Citation
Animal welfare

Material Information

Title:
Animal welfare ends and means
Creator:
Cryan, Roger
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
vi, 90 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Agriculture ( jstor )
Animal welfare ( jstor )
Animals ( jstor )
Birds ( jstor )
Capital costs ( jstor )
Commercial production ( jstor )
Economics ( jstor )
Humans ( jstor )
Unit costs ( jstor )
Voting ( jstor )
Animal rights ( lcsh )
Animal welfare ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Food and Resource Economics -- UF ( lcsh )
Food and Resource Economics thesis, Ph.D ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 1997.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 85-90).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Roger Cryan.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
028624878 ( ALEPH )
39526303 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text










ANIMAL WELFARE: ENDS AND MEANS


By

ROGER CRYAN

















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














Dedication

This work is dedicated to my daughter, Elli, and my wife, Rene, without either

of whom it likely would not have been completed.














ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank the members of my degree committee variously for their intellectual,

personal, and, not least importantly, financial support through the long journey from start

to finish. Additional thanks are due to Michael Olexa, Conrado Gempesaw, Richard D.

Reynnells, and numerous other parties for their interest in, and contributions to, my

research.

I also acknowledge the lack of cooperation from others whose vertebral fortitude

was inadequate to participation in such "daring" work.

















TABLE OF CONTENTS



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................. iii

ABSTRACT .......... ....... ............ ............... vii

CHAPTERS


1 INTRODUCTION ........................
Problem Statement ........................
Research Objectives . .............

2 PHILOSOPHICAL CONTEXT: DEFINING ENDS ....
The Academic Mainstream ...................
Animal Welfare and Human Ends ...............

3 POLITICAL CONTEXT: DEFINING THE MARKET .
The Movement ..... ........... ..........
Public Opinion ............ ...........
Democratic Processes ......... .............
Animal Welfare: A Public Choice ...............


. . 1
. . 2
. . 4

. . 6
. . 6
. . 16

. . 19
......... 20
......... 23
. . 26
. . 31
31


4 WELFARE, RIGHTS, AND THE BROILER INDUSTRY .........
The Maryland Broiler Industry .........................
Potential Restrictions ................................


5 AN ECONOMIC THEORY OF ANIMAL WELFARE:
DEFINING MEANS ........................
Defining Welfare ......... ............. ........
Welfare and Production ........ .................
Welfare Maximization .............................
Firm Profit Maximization .......... ................
Constrained Firm Profit Maximization ...................
Contract Broiler Optimization .......... .............
Constrained Contract Broiler Optimization .................

6 EVALUATING MEANS: MARYLAND BROILERS ..........
D ata .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ..


S45
S 45
S49
S 50
S 51
S 52
S 54
S 58

















M odel .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Constraints ............................
Results .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .
Grower Impacts .........................
Regional Economic Impacts ..................
Animal Welfare Impacts ....................
Additional Considerations ...................


.......... 62
...... .... 65
........ 65
.......... 70
.......... 70
. .. .. .. 75
. ......... 77


7 CONCLUSIONS ................................
Philosophy ................ ......................
Social and Political Processes ...........................
Economic Theory ... ................................
Results and Suggestions for Further Research .................
Conclusions .....................................

REFERENCES ... ....................................

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................















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

ANIMAL WELFARE: ENDS AND MEANS

By

Roger Cryan

December 1997

Chairman: Dr. Thomas Spreen
Major Department: Department of Food and Resource Economics

The social side of the animal welfare debate has been inadequately informed by

economic science. This work examines the philosophical debate over animal welfare and

proposes an alternative approach. It examines the prospects of the animal welfare/rights

movement in the context of public choice theory. An economic theory of animal welfare

is developed. Finally, a case study is used to demonstrate one methodology for

estimating the direct human costs of animal welfare restrictions.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION


Economics is the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship
between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses. Lionel
Robbins, 1935, p.16

A December 1995 Associated Press poll highlights the changing attitudes of the

American people toward animals. In addition to the growth of existing majorities

opposed to "indiscriminate" animal testing and killing animals for fur, new majorities

now consider sport hunting to be "always wrong" and agree with the idea that "an

animal's right to live free of suffering should be just as important as a person's right to

live free of suffering." (Gainesville Sun, December 3, 1995, p. 3A) Such an expressed

public philosophy has significant implications for both the producers and consumers of

farm animals. If these views continue to become more common among a population

alienated from the production of its food, government animal welfare policies could

change the way of life of millions of American producers and consumers of animal

products.

Since the relationship of means to ends is the subject of economic science,

agricultural economists are behooved to consider the animal welfare ends desired by both

the 'movement' and the public, and, in turn, to evaluate the rational means to those ends,

whatever they may be.








