given the delicate economic situation. During the following years, total beef consumption gr ew steadily mainly due to an improving economy that helped to boost the demand of food products in Korea. Nonetheless, during the year 2003 a sharp decrease in beef consumption due to BSE concerns affected the demand for imported beef products, in particul ar from the United States and Canada. Official estimates indicate that beef consumpti on and import levels dropped sharply early in 2004 due to food safety concerns, including BSE and E. coli (FAS 2004) which is clearly revealed in Figure 2 4.

PAGE 44

44 In recent ye ars, the demand for beef has been on the recovery showing rising consumption and import levels. Today, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, and other beef exporting countries have displaced the United States as major beef supplier, although bilateral negotiatio ns are being conducted to reestablish the presence of American products in the Korean market. With respect to relativ e prices in the Korean market, Figure 2 5 illustrates a similar trend for American and world average prices for beef products during the p ast years. The increasing demand for American beef before the 2003 BSE announcement has pushed prices up, which is interpreted as a clear signal that consumers in Korea have a marked preference towards the unique attributes available only on U.S. beef prod ucts (i.e., fat content, tenderness, flavor, etc). Figure 2 4. Republic of Korea beef market indicators. Source: USDA FAS. November 2007. In the Korean beef market, prices for Australian products have shown a fluctuating trend with reduction of more tha n 42 % between 1999 and 2002. However, after the BSE outbreak in North America, Australian beef prices returned to previous levels showing an increase of more

PAGE 45

45 than 40%. These price fluctuations might be a consequence of the presence or absence of beef prod ucts from competing nations in the South Korean market. Despite the higher prices, beef products from New Zealand have shown an important participation in the Korean market, although during the past eight years a strong market competition has for ced its pr ices to drop more than beef import price. Figure 2 5. Average CIF prices for fresh beef products in Korea from 1999 to 2006. Source: USDA FAS. February 2008. Japan Beef m arkets in Japan have yet to return to level s reached before 1995, prior to the outbreaks of BSE in Europe and E. coli in Japan (Figure 2 6) Despite the dramatic effects the BSE scare and the E. coli epidemic have had on consumer beef purchases, total beef consum ption between 1996 and 2000 was clearly on the rise by more than 8.3%. However,

PAGE 46

46 Japa n's domestic beef production continue d its downward trend during the same period and imported beef continued to account for a greater share of Japanese consumption T he discovery of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in Japan in 2001 caused an immediate drop in consumption and reduced import levels during the year; ac cording to Japanese household consumption statistics, beef consumption for April and May (immediat ely after the BSE scare began) declined about 15% each month, while consumption of other meats declined only slightly. On the production side, almost ironically, the data showed an increase of nearly ivated by concerns that imported BSE infected beef may appear in the Japanese food supply. Figure 2 6. Japan beef market indicators. Source: USDA FAS. November 2007. After the 2003 BSE outbreak p ersistent concerns about the safety of imported beef forced the Japanese government to impose an import ban for all fresh and frozen beef from North America which deeply affected U.S. market participation since, prior to the ban, American beef

PAGE 47

47 accounted for one third of the beef consumption in Japan. Consequently, domestic production and imports from different sources, in particular Australia and New Zealand, have increased since then, but these sources of beef have been incapable of meeting the Japanese demand as show in Figure 2 5, resulting in a tight supply sit uation. Today, according to estimates from the USDA FAS, Japanese beef imports are expected to increase more than 10% between 2007 and 2008. The U.S. presence in the Japanese beef market has been almost insignificant compar ed to pre BSE levels due to trade restrictions that constrained American exports to cattle under 21 months old, in addition to high U.S. beef prices and consumer anxiety. Figure 2 7. Average CIF prices for fresh beef products in Japan from 1999 to 2006. Source: USDA FAS. February 2008. Less expensive Australian beef has been a major factor affecting U.S. market participation in the Ja panese market. As presented in Figure 2 7, American beef has been commercialized at higher prices in relation to Australian beef between 19% and 45% high er depending on the

PAGE 48

48 year considered. As in the Korean market, Japanese consumers have shown a strong preference towards American beef, which is translated into higher price levels. Following the same price trend, beef products from New Zealand have been priced above the average of U.S. and international price levels showing an important increase, in particular, after the December 2003 BSE scare. This circumstance has positively affected the demand for beef from grass feed cattle since cattle produced unde r this condition are less likely affected by BSE. Republic of Taiwan and Hong Kong Figure 2 8. Taiwan and Honk Kong beef market indicators. Source: USDA FAS. November 2007. Figure 2 8 includes data from the Republic of Taiwan and Hong Kong given that both countries reflect marked similarities in production, imports, and consumption trends. First, both

PAGE 49

49 countries do not have a significant beef livestock industry and depend heavily on beef imports to satisfy their domestic demand. The primary meat consume d in Taiwan is pork, where its consumption surpasses beef consumption by 17 fold. After a substantial decline in 1996 due to the BSE scare, beef consumption and imports rebounded significantly in 1997 showing an increase of more than 22%, as many consumer s substituted beef for pork following the March 1997 outbreak of foot and mouth disease (FMD) that devasta ted Taiwan's pig industry (FAS 2007). Beef imports increased again in 1999 by almost 11.5 % to 96,000 tons to match increasing levels of domestic cons umption. After 1999 and 2001, the substantial downward and upward trends on imported beef levels were the result of long downturn and the result of a growing economy that positively affecte d income levels leading to greater demand for imported beef products. During the year 2004, Figure 2 8 shows a sharp decrease in beef consumption 18.7 % mainly due to BSE concerns that affected the demand for imported beef products, in particular for t hose originating in the United States. In recent years, import and consumption levels returned to pre BSE levels, but the negative consequences on U.S. market shares are unquestionable since Australia and New Zealand are now the main suppliers of beef prod ucts In relation to Hong Kong, this special administrative region relies almost entirely on 109,000 animals during t he 1995 to 2007 period (FAOSTAT 2007). Accord ing to a report prepared by USDA FAS in 2004, Hong Kong is primarily a frozen beef market. T his preference is the result of

PAGE 50

50 have the time to purchase fresh meat daily, and the e xpansion of the food service industry (USMEF 2007). Figure 2 particularly stable even though beef consumption and imports were considerably down since early 1996 due ns over food safety issues. In March 1997, an outbreak of E. coli in Hong Kong's beef supply further discouraged consumers from buying beef though the E. coli bacteria were detected in ground beef originating from locally produced cattle. Demand fell almos t 14 % for all types of beef product s regardless of their origin ( FAS 2004). After these food safety in terms of imports and domestic consumption with 49 % and 42.1 % respectiv ely. The following F igures 2 9 and 2 10 show relative beef prices for Taiwan and Hong Kong. Of particular significance are the U.S. price levels, since they present a significant difference between pre and post BSE outbreak. American beef was considered a product of superior quality compared to competing products due to the fact that consumers were willing to pay a premium price. In fact, U.S. beef prices in Taiwan and Hong Kong were 15 % and 45 % more than the world average. Due to the 2003 BSE announce ment, beef prices increased rapidly as a consequence of the interruption in beef supply forcing traders to shift towards less expensive substitutes for U.S. beef the Australian and New Zealand grass feed beef to satisfy the increasing demand for import ed beef. In the case of Hong Kong, the market for U.S. beef responded quite differently after 2003 showing its highest prices during the years that followed the BSE announcements.

PAGE 51

51 Figure 2 9. Average CIF prices for fresh beef products in Taiwan from 199 9 to 2006. S ource: USDA FAS. February 2008. Figure 2 10. Average CIF prices f or fresh beef products in Hong Kong from 1999 to 2006. Source: USDA FAS. February 2008.

PAGE 52

52 International Beef Supply The present research is based on a trade model specification t hat follows the Armington model of product differentiation by country of origin using four exporting regions to formulate a beef trade model that compares beef products. Traditionally, the three major suppliers of beef products in the Pacific Rim region ha ve been the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. All other beef suppliers were aggregated and included in the model as part of the Rest of the World category with countries such as Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, and the EU community included in t his last group. In the following sections each country or region is discussed showing production capacity, consumption, imports (M) and exports (X) measured in metric tons (MT). United States As of December 2007, the United States is considered the third l argest exporter of beef products behind Brazil and Australia, and at the same time, it is also considered the largest importer of beef, specifically ground beef imports from Australia and New Zealand. According to official trade data on import and export v olumes, the U.S. is clearly a net beef i mporter. The ratios of imports to exports, during the last six years, support this statement in Table 2 3 Table 2 3. U.S. beef imports and exports volumes between years 2002 and 2007 (1000 MT) Source: USDA ERS. February 2008. Since 2 002, the United States has imported, on average, 3.41 times more than it has exported showing peak import levels right after the BSE outbreak. This represents the logical consequence of the ban on U.S. beef products overseas and the increasing domestic dem and in Year Imports (M) Expo rts (X) Ratio (M/X) %Production 2002 1459.66 1109.94 1.31 9.0 2003 1363.50 1142.15 1.19 9.6 2004 1668.77 208.65 7.99 1.9 2005 1632.48 316.15 5.16 2.8 2006 1399.33 518.91 2.69 4.4 2007 1384.36 649.09 2.13 5.9

PAGE 53

53 the United States during past years. The import bans caused U.S. beef exports to drop, and although some important markets re opened during 2004, export quantities for that year declined al beef exports or 2,026.88 million metric tons were commercialized in Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Canada, and Hong Kong markets during the years before the December 2003 BSE outbreak, but after that only Mexico and Canada remained among the major markets for U.S. beef, accounting for more than 65 % of total beef export volumes ( ERS 2007). A report prepared for the Kansas Department of Agriculture showed that in the very short run, cattle prices fell by about 16 % after the BSE announcement and that some in dicators predicted that U.S. domestic consumption could fall by 15 %. Nevertheless, in early 2004 U.S. domestic prices recovered showing that U.S. consumer demand and confidence had been minimally impacted (Coffey et al. 2005). Figure 2 10 illustrates the U.S. beef scenario in terms of total production, consumption, and exports of fresh/chilled and frozen beef products during the 1995 to 2007 period. United States domestic consumption increased by 8.5% over the period 1995 to 2007, while production slightl y decreased after 2004, by 3.3%, in part as a consequence of the loss of high quality beef markets overseas (USMEF 2007). Historically, the United States has exported about 10 % of its total production of fresh/chilled and frozen beef. World statistics on beef trade show that the United States had been considered the top beef exporter until the 2003 BSE scare, when Brazil and, in particular, Australia, took the lead as world leaders. Today in most of the previously considered U.S. markets, both Australia a nd New Zealand have taken an important lead while the United States is struggling to re gain market access. Current export volumes represent only one half of the 2003 monthly volumes due to trade restrictions imposed on U.S. beef by most of the major beef trade

PAGE 54

54 partners (i.e., restricted to beef from cattle under 21 months of age in Japan, under 30 months of age in Taiwan and Hong Kong, and a complete ban in Korea). Australia and New Zealand have benefited from the absence of American beef in Japan and Kore a, with 2006 exports increasing 17% over the 2003 volume (USMEF 2007). United States exports to traditional open markets such as Mexico, Canada, and Russia have increased by 33% in value and 17% in volume since 2003. The importance of the United States as an exporter has decreased since 2004, when only 1.86% of its production was sent overseas. Since then, that level has increased to 5.43% in 2007 with most of the markets located in North America and Eastern Europe. Figure 2 11. U.S. production, consumpt ion, and e xports of fresh/chilled and frozen b eef 1995 to 2007. Source: USDA FAS. February 2008. The year 2007 marked the fourth year of BSE related trade restrictions for U.S. beef products. However, in 2006 the World O rganization for Animal H ealth (OIE) declared the U.S.

PAGE 55

55 for U.S. beef in all countries. The OIE certification and the weak U.S. dollar have made U.S. beef exports more competitive overseas, giving American beef products a competitive advantage in relation to products from other beef exporting nations. As a result U.S. beef exports are forecast to climb over 19 % in 2008 to around 775,000 metric tons due to continued strong opportunities in the NAFT A countries (FAS 2007 ) Today, U.S beef maintains a strong presence in Canada and Mexico whi le slowly making inroads in Asian markets despite being impeded by a 20 month or younger age restriction in Japan and the current suspension of exports to Korea Australia rozen beef products have increased at a steady rate during the past thirteen years. Figure 2 12. Australia production, consumption, and e xports of fresh/c hi lled and f r ozen beef from 1995 to 2007. Source: USDA FAS. February 2008.

PAGE 56

56 The data set shows that Australian beef exports increased 23.4% and that domestic production and consumption increased by 15.7 and 24.8 % respectively over this period. These numbers reflect tha t Australia is a net beef exporter and that most of its production demand is located outside the country. Today Australia is the second largest exporter of beef products in the world, exporting almost 65% of its total production. Like the United States, Au stralia had focused its attention on markets around the Pacific Rim where it has a clear advantage over the Rest of the World beef exporting nations due to its proximity to most of the major markets in the region. S ince December 2003 Australia n beef has captured two thirds of the import market shares in the region as it filled the large market left by the U.S beef absence. T he current situation of ab sence or limited presence of U.S. beef in major Asian markets continues to present o pportunities for Austr alian products limited supplies due to a prolonged drought, limited range of cuts, and the increasing pressure from competitors (i.e., New Zealand) that have negatively exports are expected to decline by 3% during the next year as the United States regains markets in Asia and as Australia production declines (USMEF 2007). New Zealand Although a small producer of beef if compared to the United States and Australia, this nation has a significant importance as a world beef exporter due to its geographical location and its relatively large exports levels in relation to domestic consumption and production. New Zealand is a net beef export country, with around 79.3% of its pr oduction being exported overseas on average over the past 13 years and showing its highest peaks right after the 2003 BSE scare in North America with more than 81% of its production being exported. The average beef production during the period 1995 to 2007 was about 641,000 metric tons, showing a significant increase of more than 16% in production levels after 2002, while domestic

PAGE 57

57 consumption has remained stable within the same period representing 20.5% of its total production or 149,600 metric tons on aver age between 1995 and 2007. Figure 2 13. New Zealand production, consumption, and e xports of fresh/c hi lled and f rozen beef from 1995 to 2007. Source: USDA FAS. February 2008. As illustrated by Figure 2 13, during the year 2004 beef export results reflect ed soaring quantity levels to K orea and Japan as traders took advanta ge of the ban on U.S. beef. Consequently, expor ts to Japan and Korea increased 92 % and 99% respectively from January through August 2004 compared to the same period in 2003. D espite incre asing beef exports, New Zealand has orea's beef deficit due to its general inability to provide specific cuts and the quality of beef that have traditionally been supplied by the United States and Canada ( FAS 200 4).

PAGE 58

58 Rest of the World Brazil, Canada, Argentina, and other beef producing countries around the w orld have shown a solid growth i n their exports levels, in particular after the year 2003 with an increase of almost 28%. Economic growth in Asia, Eastern Euro pe, and nations from other parts of the developing world has boosted the demand for beef products which has also triggered global production. International trade has benefited from this economic bonanza as F igure 2 13 clearly illustrates a steady and posit ive trend of those indicators during the past 13 years. Thus, international beef trade, world consumption, and production levels have shown growth levels of more than 35%, 9.6%, and 12.6% respectively during the 1995 to 2007 period. Figure 2 14 Rest of the world production, consumption, and e xports of fresh/c hi lled and f rozen beef from 1995 to 2007. Source: USDA FAS. February 2008.

PAGE 59

59 Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) : Impact on Beef Trade nnouncement on major beef markets, the consequences for American beef exports and how this food safety issue affected patterns of trade. To facilitate the interpretation, each importing market is analyzed from the consumption and market share perspectives while country specific expenditures per capita on beef are used to understand BSE consequences in exporting nations. Figures 2 15 through 2 18 illustrate pre and post BSE per capita consumption of imported beef, as well as market share information for Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Figures 2 19 through 2 22 introduce the amount of U.S. dollars expended on imported fresh/chilled and frozen beef products in each of the four importing market with respect to a specif ic exporting country. Finally, F igu res 2 23 and 2 24 present a pre and post BSE trade volume matrix that represents trade patterns between each of the eight areas considered for this research. Consumption Levels and Market Shares According to the USDA FAS dataset used in this study, the R epublic of South Korea was considered the third largest market for U.S. beef products before the BSE announcement and accounted for roughly 19% of all U.S. beef exports on a volume basis and 22% on a value basis. In numbers, Korea imported more than $ 816 million worth of U.S. beef products during 2003, which represented a consumption level of 17.42 Kg (38.3 lb) per capita. Zealand, and the rest of the world (ROW) with 2 1%, 8%, and 2% of the imp ort market share respectively (F igure 2 the United States and its competitors were concentrated in the following categories according to their total volume: fr ozen boneless and bone in beef, fresh/chilled beef, and frozen edible offal.

PAGE 60

60 Figure 2 15. Korea imported beef consumption per capita and market shares. Source: USDA FAS. February 2008. After the December 2003 BSE scare in North America, U.S. beef export s to Korea were reduced to a little more than one million dollars during the year 2004. Consumption levels were also impacted as a result of this food safety issue, as presented in F igure 2 15, showing a decrease of more than 44% to 9.7 Kg per capita durin g 2007. Korea has the highest average price for beef products in the world, and the continued absence of U.S. beef has kept the domestic market undersupplied and prices high, resulting in a reduced overall per capita consumption. As expected, beef market shares have also changed as Australia and New Zealand captured the market portion lost by the United States. Hence, in 2007 Australia accounted for 71.7% of the import market followed by New Zealand, the U.S., and ROW with 22.2%, 4 %, and 2% respectively. Although the ban on U.S. beef was removed in September 2006, in practice,

PAGE 61

61 products are not yet moving into the market as Korea has been very strict in its enforcement of its boneless import requirements (USMEF 2007). Figure 2 16 summarizes pre and post B SE beef consumption and markets shares for the Japanese market. Prior to the BSE incident, Japan was the most important market for key U.S. beef products. In particular Japan represented the main market for products such as guts, tongues, intestines, and e dible offal, as well as the traditional fresh beef, and frozen boneless and bone in beef (USMEF 2007). Using the data available from the USDA FAS, the differences in volumes of U.S. beef exported to Japan between June 2003 and June 2005 indicate that the l oss of this particular market accounted for more than $967.3 million representing 46.8% in market share loss. Before December 2003, Australia accounted for 42% of the market, followed by the U.S., ROW, and New Zealand with 40%, 15%, and 3% of the import ma rket share respectively. Figure 2 16. Japan imported beef consumption per capita and market shares. Source: USDA FAS. February 2008

PAGE 62

62 The loss of confidence in the safety of beef products along the entire marketing chain and elevated levels of general co ncern for food safety have deeply damaged the position of American beef products in the Japanese market. U.S. beef exports to Japan have been limited to less than 8% of the 2003 monthly shipments since the marke t re opened on July, 2006 ( ERS 2007). In 2007 the United States accounted only for 6% of the market and Australia, the big winner, accounted for 82% of the import mark et while New Zealand and the ROW accounted for 8% and 4% respectively. Figure 2 16 also illustrates the changes in consumption within the Japanese market. Shortage of beef supply, unfavorable media reports, together with an unsatisfied Japanese preference for feedlot type beef produced in the U.S. accounted for the 18.5% overall decline in Japanese beef consumption during the period bet ween 2003 and 2007. Taiwan is mainly a pork meat producers. Therefore, it dependence on imported beef as major source of red meat is relatively small if compared to other Asian nations. This characteristic explains the reduced impact of the products. As shown in F igure 2 17 consumption levels dropped a little more than one kilogram per capita between 2003 and 2007. Taiwa n opened its market for U.S. beef products in February 2006, and by the end of that year total exports of U.S. beef to Taiwan increased 176% in volume and 142% in value over the previous year (USMEF 2007), which clearly shows the acceptance of American bee f among beef consumers in this country. Before the BSE scare, market conditions were relatively stable and Australia accounted for more than 37.4% of the beef market in Taiwan, followed by New Zealand, the United States, and the ROW with 31.3%, 25.3%, and 6.1% of the import market share respectively. At the end of 2007, the United States maintained a

PAGE 63

63 20% share of the Taiwan import market for fresh and frozen boneless beef, though bone in cuts and beef variety meat are still banned. As illustrated in Figure 2 17, Australia remains the largest player in the Taiwanese beef market followed by New Zealand with 26% and the ROW with 13%. Figure 2 17. Taiwan imported beef consumption per capita and market shares. Source: USDA FAS. February 2008 On the other hand, the situation in Hong Kong is quite different if compared to the rest of administrative region that depends almost entirely on China to satisfy it meat require ments. well above the rest of the countries in the region. In 2003, the United States was considered with 50% of the import market share followed by New Zealand and Australia with 12% and 5% of share respectively.

PAGE 64

64 Figure 2 18. Hong Kong imported beef consumption per capita and market shares. Source: USDA FAS. February 2008 economic indicators (per capita income growth and currency appreciation) contributed to a steady increase in the demand for imported beef products during the following years. In late 2005, Hong Kong resumed imports from t he U.S. of boneless beef products from cattle under 30 months of age only, while main China declared itself open for U.S. beef in 2006. In that year, Hong Kong imported 20 times more than the rest of China, which corresponded to 80,000 metric tons versus 4 ,800 metric tons respectively ( FAS 2007). This difference was also translated in terms of consumption levels of imported beef where China consumed only 5.4 kg per capita of imported beef, while Hong Kong consumed 20.6 Kg during 2007. In terms of market par ticipation, the ROW group has been the largest winner from the U.S. export ban absorbing 81% of the share

PAGE 65

65 from early 2004 through 2007. Th U.S market participation decreased to 7% while Australia and New Zealand kept a modest 6% of the market respectively Expenditures on Beef by Country of Origin In this section, expenditure levels on imported beef are used to analyze the position and relevance of each exporting nation. Figures 2 19 through 2 22 show related statistics in terms of U.S. dollars per capita for both the pre and post BSE announcements. Figure 2 19. Total expenditures on beef p roducts from the U.S. by country. Source: USDA FAS. February 2008. In the case of expen ditures on U.S. beef products, F igure 2 19 clearly illustrates that Japanese a nd Korean consumers have a manifest preference for grain feed U.S. beef products. Before the BSE announcements, these two countries were considered among the top three destinations for U.S. beef. During the year 2000, both Japan and Korea increased their e xpenditures on American beef by almost 14% and 43% due to the steady economic growth in

PAGE 66

66 Japan and trade barrier reductions in Korea. Although the 2001 BSE crisis in Japan affected domestic rather than imported beef, food safety concerns among Japanese cons umers had a dramatic impact on imports and expenditures on U.S. and Canadian as well. In Korea, changes in expenditures levels on U.S. beef products were related to the 2000 economic crisis that affected the country and erroneous government policies rather than related to food safety issues. The failure of these policies and the rebound of the economy helped U.S. exports and by the end of 2003 expenditures on U.S. beef were a t their historic maximum. After 2003 BSE announcements, the top U.S. beef markets w ere Taiwan and in some degree Hong Kong. As, of December 2007, these two countries plus the little trade with Japan represent expenditure levels of only $ 9.05 per capita down from the $ 36.90 level in 2003. Figures 2 20 and 2 21 illustrate a similar trend on expenditure levels on fresh/chilled and frozen beef from Australia and New Zealand, in particular during and after the year 2003. In 2004 expenditure levels on beef from these two countries increased more than 31% and in 2005 they increased once again by 27.6% and 11.4% respectively. However, during the next two years expenditures on New Zealand beef decreased first 5% and then 23.3%, while expenditures on Australian beef increased 5% in 2006 but decreased 15.8% in 2007. These f igures also illustrate th at Australia and New Zealand have different beef tr ade partners. In the case of Australia, Japan has been the major consumer per capita of its beef products. Before 2004, Taiwan was its second trade partner, but after the BSE scare Korea captured the statu partner. For New Zealand, Taiwan has been its major trade partner for the last ten years, as Kore a and Hong Kong interchanged second place until December 2003. Since then, Korea has beco me the second largest market for New Zea land beef due to the complete ban on beef imports from the United States, which forced Korean traders to locate alternative sources of beef.