2

The aims of the animal welfare and animal rights movement have been closely

associated with the academic philosophical debate over animals' status in human society.

These aims are examined in this work to discern any purposive and consistent ends that

they might contain.

Whether, when, and how public sentiment will be translated into direct

government action will have economic implications for agriculture and the consuming

public. Inevitably, the perceived benefits of animal welfare measures will be weighed,

however imperfectly, against human costs. To that end, specific economic impacts

should be investigated, so that any restrictive measures taken on behalf of animals may

be based upon a balanced prior consideration. This research proposes one theoretical

basis for the economic consideration of animal welfare, based upon productivity as a

measure of welfare. Further, it attempts to establish one methodology for such economic

consideration through an examination of the impact of hypothetical animal welfare

restrictions on contract broiler production in the state of Maryland.



Problem Statement

The upsurge of popular concern for animal welfare and of animal rights activism

has led a wide variety of groups to make a wider variety of demands on agriculture.

These demands have progressively included curbs on particularly intensive forms of

animal production, a ban on all animal products and animal agriculture, and, finally, legal

protection for animals comparable with that provided humans. The ultimate success of

these groups, if that success results in effective constraints upon agricultural practices,








3

would have considerable economic consequences for those engaged in the production of

animals and animal products.

In many ways the debate over farm animal welfare lacks a substantive

philosophical context. Concern for animals generally has been expressed, even by

professional philosophers, in emotional terms on intuitive premises. A sound

philosophical foundation for this conversation is needed to frame the policy questions and

define our real concerns about animals.

A substantive economic context is still more sorely lacking. Economic science

takes human values as given and demands of the "rational" economic agent only that his

preferences are "consistent" and "purposive". (Robbins 1935, pp. 90-93) Once the aims

of a philosophy have been translated into such a consistent and purposive expression of

desired ends, economic analysis allows useful evaluation of the required means.

However, society must decide among ends and means, as a whole and as

individuals, on the basis of available information. The role of economics and social

science is to inform the decision, not to make it. Once the consistent and purposive ends

pursued by our society with regard to animals have been clearly identified, an economic

context can be developed to evaluate means to those decided ends. This research is an

economist's attempt to begin both the identification of ends and the evaluation of means,

with respect to the issue of animal welfare.










Research Objectives

Animal welfare, for the most part, has been examined superficially by social

scientists familiar with agriculture (Guithier and Van Buer 1991; Simpson and Rollin

1984). If it is one role of agricultural economics to assess the interaction of the farm

sector with society at large, the field can have a useful place in the now disjointed debate

over the status of farm animals, from which the agricultural establishment has been

largely excluded (or from which it has excluded itself), despite its enormous stake in the

outcome.

A discussion of this issue and the suggestion of an economic methodology to

explore the human costs of the pursuit of welfare for animals are the purposes of this

research.

The philosophical discussion upon which much of the animal welfare debate has

been based is explored. This burgeoning literature is re-examined and a new basis for

the consideration of the status of animals is suggested which makes clear the soundness

of weighing animal welfare in light of its cost to humans.

The animal welfare movement is described. Its potential for success and a

practical definition of the animal welfare issue are considered in the context of public

choice theory and the political processes involved. Constitutional issues suggest the

means by which an animal welfare agenda could most easily be translated into law, and

demographic considerations may indicate jurisdictions in which such laws would be most

likely.








5

An economic theory of animal welfare is developed, based upon the ordering of

animal welfare by productivity per animal. A neo-classical production framework is used

to consider the theoretical impact of welfare restrictions on "welfare", production, and

profitability.

A case study is used to demonstrate a methodology for the analysis of the farm-

level impacts of hypothetical but plausible animal welfare restrictions on broiler producers

in the state of Maryland. After a review of broiler production, and Maryland's industry

in particular, a representative farm is modelled to estimate the firm-level economic impact

over time of potential animal welfare restrictions. Such results are used to draw

conclusions regarding impacts on supply and profitability, as well as the multiplied effect

on the local and state economies of changes in industry sales.














CHAPTER 2
PHILOSOPHICAL CONTEXT: DEFINING ENDS


Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and
increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall
upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every
creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea;
they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be
food for you. Just as I have given you the green plants, I now give you
everything. Genesis 9:1-3

Animal agriculture traditionally has been based upon an acceptance of the priority

of human interests within the natural world, including the belief that human interests

should rule human actions. Another, increasingly common, view of the role of animals

in human society would place the 'intrinsic' interests of animals, and even plants and

natural systems, on a comparable footing with human interests, leading its advocates to

an ethical conclusion that man must yield some part of his interest to the rest of the

natural world. Effecting such an ethic would have considerable human costs, and begs

innumerable questions about methods and results.