PAGE 67

67 Figure 2 20 Total expenditures on beef products from Australia by country. Source: USDA FAS. February 2008. F igure 2 21. Total expenditures on beef p roducts from New Zealand by country. Source: USDA FAS. February 2008.

PAGE 68

68 Finally, F igure 2 22 shows expenditure levels of each importing nation on beef products from countries clustered in the Rest of the World (ROW) ca tegory. Until 1997 Hong Kong was part of the Commonwealth of England and all of it imports were made through the British authority. Since 1998, Hong Kong became part of China and most of it imports started to arrive from different places in the world, in p articular from Latin American countries, which after the 2003 BSE scare through 2007 remained the major beef supplier of Hong Kong in terms of expenditures per capita. The ROW region has been an important source of beef products for Japan during the years previous to the BSE announcement, but since then this region has lost importance for Japanese traders due mainly to the lack of enforcement of international food safety regulations and OIE standards. Figure 2 22. Total expenditures on beef p roducts from the ROW by country. Source: USDA FAS. February 2008.

PAGE 69

69 Pre and Post BSE Pattern of Trade Figures 2 23 and 2 24 present trade quantities by country and by trade partner nation for the years 2003 and 2007, which represent pre ach figure represents a coordinate system indicating three axes that represent trade quantities by importing and exporting country for the pre and post BSE announcements periods. Thus, the planes X, Y, and Z represent the demand, supply, and the quantities traded. Each market is identified with a particular co lor. As an example, looking at F igure 2 23, and the U.S. and Korea as beef trade partners, during the pre BSE year 2003 Korea imported 224,000 metric tons of fresh/chilled and frozen beef products from fresh/chilled and frozen beef imports and 46% of all U.S. exports to the region during that year. Following the same criteria to analyze trade relati ons among participant nations, F igures 2 23 and 2 24 are contrasted and discussed in the following pages. Recall that before the BSE scare the total supply of beef products in this category was about 1,031 ,000 metric tons and the United States was by far the l argest exporter to the region. F igure 2 23 reveals that more than 47% of all beef imported in this region originated from the United States and that Australia had a little more than 33% followed by the ROW and New Zealand with 13% and 7% respectively. In terms of value and volume traded, Japan was the main market for U.S. products but Australia was the leading beef supplier of this country during that of its total exports during that year, while exports to Japan represented 26%. In the case of Taiwan and Hong Kong, the figures show that they obtained a large percentage of their beef from the same set of suppliers, with Australia being the largest suppl ier to Taiwan and the ROW region in Hong Kong.

PAGE 70

70 Figure 2 23. Pre BSE ban trade scenarios for fresh/chilled and frozen beef in selected Asian nations. Source: USDA FAS. February 2008. During the following years, the BSE cris is in North America changed the way that beef products were traded not only in Asia but all around the world. Consumer concerns on the safety of the beef supply chain had a significant impact on the demand for grain feed beef products regardless of their o rigin. As a consequence, previous patterns of beef trade changed dramatically. Governments of almost all beef importing nations took drastic positions towards imported beef from North America, imposing a complete ban on a ll type s of exports from the United States and Canada, which have a direct impact on the total volume of beef available for consumption in the region. Comparing Figures 2 23 and 2 24 the negative shift on beef supply can be quickly observed. Total fresh/chilled and frozen beef supply was r educed from 1,031 million of metric

PAGE 71

71 tons (M.MT) in 2003 to 754 M.MT in 2007; the U.S. market shares decreased 40%, while Australian exports increased almost 38% during the same years. Figure 2 24. Post BSE ban trade scenari os for fresh/chilled and frozen beef in selected Asian nations. Source: USDA FAS. February 2008. Figure 2 24 illustrates that Australia, New Zealand, and other grass feed beef producing nations seized this circumstance to expand their market positions in t he region. Thus, in 2007 for fresh/chilled and frozen beef. Australia has largely profited from the absence of U.S. beef in Japan and Korea, as 2007 exports inc reased 18% over the 2003 period and as Australia has captured almost 94% of all beef exported by these countries. After the BSE ban, New Zealand became an important player in the region increasing its export levels from 69,000 metric tons to 98, 000 metric tons, which represented an increase of 29.5 % with respect to 2003 levels and

PAGE 72

72 having Japan and Korea as its main export destinations. Imports from the ROW region decreased 46% in all countries but in Hong Kong where traders concentrated their imports on a lternative sources, su ch as South America, resulting i n a significant 50% increase during the year 2007. Finally, although beef products from North America were totally ban ned shortly after the December 2003 BSE announcement, the United States managed to m aintain a small market participation, especially after 2005. Today U.S. beef exports are benefited by the strong economic growth of the Asian region as rising incomes lead to greater demand of high quality beef (USMEF 2007). For example, record U.S. beef exports of fresh/chilled and frozen beef to Taiwan during 2007 have surpassed 2003 volumes by 26%, for a total of 19,000 metric tons. In contrast, Japan, Korea, and Hong Kong today only represent 8% of the 2003 United States total annual volume of exports; while before the BSE scare they represented 97% of total U.S. beef exports. This significant difference is the result of trade restrictions that allowed only boneless beef and no variety meats under 21 months of age in Japan and under 30 months of age in the rest of the markets (USMEF 2007). As for fresh/chilled and frozen beef between December 2003 and the end of 2007, which represents a loss in value and qu antity traded of $1.627 billion and 431,000 metric tons respectively. According to USMEF and USDA FAS estimations, U.S. beef exports globally are expected to continue to increase, especially in Japan, Kore a, China, and Russia fueled by continued economi c growth, increasing incomes, and, more important, the OIE announcement that declares the United States access for U.S. beef in all countries.

PAGE 73

73 CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction This chapter presents a review of previous research on areas related to agricultural trade, food safety issues and policies, commodity advertizing and promotion programs, and the Armington model and its applications. Since this study focuses on international t rade and marketing the discussion in this chapter will provide a foundation for evaluating some of the issues affecting market access efforts and import demand for beef products from the United States Australia, New Zealand, and the Rest of the World in markets such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong International Beef Demand and Food Safety International beef consumption has increased considerably over the last three decades due to trade liberalization and more effective food safety policies. Since food is a necessity, consumers value the fact that their food is free of toxins, foreign material, and pathogens. Food safety concerns have increased as wealth has risen. Now that many consumers in the industrialized world have adequate quantities o f food, they (or their governments) can spend resources to ensure that their food is safer ( Jin et al. 2004). As of December 2007, the world has already been impacted by several food b orne disease outbreaks where BSE, Avian Influenza (AI), Salmonella, an d E. coli are among the most notorious and controversial. In the United States, the BSE disease remains a serious concern to the cattle and beef industry as traditional U.S. beef importers such as Korea and Japan have not yet fully opened their markets to American beef products. Coffey et al. (2005) argue that in the event of a widespread BSE occurrence there will be a large decline in domestic and foreign

PAGE 74

74 international beef markets. According to this report, the economic significance of animal disease outbreaks is also influenced by the degree of consumer response: fears that the disease can spread to humans can lead to sharp drops in consumption as was reported in Paci fic Rim nations. Similarly, Peterson and Chen (2005) e xplored the impact of BSE on the Japanese retail meat demand using a Rotterdam model that allowed beef product differentiation and found that effectively, the scare affected the demand for domestic beef (wagyu beef), domestic dairy beef, and imported beef from the United States and Australia. According to this research, Japanese retail meat demand underwent a two month transition period following the initial announcement and continued to adjust subsequen tly until it reached a new state within five months of the BSE announcement. Devadoss et al. (2006) employed a general equilibrium model to analyze the economic impact of the BSE outbreak on the U.S. cattle and beef related industries using different deman d scenarios in the domestic and international market. This study found that only if domestic demand declines significantly will the economic hardship in the U.S. industry be very large. Using a trade model that allows for imperfect substitution between goo ds, three different scenarios were analyzed in which the decline in foreign demand was in all cases 90 % and the decline in the U.S. market was 0%, 10%, and 25% respectively. Results showed that the impact of the BSE outbreak even in the worst case scenari o was not as damaging as it was in Canada, whose industry depends largely on the foreign market and exports prices dropped significantly. In the case of the United States since it only exports 10 % of its beef, reduction in foreign demand did not have a l ong term effect on the domestic industry in general, although cattle futures and beef cash prices declined 19% in the days following the BSE announcements.

PAGE 75

75 In 2007, Mutondo and Henneberry addressed the competiveness of U.S. meat products in Japan and Sout h Korea using a Restricted Source Differentiated Almost Ideal demand system (RSDAIDS). Economic (e.g., prices and expenditures) and non economic factors, (e.g., seasonality and outbreaks) estimate coe fficients were used to evaluate the demand for meat, and they showed that in the case the Japan the impact of the BSE outbreak had a larger and negative impact in terms of total beef consumption a nd the imports of U.S. product market shares, while in South Korea the impact only affected American beef products w hile total consumption remained at the same level. In the United States, the effects of the BSE events on feed and feeder cattle prices were analyzed by Marsh et al. (2008) using a structural econometric model that implies a system of simultaneous equatio ns to estimate relevant supply and demand elasticities at the feedlot and cow cal f levels of the marketing chain; and based on annual time series data from the USDA between 1970 and 2005. They found a strong correlation between trade disruptive policies (e .g., Minimum Risk Regional Rule MRR), market share sizes, and feed and feeder cattle prices. The results indicated that the demand for U.S. beef was affected to a much greater degree by the reactions of foreign governments to the BSE announcements than b y the reactions of U.S. households. F ood safety incidents in particular those related to meat products, have captured the attention of the media which have led to permanent changes in consumer perceptions about food safety and their food purchasing patte rns. In the case s of Europe and Asia, where the public outcry has been particularly strong, there have been changes in government regulations that have directly affected the demand for domestic and/or imported food products. For example, several studies ha the

PAGE 76

76 United Kingdom, Burton and Young (1996) investigated the impact of BSE on the demand for beef and other meats using an AIDS model which included indices of media coverage of BSE They found that the influence of negative press had significant effects on the allocation of consumer expenditure s among the meats. A short run impact was identified that accounted for a large portion of the perceptible drop in the market share of beef i n the early 1990s. Results also showed that t here also appears to be a significant long run impact of B SE, which by the end of 2003 had reduced the beef market share by 4.5%. Kinnucan et al. (1997) investigated the impact of health information and generic advertizing on U.S. meat demand using a Rotterdam specification and concluded that this demand is affected by prices, expenditures, and health information, but the effect of generic advertizing is less clear and not robust. Health information elasticities in general were larger in absolute value than price elasticities, which suggest that small percentage changes in health information have larger impacts on meat consumption than equivalently small percentage changes in relative prices. In 1998, Latouche, Rainelli, and Vermersch conducted a survey using a contingent valuation method to analyze consumer behavior in France after the BSE outbreak in the United Kingdom Their survey revealed that the BSE disease raises the problem of loss of public confidence in addition to the fact that beef consumers expected greater transparency from the industry and that they would accept paying for a system that guarantees the safety of the beef products consumed (w illingness to pay). Similarly, Verbeke and Ward (2001) in vestigated fresh meat consumption in Belgium during the period from 1995 through 1998 using an AIDS model which incorporated a media index to measure the BSE impact. They found that health safety scares have a strong and

PAGE 77

77 negative impact on beef demand, mai nly because of the negative publicity from the press and in particular the TV coverage of the issue. They results also showed that as consequence of the negative media, pork consumption increased significantly. Adda (2002) investigated the effects of past consumption of risky goods on current consumption patterns in France, using the BSE crisis as a natural experiment. He found that new health information interacts with prior exposure to risks. Consumers with intermediate levels of past consumption decreas ed their demand for beef and sought higher quality products, while low and high stock consumers did not alter their behavior after the crisis. In a number of experiments and surveys, consumers have indicated that they would be willing to pay more for food with lower risks of disease Hence, previous studies have found that U.S. consumers were willing to pay a premium of 15 % to 30 % per meal to reduce their risk of becoming ill from their meal and that consumers are willing to pay a premium for reduced pesti cide residues in produce (Buzby 2003). In a previous study, Jin and Koo (2003) suggested a three way approach to the BSE effect consumers or producers welfare and evaluating the economic consequences of the outbreaks. A non parametric approach was used by them to show that there has been an ongoing structural systematic ally moved away from beef to its substitutes. Ishida et al. (2006) investigated the impacts of the BSE and Bird Flu on the demand for meat products in Japan using the Almost Ideal demand system. A s expected, they found evidence that the appearance of BSE a nd Bird Flu cases in Japan deeply affected the structu ral demand for beef and chicken and have a positive impact on the demand for their closest substitutes (e.g., pork and fish products). This research

PAGE 78

78 showed that in the Japanese market, Bird Flu concerns although BSE fears increased consumer demand for chicken products. Empirical results also showed that both impacts do not persist over time and that in the short run the impact dissipates depending on the characte ristics of the disease (e.g., incubation period, cure rate, and infection risk) and the ability of the government to efficiently respond to an outbreak. Trade and Beef Markets Issues Global food trade will likely increase due to expected increases in inc ome levels around the world improved transportation networks, and growing populations requiring greater and safer quantities of food In addition, the creation of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT) has integrated global markets into an overa ll framework that affects not only the volume of goods traded but also the diversity of products flowing across nations. As a result, this ongoing process of trade liberalization has raised consumers concerns about the safety of food products (Bureau et a l. 2002). The USDA ERS published a report (Regmi 2001) that studied structural changes in international trade and consumption as a result of food safety incidents. It argued that following the resolution of the problem that caused a major international inc ident, consumer perceptions may be slow to change, and these perceptions have a lasting influence on food demand and global trade. Consumers value a safe food supply and recently food safety scares like the BSE or problem or the E. coli outbreak have raised awareness about food safety issues. Food safety regulations and the perception of risk are different among countries. Even if the food safety risks are t he same across countries, countries may perceive and handle these risks differently which can lead to persistent trade frictions and even reduce food trade (Buzby 2003) Although little disruption to trade has occurred for food safety reasons (considering the total

PAGE 79

79 volume of food trade), trade issues related to food safety are wide ranging. These issues and crises challenge policymakers and industries to both protect domestic food supplies and nurture international markets. Meanwhile, consumers in develope d countries are demanding safer food which lately has become an important issue in public policy both domestically and internationally. The safety of food is a credence characteristic which gives rise to a particular form of market failure involving eithe r asymmetric information and moral hazard or symmetric imperfect information (McLaren 2006) Risk reduction measures and quality certification programs can not only anticipate food safety crises, but can better position exporter s in emerging overseas marke ts ( ERS 2007). Beef trade represents a complex pattern of business and regulations that have dramatically changed during the past years as a consequence of raising trade barriers aimed to increase food safety and protect domestic production. As result of t hese circumstances, trade between the United States and its major trading partners is deeply distorted by a wide variety of foreign measures. These distortions include a growing disparity in the respective regulatory regimes between trade partners, particu larly with respect to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and a diverse array of tariff and subsidy policies that influence global beef trade flows. In the past, different studies have approached the circumstances affecting the flow of products b etween regions and countries. Economic theory has explained trade based on comparative and absolute advantage assumptions, resource allocation and factor endowments, and government policies that affect the degree to which trade is conducted among nations. Basically, international trade allows countries to specialize in the production of those goods (commodities or products) in which they have a comparative advantage, thus increasing domestic welfare in terms of production and capital returns (Bhuiyan 1993). At the same time,

PAGE 80

80 industries and governments are constantly seeking and en forcing the policies necessary to participate in the international market while protecting local markets from foreign competition. Many studies from different countries have focuse d their attention on beef trade and the economic impact of the policies designed to address food safety issues. For example, in 2003 Poulin and Boame from the Canadian Business and Trade Statistics Department focused their efforts to measure the economic i mpact of the May 2003 BSE announcement on cattle production, domestic prices and beef exports to United States and Mexico, since Canada exported more than 92 % of its production to these countries. As a consequence of this outbreak, beef exports fell virt ually to zero during the following months affecting entire supply chain from the breeders to the meat packing plants. The immediate loss in terms of trade represented almost $ 1 billion, with most of this loss concentrated in the fresh beef U.S. market whe re 30% of the beef imported came from Canada. Other impacts were found at the domestic level where the collapse of exports triggered an increase in beef supplies and a fall in prices that generated a 50% drop in cattle prices, although consumers did not se e a significant drop in the price of beef at the retail price which clearly shows a price asymmetry effect of the embargo. Differences in what food products countries want and what they will accept in imported food ultimately affect patterns of food demand and global trade, and complicate the development of workable trade rules that are acceptable to different trading partners (Buzby, 2003) The effect of trade barriers on consumer demand for traded goods of different quality was approached by Bureau et al. (2005) under the assumption that s pecific tariffs a nd tariff rate quotas (TRQ) have an e ffect in the composition of imported goods due to a variation of the price ratios between products of different quality. The study used a standard Constant Elasticity o f Substitution (CES) function to deal with differentiation, where the parameters represented

PAGE 81

81 preferences for the different qualities in beef product imports data from Mercosur countries t h e study shows that TRQ s have a significant impact on the average quality of exports demonstrating that under specific tariff reduction low quality beef (Brazil) is maximized, while high quality beef (Argentina) tr ade is maximized with large TRQ s. The research concludes that the use of tariff dispersion policies impose a proportionally higher protection on low unit value products, and have a quality upgrading effect on imports. A cut in these tariffs may therefore change the composition of imports towards lower unit value product s. Coffey et al. (2005) analyzed the BSE incident on the wholesale sector of the U.S. beef industry. Specifically, the research estimated economic losses to the U.S. beef industry caused by increased regulatory costs and reduced exports to Japan and South Korea. These losses were estimated using excess demand and excess supply relationships coupled with price elasticity estimates previously reported in other studies. Changes in the excess demand and supply functions caused by the BSE cases were used to cal culate changes in producer and consumer surplus. International Beef Promotions Agricultural commodities are considered less differentiated goods and are generally advertised through some type of cooperative effort that includes several sectors of the supp ly chain such as producers, processors, and exporters (Forker and Ward 1993). Under this cooperative scenario, adverti s ing and promotion of commodit ies is known as generic advertis ing and it was defined by Forker and Ward as the promotion of a nearly homog eneous product to disseminate information about its underlying characteristics to existing and potential consumers for the purpose of strengthening demand for the commodity. Competition in the international agricultural market has become much more intense, triggering innovation and transformation inside the industry. As a result of this, a non segmented

PAGE 82

82 sophisticated industry. In this contest, commodity advertising is used to influence market shares and, where necessary, to increase the volume of information about product attributes demanded by consumers (Ward and Lambert 1993). Agents, along the food supply chain, have learned how to differentiate and increase the value of their products (e.g., live animals and meat products) in order to build demand and increase financial profits for the firm. Advertising and promotions, which often highlight production and marketing practices, are examples of the methods that comp anies and individuals have utilized to set their product apart in order to meet the needs and desires of specific consumer segments (Allen and Pierson 1993 ). The fresh beef market is a good e xample of this practice where exporting countries and their agent s have learned to differentiate their beef cuts using particular attributes as central message in their marketing campaigns (e.g., In markets suc e Car consumer confidence in U.S. beef using a range of advertising and consumer events. According to the USMEF, the objective of the campaign was to counter the negative emotions generated by e U.S. industry. The campaign highlighted the concerns of the entire U.S. beef industry in delivering safe and quality beef products for consumers and retailers, and provided updated information on BSE prevention systems being implemented in U.S. plants ( USMEF, 2007). Commodities in general, and in our case beef products, can be differentiated according to search goods consumers have an active participation searching out the product attributes which can be observed at the time of purchase

PAGE 83

83 (e.g., price, color, size). Alternatively, experienced goods are those where the attributes can be observed at the time of consumptio n (e.g., taste, tenderness, fat content) and influence credence goods include attributes that are not explicitly observed in the product (e.g., safety: antibiotic and pesticide residues; heal consumer credibility of the claims made about the product is influenced by a high level of confidence i n the effectiveness of the systems in charge of creating and monitor ing the product (Codron, Sterns and Reardon 2003). Purchase decisions are based on predictions of product performance. Consumers base their predictions in part on product cues and are accurate to the extent that they have properly learned the relationship between the cues and performance. If consumers learn the relationship between product attributes and quality, they will differentiate among products that possess different attributes and treat as commodities those brands that share the same attributes. Onc e the predictive rule is learned, it may be applied to any existing or new product that possesses the same set of attributes (Van Osselaer and Alba 2000). Advertising and promotion provide this information facilitating purchasing decisions, and in some ca ses they even change the underlying preference function for a particular product or service. Depending on the characteristics of the product, potential buyers, and the scope and beneficiaries of the marketing campaign, there are two types of advertising an d promotion of commodities: generic advertising, a cooperative effort among producers designed to collectively increase the primary demand (i.e., the size of the pie) of a product by advertising the attributes and characteristics of the product, without in fluencing the market sha re of any producer (e.g., Beef check off program, Florida citrus, Washington apples); and brand advertising designed and

PAGE 84

84 product from other suppliers in order to increase the market share of the brand within the same industry (Ward 1997). For example, previous market studies conducted by the USMEF (2007) on beef demand in Japan have shown that the most important characteristics of food products were that they taste good and be guaranteed safe to eat, while the most important characteristi cs of beef products were that they look fresh, not have a lot of waste, be certified as USDA inspected, and be free of chemical residues and foodborne h azards. New marketing programs sponsored by the USMEF adding value, and imp roving presentation in order to build a positive perception about branded products. In the case of U.S. beef exports, producers and trade agents have been able to differentiate American products from other sources (e.g., Australia and New Zealand) due to continued efforts Kong. If safety is a concern, experimentation is not an option and consumers look for assurance about the safety. Quality assurance through industr y seals and government inspection may solve some of the problem. Even with safe products, some attributes cannot be judged through experience. These credence attributes must be identified through means other than consumption, and branded beef products may capture shares of a market through a consistent message about one or more credence attributes (Ward and Lambert 1993). For example, brands emphasizing U.S. produced beef may capture some loyalty even with the generally homogeneous nature of the product gro up. Thus, specific beef products within a generally common product category may

PAGE 85

85 growth in product differentiation within the beef group. In 2008, Kinnucan and Myr land disputed the concept that country of origin or 'brand' advertising should be more profitable than generic advertising in that it enhances product differentiation a nd reduces free riding. They argued that unlike generic advertising, brand advertising d ecreases the demand for competing imports and lowers their prices when supplies are upward sloping. In addition to inviting retaliation, the decline in the prices of competing products erodes the price of the advertised product through second round or 'mar ket feedback' effects. Using the U.S. beef promotion program in Japan they showed that generic advertizing is more profitable in most cases and that the gross benefits are distributed across exporters in proportion to the expenditure elasticities. Herrmann Thompson, and Krischik (2002) examined the impact of generic promotion s on Bavarian beef demand during the BSE outbreak in Europe and empirically evaluated the potential off setting effects of advertising and promotion (positive) and heightened food sa fety awareness (negative). Previous studies have treated advertising as a slope shifter that alters the price elasticity of demand For this research, they introduced an information variable as an intercept shifter. This new variable consisted of generic p romotion as well as BSE information that allowed a direct comparison of their respective effects on the demand for "Bavarian" beef. Model estimates showed that advertising expenditures increased (4.6%) consumer demand for Bavarian beef and the benefit cost ratio of the program was well above unity. Despite this success of the program, the negative demand effects of food safety concerns as measured b y BSE information were stronger (6.9%). Hence, generic promotion could only compensate partly the

PAGE 86

86 inward shift in per capita beef demand induced by both BSE information and longer term consumer preference changes away from beef (15.2%) preferences for meat (e.g., beef and pork) and fi sh, announcement. They used a switching AIDS model and a sample period that covered January 1994 through May 1998. Preference shifts due to the BSE scare reduced expenditure shares for beef, minced meat and meat products by 2.5, 3.3 and 7.9 percentage points respectively. There were offsetting gains in t he shares of pork, prepared beef, and fish. They concluded that changing preferences over the whole period reduced beefs share by 4.9 percentage points and increased those o f poultry, prepared meat, and fish by 4.1, 4.9 and 5.2 percentage points respectively. Cong, Kaiser, and Tomek (1998) evaluated the effectiveness of the U S government non price promotion programs on U S exports of red meat to the Pacific Rim: Hong Kong South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan using pooled time series and cross sectional data. An estimated import demand equation was used for in sample simulations to address the question of what would have happened if the current promotion expenditures had bee n reallocated among the four countries. The calculated rates of return to promotion investment were computed and estimates showed that a 50% increase in expenditures increased returns by $47 on average. Also, they found that South Korea is the only market in which meat promotion appears to be effective. Generic advertising describes promotional activity in markets that are comprised of homogenous, highly substitutable products. Often, such products are not branded, so consumers are not inclined to choose o ne variety over another. However, in the case of the promotion of U.S. beef products, it may imply higher product differentiation and represent an important

PAGE 87

87 transition from the generic idea of selling beef as a commodity to a campaign involving market segm entation and target marketing of specific consumer segments. According to Phillip Kotler (2002) market segmentation may be described as an assumption that all consumers are unique and the needs of individuals may not be satisfied with a mass marketing app roach. Similarly, target marketing may be defined as a market segment profiled by its demographic, economic, and psychographic characteristics so that marketing opportunities may be evaluated. The precise nd attributes, as well as the demographic and non demographic variables influencing consumer selection and decision making process, would be useful in developing marketing and merchandising strategies. Chakravarti and Janiszewski in 2004 examined the infl uence of generic advertising on primary demand and brand preferences. They concluded firstly that generic advertising can increase or decrease the perceived differentiation among competing branded products and, thus, influence consumers choice. Second, inc reases in differentiation occur because generic advertising increases or decreases the weight consumers place on differentiating or non differentiating attributes. Generic advertisements that discussed a differentiating attribute decreased access to infor mation about the non differentiating attribute, which resulted in an increase in the importance of the differentiating attribute and increased price responsiveness. The importance of U.S. beef promotion programs within the four Asian nations considered in this study differs considerably and likely has evolved over time representing major implications for the beef industry and it s marketing strategies. Brands may segment the market and may or may not grow total demand for the product category. Such progra ms are often mandatory, where producers or exporters of a promoted good (i.e., beef) must contribute to the designed to avoid free riders In 2005,

PAGE 88

88 Carwell estimates that for every $500 million spent each year on U S agricultural promotion programs, the average cost to farmers is U S $1000. The Armington Trade Model Using economic models to evaluate changes in agricultural trade policy generally requires the conversion of policy changes into price effects. The Armington m odel use s these price shifts to determine how policy is expected to affect output, employment, trade flows, economic welfare, and other variables of interest (Jung 2004) The direction and magnitude of a trade policy change on individual variab les depends on the size of the shock as well as the behavioral relationships present in the economy. When evaluating policy shifts within an economic model, these behavioral relationships largely take the form of elasticities reflecting price responsivenes s of one set of variables to a change in a second set ( McDaniel and Balisteri 2002). Prices of goods produced in different countries do not typically move together. This behavior was first pointed out by Armington (1969). Ever since, it has become a stand ard practice among empirical trade researchers to treat goods produced in different countries differently and to assume a constant elasticity of substitution among them. Such elasticity for example, the elasticity of substitution between the basket of U. S. goods and that of Australian goods is referred to as the Armington elasticity (Lloyd and Zhang 2006) As a result, a key relationship for model analysis is the degree of substitution between goods according to their origin. In general, knowledge of el asticities is important for policy considerations. Changes in The size of these impacts will largely depend on the magnitude of elasticities. In 1990, Duffy, W ohlgenat, and Richardson studied the price elasticities of export demand for U.S. cotton and estimated feedback effects of U.S. prices on competing countries. T he usual Armington framework was extended to account for finite elasticities of export supply fr om U.S.

PAGE 89

89 competitors. The resulting "total" elasticities were more realistic for evaluating the effects of U.S. policy changes. Accounting for feedback effects of the U.S. price on other countries' cotton prices had a significant impact on the estimated exp ort demand elasticity. They concluded that for commodities such as cotton, for which the United States accounts for a large share of total world trade, the conceptually relevant elasticity for policy analysis is the total export demand elasticity because i t takes into account the feedback effects of the U.S. price on other countries' prices. Solomon and Kinnucan (1993) estimated the effects of government subsidized export promotion on the demand for U.S. cotton in the Pacific Rim (e.g., Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Hong Kong, and the Philippines) using an Armington type trade model. The results of this study showed a significant relationship between promotion expenditures and U.S. market share in four of the six countries examined. One of the two co untries exhibiting a non significant effect had very low promotion expenditures (Taiwan), suggesting that a minimal level of funding may be necessary to achieve a market response. The results also showed that export promotions have a carryover period lasti ng beyond one year, contrarily to what previous studies showed. They concluded that non price promotion is a viable policy instrument for increasing agricultural export and that the impact of export promotion on domestic producers and taxpayers still is un clear. Shiells and Reinert (1993) disaggregated U.S. imports into those from the NAFTA members and those from the rest of the world (ROW). Using quarterly data over 1980 1988, they obtained estimates for 128 mining and manufacturing sectors. Elasticities w ere estimate d using three specifications: (1 ) generalized least squares estimation technique, based on a Co bb Douglas price aggregator; (2 ) maximum likelihood estimation using a CES price aggregator; and, (3 ) a

PAGE 90

90 simultaneous equation estimator that uses a C obb Douglas price aggregator and employs a distributed lag model. Shiells and Reinert found the estimates to be relatively insensitive across the three alternative estimation procedures. Satyanarayana and Johnson (1998) empirically estimated the impact of export credit guarantee programs on U.S. wheat exports to major international recipients. An Armington demand specification was used to estimate U.S. shares of the wheat import market in six countries including the values of the credit guarantees as an add itional explanatory variable and used as a utility shifter proxy. An optimization framework was formulated to address the allocation of credits guarantees to optimize U.S. exports revenue. Results indicated that export credit guarantees raised the U.S. sha re in all six markets and based on the optimal allocation of the credit resources a revenue increase of $200 million should be expected if compared to previous years. Marginal effects showed that countries such as Brazil and South Korea are less responsive to credit guarantees increase, while market shares in Mexico and Tunisia will quickly respond to any increase in credit guarantees. Kapuscinski and Warr (1999) estimated the elasticities of substitution between imported and domestically produced forms of over 30 commodities in the Philippines that were intended for use in a 50 sector computable general equilibrium (CGE) model for the Philippine economy. Changes on tariff applied to imports were also included in the model to determine the resource or expen diture allocation between goods from different origins. For this research, an OLS based Armington specification was contrasted with other models to overcome the problem of incomplete adjustments in the marke t prices. Partial Adjustment Models (PAM) and Err or Correction M odels (ECM) were estimated. The PAM model attempts to measure economi c cost in response to quantity adjustments due to price changes. The ECM model emphasizes the time

PAGE 91

91 series characteristics of variables and postulated that non stationary va riables may form a stationary relationship in the long run that is called co integrating relationship. Results showed that dynamic models in estimation of Armington elasticities are preferred and, in this particular research, the ECM provided the most adeq uate characterization of the process of substitution between imports and domestic production. Gallaway, McDaniel, and Rivera (2003 ) developed a disaggregated set of Armington elasticity estimates. The authors consider explicitly the long run aspect that is applicable to applied partial and general equilibrium modeling. They provide estimates for 311 industries at the 4 digit SIC level over the period 1989 to 1995. Significant long run estimates range from 0.53 to 4.83. Long run estimates are up to five time s as large as short run estimates, and on average twice as large as the short run estimates. This is important since long run estimates are more appropriate for most trade policy analysis than short run estimates. Saito (2004) used two versions of Armingt on specifications (one for studies using multilateral trade data, and the other for those using bilateral trade data) to identify discrepancies between elasticities obtained from multilateral trade data and those obtained from bilateral trade data especial ly when trade consist largely of intermediate inputs. The author argued that the growth of outsourcing and associated changes in the composition of intermediate inputs trade may not be captured in multilateral trade data and hence may result in a bias in t he estimates obtained from these data. The Armington specification certainly attracts most of the critics on the CGE approach. In fact this specification entails two main constraints: first, it imposes an unique and constant substitution elasticity betwee n all pairs of goods from the different countries (including domestic goods), while there are good reasons to consider the case of changing elasticity of subst itution

PAGE 92

92 among some goods and that substitution elasticities may evolve with quan tities (Hillberry et al. 2006) ; and second, this specification does not acknowledge zero trade flows (Fmnia and Gohin 2007). In order to tackle thes starting econometric point is the methodology explained by Golan, Perloff and Shen (2001) who estimate by Generalized Maximum Entropy (GME) an AI demand system for the Mexican meat consumption allowing zero purchases by individual households. As they demonstrate, this GME approach is really useful in order to introduce (in) equality con straints on the parameters and thus is well suited to the analysis of corner solutions. In summary, the present study of the world beef trade will simultaneously estimate market and product demands as well as the market shares for each of the competing bee f suppliers. independently allocated among competing sources of supply or beef products. The use of a systems estimation technique will yield parameters that are less biased than if the simple Armington Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) were used. Instead, a CRESH specification based on previous work by Sato (1967), Hanoch (1971), and Sparks and Ward (1992) will be applied to calculate the impact of non tra de barriers (NTB) based on food safety issues. Analysis of the demand parameters will likely indicate the future pattern of trade between the nations considered. Results will be used to understand the forces driving the international market for beef produc ts and analyze the implication of the policies applied to prevent the dissemination of food born diseases.

PAGE 93

93 CHAPTER 4 EMPIRIRICAL TRADE MO DEL FOR BEEF PRODUCT S Introduction In this chap ter the conceptual framework is to estimate the demand for fresh/chil led and frozen beef products in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong from the United States, Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the world. Specifically, this study estimates the im pacts of economic variables ( prices and expenditures) and non econo mic variables (animal disease outbreaks and beef promotions) on product demands and market shares for U.S. beef products compared with beef from other sources. Using an Armington specification, the model suggested for this study is based on the premise tha t changes in trade flows can be distinguished not only by their kind but also according to their origin or place of production Beef Trade Schematic Representation Before turning to the specific nature of the substitutability among beef products, it is us eful to employ a generalized trade system that will be adopted for the present study. Accordingly, the schematic representation in F igure 4.1 displays the causal relationships between prices and quantities of beef products (fresh and frozen), two market re gions (supply a nd demand markets) consisting of a set of four exporting countries and four importing countries respectivel y, which is set forth for a one way trade. Figure 4.1 shows the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and the Rest of the World as su ppliers of beef products ( ) with prices ( ). The total supply of beef products is constrained to equal total demand in the importing markets for beef products ( ), which in this trade system is formed by South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. The average pr ice paid for beef in a given importing country is ( ) and is defined in Equation 4.7 Thus, the objective of this model is to obtain product demands and market shares in each importing market for beef products differentiated by the country of origin

PAGE 94

94 Figure 4 1. Schematic representation of the Armington trade system for beef products in selected countries of the Pacific Rim region. Prices are the crucial link to allocate products and t heir impact on product demands and market shares are presented in E quation s 4 17 and 4 19 respectively and are considered exogenous variables. Within this framework, there are several relationships operating to equilibrate product demand and supply. The r esulting econometric model represents a non linear system and parameters restrictions within each set of equations. Econometric procedures will be used to estimate product demands equations and assure the consistency and un biased Australia New Zealand Rest of the World United States Total supply for beef products Total demand for beef products Hong Kong (4) Taiwan (3) Japan (2) South Korea (1) ( Product Demand ) (Mkt. Shares) ( Product Demand ) (Mkt. Shares) ( Product Demand ) (Mkt. Shares) ( Product Demand ) (Mkt. Shares)

PAGE 95

95 characteristics of the re sults. Model estimates are used to develop a sensitivity analysis and examine the impacts of trade policies on beef consumption in selected Asian markets. Adapting the Armington Model to Beef Trade The Armington model is used to estimate demand elasticitie s between products from different sources and then used to simulate the effect of exogenous demand shocks from normal marketing efforts, from food safety scares such as BSE, and from trade restrictions. This approach is flexible and provides cross price el asticities between imports from different sources using estimates of the aggregate price elasticity of demand for imports (Jung 2004). Furthermore, demand elasticities as well as estimated coefficients of non economic variables can be used to formulate eff ective policies targeted towards expanding sales and market shares for U.S. beef. Price elasticities measure the responsiveness of trade flows to price changes. Elasticities of substitution provide the cross price elasticity between products from different origin countries and me asure the degree to which price changes could influence market share among the importing countries to a specific importing country. Since one of the objectives of this research is to measure the impact of restrictive policies on bee f trade, the size of those impacts largely depends on the magnitude of the elas ticity (McDaniel and Balistreri 2002). The Armington specification presents a two stage budgeting procedure in which consumers allocated their total expenditures in a sequence o f steps. In the initial step, a consumer or buyer decides how much of a particular product defined as to buy ( Equation 4 1). Next, given the total amount demanded, the buyers decide how mu ch to import from each country (Equation 4 2). Using i to represent the four demand regions and j to represent the four supply regions, the product import demand functions for beef for each r egion can be represented as in Equation 4 1 where the dot denotes the summation over all beef imports. This general demand function assumes that market demands for beef products are functions of the average price in the

PAGE 96

96 region income, population levels, and other demand drivers consistent with the underlying theory. Consequently, the following models specification is presented : (4 1) where is the total demand for all beef products in region i is the average market prices of beef products in region i is the gross domestic product in regio n i which represents national income, Pop i is the population of region i and captures other import demand references, promotions, etc). Fo total demands are derived given budget co nstraints, utility maximization, and price of competing products (See Appendix A). Product demands ( ) are functions of the market demand ( Equation 4 1) and the price ratio between the prices of the beef products in the market as shown in E quation 4 2 : (4 2) where is the price in the market for beef produced in j which includes the costs of tariff and preferent ial treatments (Sparks and Ward 1992), and is the price of all imported beef consumed in country i 1 Equation 4 3 shows that products are distinguished by place of production and product demands in a particular market are functions of market size and the ratio between product price a nd average price in that market. Thus, market shares equations can be derived to represent the percentage of total beef imports by a specific market and show that an improvement through pricing str ategies should yield an increasing share and vice ve rsa (Ar mington 1969): (4 3) 1 P rices include the costs of tar iff and preferential treatments and are expr essed in U.S. dollars to avoid problems with fluctuations in exchange rates. For convenience, p rices are deflated in importing countries by the national index to the base year 1995.

PAGE 97

97 Within this framework, there are several relationships operating to equilibrate the demand and supply of beef products and their most general functional representations are discussed below Since this model assumes that import demand must equal supply we have an equilibrium condition from which t wo restrictions can be obtained: and (4 4) Differences in import prices among demandi ng (importing) countries are driven by asymmetries in cost of insurance and freight, quality of products, market structures, non tariff barriers to trade, and information. Non tariff barriers (or NTB) are mechanisms that impede the flow of international go ods by imposing unilateral and arbitrary restraints to normal trade. The most common NTB are import quotas, exchange controls, subsidies, boycotts or bans, technical barriers, and voluntary restraints among others 2 A tariff is a tax levied by the governm ent in country i on goods imported into that country from country j (or import duty). The main objective of a tariff rate is to make country i products more competitive by increasing the price at which the goods from country j are sold. The effect of tarif f rates on prices of products from country j in market country i is quantified as: (4 5) where is the market price of the products, is the cost of tariff expressed in percentage terms, and represents import prices (CIF) that are a function of FOB prices and a prox y variable (V) created to capture the variation in cost over time : (4 6) Then, the average price paid for beef in a given importing country is defined as follows: 2 A product produced and consumed domestically does not incur in cost associated with shipping and barriers to entry. Consequently, this price is assumed to be equal to the average of all export prices in a particular market (Sparks and Ward 1992).

PAGE 98

98 (4 7) At this junction it is very important to reiterate that prices included in the data set collected for this study are in fact product prices in U.S. dollars for each beef product in each of the four markets and that these prices already i nclude all tariff le ved by the importing country. In the case of a model with a large set of products being trade d most of the equations already presented would not have practical solutions due to the large number of parameters in the model. A way to s implify this equation is to introduce the assump tions that (a) import demand is separable among import sources, (b) elasticities of substitution between all pairs of products within a group and within a market are constant (i.e. Constant Elasticity of Sub stitution CES), and (c) the elasticity of substitution between any two products competing in a market is the same as that between any other pair of products competin g in the same market (Armington 1969). Equation 4 8 represents the Armington specificatio n that imposes the CES functional form on the product demand function ( Equation 4 3) implying the separability among product sources (Alston et al. 1990). In terms of utility function specification, these assumptions are equivalent to the specification th at the s 3 is a constant elasticity of substitution (CES) having the form: (4 8) where is a share parameter, is the single CES in the market, is the demand function for goods (i.e., beef products) in country i and is the import demand in the market for a product produced in the j U ) into E quation 4 3 the necessary and suffi cient conditions are that (a) the Marginal Rate of Substitution (MRS) between any pair of products competing in the market is independent of demand for any other product(s) in that market which is known as the assumption of independence, and (b) t he 3 See Appendix A

PAGE 99

99 quantity index representing the aggregative character of the func tion is linear, homogeneous, and shows a CES. 4 Although the homotheticity assumption simplifies the model specification and the separability assumption reduces multicollinearity pr oblems, the Armington assumptions of separability and homotheticity are strong restrictions for practical applications. In the first assumption, if a good is differentiated, changes in consumer's budget might not be reflected in the same proportion to all products. If an increase in the budget is realized, it would be allocated more to the more preferred product. In other words, expenditure elasticities may not be unitary (Hanoch 1971). In the case of the second assumption, if prices of substitutes are omit ted, the own price parameter estimates are positively biased so that the own price elasticitie s would be underestimated ( Jung 2004 ). Finally, in the case of the CES, this assumption restricts responses of the import demand of each product to the price chan ge relative to the price index for the good to be the same for all products. In order to specify the equations of the system in more specific functional forms, assumptions must be made regarding product substitutability. As discussed earlier, the assumptio n of a constant and equal elasticity of substitution (CES) between all products in a particular market may be overly restrictive. However, restrictions on the elasticities of substitution which force them to vary by a common, constant proportion, yet allow ing for differences in substitutability between products, are more reasonable and embedded in the CRES function. Since these restrictions are placed on product substitutability, they reduce the number of parameters to be estimated, and yet retain some flex ibility. The imposition of the CRES 4 The form is regarded as a quantum index of all elements that belong to the market. For convenience, demand function.

PAGE 100

100 technical relationship determines the functional nature of the product demands and market shares, while the other relationships in the model remain unaffected by the use of the CRES function (Sparks and Ward 1992). The C onstant Ratio Elasticity of Substitution An important aspect of the CES assumption is that it implies the separability between occurring in two stages (Varian 199 2; Webb et al. 1989) In the initial stage, the importer decides how much of the good is going to be imported ( Equation 4 1); and then, in the second stage ( Equation 4 2), given the total amount imported, the importer decides how much product to i mport from each country (D avis and Kruse 1993). The single CES restricts responses of the import demand of each product to the price change relative to the price index for the good to be the same for all products (Winters 1984; Weatherspoon and S eale 1995). Therefore, the issue of substitutability must be addressed in order to formulate a more specific system. Previous studies applied to agricultural trade analysis have raised questions about several properties of the Armington model. Studies by Alston et al. 1990; Moschini et al. 1994; Seale et al. 1992; Weatherspoon and Seale 1995; and Winters 1984 all showed the biased character of the Armington specification when it is based on the CES functional form. Furthermore, Yang and Koo 1993 suggested a less restrictive set of assumptions on demand relationships than those of the Armington model in order to avoid inconsistent parameter estimations. In order to bring prices, quantities, and other factors into the model, this study suggests a functional form: one product, many suppliers demand function using a more flexible form, the Constant Ratio of Elasticity of Subst itution (CRES) (Mukerji 1963, Hanoch 1971). That is, its Elasticity of Substitution (ES) varies along a mapping of isoquants (i.e., all i nput bundles that

PAGE 101

101 produces exactly y units of outputs) and differs between factors (Varian 1992). The choice of the CRES rather than the CES is justified because it allows the estimation of parameters without restricting the substitutability to be the same between every product, and consequently fully exploiting the attributes of the Armington's theoretical framework (Sparks and Ward 1992). The CRES technical relationship determines the functional nature of the product demands and market shares from compet ing supply regions. For this study, we assume that the CRES function permits variations of the elasticities of substitution among competing beef products in a market i to vary by a constant proportion, thus allowing for differences in substitutability betw een products of different origin within a market. This assumption increases the flexibility of the model by reducing the number of parameters to be estimated. Following earlier specifications used by Mukerji (1963), Hanoch (1971), and in particular Sparks and Ward (1992), the derivation of the product demand functional form from the CRES technical relationship is developed as follows: (4 9) where the is the product import demand for beef in region i in period t and is the j The is the share or distribution parameter and is a function of the exogenous variables affecting the system (e.g., market structure) while the parameters and are substitution parameters that are functions of variables like generic advertizing, country origin, and information. The degree of substitutability between imported beef from different sources of supply is c aptured by the CRES. Consequently the higher the value of this parameter, the closer the degree of substitution. In other words, a high value of this parameter means that beef products from all sources are considered by consumers to be virtually identical Conversely, a low value

PAGE 102

102 of the parameter means that the two products are dissimilar or, that they are weak substitutes (Kapuscinski and Warr 1999). The imposition of the CRES technical relationship on the markets clearly shows that all elasticities of s ubstitution ( ) vary proportionately with the common factor of proportional change 5 That is, the elasticity of substitution and the value share of the beef product in the beef market are represented as (4 10) where (4 11) These elasticities play a significant role in trade modeling, especially when analyzing the impact o f trade policies. For example, when a tariff applied to beef imports is increased to protect the domestic beef production in a country such as South Korea, this change automatically raises the domestic price of the imported beef. Nevertheless, the effect t hat this change in the tariff has on the price of the domestically produced beef is what determines its domestic resource allocation ef fects (Armington 1969). In the special case of specific tariff applied to U.S. beef products competing in Asian markets, if all competing beef products are perfect substitutes, then the price of beef from the United States will necessarily change (increase) by the same proportion as that of the other suppliers change (decrease). However, if the goods are imperfect substitute s, prices may not change by the same proportion. Thus, the impact that changes in trade policy have on the structure of the markets (e.g., market shares) basically depends on the degree of substitutability between imported beef, and this is what the model that is suggested for this study captures (Kapuscinski and Warr 1999). 5 Previous studies by Mukerji (1963), Gorman (1965), Sato (19 67), and in particular the paper by Hanoc h (1971) suggested that all could vary proportionately, with a common factor being defined as: where is a weighted average of with the factor shares as weight.

PAGE 103

103 The and coefficients have particularly important meanings in the CRES function. First, the shows that each country has an initial share of the import markets and those shares can differ for a fixed level of import demand. Clearly, does not just happen. It must depend on many conditions such as non tariff restrictions, previous trade history, infrastructure, food safety concerns, preferential treatment, etc. Second, the produ ct category also differs across countries and shares change as the imports change. Both and reflect those differences and like the they do not just happen They reflect true quality and other attribute differences among e xporting countries as well as perceptions about a particular product from country j in country i attributes. Anything that enhances this knowledge also impacts the (e.g., generic advertizing, product attributes). Later in the chapter, more specific forms for capturing the levels of both and are developed showing that both coefficients may change over time. Given t he CRES market demand function, Equation 4 9 the following optimization steps will define the product demand function for beef products. The first order condition for optimum product mix implies (4 12) where is the price level in the market and (4 13) Th us, the partial derivatives in Equation 4 13 depend only on ratios of quantities of products deman ded in the market, and these ratios in turn depend only on ratios of the product prices which mean that market shares must depend only on relative prices of the pr oducts in the market (Armington 1969). The fulfillment of this condition determines the

PAGE 104

104 optimum quantities of beef imported by country i Substituting Equation 4 13 into 4 12 can be written as : (4 14) Rearranging terms in Equation 4 14 the market clearing condition for which, the Marginal Rate of Substitution (MRS) between competing products are equal to the price ratios (Varian, 1992) can be written as: (4 15) Further substituting Equation 4 15 the following expressions are obtained : (4 16) then, (4 17) At this point, given Equation 4 9 and using the previous equation it can be show n the functio nal forms for product demands are : (4 18) where the function clearly shows the relation between the CRES and the market clearing condition that the MRS between compet ing products are equal to their price ratios. Re arranging the functi 18 (4 19) then the corresponding market share equations can be defined as

PAGE 105

105 (4 20) Equations 4 18 and 4 20 specify the functional forms of the product demand and market share equations imposed by the CRES technic al relationsh ip on the markets and hence non linear estimation techniques must be used to quantify the parameters (Sparks and Ward 1992) 6 Using Equation 4 18, the following form is obtained : or (4 21) If and are in turn functions of events and changes, then clearly the product demand is highly non linear and must be solved using a non linear technique. Since the objective of the m odel is to estimate coefficients of demand, the fi r st estimate is of the differing and substituting country intercept and slope coefficients using exponential an d logistic function and the results are incorporated into Equation 4 21 to obtai n the corresponding estimates of the model Since the double log functional form is used to estimate each country product demand, the final coefficients were the estimated ela sticities of the corresponding variables. Therefore, for convenience and to incorporate the impact of promotions, food safety and other factors into the analy sis, the final product demands Equation 4 21 can be written as follows: 6 See Chiang 1987 for detailed explanation of the log function properties.

PAGE 106

106 (4 22) where the first component, is a constant of integration that represents the effects of distribution and differentiating coefficients on market shares; the second component, is the estimated value of the product demand relative price elasticity and is given by ; the third component, is the estimate value of the product demand market size elasticities; and the last componen t, is a white noise error of the estimable model and allows for error in the adjustment of the inputs to their utility maxim ization level. Thus, comparing Equations 4 18 and 4 21 the following identities are obtained: (4 23) and (4 24) (4 25) Equation 4 22 a nd its corresponding identities clearly show that the parameters a nd are non linear, non constant and may change over time; that is, these parameters are some measure of the coefficients of the cross function (Sparks and Ward 1992). The adju stment process captured with the s e relation s are the most revealing par t of the model, since it shows whether or not the parameter is moving in a particular direction representing the changes in beef demand. Thus the system for beef trade as specified for econometric estimation will obtain elasticities of substitution to anal yze the impact of the parameter coefficients included in the CRES function. Recalling th e previously defined Equations 4 7 and 4 22 the price elasticity can be obtain ed substituting them back into Equation 4 22 as follows: (4 26)

PAGE 107

107 Taking derivatives with respect to and dividing the system by the following relationsh ip is obtained : (4 27) Finally, su bstituting Equation 4 11 into Equation 4 27 the price elasticity can be written as: Share value ) (4 28) In summary, Armington (1969) proposed that the elasticities of substitution among suppliers are constant and equal for any given pair in each market and the corresponding price ratios are constant over the time. However, the liter ature examined for this study suggests a different approach implying that the elasticity of substitution will vary proportionally to maintain a fixed ratio, but they are allowed to be different between any two pairs of products competing in the same market (Artus and Rohmberg 1973). These functional forms known as CRES technical relationships are considered less restrictive than the CES approach in terms of the degree of product substitutability in addition to a reduction in the number of parameters to be e stimated and allow some flexibility in the model. Analysis of Trade Variations In the Armington (1969) framework, trade flows are explained by a behavioral function that includes the imperfect substitutability of the good supplied by competing exporters vi a the that the reasons for and are not fully explained and exploited. In this context, this

PAGE 108

108 study introduces a CRES technical r elationship to analyze trade anomalies or exogenous period 1995 trough 2007. At thi s junction, it is clear that three components of the CRES technical relationship (4 9), and determine the functional nature of beef product demands and market shares. The parameter represents a non constant (i.e., non among imported goods that is a funct ion of variables such as generic advertizing (G) country origin (O) and the parameter variables indicating changes (C) Likewise, the parameter represents a function of v ariables (S) can be included (e.g., beef import ban due to BSE) and market size (M). Thus, a major consideration at this point is that both the differentiating coefficients and the share distribution coefficients are influenced by exogenous conditions. Consequently and can be represented in a functional form as: (4 29) and (4 30) (4 31) The parameter coefficients would be expected to cause shifts in product demand and in the existing state of knowledge about the product, real attributes of the good, current levels of consumption, and the quality and intensity of and That is, these coefficients could lead to a reduction or increase in the elasticities of demand, along with absolute shifts on the

PAGE 109

109 demand for beef products. Further, without much l oss in generality the previous Equations 4 29, 4 30, and 4 31 can be also written as: (4 32) an d (4 33) (4 34) assuming that and ; and that the (Z) variable represents a set of dummies and variables representing promotions and the type of beef In order to take into account the parameter, this study suggests the use of a logistic regression to capture the impact of each of the factors affecting and an exponential form to estimate the effect of the variables affecting In both cases, a set of dummy v ariables are introduced in the model to understand fully the effect of each parameter. For the sake of clarification and without distracting the attention from the main model specification, the logistic function can be written as and (4 35 ) where represents each of the parameters and ; and the "input" ( ) indicates a regression model containing the respective subset of variables and dummy variables repres enting the market and product characteristics. The logistic function is useful because it can take as an input, any value from negative infinity to positive infinity, whereas the output is confined to values between 0 and 1. The variable ( ) represen ts the exposure to some set of trade factors, while represents the likelihood of a particular parameter, given that set of factors. The exponential function is used because in this case is always positive (a required assumption for parameters), although it gets arbitrarily close to zero. Thus, the parameter and can be written as:

PAGE 110

110 (4 36 ) and (4 37 ) (4 38)

PAGE 111

111 where i, j =1,2,3,4 ; are dummies representing each importing country (equal to 1 if belongs to 0 otherwise); and are dummies representing each exporting country in the market or c ountry (Gujarati, 2003). Dummy variable devices classify data into mutually exclusive categories. Each variable is defined in such a way that if the qualitative variable has m categories, it introduces only (m 1) as a dummy variable. One approach for de aling with dummy variables is to drop one of the variables in each category such as dropping the first year in the case of time trend variables, one of the beef types (i.e., frozen), or one of the importing or exporting countries (i.e., Rest of the World) The category in which no dummy variable is assigned is known as the base and all comparisons are made in relation to it. The intercept value represents the mean value of the base category. The coefficients attached to the dummy variables are known as the differential intercept coefficients because they tell by how much the value of the intercept that receives the value of 1 differs from the intercept coefficient of the base category (Gujarati, 2003). Since Equations 4 29, 4 30 and 4 31 are multiplicative they can be expressed as follows: (4 39) and (4 40) (4 41) At this point, it is easy to combine Equations 4 18 or 4 20 w ith Equations 4 3 8, 4 39, and 4 40 to fully estimate the impact of beef promotions on Pacific Rim markets. However, before doing that we must substitute identities 4 24 and 4 33 into Equation 4 42 to obtain the link necessary to evaluate the effect of promotions and other non economic indicators into the product demand functions The suggested link can be expressed as: (4 42)

PAGE 112

112 Finally, substituting Equations 4 32, 4 34 and 4 42 into Equation 4 21 is written as (4 43) The use of a non linear regression model to estimate the parameters of the model will yield consistent estimates in the market share equations for the years 1997 to 2007 for the beef exporti ng countries considered in the study. These parameters will measure the strength of the influence of food safety, non trade barriers, and other factors on the demand for differentiated products, and measure the substitutability between beef products within each Pacific Rim market considered. Given the increa sed competition and the disease driven restrictions imposed on U.S. meats by its traditional importers, understanding and differentiating the importance of economic and non economic factors is crucial i n determining the changes in demand for U.S. beef. For instance, if the government of the Republic of South Korea were to impose or increase its tariffs on imported beef in order to protect its domestic beef production, the impact on its major beef supplie rs could be estimated. The model can also assess the impact of economic crisis on the international beef markets. In particular, in the case of 1997 Asian financial crises that heavily affected country and household incomes and weakened the demand for impo rted beef, the model can measure the effect on products originated in the United States and determine the extent of the damage in terms of market share lost. In short, any of the independent variables of the model could be shocked and their corresponding i mpact measured. In terms of U.S. beef exports, this can yield important insights into the consequences of policy measures aimed to prevent food born diseases and impact of commodity advertizing campaigns designed to communicate the quality and safety chara cteristics of the product.

PAGE 113

113 CHAPTER 5 EMPIRICAL RESULTS Introduction This chapter presents results of the model introduced in Chapter 4. The product demand equation (WQQ) for beef products in the Pacific Rim region includes a relative price component, a variable indicating the domestic demand for beef in each importing country, a set of parameters indicating market share differentiation and the substitutability among products, and the assumption that defines a constant rate elasticity of substitution i n the demand for differentiated beef products. The initial estimation of the beef trade model was carried out using a non linear single equation regression w h ere the objective function is the sum squared residuals and the resulting regression coefficients are the proposed changes in the parameters (Hall and Cummins 2005). Data Set The t rade data used in this study were originally organized in terms of quantities and export values by country and trade partner fresh/chilled and frozen beef (HS codes 0201 and 0202) during the period 1995 to 2007. There were some missing data points on the world trade data, which complicate the econometric estimation of the model. The majority of the missing values was concentrated in the earlier years (1995 and 1996) and could not be confirmed by other data source s This circumstance was more evident in countries such as Taiwan and Hong Kong, in particular, for beef products from New Zealand and Australia. Therefore, the decision was made to use only data from 1997 to 2007 in th e creation of the final data set. Since missing data will result in the entire observation in which the missing data are contained b eing thrown out and with only 343 observations, missing prices and quantities for the year 1998 were calculated.

PAGE 114

114 Import pri ces were regressed on world product prices for all of the years of the data and the estimated relationship was then used to estimate an import product price for a year when it was miss ing. Finally, missing values in the original data set were approximated through linear interpolation between existing quantities (Chiang 1997). Manipulations were carried out on these data sets, after which they were merged by year and by country to create the final data set. These manipulations resulted in a data set that sho ws space as well as time dimensions, which are typical characteristics of panel data sets where th e same cross sectional unit (such as a country) is surveyed over time. Thus, import quantities are expressed in thousands of metric tons and values in thousan ds of U.S. dollars per metric ton. Both quantities and values are used to derive import prices. Given the nature of the data, prices are treated as exogenous variables and already include the corresponding tariff schedules for beef products originated outs ide the country. For any given year, the data on beef trade represent a cross sectional sample. Then, in the case of fresh beef for any given year there are 16 observations and 11 time series observations ; thus there is in all (16x11) = 176 (pooled) obser vations on fresh beef (Gujarati 2003). Thus, combining cross sectional and time series data into a pooling data set give s more degrees of freedom, reduces or eliminates the issue of multicollinearity among variables and minimizes the bias that might resul t from aggregation. The rest of the data consist of country specific statistics such as GDP, CPI, population levels, total food imports, and country domestic beef production and consumption levels that were obtained from the UN and FAO data bank and arran ged in a country by country basis. Product Demand Equation The product demand equation is calculated assuming that there is a product differentiation among beef products and that the rate of substitutability is no constant across

PAGE 115

115 country corresponding product demands can be written in its simple form as follows: (5 1) Each of the theta ( was estimated separately and is some function of and as set forth in the previous chapter. Once estimates of and are known, then the a re determined. Equation 5 1 is estimated with a pooled time series cross sectional estimator and is double log form. After their calculation, these param eters were incorporated into Equation 5 1 to obtain the corresponding product demands. Note that for a given set of one can easily show the corresponding elasticities. The resulting model had one equation for each country and type of beef product (Fresh/Chilled or Frozen). The objective is to compare the results from each country and draw conclusions regarding th e behavior of their paramete rs in terms of their values, si g n s, significance, and consistency with the economic theory. The reminder of this chapter will discuss the result of the non linear single equation used to estimate the parameters of the product d emand equations. All model estimates were obtained using TSP software, as well as the statistics indicating the performance of the model. The magnitudes of the estimated parameters or elasticities will be discussed and contrasted with the economic theory a s they indicate the responsiveness of the dependent variable (product demand) to the explanatory variables. In general, the results of the estimation are good in that they make economic sense and generally correspond with what one would expect given the tr ading situation described in earlier chapters. Model Results The following section describes the parameter estimates for the product demands functions ( ) or as defined in the TSP programming, the WQQ dependent variable. As presented in

PAGE 116

116 Chapter 4, Equation 4 18 product demands include a set of product and market differentiation parameters, domestic demands ( ), and a price ratio between ave rage domestic prices ( and import prices ( This set of parameters is considered the base of the model and define s the elasticities of demand among products competing in a specific market. Therefore, using (4 38) and the corresponding d ummy variables specified in Equations 4 35 through 4 37 the model calculates their coefficients, including those for beef promotions and type of beef, and their corresponding T values and supportive statistics as illustrated in Table 5 1. The t values are compared at 1.96 for a two tail 95 % confi dence level, which means that any value greater than |1.96| will show evidence against the null hypothesis that the parameter is equal to zero and hence conclude that the parameter is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Since these are estimates from logistic and exponential regressions, one cannot immediately infer that the coefficients indicate a dimensional change in the d ependent variable. Conclusions i n this regard are presented later in th e simulation chapter. In general, the statistics of the model correspond to what one would expect given the annual data. The Durbin Watson statistic is close to two, suggesting little or no serial correlation in the data. With respect to the R 2 value, it i s reasonably high for the type of model ( hig hly non linear regression) and data (p anel) and implies that about 76 % of the variation in the (log of) product demands parameters is explained by the (log of) relative sub parameters, type of beef and commodity promotions. Therefore, from a purely statistical viewpoint, the estimated regression fits the data quite well (Greene 2003). Table 5 1 illustrates three sections representing the parameter estimates for the and components of the CRES function applied to the product demand Equation 4 17

PAGE 117

117 The top portion of the table represents estimates for the sub parameters for K ( related to the parameters; the estimates in the second portion of the table belong to the sub parameters G ( and are components of the parameters; and the estimates in the last portion of the table are the sub parameters H ( ) related to the parameters. Note that in Table 5 1 the last category of the coefficients within any and dummy class is not shown as well as the first category within a dummy class As explained in Chapter 4 one of the variables of each category was dropped to facilitat e the estimation of each parameter and avoid issues of perfect multicollinearity (Gujarati, 2003). The signs of the parameter estimates for the statistically significant variables are theoretically consistent. However, in terms of the direction of the imp act ( positive or negative signs), they cannot b e fully evaluated at this stage since they are components (sub parameters) of the product demand parameters (Equation 4 21). Their impa (Equation 4 22) will be analyzed in Chapter 6 where the final simulations of the model s are presented. Nevertheless, F igures 5 1 through 5 4 are introduced in this section to illustrate the behavior of the and product demand parameters across time. In order to determin e whether there has been a significant change in the variables affecting substitution and market participation, the G, K, and H parameters and sub parameters are analyzed using their corresponding t values to detect significant changes with respect to the mean. The majority of the c oefficients presented in Table 5 1 are statistically significant when compared to their mean value at the 95 % level of confidence. However, there are some exceptions of particular relevance that might require some consideration.

PAGE 118

118 Table 5 1 Parameter e stimates and t values Parameter Description Estimate t value Beef demand in Hong Kong (HK) 4.573 0.471 Beef demand in South Korea (KR) 4.633 0.482 Beef d emand in Japan (JP) 0.740 1.423 Demand for Rest of World products 3.693 0.375 Demand for U.S. products 1.189 4.522 Demand for Australian products (AU) 0.990 3.778 Demand for N. Zealand products (NZ) 1.028 4.185 Demand for U.S. products in S. Korea 5.160 0.530 Type of beef products (Frozen) 0.330 2.371 Commodity promotion (1: yes, 0:no) 0.621 0.744 ROW market share (1997) 1.610 4.575 ROW mar ket share (1998) 0.667 1.920 ROW market share (1999) 0.254 0.759 ROW market share (2000) 0.260 0.771 ROW market share (2001) 0.332 0.970 ROW market share (2002) 0.623 1.771 ROW market share (2003) 0.746 2.081 ROW market share (2004) 1.981 4.761 ROW market share (2005) 1.021 2.915 ROW market share (2006) 1.190 3.217 ROW market share (2007) 2.033 4.850 U.S. market share (19 97) 1.717 3.094 U.S. market share (1998) 0.484 0.636 U.S. market share (1999) 0.092 0.122 U.S. market share (2000) 0.065 0.086 U.S. market share (2001) 0.141 0.185 U.S. market share (2002) 0.387 0. 511 U.S. market share (2003) 0.485 0.640 U.S. market share (2004) 0.639 0.869 U.S. market share (2005) 5.262 5.956 U.S. market share (2006) 3.899 4.878 U.S. market share (2007) 0.662 0.899 AU market share (1998) 1.566 2.768 AU market share (1999) 1.122 2.058 AU market share (2000) 0.861 1.572 AU market share (2001) 1.155 2.037 AU market share (2002) 1.359 2.335 AU market shar e (2003) 1.388 2.368 AU market share (2004) 3.073 4.778 AU market share (2005) 2.109 3.440 AU market share (2006) 2.288 3.736 AU market share (2007) 3.091 4.711 NZ market share (1998) 0.801 1.49 1 NZ market share (1999) 0.299 0.570 NZ market share (2000) 0.214 0.416 NZ market share (2001) 0.028 0.054 NZ market share (2002) 0.122 0.239 NZ market share (2003) 0.454 0.863 NZ mark et share (2004) 2.239 3.842 NZ market share (2005) 1.188 2.202 NZ market share (2006) 1.313 2.410 NZ market share (2007) 2.107 3.580 NOB 343 D W 1.678 R 2 0.763

PAGE 119

119 In the case of both the differen tial intercept and dummy coefficients are statistically insignificant for all parameters ; however, the signs of the parameters for Korea and Japan are negative indicating an inverse relationship between these estimates and the parameter With res pect to the estimates for U.S. products in South Korea, the results show negative and insignificant values, while all exporting countries show positive and significant estimates. In the particular case of the United States, the estimates are posi tive and very significant w hen comparing with the mean but at this point it does not indicate either the size or importance of the observed variable or it s impact on the elasticities. However, these results could indicate a tendency for beef importing coun tries to become somewhat more responsive to the of imported beef. Dummy variables for Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong were initially included in the model to see whether these countries had different impacts on and parameters. However, these variables were all statistically insignificant and showed clea r symptoms of multicollinearity; therefore they were not reported. The type of beef, defined by the parameter DF1, is statisticall y significant but again the effect o f this variable will be discussed in Chapter 6 However, it is possible to assume that the form of the product (fresh or frozen) has a substantial in direct impact on which should be translated in the elastici ties between fresh and frozen beef products. On the other hand, estimates for beef promotions ( GGI ) show a negative and insignificant value with respect to the mean (first year), which somehow refutes initial expectations of the effect of this variable on the demand for differentiated b eef products. The can be interpreted as influencing the share that the exporter j has in the ith import market when equals T heoretically, must be positive, should

PAGE 120

120 one and each estimate should be in the (0, 1) i nterval (Armington 1969). However, when their impact across time on U.S. market shares is illustrated, the range is above one in the first year (Figures 5 1 through 5 3). This circumstance is the result of including the te rm in the model specification, which allows the market share parameter for beef imported from the United States to have a higher initial value. At this stage it is important to mention that the BSE effect is nested on the time trend as show n in the last portion of Table 5 1 and that the significance of these parameters is relatively more important in the evaluation than the sign of the dummies. In the case of the base used to compare the estimates is the Rest of the World. With this in mind, it is clear that U.S market shares have been affected by th e BSE scare when comparing the t values after the BSE announcements All sub parameters sho w insignificant values with respect to the mean, except for the first year and the post BSE coefficients. Also, the effect of the BSE announcements in North America shows a significant effect on the Australian and New Zealan d market participation compared to previous years. The figures below illustrate the significance of the estimates in Table 5 1 and their impact on the parameters and across time. One of the most revealing aspect of these figures is the fact that in each import market the parameter values of are constant across beef suppliers and time. That is, all values for the S outh K orean beef market are about 52%; for the Japanese market these values are about 2%, and for Taiwan and Hong Kong the values are 1% respectively. In the particular case of the parameters there are two point to be considered: first, it is suitable to think that regardless of the origin of the beef product and how much is available for consumption, markets demands show constant rate of substitution between beef and all other goods in that market and that consumers substitute beef for other goods at a proportional rate across time; and second, they

PAGE 121

121 have a measurable impact on the elasticity parameters only in the case of the South Korean beef market. Figure 5 1 South K orea n product demand parameters for be ef imports (US AU NZ) In the case of the coefficients, it is clear that only in the case of the South Korean Market there is some variation across time, although the range of this variation is only about 2 p ercentage points. For example, F igu re 5 1 shows values for the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. In the case of U.S. beef, these values vary between 56% and 58%; between 61% and 63% in the case of Australian beef; and between 60% and 62% in the case of beef from New Zeal and. In the rest of the markets the fluctuation of the coefficien ts is almost insignificant (+/ 1%), which is clearly shown in Figures 5 2 and 5 3

PAGE 122

122 Figure 5 2 Japan product demand parameters for beef imports (US AU NZ) With respect to the parameters, all figures show a clear fluctuation across time and across beef suppliers. Comparing the coefficient results for the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, the minimum and maximum value f or each of these suppliers were 0. 2% (2005 to 2006) and 111% (1997 ) for U.S. beef products; 20% (1997) and 60% (2005) for Australian beef; and 12% (2002) and 26% (2004) for New Zealand beef. In addition, although it is impossible at this point to identify the full impact of these coefficients, it is evident that the BSE announcements in 2003 have an important effect on the trend.

PAGE 123

123 Figure 5 3 Taiwan and Hong Kong product demand parameters for beef imports (US AU NZ) The BSE largest impact is, undoubtedly on U.S. beef products showing a decline in market participation of 57% across markets between the years 2003 and 2005. Overall, the trend show s a reduction of 83% in U.S. beef market participation between 1997 and 2007. Figures 5 2 and 5 3 also show the other side of the BSE scare on these Asian Markets. In the case of beef products from Australia and New Zealand, the overall upward trend on the coefficients is very clear, showing an incre ase of almost 38% in the case of Australia and 15% in the case of New Zealand between 1997 and 2007. In particular, after the BSE announcements the increment on the trend was almost 22% and 14% respectively. This upward trend reflects, in

PAGE 124

124 theory, the growth in market shares of these two suppliers during the last years but the real magnitude of their impact will be disclosed in the simulation chapter. Table 5 2 presents summary statistics for and in all markets during the 10 year period of this research. Although, there is a difference in significance between the minimum and maximum values, numerically they show the variation of each parameter across time. Thus, for the parameter the range of variation is abou t 63.6 percentage points, the variation between the parameters is about 51 percentage points, and in the case of the parameter the range of variation is approximately 111 percentage points. Table 5 2 Summar y s tatistics product d emands p arameters Parameter Mean Std.dev. Minimum Maximum 0.142 0.219 0.010 0.646 (1.162) (4.261) 0.163 0.266 0.005 0.515 (0.158) (23.749) 0.353 0.298 0.002 1.113 (0.485) (4.17 7) As stated before, it is impossible to immediately infer the impact and direction of the parameter co efficients shown in Tables 5 1 and 5 2 Their analysis will require a chapter alone (Chapter 6), with simulations showing the magnitude and impact of t hese parameters on product demands, market shares, relative prices, and elasticities of substitution among beef products. The set of figures introduced in C hapter 6 reproduce the results discussed before and place them under different scenarios in order to draw the conclusions of the study.

PAGE 125

125 CHAPTER 6 SIMULATION ANALYSIS Introduction The previous chapter concentrated on a general discussion of the econometric estimates obtained using the Armington model and the CRES assumption about the elasticity of s ubstitution. In this chapter, a more detailed analysis of the significance of the different parameters and sub parameters estimates from Chapter 5 will be presented. Thus, the objective is to simulate the model specified in Chapter 4 in order to evaluate t he effect of changes in relative prices, quantities demanded across time, and commodity promotions on product demands across four beef markets in the Pacific Rim region. Under different price, promotion, and trade flow scena rios, this section will compare the product demands and market shares relative to variations in the mean or average price or quantity. The simulation process involves a set of preliminary steps that were conducted using the TSP program, where a ll the variables of the model are set to t he mean level (all dummy variables are set to zero) in order to compare the changes in the dependent variable when one of the indepen dent variables varies, and all other input parameters are held constant at their mean value. The following step is then to predict product, market share demands, and elasticities using calculated relative prices, commodity promotions, and quantities at their mean values. When calculating these values for each of the variables, their respective means were included and multiplie d then by an adjusted parameter set to one for simulation purposes (i.e. ). The simulations measured the strength of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Tables 6 1 throu gh 6 4 illustrate the base values estimated for each beef exporter in each beef market.

PAGE 126

126 Table 6 1. South Korea : estimated base values Country of Origin Product Demands Fresh Frozen Relative Price + Elasticity Fresh Frozen United States 129.03 44.17 1.3416 1.68 0.78 Australia 8.75 4.46 0.9455 2.34 2.03 New Zealand 6.63 3.56 1.0200 2.33 2.01 In Millions of Metric Tons. + U.S. dollars per Metric Tons. Table 6 2. Japan : estimated base values Country of Origin Product Demand s Fresh Frozen Relative Price + Elasticity Fresh Frozen United States 74.96 53.41 1.3416 0.65 0.75 Australia 23.19 16.54 0.9455 0.93 0.95 New Zealand 20.66 14.74 1.0200 0.93 0.95 In Millions of Metric Tons. + U.S. dollars per Metric Tons. Table 6 3. Taiwa n: estimated base values Country of Origin Product Demands Fresh Frozen Relative Price + Elasticity Fresh Frozen United States 18.80 13.43 1.3416 0.21 0.44 Australia 5.80 4.15 0.9455 0.83 0.88 New Zealand 5.17 3.70 1.0200 0.84 0.89 In Millions of Metric Tons. + U.S. dollars per Metric Tons. Table 6 4. Hong Kong : estimated base values Country of Origin Product Demands Fresh Frozen Relative Price + Elasticity Fresh Fr ozen United States 14.76 10.55 1.3416 0.21 0.44 Australia 4.55 3.26 0.9455 0.83 0.88 New Zealand 4.06 2.91 1.0200 0.84 0.89 Millions of Metric Tons. + U.S. dollars per Metric Tons Product demand measure s beef products. Recall that the models used for this study distinguishes products by their region of production and that they are a function of the size of its market demand and of product prices. Keeping this concept in mind, the set of tables above show that on average, the total fresh beef market in all four importing countries was 1.8 times bigger that the frozen market (316.36 M.MT vs. 174.9 M.MT) and that the largest demand for fresh products was in South Korea with more that 45% of the market, follow ed by Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong with 37.5%, 9.4% and 7.3% of the total fresh product demand. On the other hand, during the 1997 to 2007 period the largest demand for

PAGE 127

127 frozen beef products was in Japan with more than 48% of the market, followed by South K orea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong with 29.8%, 12.1%, and 9.5% of the frozen product demand. On the s upply side, the United States was by far the largest supplier of fresh and frozen products with 75% and 69% of the market respectively, while Australia provided 1 3.3% and 16.2% respectively and New Zealand 11.5% and 14.2%. The importance of these results from the U.S. point of view is that in order to re gain market access, private (consumer level) and public (government level) confidence need to be improved. Empi rical results seem to indicate that trade regulations based on food safety concerns, not price, drive the presence of U.S. beef in these four markets. At the government to government level, negotiations and inspections of the beef supply chain have been d one to re assure that U.S. beef is produced to the highest levels of safety and quality. With respect to private efforts, they are mainly focus ed o n promoting U.S. beef in these markets using several types of marketing campaigns that reinforce the attribut es of quality, characteristic U.S. beef taste, and the safety of the products. Surprisingly, the results from this study show beef promotions parameters that are statistically ins ignificant and with positive si g n (see Table 5 1), which can be credited to the characteristics of the data used. Because the null hypothesis of no relationship between product demand and promotions cannot be rejected for any of these countries, theoretically their product demands would be unaffected by changes in the l evel of pro motions. Given the lack of statistical significance simulation s for beef promotions will be not discussed since they provide unreliable results. Simulations for the parameters in Table 5 1 are considered in the following sections of the chapter. A compar ison will be made to their mean values as relative prices and quantities

PAGE 128

128 demanded change ac ross time and country, and the corresponding impacts of these variables are graphically presented for their analysis. It is important to mention that some variables may be statistically significant but numerically unimportant when predicting probabilities. Total Product Demand Trend Estimated trade responses across time for the United States, Australia, and New Zealand are pres ented in F igures 6 1 through 6 6 in term s of beef product demands in each of the importing countries across time. Product demands were estimated using the methodology introduced in Chapter 4, which includes relative prices, domestic demands for beef in general, and the CRES parameters The reper cussion of the BSE announcements and the rapid increase of diagnoses across the European Union (EU) during the 1997 to 1998 period had an important impact on beef trade around the world. In particular, in the case of feed lot beef producing countries such as the United Stat es, the BSE scare in Europe has had an important and negative effect o n their beef exports. That is, F igures 6 1 and 6 2 show a significant decrease i n the demand for this type of beef in all Asian countries selected for this study. Estim ates for the 1997 to 1998 period show that product demands for U.S. fresh beef in South Korea declined more than 34%, while in Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong the reduction was around 17%. With respect to frozen beef and as expected, the South Korean market s howed the largest negative impact (29%) while in the other markets the impacts were about 16%. After a considerable p eriod of stability, the 2003 BSE announcements in North America had a massive negative impact on U.S. beef products to the point that duri ng the 2004 to 2006 period every U.S. export market of any significance closed their border to U.S. beef and cattle (USMEF 2007). As shown in Figure 6 1 U.S. product demands in all four market s fell rapidly to virtually zero as the result of a complete ba n on U.S. beef exports based on animal age restrictions and the

PAGE 129

129 type of beef (see Table 1 2 for a full description of the restrictions). However, during the year 2006, a gradual re opening of trade was translated in to an increased product demand for U.S. b eef products across countries, in particular in Japan where consumers have shown a mar ked preference for imported, g rain feed, beef from the United States. Figure 6 1 Estimated f resh U.S beef product demands across time in se lected Asian markets. As of September 2007, the increase in U.S. product demand represented 32% of the pre BSE levels ; and market prediction by the USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service and the USMEF show ed a positive trend in the volume of beef exported as well as in the value of export to Japan for the incoming years. In the case of South Korea, the situation is far more complex and driven by policy rather than marke t demand. As previously mentioned South Korea is the largest importer/consumer of beef in the region and even though th e complete ban on U.S. beef has been lifted by the

PAGE 130

130 government, the strong opposition among politician and radical consumer groups has affected the normal flow of U.S. beef to this country. As F igure 6 1 illustrates, the 2007 pr oduct demand levels are only 8 % of the pre BSE level for both fresh and frozen beef products. Figure 6 2 Estimated f rozen U.S beef product demands across time in selected Asian markets. Despite the difference in the quantity of U.S. beef products consumed, the markets in Taiwan and Hong Kong show a quite similar behavior in terms of the results obtained in this study. In both cases, the estimates for these markets show the same reactions to the BSE announcements, showing a di fference of 67.3% in product demands between the pre and post BSE announcements. Considering that these two countries share the same culture these results are not surprising and are much closer to what was expected not only in the case of the United Stat es but also with respect to product s from Australia and New Zealand.

PAGE 131

131 Figures 6 3 through 6 6 show the other side of the BSE impact, as the demand for U.S. beef products disappeared the demand for beef originated in Australia and New Zealand shows an upwa rd tr end during the same ten year period. Figure 6 3 Estimated f resh Australian beef product demands across time in selected Asian markets Since 1998, South Korea has the largest market for Australian beef in the region, show ing a 9 fold increase with respect to1997, as exports to the other countries of the region also increased more than 1.5 fold during the same period. During the next years and before the 2003 BSE scare in North America, Australian product demand estimates s howed some upwards and downwards trends, in particular during the 2000 economi c crisis in Asia. As expected, Figures 6 3 and 6 4 illustrate that the BSE announcements had a positive and significant impact on Australian beef demand in th e region. Only in S outh Korea, the BSE scare

PAGE 132

132 repr esented an increase of more than 200% and in Japan, it corresponded to an almost 60% increment in fresh beef product demand during the period 2003 to 2004. Figure 6 4 Estimated f rozen Australian beef product demands across time in selected Asian markets. In the case of frozen beef products Figure 6 4 shows that Japan is the larger dest ination for Australian products; however estimates for the South Korean market show that during the ten year peri od of this study product demand for frozen beef has increased almost 106% while in the Japanese market that increase was about 34%. The difference between pre and post BSE announcements in both South Korea and Japan markets is remarkable; in the case of Australian frozen beef there was an increment of 140% and 52% in the South Korean and Japanese markets respectively, while in the case of Taiwan and Hong Kong that growth was about 50%.

PAGE 133

133 Figure 6 5 Estimated f resh New Zealand beef product demands across time in selected Asian markets. The demand for beef products that originated in New Zealand increased, after the 2003 BSE a ppearance in North America. As Figures 6 5 and 6 6 show, the strong pre BSE presence of U.S. beef in the marke ts of the region was reflected i n low demand levels for New Zealand beef products between 1998 and 2002. In particular, the South Korean demand for beef products that originated in this country reached its lowest levels since 2002 when fresh and fro zen product demands bar ely passed one M.MT. However duri ng the 2003 to 2004 period, F igure 6 5 illustrates that in Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong the demand for New Zealand beef products almost doubled while in South Korea it increased a lmost four times duri ng the one year period.

PAGE 134

134 Figure 6 6 Estimated f rozen New Zealand beef product demands across time in selected Asian markets. In all figures, it is very clear that as the United States started to re gain market access in the r egion during the year 2007, while Australian and New Zealand product demands started to decline in all four markets. According to the estimates of the model, the demand for U.S. beef products has its largest increase in Japan, 33% (fresh), and 32% (frozen) while it s lowest increase was in South Korea with only 8% (fresh) and 8% (frozen) with respect to the 2003 levels. M eanwhile, New Zealand product demands showed the largest decline in 2007 with a range between 37% (South Korea) and 17% (all other markets ) in the case of fresh products and 32% and 17% in the case of frozen products. Australia, however, did not show such a large decline during 2007 and in both cases the decline was between 8% (South Korea) and 3.5% (all other markets).

PAGE 135

135 The most appealing e xplanation for this change is the size of the players in this particular market. The United States is one of the largest players in the global beef market and, at any point, its presence or absence in a particular market will affect the dynamics of the mar ket. Beef consumers in all four markets have shown preference toward American beef products, in promotion campaigns should have reinforced the quality and safety attributes of all type s of beef products that originated in the Unites States by increasing the information and knowledge levels of consumers. Product Demand Simulations To analyze the effects of changes in the relative price of beef on product demands b efore a nd after the BSE announcements, beef prices from all three suppliers w ere allowed to shift between 10 % below and above the mean price, of each exporting country holding all other beef prices at the mean. The simulation results for pr oduct demands a r e presented in F igures 6 7 through 6 10 and include the total amount of beef products demanded in each beef market during the years 1998, 2002, and 2006, faced with a change in the prices of each beef supplier. As demand is a function of the relative size of its market demand an d of its product prices ratios, assuming that is exogenous. The corresponding price elasticities are included to illustrate how changes in prices lead to changes in the quantity of product demanded. Note that for all markets the price ratio of beef products relative to the average (mean) across the four importing markets were $1.34 per Metric Ton (MT) for U.S. beef, $0.94 per MT for Australian beef, and $1.02 per MT for New Zealand beef. With the exception of U.S. prices, quantities, and elasticities for the post BSE year of 2006, in general the figures below show that as the price of beef from one exporter goes up, the quantity of beef products demanded goes

PAGE 136

136 down, which is expected for beef products in Asian market s However, there is a difference between the estimated elasticities for the South Korean beef market and the elasticities for the other beef markets in the way of the type of the elasticity. That is, the price elasticities for beef products in Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong are classified as almost unit elastic, meaning that as the price increases the quantity of beef product demanded decreases in the same proportion, while in the case of South Korea the price elasticities ar e classified as elastic or in other words, an increase in beef price is met by a more than proportionate quantity decrease (Nicholson 2002). In the next sections of this chapter a detailed discussion of each of the beef markets in terms of price and quanti ty changes, and the price elasticity of demand will be presented. Figure 6 7 South Korea beef market demands and price elasticities in 1998, 2002, and 2006 Figure 6 7 includes the distribution of beef product demands among e ach beef exporter country to the South Korean market, faced with a change in prices during the years 1998, 2002,

PAGE 137

137 and 2008. The figure shows the impact of the complete ban on U.S. beef products that is translated into a large and positive difference in Aust ralian product demands between the pre BSE years and the year 2006. This difference represents more than 150% incr ease in product demands. I n the case of New Zealand there w as a decline of 3% in product demand between 1998 and 2006 As the relative prices of exported beef increase from 10 % below the mean or average price to 10 % above the mean prices there was an identical decrease across time in the quantity of beef product demanded of 28 .8 % in the case of U.S. beef, 41 .9 % in the case of Australian beef, and 38 .9 % in the case of New Zealand beef. Figure 6 8 Japan beef market demands and price elasticities in 1998, 2002, and 2006. The product demand responses to variation in the mean prices are more extreme in the case of Aus tralian beef, where in all cases a 10% reduction in the price of beef o riginated in this

PAGE 138

138 country led to an increase of almost 25 % in the quantity demanded. These results are anticipated as the estimated relative price elasticities have values greater than two, as in the case of elastic price elasticity of demands. The Japanese market was the second destination in terms of market size for beef products that originated in any of the exporting beef countries. In relative terms, this market represents 76% of th e South Korean market when compared to the total product demands across time. The United States was clearly the major player in this market until the BSE announcements in 2003. Figure 6 8 shows, once again, how the impact of the complete ban on U.S. beef p roducts affected the scenario of the Japanese beef market. While U.S. beef disappeared from the market in 2006, Australian and New Zealand beef products expanded their presence one and a half times more and almost two times more than in the pre BSE years. In Japan, p roduct demand variations with respect to changes in the relative price show a behavior similar to the South Korean market. That is, as the price increase d the quantity of beef products demanded declined but in this case in almost identical prop ortional magnitudes. Therefore, as beef prices increase from 10 % below the mean or average price to 10 % above the mean prices there is an identical decrease across time in the qu antity of beef product demanded, of 14% in the case of U.S. beef, 19% in the c ase of Australian beef, and 18% in the case of New Zealand beef. Since price elasticity estimates show values very close to one, these results are plausible as they indicate a unit elastic price elasticity of demand. With the exception of the year 2006, si milar unit elastic demand curves were obtained for all three beef exporting countries across time. Figure s 6 9 and 6 10 show the differences in market size between the beef markets in Taiwan and Hong Kong and the previous markets. In terms of product dema nds, the combined sizes of these two markets represent less than one h alf of the Japanese market and one third of

PAGE 139

139 the South Korean Market. That is, the amount of products demanded during the three years considered was 90,000 MT in Taiwan, while in Hong Kon g this amount was about 70,000 MT. I n addition, relative price elasticity estimates for Taiwan and Hong Kong show unit elastic values, thus as beef prices increase from 10 % below the mean or average price to 10 % above the mean prices there is an identic al decrease across time in the quantity of beef product demanded of 14% in the case of U.S. beef, 19% in the case of Australian beef, and 18% in the case of New Zealand beef. Figure 6 9 Taiwan beef market demands and price elasticities in 1998, 2002, and 2006. In summary, these simulation results correspond to the descriptive statistics which were shown in Chapter 2 to be the largest import and export markets. Results show that product demand responses to variation in the av erage market prices were more extreme after the 2003 BSE announcements, in particular in the larger markets, such as South Korea and Japan.

PAGE 140

140 Considering product demand levels for beef products that originated in Australia and New Zealand between 2002 and 20 06, the figures above clearly illustrate this trend. In all these scenarios it is clear that the absence of U.S. beef product s has helped the expansion of Australian products elsewhere, in particular in South Korea were consumers have set a strong position against beef imports from North America. Figure 6 10 Hong Kong beef market demands and price elasticities in 1998, 2002, and 2006. This set of scenarios yields useful information to policy makers and beef in dustry representa tives attempting to understand the impact of restrictive trade policies affecting the normal flow of agricultural commodities and that are based on arbit rary food safety concerns as expressed in several occasions by World Organisation for Animal Health (OI E) 1 1 Based on the Terrestrial Animal Health Code this international regulatory agency specifies all health measures to be used by the veterinary authorities of importing and exporting countries to avoid the transfer of agents pathogenic for animals or humans, while avoiding unjustified sanitary barriers The OIE officially announced the U.S. as a

PAGE 141

141 Pre and Post BSE Market Distribution Simulations In this section, market demands are analyzed according to the percentage of participation of each of the three exporters in the four importing markets. In order to understand better the impact of the B SE announcements in 2003, the following figures will present pre and post BSE results for fresh and frozen beef products. In F igure s 6 11 and 6 12, the reader can easily see the results of the simulations and fully compare the impact of the BSE on the rel ative market participation during the pre BSE period (1997 to 2003) and after the BSE announcements (2004 to 2007). Figure 6 11 Pre BSE market distribution of fresh and frozen beef products. Us ing relative demand adjustments across time, beef market shares were simulated from 20% below the mean or average quantity demanded from each beef exporter to 20% above the mean quantity. In order to illustrate the variations across countries, Table 6 5 pr esents the

PAGE 142

142 corresponding market shares values above, at, and below the mean, while F igures 6 11 and 6 12 illustrate the values at the mean levels. Table 6 5. Estimated variations in market demand distribution United States A ustralia New Zealand PRE POST PRE POST PRE POST Fresh Frozen Fresh Frozen Fresh Frozen Fresh Frozen Fresh Frozen Fresh Frozen S.K. +20 0.697 0.273 0.001 0.001 0.432 0.175 0.883 0.461 0.031 0.019 0.086 0.046 0 0.714 0.269 0 .001 0.001 0.456 0.176 0.895 0.463 0.032 0.020 0.091 0.046 20 0.725 0.266 0.001 0.001 0.471 0.453 0.916 0.420 0.033 0.061 0.093 0.042 JP +20 0.202 0.143 0.357 0.001 0.155 0.110 0.246 0.174 0.054 0.038 0.082 0.058 0 0.201 0.143 0.445 0 .001 0.155 0.110 0.245 0.174 0.054 0.038 0.082 0.058 20 0.201 0.049 0.511 0.047 0.154 0.174 0.245 0.168 0.054 0.067 0.081 0.056 TW +20 0.449 0.321 0.089 0.003 0.345 0.246 0.546 0.390 0.120 0.086 0.182 0.130 0 0.449 0.321 0.112 0.003 0.34 5 0.246 0.546 0.389 0.120 0.086 0.182 0.130 20 0.449 0.108 0.128 0.105 0.345 0.388 0.546 0.374 0.120 0.149 0.182 0.124 H.K. +20 0.449 0.321 0.070 0.003 0.345 0.246 0.546 0.390 0.120 0.086 0.182 0.130 0 0.449 0.321 0.088 0.003 0.345 0.246 0.546 0.390 0.120 0.086 0.182 0.130 20 0.449 0.109 0.101 0.105 0.345 0.388 0.546 0.375 0.120 0.150 0.182 0.124 L ooking at the simulation results for the United States before 2003, it is clear that the U nited States was the leader in perc entage of product demanded in all four importing markets and that the share of fresh beef was larger than the share for frozen products. That is, in South Korea the difference between U.S. beef and products originated in Australia was 25.8% and 9.3% for fr esh and frozen products respectively; in Japan the difference in product demand shares was 4.6% and 3.3 % and in comparison to New Zealand products the difference between market shares was 68.2% for fresh and 24.9% frozen; and in Taiwan and Hong Kong this difference was 10.4% and 7.5% in each market. Figure 6 11 illustrates that in 2003 New Zealand beef, in all markets, has the smallest shares in terms of product demands representing a combined share (fresh and frozen products) of only 5.2% in South Korea and 9.2% in Japan, while in Taiwan and Hong Kong the combined share is 20.5% in each market.

PAGE 143

143 Changing the perspective of the analysis, results show that there was a significant difference between the types of product demanded. In the case of U.S. product shares, the difference between fresh and frozen beef were 44.5% in South Korea, 5.8% in Japan, 12.8% in Taiwan, and 12.8% in Hong Kong. These numbers show how markets differ in term of preferences towards U.S. beef products, in particular when comparing th e South Korea and the Japanese market. In the first market, fresh U.S. beef product demanded are preferred, while in Japan the figure shows that there is almost no difference in preferences between fresh and frozen U.S. beef products. With respect to produ cts originated in Australia, in South Korea this difference is 28.1% in favor of fresh products, which reinforce s the idea that consumers in this market have a marked preference for imported fresh products. Figure 6 12 Post BSE market distribution of fresh and frozen beef products. After the 2003 BSE scare the beef market changed radically for all beef exporters. Figure 6 12 shows that the complete ban on beef originated in North America eliminat ed all U.S.

PAGE 144

144 market shares in the region. In all four markets, the BSE scare represented a total U.S. beef export value loss of $2.4 billion during the 2003 to 2004 period (USMEF 2007). Since then, Australia has dominated the fresh and frozen beef market of the region, while New Zealand has increased it s presence in all beef markets o n a much smaller scale. For example, in South Korea, Australia n fresh beef products represent 89.5% of the shares, while New Zealand is second with only 8.1% of the product dema nd shares. With respect to frozen products, the shares for Australian beef are about 47% and 5% in the case of New Zealand. In relative terms, these numbers represent an increase in product demands of 49% (fresh) and 61% (frozen) for Australia; and 64% (fr esh) and 57% (frozen) in the case of New Zealand products. In the Japanese beef market, Australian shares are quite less compared to the South Korea market showing only 24.5% of the total fresh market and 17.4% of the tot al frozen market. Comparing pre a n d post BSE shares, this number represent s a relative increase of 36% i n product demand shares in both the fresh and frozen market. In the case of New Zealand, the results show market share levels of 8.1% (fresh) and 5.8% (frozen), which represent a slight increase with respect to pre BSE product demand levels. Less expensive Australian and New Zealand beef has helped these two countries to compete in the Japanese market but strong consumer preferences towards grain feed production type of beef have helped beef products coming from other parts of the world (i.e., South America) to establish a significant presence in Japan. In addition, reports from the United States Department of Agriculture have shown a slow but positive increase in the demand for U.S. beef products since 2007, which has become a main focus of interest for U.S. producers and exporters due to the fact that Japan was the most important market for U.S. bee f products in general before December 2003.

PAGE 145

145 In Taiwan and Hong Kong, the post BSE markets show similar shares for Australian beef, 54.5% for fresh products and 38.5% for frozen products, which represent an increase with respect to pre BSE levels of 20.1% and 14.3% respectively. In the case of New Zealand beef, Taiwan and Hong Kong also show si milar market results. That is, New Zealand products represent 18.1% of shares for fresh beef and 13.1% of the shares for frozen beef in these two markets, which correspond to 6.2% and 4.4% increase in fresh and frozen market shares with respect to pre BSE levels. This chapter concentrated o n a more detailed interpretation of the coefficients estimates presented in Chapter 5. Simulations were conducted for each of the four importing beef markets on the functional relationship presented in Chapter 4, except for simulations representing the Rest of the World. That is, the pa rameters estimated with the non linear procedure were used to simulate the reactions of the dependent variable to changes in the explanatory variables, holding all other variable constant ( ceteris paribus ) Three types of simulations were carried out on the product demand equations. First, the product demands were analyzed across time and the effect of the BSE announcements measured; second, the average prices were varied from 10 % below the mean or average price to 10% above the mean prices (1997); and third, product demand shares were simulated when the average quantity demanded varied from 20% below the mean or average price to 20% above the mean prices (1997). The simulation results for t he beef trade model proposed in Chapter 4 make economic sense and yield insights into the trends observed in Chapter 2. This speak s very well of the model; it captures the real world trends occurring in beef trade during the 1997 to 2007 period.

PAGE 146

146 CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSI ONS This dissertation focuses on the economic impact of food safety issues, in particular the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), on four of the most important international beef markets and its repercussion on U.S. beef exports. P rivate and governmental efforts to re gain market access and promote the attributes of U.S. beef products in terms of quality and safety have captured the attention of this study looking at the efficacy of these campaigns. This chapter serves as a brief su mmary of the findings of this research, where conclusion and implications are discussed. To review briefly the dissertation, Chapter s 1 and 2 examine the international beef market and discuss the importance of agricultural trade and beef promotions The li terature review is presented in Chapter 3, where previous research on beef demand, food safety, trade, and promotions are discussed, as well as previous applications of the Armington model The theoretical basis of the model is presented and developed in C hapter 4, where the specific CRES functional representation, along with a non linear trade model, is defined to measure the variations on product demand across time. In Chapter 5 the results of the econometric estimation are presented and discussed. Figur es of the actual data observed along w ith tables with the parameter coefficients predicted by the model and the statistics indicating the performance of the model are included. Chapter 6 presents the simulation results and their implications for beef trade Simulations were carried out on product demand and market share functional rel ationships for each of the beef importing markets. All product demands calculated using the estimated parameters from Chapter 5 and pecifications capture the general direction taken by the actual data presented in Chapter 2. In addition to that, Chapter 5 and 6 include a number of

PAGE 147

147 figures that plot predicted parameter values and the corresponding simulations showing that the model capt ures the major trends and turning points in the trade of beef products in the Pacific Rim region. in which beef products are distinguished by place of production. This theoretical s pecification assumes that beef products produced in different countries are considered not homogeneous products and therefore perfect substitutes, implying that thei r elasticity of substitution is not infinite. The CES function introduced by Armington in t he derivation of the p roduct demand equation, assumes that products competing in a market have constant and equ al elasticities of substitution. This research, however, approaches the elasticity of substitution in a more flexible way The degree of substitu tability between domestic and imported sources of supply for beef product s is captured by the CRES. The resulting functional relationships impose that all products competing in a market have elasticities of substitution that vary by a constant ratio, allow ing products differentiated by their place of production to have varying elasticities of substitution among products within a category. Several types of data sets were needed in order to estimate the beef trade model and a number of difficulties were enco untered in obtaining reliable information, in particular, on international beef promotions in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong due to the confidential character of the information. In order to include this information in this study, several source s of data were consulted, including official foreign government Web sites, meetings with USDA representatives from the Foreign Agricultural Service, and consultations with members of the U.S. beef board. The obtained information was used to create a global data

PAGE 148

148 set on promotions expenditures, which turn out to be one the most important limitation s in this study due to the lack of applicability at the country level. Using a combination of logistic and exponential functions the and parameters were obtained and applied to the product demand functional form specified in Chapter 4 The resulting econometric model represents a non linear system that shows e stimates and supportive statistics indi cating that this trade system fits wel l the trade data ( R square = 0.763) and explain the economics behind the international beef trade in the region. The resulting Durbin Watson statistic values indicate little serial correlation among the parameters of the model. With the exception of the ec estimates resemble the economic trends of the beef trade in the region. price and the size o f the beef market in a particular country, any changes in market demands also affect product demands. Thus, for each market, two set of simulations were conducted on the product demand s where the trade volumes from each of the exporting countries was simu lated over time (1997 to 2007) relative prices were varied from 10% below to 10% above of their base or mean price ( US: $1.34 per MT; AU: $0.94 per MT; and NZ: $1.02 per MT) and market demands were varied from 20% below to 20% above of their base or aver age quantity demanded in each market (KR: 99.58 MT; JP: 286.55 MT; TW: 32.1 9 MT; HK: 25.26 MT). All product demands show a negative slope in terms of price variations, that is as the average or mean price increases, the quantity of beef products demanded d ecreases. For the simulations where the average price was varied, the product demands for South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong reflect a negative relationship between price and quantity demanded as expected by the econo mic theory.

PAGE 149

149 Considering the pre and post BSE periods, the results show an extreme change in market composition in particular when considering the c ase of Australia that doubles its market shares between 2002 and 2006. In general, price elasticities of the product demands are such that t hose for the South Korean market are more elastic than those for Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. These results clearly indicate the volatility of the South Korean market, while the rest of the markets are likely to remain relatively constant. In the case of beef promotion s, the simulation results show little or no effects on product demands. Contrarily to what was expected, this research could not find a link between pro motions and increasing levels of the demand for beef products. A s promotion expenditures i ncreased or decreased from th e mean products demands and market shares show very small changes indicating that the po sitive parameter coefficient is no different than zero Despite marketing efforts aimed to promote and expand the presence of U.S. beef pr oducts in the region, the negative demand effects of food safety concerns as measured by the embedded BSE effect across time trend has been the single factor driving all beef import demands in these four countries giving little room for an effective and s ignificant impact of the commodity promotion programs aimed to compensate the inward shift in U.S. beef demand induced by both BSE information and longer term consumer preference changes. Despite the negative press and the reduced presence in Japan, Taiwa n and Hong Kong, U.S. beef is considered by consumers in these countries to be the high quality product while Australian beef is considered to be the low quality product. However, with food safety being one of the main drivers of the beef import demand, a high quality characteristic may not be enough to overcome the feelings towards the production process and the potential of food borne diseases that are related to intensive grain feed produced beef.

PAGE 150

150 Future research will require more detailed data on bee f promotion expenditures including data from competing countries such as Australia and New Zealand in order to fully analyze the relation between promotions and beef demand. In addition, the own nature of an international commodity promotion program should be re considered. Since the basic idea of such programs is to expand the total demand for the commodity and not the demand for products from a particular the problem of free riders. These countries get the benefits of increasing beef product demands without an active participation in the promotion of their products. That could be one of the explanations for the lack of significance of the promotion parameters in this research. Future research must be able to disaggregate total international expenditures on beef promotions to fully address their impact in a particular market. Previous research on international commodity promotions conducted by Kinnucan and Zhen g (2004) and Piggot t et al. (1996) suggested that market demands are insensitive to changes in advertising expenditure, and that unless the beef exporter country has a surprising degree of market power in a particular international market, the promotional campaigns may not have been profitable, which clearly reflect the promotion results in this research, in particular in the case of U.S. beef exports after the BSE announcements. In all four markets considered in this study c urrent market restrictions r equ ire that all imported beef be produced from animals between 30 and 20 months of age or younger at the time of slaughter and the ability of U.S. beef exporters to provide specifi c beef cuts could be used as a m arketing tool by turning around these restricti ons into competitive advantages. The highly integrated and efficient U.S. beef supply chain can easily satisfy the preferences of these consumers in terms of age and type of beef cut in particular in sophisticated markets such as

PAGE 151

151 Japan and South Korea. Imp orted beef from the United States has a competitive advantage in these beef markets as well as in the rest of the markets of the region, because U.S. beef has generally been viewed by consumers as being a higher quality product, in terms of taste and fat c ontent, than beef imported from other sources. In conclusion, as illustrate d in Figures 6 11 and 6 12 the BSE announcement in December 2003 has definitively alter ed the landscape and patterns of international trade in beef products in the Pacific Rim reg ion. The reactions of governments through a total ban on U.S. beef products increased and shifted the demand for grass feed produced beef from Australia and New Zealand as feedlot produced beef from the United States disappeared from the markets. T he compl ete ban on U.S. beef products represented a total economic loss of about $ 2.4 billion between the periods 2003 to 2004 According to USDA estimat es, the U.S. might be able to reach pre BSE levels in terms of value of beef exports to the region but, it wil l never reach pre BSE levels in term of export volume due to the significant reduction in market shares with respect to other beef exporters, in particular Australia. Based on the results obtained in this research, the relevance of promotions among the U. S. beef products can be evaluated from the stand point of the perceived importance that consumers even added values such as specific type of beef cuts. The perceived characteristics of the product imply some degree of security and reliability which could potentially enhance the total demand for that particular product. A major challenge for U.S. beef exporters is to satisfy the increasing demand for more con venient products, as in the case of beef consumers in Hong Kong, and value added cuts consistent with the well defined preferences in markets such as Japan and South Korea.

PAGE 152

152 APPENDIX A CO NSTANT ELASTICITY OF SUBSTITUTION (CES) The Constant Elasticity of S ubstitution (CES) function was first introduced by Arrow, Chenery, Minhas, and Solow in 1961 using a two factor (capital and labor) production function specification 1 As its name suggests, the CES describe a particular output level given a constant combin ation of inputs, which allows for greater flexibility since the value of the elasticity of substitution can be chosen. Varian (1992) defined the CES production function as a general case that comprises several other well known production functions as speci al cases, depending of the value of the parameter (e.g., Linear production function = 1 Perfect substitutes, Cobb Douglas production function and Leontief production function = Perfect complements ). Thus, the higher the value of the elasticity, the closer is the degree of substitution and vice versa. In consumer theory, the same functional form can be found acting as an aggregator function combining two or more types of consumption into an aggregate quantity and showing constant e laticities of substitution. In 1969, Paul Armington used this aggregator function to explain trade among countries and suggested a model that evaluates changes in trade policy by 1 This paper derives the CE S as following: which is assumed to be then we can say that thus, Let the marginal product of labor (MPL) be and since a monotonic relation between y and w is observed we have : Differentiating this last term we obtain a differential equation (dfe): Assuming a linear relationship between the logarithms of and w, (i.e., ) the dfe becomes: After taking the antilog, solving for and integrating the partial fractions we obtain: or where we set and for convenience. To be precise, represents the Elasticity of Substitution (ES). Solving this last expression for and then y we have: Setting and we finally obtain a mathematical expression that defines all functions exhibiting a CES for all values of K/L: or written out in Production function form, where is an efficiency or shift parameter, is a distribution or share parameter, is the substitution parameter or function exponent, which permits the parameter of elasticity to range from

PAGE 153

153 allowing the conversion of these changes into price effects. The Armington sp ecification assumes that imports originating from different sources are imperfect substitutes of each other, that the demand functions show constant elasticities of substitution (CES), and the elasticity of substitution between any two products competing i n a market is the same as that between any other pair of products competing in the same market. As in Preckel, Cranfield, and Hertel (2005) and Fmnia and Gohin (2007), the most convenient way of representing the explicit form of the Armington CES produc t demand function is: (A 1) where u denotes utility and denotes a vector of differentiated goods by their origin, and and are the distribution and substitution parame ters of the CES utility function. In order to simplify the interpretation, Armington (1969) "collapsed" the Utility function assuming that any given quantity index function, 2 has the generalized CES form as previously defined 3 Suppressing the argum ents of u and rearranging Equation A 1 leads to the following implicit expression of the same relationship: A 2) Since the utility is an ordinal measure, t here is no consequence to normalize the parameters by imposing their sum equal to one ( ). Thus, based on the theory of the utility maximizing consumer, where any given quantity of a good is to be obtained at least money cost, we know that the marginal rate of substitution (MRS) between two goods must equal the ratios of their prices (Varian 1992): 2 is assumed to be linear and homogeneous, thus all demands for products are the same (Armington 1969). 3 The CES technical relationship is defined as:

PAGE 154

154 i =1, 2, (A 3) Solving Equation A 3 for (A 4) Using this function, Equation A 2 can be expressed as a relation between and and their cor responding prices. Rearranging terms, (A 5) from which it follows that the elasticity of substitution between and any other product competin g in the same market is equal to the constant which denotes the elasticity of substitution (Varian 1992) 4 Thus, Equation A 4 can be expressed as follows: n (A 6) where defines the degree of substitution among products. For example, at the limiting cases if the products are perfect complements or if the products are perfect substitutes (Armingto n 1969). Substi tuting Equation A 2 in to Equation A 6 and writing in terms of we have: (A 7) 4 The elasticity of substitution (ES) between and is:

PAGE 155

155 Then, solving Equation A 7 for (A 8) Using Equations A 2 and A 3 and rearranging terms we have, (A 9) Th en, substituting from Equation A 7 (A 10) Therefore, (A 11) Finally, substituting Equation A 11 into Equation A 8 the Armington product demand function is obtained assuming a Constant Elasticity of Substitution in each market : (A 12) As A rmington (1969) suggested, the Equation A 12 can be used for different purposes; for example written as or (A 13) (A 14) where market demand is expressed as the dependent varia ble. As is clear from Equation A 14 value shares are constant if (Armington 1969). Taking logari thm of Equation A 14 we have:

PAGE 156

156 (A 15) where denotes the market share of imports from source j No expenditure term in the right hand side in Equation A 15 imp expenditure does not affect the market share (Yang and Koo 1993). As a result, all expenditure elasticities within a group are equal and unitary and import market shares change only in respon se to relative price changes.

PAGE 157

157 APPENDIX B TSP PROGRAM: ARMINGTON SPECIFICATION AND SIMMULATIONS OPTIONS MEMORY=200 RESID; TITLE 'OSCAR FERRARA BEEF TRADE DATA IN THE ASIA MARKETS'; ARM_SIM#6.TSP THIS NEW DATABASE NOW HAS ALL THE DATA STACKED BY WIMP,WEXP ,WTYPE; IN 'C: \ ZSTUDENT \ OFERRARA \ TSPPRG \ BF_ARM#3'; IN 'C: \ ZSTUDENT \ OFERRARA \ TSPPRG \ BF_ARM#3'; DBLIST 'C: \ ZSTUDENT \ OFERRARA \ TSPPRG \ BF_ARM#3'; OC(REPLACE) YEAR 'YEARS'; OC(REPLACE) CNTY 'COUNTRY 1=KOREA, 2 =JAPAN, 3=TAIWAN, 4=HONG KONG'; OC(REPLACE) POP 'POPULATIONS IN MILLIONS'; OC(REPLACE) GDP 'GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT %'; OC(REPLACE) CPI 'CONSUMER PRICE INDEX'; OC(REPLACE) TotImp 'TOTAL IMPORTS INTO COUNTRY'; OC(REPLACE) FoodImp 'TOT AL FOOD IMPORTS INTO COUNTRY'; OC(REPLACE) BeefProd 'BEEF PRODUCTION IN COUNTRY'; OC(REPLACE) BeefCons 'BEEF CONSUMPTION IN COUNTRY'; OC(REPLACE) V1_WL 'VALUE TO 1 FROM WORLD ($1000) ALL FRESH BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) Q1_WL 'QUANTITY TO 1 FROM WORLD (KG) ALL FRESH BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) V1_US 'VALUE TO 1 FROM UNITED STATES ($1000) ALL FRESH BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) Q1_US 'QUANTITY TO 1 FROM UNITED STATES (KG) ALL FRESH BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) V1_AU 'VALUE TO 1 FROM AUSTRALIA ($1000) AL L FRESH BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) Q1_AU 'QUANTITY TO 1 FROM AUSTRALIA (KG) ALL FRESH BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) V1_NZ 'VALUE TO 1 FROM NEW ZEALAND ($1000) ALL FRESH BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) Q1_NZ 'QUANTITY TO 1 FROM NEW ZEALAND (KG) ALL FRESH BEEF'; OC(REPLAC E) V2_WL 'VALUE TO 2 FROM WORLD ($1000) ALL FROZEN BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) Q2_WL 'QUANTITY TO 2 FROM WORLD (KG) ALL FROZEN BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) V2_US 'VALUE TO 2 FROM UNITED STATES ($1000) ALL FROZEN BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) Q2_US 'QUANTITY TO 2 FROM UNITED STATES (KG) ALL FROZEN BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) V2_AU 'VALUE TO 2 FROM AUSTRALIA ($1000) ALL FROZEN BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) Q2_AU 'QUANTITY TO 2 FROM AUSTRALIA (KG) ALL FROZEN BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) V2_NZ 'VALUE TO 2 FROM NEW ZEALAND ($ 1000) ALL FROZEN BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) Q2_NZ 'QUANTITY TO 2 FROM NEW ZEALAND (KG) ALL FROZEN BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) V2_ROW 'VALUE TO 2 FROM OTHER EXPORTERS ($1000) ALL FROZEN BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) Q2_ROW 'QUANTITY TO 2 FROM OTHER EXPORTERS (KG) A LL FROZEN BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) V1_ROW 'VALUE TO 1 REST OF THE WORLD ($1000) ALL FRESH BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) Q1_ROW 'QUANTITY TO 1 REST OF THE WORLD(KG) ALL FRESH BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) P1_WL 'PRICE TO 1 FROM WORLD ($1000) ALL FRESH BEEF'; OC(REPLAC E) P1_US 'PRICE TO 1 FROM UNITED STATES ($1000) ALL FRESH BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) P1_AU 'PRICE TO 1 FROM AUSTRALIA ($1000) ALL FRESH BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) P1_NZ 'PRICE TO 1 FROM NEW ZEALAND ($1000) ALL FRESH BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) P2_WL 'PR ICE TO 2 FROM WORLD ($1000) ALL FROZEN BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) P2_US 'PRICE TO 2 FROM UNITED STATES ($1000) ALL FROZEN BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) P2_AU 'PRICE TO 2 FROM AUSTRALIA ($1000) ALL FROZEN BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) P2_NZ 'PRICE TO 2 FROM NE W ZEALAND ($1000) ALL FROZEN BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) P2_ROW 'PRICE TO 2 FROM OTHER EXPORTERS ($1000) ALL FROZEN BEEF'; OC(REPLACE) P1_ROW 'PRICE TO 1 REST OF THE WORLD ($1000) ALL FRESH BEEF'; PROM RESEARCH CON_INFO IND_INFO FOREIGN PRO_INFO EVAL DEVELOP PRG_EXP USDA ADMIN TOT_EXP;

PAGE 158

158 LIST WVARW WYEAR WCNTY WPOP WGDP WCPI WTotImp WFoodImp WBeefProd WBeefCons WV1_WL WP1_WL WQ1_WL WV1_US WP1_US WQ1_US WV1_AU WP1_AU WQ1_AU WV1_NZ WP1_NZ WQ1_NZ WV1_ROW WP1_ROW WQ1_ROW WV2_WL WP2_WL WQ 2_WL WV2_US WP2_WL WQ2_US WV2_AU WP2_AU WQ2_AU WV2_NZ WP2_NZ WQ2_NZ WV2_ROW WP2_ROW WQ2_ROW WPROM WRESEARCH WCON_INFO WIND_INFO WFOREIGN WPRO_INFO WEVAL WDEVELOP WPRG_EXP WUSDA WADMIN WTOT_EXP WIMP WEXP WTYPE WTT; HIST(DISCRETE) WCNTY WYEAR; ====== =============================================; CORRECTING THE PROBLEM WITH ZERO PRICES WHEN ; TRADE DID NOT OCCUR ; ===================================================; DOT(CHAR=F) 1 2; ? TYPE FRESH/FROZEN; DOT(CHAR=X) US AU NZ ROW; SELECT WQ.F_.X>0; OLSQ WP.F_.X C WP.F_WL; SELECT WQ.F_.X=0; WP.F_.X = @COEF(1) + @COEF(2)* WP.F_WL; SELECT 1; ENDDOT; ENDDOT; ===================================================; MAKING ALL MISSING QUANTITIES EQUAL ZERO ; ======== ===========================================; DOT(CHAR=F) 1 2; ? TYPE FRESH/FROZEN; DOT(CHAR=X) WL US AU NZ ROW; ? MMM=MISS(WQ.F_.X); ? SELECT MMM=1; ? MMM2=WQ.F_.X; ? WQ.F_.X=0; ? SELECT 1; WQ.F_.X = W Q.F_.X/1000; ? ALL QUANTITIES ARE NOW IN MILLIONS M ETRIC TONS (1000KG); ENDDOT;ENDDOT; =============================================================; CREATING THE MARKET SHARES Xij/Xi. & RELATIVE PRICES Pij/Pi.; =============================================================; DOT(CHAR=F) 1 2; WQ.F_ALL = W Q.F_US + WQ.F_AU + WQ.F_NZ + WQ.F_ROW ; WV.F_ALL = WV.F_US + WV.F_AU + WV.F_NZ + WV.F_ROW ; WP.F_ALL = WV.F_ALL / WQ.F_ALL; DOT(CHAR=X) US AU NZ ROW; WSH.F_.X= WQ.F_.X / WQ.F_ALL; ? EXPORTER SHARE OF COUNTRY i MARKET; WRP.F_.X= WP.F_.X / WP.F_ALL; ? EXPOR TERS PRICE RELATIVE TO THE AVERAGE; ENDDOT; ENDDOT; =============================================================; CREATING THE Q, V, P, AND SHARES IN GENERAL ACCORDING TO ; WIMP, WEXP, WTYPE ; ================ =============================================; DOT(VALUE=L,CHAR=F) 1 2; DOT(INDEX=K,CHAR=X) US AU NZ ROW;

PAGE 159

159 SELECT WEXP=K & WTYPE=L; WQALL=WQ.F_ ALL; ? THIS IS THE TOTAL QUANTITY EXPORTED TO WIMP BY TYPE; WQQ = WQ.F_. X; ? THIS IS THE QUANTITY (MIL MTONS) EX PORTED FROM WEXP TO WIMP BY TYPE; WVV = WV.F_. X; THIS IS THE VALUE ($1000) EXPORTED FROM WEXP TO WIMP BY TYPE; WSH = WSH.F_.X; ? THIS IS THE MARKET SHARE OF WEXPij EXPORTED TO WIMP BY TYPE; WRP = WRP.F_.X; ? THIS IS THE RELATIVE PRICE OF WEXPij RELATIVE TO THE AVERAGE PRICE TO WIMP BY TYPE; SELECT 1; ENDDOT; ENDDOT; DOT(VALUE=L,CHAR=F) 1 2 3 4; DOT(INDEX=K,CHAR=X) 1 2 3 4; XF = (WIMP=L & WEXP=K); MSD(WEIGHT=XF,NOPRINT) WRP; PRINT L K @MEAN; ENDDOT; ENDDOT; WFOR1 = EXP(WFOREIGN/1000); WFOR2 = EXP(WFOREIGN/10000); WFOR3 = EXP(WFOREIGN/1000000); MSD WFOR1 WFOR2 WFOR3; SET CV1 = @MEAN(1) / @STDDEV(1); SET CV2 = @MEAN(2) / @STDDEV(2); SET CV3 = @MEAN(3) / @STDDEV(3); PRINT CV1 CV2 CV3; HIST(DISCRETE) WEXP WIMP; ========================== ===================================; CREATING WIMP AND WEXP DUMMY VARIABLES ; =============================================================; DOT(VALUE=J) 1 2 3 4; DI.=(WIMP=J); ? DUMMY VARIABLES FOR THE IMPORTING COUNTRIES; DX.=(WEXP =J); ? DUMMY VARIABLES FOR THE EXPORTING COUNTRIES; ENDDOT; DOT(CHAR=I,VALUE=J) 1 2 3 4; DOT(CHAR=X,VALUE=K) 1 2 3 4; D.I.X=(WIMP=J & WEXP=K); ENDDOT; ENDDOT; DOT(VALUE=J) 1 2 ; DF.=(WTYPE=J); ? DUMMY VARIABLES FOR THE FRESH VERSUS FROZE N; ENDDOT; =============================================================; TIME SPECIFIC VARIABLES SUCH AS BSE ; =============================================================; SET YRBSE=2003; BSE=(WYEAR>=YRB SE); T1=0; T1=(WYEAR 1994)*(WYEAR<=YRBSE) + (WYEAR>YRBSE)*T1( 1); T2=BSE*(WYEAR YRBSE);

PAGE 160

160 SELECT WYEAR>1996; DUMMY(PREFIX=DYR) WYEAR; DOT DYR1 DYR11; MSD(WEIGHT=.) WYEAR; ENDDOT; DOT(CHAR=X) 1 2 3 4; DOT(CHAR=#) 1 11; DYR.#_.X=DYR.# DX.X; ENDDOT; ENDDOT; SELECT 1; AI= 1.00; AIJ=1.00; BIJ=1.00; TH0=1.00; TH1=1.00; TH2=1.00; LWQQ = LOG((WQQ+.001)/1000); LSHWQQ = LOG( (WQQ+.001)/ WQALL ); =============================================================; THE NEW ARMINGTON MODEL WITH DATA STACKED USING DUMMIES ; TO IDENTIFY WIMP AND WEXP ; =============================================================; ?FRML EQ1 LOG(WQQ + .001) [ TH0 + TH1*( LOG(WRP) ) + TH2*LOG(WQALL) ]; FRML EQ1 LWQQ = [ TH0 + TH1*( LOG(WRP) ) + TH2*LOG(WQALL/1000) ]; ?FRML EQ1 LSHWQQ = [ TH0 + TH1*( LOG(WRP) ) + (TH2 1)*LOG(WQALL/1000) ]; ? THERE CAN BE SEVERAL ALTERNATIVE SPECIFICATION FOR AI AIJ AND BIJ; ? 0 < Aij < 1.0 USING A LOGISTIC FUNCTION; IDENT EQ2 AIJ = 1 / [1+ EXP[G0 + GX1*DX1 + GX 2*DX2 + GX3*DX3 + GI1*DI1 + GF1*DF1 + GG1*(WFOREIGN/10000) ] ] ;? + GI3*DI3 + GI2*DI2; ? 0 < AI < 1.0 USING A LOGISTIC FUNCTION; IDENT EQ7 AI = 1/[ 1 + EXP[ K0 + KI1*DI1 + KI2*DI2 ]]; ? + KI3*DI3; ? Bij > 0; USING AN EXPONENTIAL FUNCTION; IDENT EQ 3 BIJ = [EXP[ [H0 + HYR2*DYR2 + HYR3*DYR3+ HYR4*DYR4 + HYR5*DYR5 + HYR6*DYR6 + HYR7*DYR7 + HYR8*DYR8 + HYR9*DYR9 + HYR10*DYR10 + HYR11*DYR11] + [HYR1X1 + HYR2X1*DYR2 + HYR3X1*DYR3+ HYR4X1*DYR4 + HYR5X1*DYR5 + HYR6X1*DYR6 + HYR7X1 *DYR7 + HYR8X1*DYR8 + HYR9X1*DYR9 + HYR10X1*DYR10 + HYR11X1*DYR11]*DX1 + [HYR2X2*DYR2 + HYR3X2*DYR3+ HYR4X2*DYR4 + HYR5X2*DYR5 + HYR6X2*DYR6 + HYR7X2*DYR7 + HYR8X2*DYR8 + HYR9X2*DYR9 + HYR10X2*DYR10 + HYR11X2*DYR1 1]*DX2 + [HYR2X3*DYR2 + HYR3X3*DYR3+ HYR4X3*DYR4 + HYR5X3*DYR5 + HYR6X3*DYR6 + HYR7X3*DYR7 + HYR8X3*DYR8 + HYR9X3*DYR9 + HYR10X3*DYR10 + HYR11X3*DYR11]*DX3 ] ]; ? + (HI1*DI1) + (HI2*DI2) + (HI3*DI3) ;? *(DX1=0 & D X2=0 & DX3=0) IDENT EQ4 TH0 = [1/(AIJ 1)]*[ LOG(AI) LOG(AIJ) LOG(BIJ) ]; IDENT EQ5 TH1 = [1/(AIJ 1)]; IDENT EQ6 TH2 = [ 1/( AIJ 1) ]*(AI 1); EQSUB EQ4 EQ2 EQ3 EQ7;

PAGE 161

161 EQSUB EQ5 EQ2; EQSUB EQ6 EQ2 EQ7; EQSUB EQ1 EQ4 EQ5 EQ6; PARAM K 0 .75 KI1 .75 KI2 .75 KI3 .75; PARAM G0 .75 GX1 .75 GX2 .75 GX3 .75 GF1 .75 GG1 .75 GI1 .75 ; ? GI1 .75 GI3 .75 GI2 .050; PARAM H0 .75 ; ? HI1 .75 ; ? HI2 .75; ? HI3 .75 ; PARAM HYR2 .75 HYR3 .75 HYR4 .75 HYR5 .75 HYR6 .75 HYR7 .75 HYR8 .75 HY R9 .75 HYR10 .75 HYR11 .75 HYR1X1 .75 HYR2X1 .75 HYR3X1 .75 HYR4X1 .75 HYR5X1 .75 HYR6X1 .75 HYR7X1 .75 HYR8X1 .75 HYR9X1 .75 HYR10X1 .75 HYR11X1 .75 HYR2X2 .75 HYR3X2 .75 HYR4X2 .75 HYR5X2 .75 HYR6X2 .75 HYR7X2 .75 HYR8X2 .75 HYR9X2 .75 HYR10X2 .75 H YR11X2 .75 HYR2X3 .75 HYR3X3 .75 HYR4X3 .75 HYR5X3 .75 HYR6X3 .75 HYR7X3 .75 HYR8X3 .75 HYR9X3 .75 HYR10X3 .75 HYR11X3 .75; SELECT (WYEAR>1996) & (MISS(WQQ)=0) & (MISS(WQALL)=0) & (MISS(WRP)=0) & (WRP>.50); TREND TTT; CORR DI1 DI2 DI3; LSQ(HETER O) EQ1; PRINT @COEF; MAT NR = NROW(@COEF); PRINT NR; ? SHOW ALL; ANALYZ EQ4 EQ5 EQ6 EQ2 EQ3 EQ7; MSD WQQ WQALL; SET KK0 = @COEF(1); SET KKI1 = @COEF(2); SET KKI2 = @COEF(3); SET GG0 = @COEF(4); SET GGX1 = @COEF(5); SET GGX2 = @COEF(6); SET GGX3 = @COEF(7); SET GGI1 = @COEF(8); SET GGF1 = @COEF(9); SET GGG1 = @COEF(10); SET HH0 = @COEF(11); SET HHYR2 = @COEF(12); SET HHYR3 = @COEF(13); SET HHYR4 = @COEF(14); SET HHYR5 = @COEF(15); SET HHYR6 = @COEF(16); SET HHYR7 = @COEF(17); SET HHYR8 = @COEF(18); SET HHYR9 = @COEF(19); SET HHYR10 = @COEF(20); SET HHYR11 = @COEF(21); SET HHYR1X1 = @COEF(22); SET HHYR2X1 = @COEF(23); SET HHYR3X1 = @COEF(24); SET HHYR4X1 = @COEF(25); SET HHYR5X1 = @COEF(26); SET HHYR6X1 = @COEF(27); SET HHYR7X1 = @COEF(28); SET HHYR8X1 = @CO EF(29);

PAGE 162

162 SET HHYR9X1 = @COEF(30); SET HHYR10X1 = @COEF(31); SET HHYR11X1 = @COEF(32); SET HHYR2X2 = @COEF(33); SET HHYR3X2 = @COEF(34); SET HHYR4X2 = @COEF(35); SET HHYR5X2 = @COEF(36); SET HHYR6X2 = @COEF(37); SET HHYR7X2 = @COEF(38); SET HHYR8X2 = @COEF(39); SET HHYR9X2 = @COEF(40); SET HHYR10X2 = @COEF(41); SET HHYR11X2 = @COEF(42); SET HHYR2X3 = @COEF(43); SET HHYR3X3 = @COEF(44); SET HHYR4X3 = @COEF(45); SET HHYR5X3 = @COEF(46); SET HHYR6X3 = @COEF(47); SET HHYR7X3 = @COEF(48); SET HHYR8X3 = @COEF(49); SET HHYR9X3 = @COEF(50); SET HHYR10X3 = @COEF(51); SET HHYR11X3 = @COEF(52); AAID= 1 /[ 1 + EXP[ KK0 + KKI1*DI1 + KKI2*DI2 ]]; AAIJ = 1 / [1+ EXP[GG0 + GGI1*DI1 + GGX1*DX1 + GGX2*DX2 + GGX3*DX3 + GGF1*DF1 + GGG1*(WFOREIGN/10000)] ] ; BBIJ = [EXP[HH0 + [HHYR2*DYR2 + HHYR3*DYR3+ HHYR4*DYR4 + HHYR5*D YR5 + HHYR6*DYR6 + HHYR7*DYR7 + HHYR8*DYR8 + HHYR9*DYR9 + HHYR10*DYR10 + HHYR11*DYR11] + [HHYR1X1 + HHYR2X1*DYR2 + HHYR3X1*DYR3+ HHYR4X1*DYR4 + HHYR5X1*DYR5 + HHYR6X1*DYR6 + HHYR7X1*DYR7 + HHYR8X1*DYR8 + HHYR9X1*DYR9 + HHYR10X1*DYR10 + H HYR11X1*DYR11 ]*DX1 + [HHYR2X2*DYR2 + HHYR3X2*DYR3+ HHYR4X2*DYR4 + HHYR5X2*DYR5 + HHYR6X2*DYR6 + HHYR7X2*DYR7 + HHYR8X2*DYR8 + HHYR9X2*DYR9 + HHYR10X2*DYR10 + HHYR11X2*DYR11]*DX2 + [HHYR2X3*DYR2 + HH YR3X3*DYR3+ HHYR4X3*DYR4 + HHYR5X3*DYR5 + HHYR6X3*DYR6 + HHYR7X3*DYR7 + HHYR8X3*DYR8 + HHYR9X3*DYR9 + HHYR10X3*DYR10 + HHYR11X3*DYR11]*DX3 ] ]; TT0= (1/(AAIJ 1) )*( LOG(AAID) LOG(AAIJ) LOG(BBIJ) ); TT1 = ( 1/(AAIJ 1) ); TT2 = ( 1/(AA IJ 1) )*(AAID 1); SET I=0; ========================================================================; RESETTING THE SIMULATION VARIABLES BASE IS FRESH BEEF ; ========================================================================; DOT( CHAR=%) SDI1 SDI2 SDI3 SDX1 SDX2 SDX3 SDF1 SWFOREIGN SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; SET .=0; SET SDF1=1; ENDDOT; MSD(PRINT) WRP WFOREIGN; SET MEANWRP=1.0; SET MEANWFOREIGN=@MEAN(2); LL=(DI1=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,NOPRINT) WQALL; SET MEANWQALL1=@MEAN;

PAGE 163

163 LL=(DI2=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,NOPRINT) WQALL; SET MEANWQALL2=@MEAN; LL=(DI3=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,NOPRINT) WQALL; SET MEANWQALL3=@MEAN; LL=(DI4=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,NOPRINT) WQALL; SET MEANWQALL4=@MEAN; LL=(DX1=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,PRIN T) WRP; SET MEANWRP1=@MEAN; LL=(DX2=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,PRINT) WRP; SET MEANWRP2=@MEAN; LL=(DX3=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,PRINT) WRP; SET MEANWRP3=@MEAN; LL=(DX4=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,PRINT) WRP; SET MEANWRP4=@MEAN; PRINT MEANWRP1 MEANWRP2 MEANWRP3 MEANWRP4 ; S ET ADJ_WRP=1.0; SET ADJ_WQALL=1.0; SET ADJ_WFOREIGN=1.0; SET SWRP= [ (MEANWRP1 (1 ADJ_WRP))*SDX1 + (MEANWRP2 (1 ADJ_WRP))*SDX2 + (MEANWRP3 (1 ADJ_WRP))*SDX3 + (MEANWRP4 (1 ADJ_WRP))*(SDX1=0 & SDX2=0 & SDX3=0) ]; SET SWFOREIGN=MEANWFOREIGN*ADJ_WFOREIGN; SET SWQALL=[ MEANWQALL1*SDI1*ADJ_WQALL + MEANWQALL2*SDI2*ADJ_WQALL + MEANWQALL3*SDI3*ADJ_WQALL + MEANWQALL4*(SDI1=0 & SDI2=0 & SDI3=0)*ADJ_WQALL ]/1000; PROC ZRESETZ; DOT(CHAR=%) SDI1 SDI2 SDI3 SDX1 SDX2 SDX3 SDF1 SWFOREIGN SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; SET .=0; SET SDF1=1; ENDDOT; ? NOTE THAT WE HAVE SET THE DEFAULT TO FRESH WHERE SDF1=1; MSD(NOPRINT) WRP WFOREIGN; SET MEANWRP=1.0; SET MEANWFOREIGN=@MEAN(2); LL=(DI1=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,NOPRINT) WQALL; SET MEAN WQALL1=@MEAN; LL=(DI2=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,NOPRINT) WQALL; SET MEANWQALL2=@MEAN; LL=(DI3=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,NOPRINT) WQALL; SET MEANWQALL3=@MEAN; LL=(DI4=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,NOPRINT) WQALL; SET MEANWQALL4=@MEAN; LL=(DX1=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,PRINT) WRP; SET MEAN WRP1=@MEAN; LL=(DX2=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,PRINT) WRP; SET MEANWRP2=@MEAN; LL=(DX3=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,PRINT) WRP; SET MEANWRP3=@MEAN; LL=(DX4=1); MSD(WEIGHT=LL,PRINT) WRP; SET MEANWRP4=@MEAN; SET ADJ_WRP=1.0; SET ADJ_WQALL=1.0; SET ADJ_WFOREIGN=1.0; SET SWRP= [ (MEANWRP1 (1 ADJ_WRP))*SDX1 + (MEANWRP2 (1 ADJ_WRP))*SDX2 + (MEANWRP3 (1 ADJ_WRP))*SDX3 + (MEANWRP4 (1 ADJ_WRP))*(SDX1=0 & SDX2=0 & SDX3=0) ];SET SWFOREIGN=MEANWFOREIGN*ADJ_WFOREIGN; SET SWQALL=[ MEANWQALL1*SDI1*ADJ_WQALL + MEANWQALL2* SDI2*ADJ_WQALL + MEANWQALL3*SDI3*ADJ_WQALL + MEANWQALL4*(SDI1=0 & SDI2=0 & SDI3=0)*ADJ_WQALL ]; PRINT MEANWRP1 MEANWRP2 MEANWRP3 MEANWRP4 ; ENDPROC; MFORM(TYPE=GEN,NROW=5500,NCOL=50) MBEEFM=0; SET SIMNUM=0; SET SIMVAR=0; == ======================================================================; SIMULATOR FOR PREDICTING BOTH Xij AND THE MARKET SHARES ; ========================================================================; PROC ZBSIMZ; SET I=I+1;

PAGE 164

164 SET SWRP= [ (MEANWRP1 (1 ADJ_WRP))*SDX1 + (MEANWRP2 (1 ADJ_WRP))*SDX2 + (MEANWRP3 (1 ADJ_WRP))*SDX3 + (MEANWRP4 (1 ADJ_WRP))*(SDX1=0 & SDX2=0 & SDX3=0) ]; SET SWQALL=[ MEANWQALL1*SDI1*ADJ_WQALL + MEANWQALL2*SDI2*ADJ_WQALL + MEANWQALL3*SDI3*ADJ_WQALL + MEANWQALL4*(SDI1=0 & SDI2=0 & SDI3=0)*ADJ_WQALL ]/1000; SET SWFOREIGN=(MEANWFOREIGN)*ADJ_WFOREIGN; SET SAAID= 1/[ 1 + EXP[ KK0 + KKI1*SDI1 + KKI2*SDI2 ]]; SET SAAIJ = 1 / [1+ EXP[GG0 + GGI1*SDI1 + GGX1*SDX1 + GGX2*SDX2 + GGX3*SDX3 + GGF1*SDF1 + GG G1*(SWFOREIGN/10000)] ] ; SET SBBIJ = [EXP[HH0 + [HHYR2*SDYR2 + HHYR3*SDYR3+ HHYR4*SDYR4 + HHYR5*SDYR5 + HHYR6*SDYR6 + HHYR7*SDYR7 + HHYR8*SDYR8 + HHYR9*SDYR9 + HHYR10*SDYR10 + HHYR11*SDYR11] + [HHYR1X1 + HHYR2X1*SDYR2 + HHYR3X1*SDYR3+ HHYR4X1*SDYR4 + HHYR5X1*SDYR5 + HHYR6X1*SDYR6 + HHYR7X1*SDYR7 + HHYR8X1*SDYR8 + HHYR9X1*SDYR9 + HHYR10X1*SDYR10 + HHYR11X1*SDYR11 ]*SDX1 + [HHYR2X2*SDYR2 + HHYR3X2*SDYR3+ HHYR4X2*SDYR4 + HHYR5X2 *SDYR5 + HHYR6X2*SDYR6 + HHYR7X2*SDYR7 + HHYR8X2*SDYR8 + HHYR9X2*SDYR9 + HHYR10X2*SDYR10 + HHYR11X2*SDYR11]*SDX2 + [HHYR2X3*SDYR2 + HHYR3X3*SDYR3+ HHYR4X3*SDYR4 + HHYR5X3*SDYR5 + HHYR6X3*SDYR6 + HHYR7X3*SDYR7 + HHYR8X3*SDYR8 + HHYR9X3*SDYR9 + HHYR10X3*SDYR10 + HHYR11X3*SDYR11]*SDX3 ] ]; SET STT0= (1/(SAAIJ 1) )*( LOG(SAAID) LOG(SAAIJ) LOG(SBBIJ) ); SET STT1 = ( 1/(SAAIJ 1) ); SET STT2 = ( 1/(SAAIJ 1) )*(SAAID 1); SET SXIJ = [ EXP(STT0) [ SWRP**STT1 ] [ (SWQALL)* *(STT2)] ]; SET SXIJ_SHARE = SXIJ/SWQALL; SET ELIJ=STT1*(1 SXIJ_SHARE*SWRP); SET SIMNUM = SIMNUM; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR; SET J=1; SET MBEEFM(I,J)= SIMNUM; SET J=2; SET MBEEFM(I,J)= SIMVAR; SET J=3; SET MBEEFM(I,J)= SXIJ; ? PRODUCT DEMAND; SET J=4 ; SET MBEEFM(I,J)= SXIJ_SHARE; ? MARKET SHARE BY QUANTITY; SET J=5; SET MBEEFM(I,J)= ELIJ; ? ELASTICITY; SET J=6; SET MBEEFM(I,J)= SWRP; SET J=7; SET MBEEFM(I,J)= ADJ_WRP; SET J=8; SET MBEEFM(I,J)= SWQALL; SET J=9; SET MBEEFM(I,J)= ADJ_WQALL; SET J=10;SET MBEEFM(I,J)= SWFOREIGN; SET J=11;SET MBEEFM(I,J)= ADJ_WFOREIGN;; DOT(CHAR=#,INDEX=K) STT0 STT1 STT2 SDI1 SDI2 SDI3 SDX1 SDX2 SDX3 SDF1 SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; SET J=K+11; SET MBEEFM (I,J)= .#; ENDDOT; PRINT I; ENDPROC ZBSIMZ;

PAGE 165

165 ===============================================================================; STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR ; SIM #1 IS THE BASE STARTING VALUES ; ===============================================================================; SET SIMNUM = 1; ? BASE ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; ZBSIMZ; ===============================================================================; STA RTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR ; SIM #2 TRADE BY IMPORTER AND EXPORTER ; ===============================================================================; SET SIMNUM = 2; ZR ESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US TO KOREA; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 2; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA TO KOREA; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 3; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND TO KOREA; ZRESETZ; S ET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US TO JAPAN; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 2; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA TO JAPAN; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 3; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND TO JAPAN; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVA R = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US TO TAWAIN; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 2; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA TO TAWAIN; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 3; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND TO TAWAIN; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1 ; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US TO HONG KONG; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 2; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA TO HONG KONG; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 3; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND TO HONG KONG; ============ ===================================================================; STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR ; SIM #3 US TRADE OVER TIME TO COUNTIRES ; ============================= ==================================================; SET SIMNUM = 3; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US TO KOREA; DOT(INDEX=H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = H+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDOT; SET HH=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR =1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US TO JAPAN; DOT(INDEX=H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = H+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDOT; SET HH=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR =1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US TO TAWIN; DOT(INDEX=H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVA R = H+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDOT; SET HH=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR =1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US TO HONG KONG; DOT(INDEX=H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;

PAGE 166

166 ZRESETZ; S ET SIMVAR = H+1; SET .X=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDOT; SET HH=SIMVAR; ===============================================================================; STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR ; SIM #4 AUSTRAL IA TRADE OVER TIME TO COUNTIRES ; ===============================================================================; SET SIMNUM = 4; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA TO KOREA; DOT(INDEX= H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = H+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDOT; SET HH=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR =0+1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA TO JAPA N; DOT(INDEX=H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = H+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDOT; SET HH=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR =0+1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUST RALIA TO TAWIN; DOT(INDEX=H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = H+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDOT; SET HH=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR =0+1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AU STRALIA TO HONG KONG; DOT(INDEX=H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = H+1; SET .X=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDOT; SET HH=SIMVAR; ============================================================= ==================; STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR ; SIM #5 NEW ZEALAND TRADE OVER TIME TO COUNTIRES ; ========================================================================== =====; SET SIMNUM = 5; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND TO KOREA; DOT(INDEX=H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = H+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX3 =1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDOT; SET HH=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR =0+1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND TO JAPAN; DOT(INDEX=H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = H+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI 2=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDOT; SET HH=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR =0+1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND TO TAWIN; DOT(INDEX=H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = H+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDOT; SET HH=SIMVAR;

PAGE 167

167 ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR =0+1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND TO HONG KONG; DOT(INDEX=H,CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = H +1; SET .X=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDOT; SET HH=SIMVAR; ===============================================================================; STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR ; SIM #6 RELATIVE PRICE A DJUSTMENTS IN KOREA ; THIS SHOWS EACH EXPORTERS SHARE TO KOREA AS RELATIVE PRICES CHANGE ; ===============================================================================; SET SIMNUM = 6; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US DO ADJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI1=1; SET S DX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA DO ADJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALA ND; DO ADJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ===============================================================================; STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR ; SIM #7 RELATIVE PRICE ADJUSTMENTS IN JAPAN ; THIS SHOWS EACH EXPORTERS SHARE TO JAPAN AS RELATIVE PRICES CHANGE ; ======================================================== =======================; SET SIMNUM = 7; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US DO ADJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA DO ADJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND; DO ADJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR;

PAGE 168

168 ============================================================== =================; STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR ; SIM #8 RELATIVE PRICE ADJUSTMENTS IN TAWAIN ; THIS SHOWS EACH EXPORTERS SHARE TO TAWAIN AS RELATIVE PRICES CHANGE ; ===============================================================================; SET SIMNUM = 8; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US DO ADJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA DO ADJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX2=1; ZB SIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND; DO ADJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; == =============================================================================; STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR ; SIM #9 RELATIVE PRICE ADJUSTMENTS IN HONG KONG ; THIS SHOWS EA CH EXPORTERS SHARE TO HONG KONG AS RELATIVE PRICES CHANGE ; ===============================================================================; SET SIMNUM = 9; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US DO A DJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA DO ADJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND; DO ADJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ========================== =====================================================; STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR ; SIM #10 RELATIVE TOTAL DEMAND IS ADJUSTMENTS IN KOREA ; ========================== =====================================================; SET SIMNUM = 10; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;

PAGE 169

169 SET SDI1=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND; DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+ 1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ===============================================================================; STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR ; SIM #11 RELATIVE TOTAL DEMAND IS ADJUSTMENTS IN JAPAN ; ===============================================================================; SET SIMNUM = 11; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND; DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ===============================================================================; STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR ; SIM #12 RELATIVE TOTAL DEMAND IS ADJUSTMENTS IN TAWAIN ; ===============================================================================; SET SIMNUM = 12; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA D O ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND;

PAGE 170

170 DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ===============================================================================; STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR ; SIM #13 RELATIVE TOTAL DEMAND IS ADJUSTMENTS IN HONG KONG ; ===============================================================================; SET SIMNUM = 13; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ ; ? US DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND; DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ========================== =====================================================; STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR ; SIM #14 RELATIVE TOTAL FOREIGN PROMOTIONS IS ADJUSTMENTS IN KOREA ; ==================================== ===========================================; SET SIMNUM = 14; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US DO ADJ_WFOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSI MZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA DO ADJ_WFOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND; DO ADJ_WFOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ========================= ======================================================; STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR ; SIM #15 RELATIVE TOTAL FOREIGN PROMOTIONS IS ADJUSTMENTS IN JAPAN ; ======================================= ========================================;

PAGE 171

1 71 SET SIMNUM = 15; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US DO ADJ_WFOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX1=1; Z BSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA DO ADJ_WFOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMV AR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND; DO ADJ_WFOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ================ ===============================================================; STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR ; SIM #16 RELATIVE TOTAL FOREIGN PROMOTIONS IS ADJUSTMENTS IN TAWAIN ; ========================== =====================================================; SET SIMNUM = 16; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US DO ADJ_WFOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI3=1; SE T SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA DO ADJ_WFOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO ; SET H=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND; DO ADJ_WFOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; === ============================================================================; STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR ; SIM #17 RELATIVE TOTAL FOREIGN PROMOTIONS IS ADJUSTMENTS IN HONG KONG ; ============= ==================================================================; SET SIMNUM = 17; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US DO ADJ_WFOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AUSTRALIA D O ADJ_WFOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;

PAGE 172

172 SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVA R = 1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NEW ZEALAND; DO ADJ_WFOREIGN = .70 TO 1.30 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; SET H=SIMVAR; ===============================================================================; STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR ; SIM #18 RELATIVE PRICE ADJUSTMENTS AND TIME FOR THE US ; == =============================================================================; SET SIMNUM = 18; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 S DYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; ENDDOT; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US DOT(C HAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; ENDDOT; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO ; ENDDOT; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SE T .X=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; ENDDOT; ===============================================================================; STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR ; SIM #19 RELATIVE PRI CE ADJUSTMENTS AND TIME FOR AU ; ===============================================================================; SET SIMNUM = 19; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AU DOT(CHA R=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; ENDDOT; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; S ET SDI2=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AU DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11;

PAGE 173

173 ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; ENDDOT; ZRE SETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AU DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET .X=1; SET SD I3=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; ENDDOT; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AU DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025 ; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET .X=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; ENDDOT; ===============================================================================; STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR ; SIM #20 RELATIVE PRICE ADJUSTMENTS AND TIME FOR NZ ; ===============================================================================; SET SIMNUM = 20; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NZ DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; ENDDOT; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NZ DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; ENDDOT; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NZ DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET .X=1 ; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; ENDDOT; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NZ DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WRP = .90 TO 1.10 BY .025; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET .X=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; ENDDOT;

PAGE 174

174 ===============================================================================; STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR ; SIM #21 RELATIVE DEMAND ADJUSTMENTS AND TIME FOR THE US ; ===============================================================================; SET SIMNUM = 21; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI 1=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; ENDDOT; ZRESETZ; S ET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; ENDDOT; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMV AR = SIMVAR+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; ENDDOT; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ? US DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRES ETZ; DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET .X=1; SET SDX1=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; ENDDOT; ===============================================================================; STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR ; SIM #22 RELATIVE DEMAND ADJUSTMENTS AND TIME FOR AU ; ===============================================================================; SET SIMNUM = 22; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AU DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO ; ENDDOT; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AU DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; ENDDOT; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AU DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1;

PAGE 175

175 SET .X=1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; ENDDOT; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ? AU DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDY R9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET .X=1; SET SDX2=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; ENDDOT; ===============================================================================; STARTING THE BEEF TRADE SIMULATOR ; SIM #23 RELATIVE DEMAND ADJUSTMENTS AND TIME FOR NZ ; ===============================================================================; SET SIMNUM = 23; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NZ DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI1=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; ENDDOT; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NZ DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI2=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; ENDDOT; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NZ DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDYR5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESET Z; DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET .X=1; SET SDI3=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; ENDDOT; ZRESETZ; SET SIMVAR = 1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ? NZ DOT(CHAR=X) SDYR2 SDYR3 SDYR4 SDY R5 SDYR6 SDYR7 SDYR8 SDYR9 SDYR10 SDYR11; ZRESETZ; DO ADJ_WQALL = .80 TO 1.20 BY .05; SET SIMVAR = SIMVAR+1; SET .X=1; SET SDX3=1; ZBSIMZ; ENDDO; ENDDOT; ?WRITE(FORMAT=EXCEL,FILE='C: \ ZSTUDENT \ OFERRARA \ TSPPRG \ ARMCOEF#6.XLS') ?WYEAR WIMP WEXP WTYPE AID AIJ BIJ TH0 TH1 TH2 AAID AAIJ BBIJ TT0 TT1 TT2; WRITE(FORMAT=EXCEL,FILE='C: \ ZSTUDENT \ OFERRARA \ TSPPRG \ BEEF_SIM#7_Fresh.XLS') MBEEFM; END;

PAGE 176

176 LIST OF REFERENCES Adda, J "Behavior Towards Health Risks: An Empirical Study Using the "Mad Cow" Crisis as an Experiment." Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 35, No. 3 (2007): 285 305. Allen J. W., and T. R. Pierson. Food Marketing and Distribution: Implications for Agriculture Food Industry Reports; No. 9301. East Lansing, Mich.: Food Industry I nstitute, Michigan State University, 1993. Alston, J. M., C. A. Carter, R. Green, and D. Pick. "Whither Armington Trade Models?" American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72, No. 2 (1990): 455 67. Armington, P. S. "A Theory of Demand for Products Distingu ished by Place of Production." Staff Papers International Monetary Fund 16, No. 1 (1969): 159 78. Arrow, K. J., H. B. Chenery, B. S. Minhas, and R. M. Solow. Labor Substitution and Economic Efficiency." The Review of Economics and Statistics 43, No. 3 (1961): 225 50. Artus, J. R., and R. R. Rhomberg. "A Multilateral Exchange Rate Model." Staff Papers International Monetary Fund 20, No. 3 (1973): 591 611. Bhuiyan, M. A. "Measuring Revealed Competitiveness: Applications to World Vegetable Market. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, 1993. Blonigen, B. A., and W. Wesley "Explaining Armington: What Determines Substitutability between Home and Foreign Goods?" The Canadian Journal of Economics / Revue Canadienne d'Economique 32, No. 1 (1999): 1 21. Brester, G. W. "Estimation of the U.S. Import Demand Elasticity for Beef: The Importance of Disaggregation." Review of Agricultural Economics 18, No. 1 (1996): 31 42. Bureau, J. C., W. Jones, E. Gozlan, and S. Marette. "Overview and Conceptual Founda tion." In Global Food Trade and Consumer Demand for Quality edited by Barry Krissoff, Mary Bohman and Julie A. Caswell, 252. New York, NY: Kluwer Academics/ Plenum Publishers, 2002. Bureau, J. C., M. P. Ramos and L. Salvatici. "Tariffs, Trq's and Import C omposition: The Case of Beef Trade between the EU and Mercosur." In UMR Economie Publique edited by INRA INAPG, 28. Paris, France: European Trade Study Group, 2005. Burton, M. and Trevor Young. "The Impact of BSE on the Demand for Beef and Other Meats in Great Britain." Applied Economics 28, No. 6 (1996): 687 93.

PAGE 177

177 Buzby, J. C. "International Trade and Food Safety: Econom ic Theory and Case Studies." Agricultural Economic Report No. 828 Washington DC 2003. Cameron, A. C., a nd F. A. G. Windmeijer. "An R S quared Measure of Goodness of Fit for Some Common Nonlinear Regression Models." Journal of Econometrics 77, No. 2 (1997): 329 42. Capps, O., R. Tsai, R. Kirby, and G.W Williams. "A Compari son of Demands for Meat Products in the Pacific Rim Region." Journa l of Agricultural and Resource Economics 19, No. 1 (1994): 210 24. Carwell, R. T. "The Importance of Dynamics in Commodity Advertizing Demand Systems." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Saskatchewan, 2005. Chiang, A. C. Fundamental Methods of Mathematica l Economics Third edition New York, NY: McGraw Hill/Irwin, 1987. Codron, J. M., J. A. Sterns, and T. Reardon. "Strategic Choices in Produce Marketing: Issues of Compatible Use and Exclusion Cost." Journal of Food Distribution Research Volume 34, N o. 03 ( 2003): 1 12. Coffey, B., J. Mintert, S. Fox, T. Schoeder, and L. Valentin. "The Economic Impact of BSE on the U.S. Beef Industry: Product Value Losses, Regulatory Cost, and Consumer Reactions." In Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service 64: Kansas State University, 2005. Cong L.T., H. M. Kaiser, and W. Tomek "Export Promotion and Import Demand for Us Red Meat in Selected Pacific Rim Countries." Agribusiness 14, N o. 2 (1998): 95 105. Davis, G. C., and N. C Kruse. "Consistent Estimation of Armington Demand Models." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75, No. 3 (1993): 719 23. Devadoss, S., D. W. Holland, L. Stodick and J. Ghosh. "A General Equilibrium Analysis of Foreign and Domestic Demand Shocks Arising from Mad Cow Disease in the United States." Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 31, No. 2 (2006): 441 53. Dyck, J.H., and K.E. Nelson. "Structure of the Global Markets for Meat." In Agriculture Information Bulletin edited by Economic Re search Service (ERS) Market and Trade Economics Division, 24. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, 2003. Fmnia, F. and A. Gohin. "Estimating Price Elasticities of Food Trade Functions: How Relev ant Is the Gravity Approach?". TRADEAG Working Papers edited by INRA France, 37 2007.

PAGE 178

178 Food and Agriculture Organi zation of the United Nations ( FAO ) FAOSTAT 2007 Available from http://faostat.fao.org/?alias=faostat Forker, O. and R.W. Wa rd. Commodity Advertizing: The Economics and Measurement of Generic Programs New York, NY: Lexington Books, 1993. Gallaway, M. P., C A. McDaniel, and S. A. Rivera. "Short Run and Long Run Industry Level Estimates of U.S. Armington Elasticities." The Nort h American Journal of Economics and Finance 14, No. 1 (2003): 49 68. Golan, A., J. M. Perloff, and E. Z. Shen. a Demand System with Non negativity Constraints: Mexican Meat Demand." The Review of Economics and Statistics 83, No. 3 (2001): 541 5 0. Greene, W. H. Econometric Analysis 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003. Gujarati, D. N. Basic Econometrics 4th ed ition : McGraw Hill/Irwin, 2003. Gumbel, P. "Pasta Panic Strikes Italy." Fortune November 26, 200 7 Hall, B. H., and C. C ummins. TSP 5.0 : User's Guide Vol. 1. Palo Alto, CA: TSP International, 2005. Hanoch, G. "Cresh Production Functions." Econometrica 39 (1971): 695 712. Hayes, D. J., T. I. Wahl, and G W. Williams. "Testing Restrictions on a Model of Japanese Meat Demand. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72, No. 3 (1990): 556 66. Herrmann, R., S R. Thompson, and S Krischik Bautz,. "Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Generic Promotion of Beef: An Analysis for "Quality from Bavaria"." Agribusiness 18, No. 3 (2 002): 16. Hillberry, R. H., M. A. Anderson, E. J. Balistreri, and A. K. Fox. "Taste Parameters as Model Residuals: Assessing the "Fit" of an Armington Trade Model are Distributed across Exporters in Proportion to the Expenditure Elasticities." Review of In ternational Economics 13, No. 5 (2005): 973 84. Jin, H. J., A. Skripnitchenko, and W. W. Koo. "The Effects of th e BSE Outbreak in the United States on the Beef and Cattle Industry." S pecial Report 17. Fargo, ND: University of North Dakota, Center for Agri cultural Policy and Trade Studies, 2004. Jin, H. J., and W. W. Koo. "The Effect of the BSE Outbreak in Japan on Consumers' Preferences." Euro Rev Agric Econ 30, No. 2 (2003): 173 92.

PAGE 179

179 Jung, J "Understanding the Compass Model: Assumptions, Structure, and El asticity of Substitution." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, 2004. Kapuscinski, C. A., and P. G. Warr. "Estimation of Armington Elasticities: An Application to the Philippines." Economic Modeling 16, No. 2 (1999): 257 78. Kinnucan, H. W., P. A. Du ffy, and K. Z. Ackerman. "Effects of Price Versus Non Price Export Promotion: The Case of Cotton." Review of Agricultural Economics 17, No. 1 (1995): 91 1 00. Kinnucan, H. W., H. Xiao, C. J. Hsia, and J. D. Jackson. "Effects of Health Information and Generi c Advertising on U.S. Meat Demand." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79, No. 1 (1997): 13 23. A Note." Agribusiness 20, No. 2 (2004): 181 188. Kinnucan, H. W. and O. Myrland. "On Generic vs Brand Promotion of Farm Products in Foreign Markets." Applied Economics 40, No. 6 (2008): 673 84. Kotler, P Marketing Management 11 th ed ition New York, NY: Prentice Hall, 2002. Latouche, K., P. Rainelli, and D. Vermersch. "Food Safety Issues and the BSE Scare: Some Lessons from the French Case." Food Policy 23, No. 5 (1998): 347 56. Lloyd P.J ., and X.G. Zhang. "The Armington Model." Productivity Commission Staff Working Paper (2006): 30. Mangen, M.J.J. and A.M. Burrell. Decomposing Preference Shifts for Meat and Fish in the Netherlands." 2001. Marsh, J. M., G. W. Brester and V. H. Smith. "Effects of North American BSE Events on U.S. Cattle Prices." Review of Agricultural Economics 30, No. 1 (2008): 136 50. McDaniel, C A. and E J. Balistreri. "A Discussion on Armington Trade Substitution Elasticities." Office of Economics Working Paper (USITC) No. 2002 01 A (2002): 17. McLaren, D. "On Aspects of Food Safety and International Trade." Singapore Economic Review 51, No. 2 ( 2006): 135 45. Miljkovic, D., and J. Hyun. "Import Demand for Quality in the Japanese Beef Market." Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 35, No. 2 (2006): 276 84. Mukerji, V "A Generalized S.M.A.C. Function with Constant Ratios of Elasticity of Su bstitution." The Review of Economic Studies 30, No. 3 (1963): 233 36.

PAGE 180

180 Mutondo, J. E., and S. Henneberry. "Competitiveness of U.S. Meats in Japan and South Korea: A Source Differentiated Market Study." Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association, AAEA, Portland, O R, July 29 August 1, 2007. Nicholson, W Microeconomic Theory: Basic Principles and Extensions Eighth edition USA. South Western College /Thomson Learning, 2002 Peterson, H. H., and Y. J. Chen. "The Impact of BSE on Japanes e Retail Meat Demand." Agribusiness 21, No. 3 (2005): 313 27. Piggott N. E., J. A. Chalfant, J. M. Alston and G. R. Griffith. Demand Response to Advertising in the Australian Meat Industry. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78, No. 2. (1996): 26 8 279. Poulin, D., and A. K. Boane. "Mad Cow Disease and Beef Trade." edited by Yvan Gervais, 7. Ottawa, Canada: Statistics Canada, 2003. Preckel, P. V., J. Cranfield, and T. W. Hertel. "Implicit Additive Preferences: A Further Generalization of the CES ." West Lafayette, Indiana: Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, 2005. Regmi, A "Changing Structure of Global Food Consumption and Trade." Agricultural Economic Report WRS 01 1 Washington DC, 2001. Reinert, K. A., and D. W. Roland Holst. "Arm ington Elasticities for United States Manufacturing Sectors." Journal of Policy Modeling 14, No. 5 (1992): 631 39. Roig Franzia, M. "A Culinary and Cultural Staple in Crisis." The Washington Post Saturday, January 27, 2007. Saito, M "Armington Elasticiti es in Intermediate Inputs Trade: A Problem in Using Multilateral Trade Data." Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne d'economique 37, No. 4 (2004): 1097 117. Sato, K. Two Level Constant Elasticity of Substitution Production Function." The Review of Economic Studies 34, No. 2 (1967): 201 18. Satyanarayana, V. and D Johnson. "Credit Guarantee Programs and U.S. Markets Share in Sel ected Wheat Import Markets." Agricultural Economics Report No. 13. Fargo ND 1998. Shiells, C. R., and K. A. Reinert. "Armington Models and Terms of Trade Effects: Some Econometric Evidence for North America." The Canadian Journal of Economics / Revue Canadienne d'Economique 26, No. 2 (1993): 299 316.

PAGE 181

181 Solomon, H. and H. W. Kinnucan. "Effects on Non Price Export Promotion: Some Evidence for Cotton." Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 37, No. 1 (1993): 1 15. Sparks, A. L. and R. W. Ward. "A Simultaneous Econometric Model of World Fresh Vegetable Trade, 1962 82: An Application of Nonlinear Simultaneous Equations." J ournal of Agricultural Economics Research 44, No. 2 (1992). U. S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (ERS) Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United States. 2 007 Available from http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdReport.aspx U.S. Beef and Cattle Industry: Background Statistics and Information 2007 Available from http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/BSECoverage.htm U. S. Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Understanding Korea's Beef Import System Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade No. 4. Washington DC, 1996. Commodity and Market Analysis: World Beef Trade Overview 2004. Avai lable from http://www.fas.usda.gov/dlp2/circular/2004/04 10LP/toc.htm Production, Supply and Distribution Online. 2007. Available from http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdReport.aspx Unite d States Meat Export Federation ( USMEF ) "The Value of U.S. Beef and Beef Variety Meat Exports." 5. Denver CO: USMEF, 2007. Van Osselaer, S. M. and J. W. Alba. "Consumer Learning and Brand Equity." Journal of Consumer Research 27, No. 1 (2000): 16. Varian, Hal R. Microeconomic Analysis 3rd ed ition New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992. Verbeke, W. and R. W. Ward. "A Fresh Meat Almost Ideal Demand System Incorporating Negative TV Press and Advertising Impact." Agricultural Economics 25, No. 2 3 (2001): 359 74. Ward, R. W. Advertising and Promotions." Agro Food Marketing edited by et al Daniel. I. Padberg, 319 48: CAB International, 1997. Ward R. W., and C. Lambert. "Generic Pro motion of Beef Measuring the Impact of the United States Beef Checkoff." Journal of Agricultural Economics 44, No. 3 (1993): 456 65. Weatherspoon, D. D., and J. L. Seale. "Do the Japanese Discriminate against Australian Beef Imports ? Evidence from the Di fferential Approach." Journal of Agricultural and Applied Econometric 27, No. 2 (1995): 536 43.

PAGE 182

182 Webb, A. J., E. E. Figueroa, W. E. Wecker, and Alex F. McCalla. "Imp act of the Soviet Grain Embargo: a Comparison of Methods." Journal of Policy Modeling 11, No 3 (1989): 361 89. Winters, L. A "Separability and the Specification of Foreign Trade Functions." Journal of International Economics 17, No. 3 4 (1984): 239 63. World Customs Organization ( WCO ) What Is the Harmonized System (H S ) Nomenclature? 2008. Avai lable from http://www.wcoomd.org/home_wco_topics_hsoverviewboxes.htm World Organization for Animal Health ( OIE ) World Animal Health Situation Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy ( BSE ) 2007 Available from http://www.oie.int/eng/info/en_esb.htm World Trade Atlas, GTIS. World Trade Atlas (Internet Version 4.3e.) Global Trade Information Services, Inc., 2007. Yang, S R. and W. W. Koo. "A Generalized Armington Trade Model: Re specification." Agricultural Economics No. 9 (1993): 374 76.

PAGE 183

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Oscar Ferrara was born and raised in Asuncion, Paraguay. In 1992 he earned a B.S. degree in agricultural engineering at the Universidad Nacional de Asuncin in Paraguay. In August 2001 he earned a B.S. degree in applied economics from the University of Minnesota and in August 2005 he earned a M.S. degree in food and resource economics at the University of Florida. In November 2007 he was admitted to candidacy for Doctor of Philosophy in food and resource economics at the University of Florida. His research interests are focused on agricultural marketing, trade and food safety.