From a philosophical standpoint, the animal welfare issue is both fascinating and

useful, since it demands a fundamental consideration of the ends of morality. Man's

moral relationship to animal can only be clarified in the context of man's moral

relationship to man.' The current conventional philosophical arguments for animal


SThe author begs that the reader excuse the politically incorrect but traditional use
of 'man' when referring generally to the human race as a preferable alternative to the

6








7

welfare and animal rights start from a weakly defined position with an under-developed

foundation.



The Academic Mainstream

More importantly for this research, defining the philosophies driving the demands of the

animal welfare and rights movement is vital to framing the economic question; without

understanding the ends pursued, one cannot adequately evaluate the means necessary to

those ends.

The most influential writers on the topic have been Peter Singer, who demands

improved conditions for farm and other animals on the basis of 'equal consideration' in

an utilitarian system, and Tom Regan, who argues that animals are entitled to rights

which are comparable or identical to those of humans. These two writers have largely

set the philosophical terms of the broader debate about animals' moral status in human

society; this can be seen in the extensive critical literature devoted to the slight difference

between the routes each takes to reach the same practical conclusions. (Thompson and

Curtis 1994)

Peter Singer argues that animals are entitled to equal consideration with humans

on the basis of their physical capacity to suffer and the lack of an intrinsic distinction

between humans and animals. This argument for our equal consideration of animals rests

upon three premises. First, suffering is intrinsically evil; second, animal suffering is

morally indistinguishable from our own; and third, because suffering is evil, human



tiresome repetition of such phrases as 'man and woman' or 'human beings.'








8

society is obliged to minimize it in all forms. If one accepts these premises as defining

necessary human ends, it is indeed a trivial conclusion that human society must give

consideration to the pain and pleasure of animals equal with that given to the pain and

pleasure of humans. (Singer 1989, 1990) Because they are taken as given by Dr. Singer,

each of these three premises must be questioned.

The first and third are the bases for utilitarian philosophies generally. Utilitarians

hold that society should maximize the sum of happiness across individuals. This requires

the feasibility of interpersonal comparisons of utility and denies the individual's unique

qualifications to pursue his own ends. That such comparisons have no scientific

legitimacy is a tenet of economic science. (Robbins 1935; Hicks 1946; Gardner 1995,

p.19) The valuations necessary for a utilitarian balancing of ends would therefore be so

arbitrary as to deny the efficiency of liberty without effecting a scientifically justifiable

'utility' maximization. This is rather more a conclusion of economic science than an

argument of philosophy, but serves both purposes.

This standard criticism of utilitarianism as an economic philosophy becomes

clearer when applied to Dr. Singer's formulation of measurable comparability of utility

among species. In fact, he believes that society can determine the amount of pain or

pleasure a particular practice causes a farm animal, directly compare that to the pain or

pleasure which thereby accrues to humans, and dictate whether that practice shall

continue. (Singer 1989) The pursuit of such a weighted utility objective by an utilitarian

state depends upon the arbitrary criteria by which that state measures the individual

happiness of each man and each beast. On the basis of what others claim will produce








9

the greatest happiness for non-human animals, man is denied the opportunity to pursue

his own interest. Utilitarianism cannot provide an objective basis for social order among

men; and it certainly cannot among species.

Dr. Singer's second premise links man's interest to that of animals by denying any

fundamental intrinsic difference between men and animals that could provide any moral

basis for disregarding the interests of animals. (Singer 1990, p.237)2 In effect, he adopts

the position of eighteenth century utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham that the basis

for utilitarian consideration "is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they

suffer?"(p.7) That is, he identifies all suffering and decides on that basis that animals are

entitled to equal consideration with humans. Human unwillingness to grant that

consideration is therefore a form of bigotry Dr. Singer calls, after Richard Ryder,

'speciesism.'(Singer 1989; Ryder 1972)

Like Dr. Singer, Tom Regan (1982) denies man's right to make a moral

distinction between humans and animals based on the absence of an intrinsic difference

between humans and animals, further arguing that animals are entitled to whatever legal

and human rights that they are capable of enjoying. Dr. Regan asserts each animal's

right to pursue its own interests as the subject of a life on the basis of its ability to 'value'

those interests, an assertion for which he draws explicitly from Dr. Singer's arguments

for animals' capacity to suffer. This leads to his claim for animals' equal consideration

and independent legal standing in human society.




2 In this, Dr. Singer is 'lifting himself by his boot straps', since his rejection of
traditional moral theory relies upon that theory for its foundation.








10

He differs from Dr. Singer in denying, based on criticisms of utilitarian theory

similar to those above, that each human's obligation is to maximize the aggregate utility

of all creatures. He questions the necessarily centralized utilitarian program and finds it

lacking. The authoritarian control demanded by any system of direct utilitarianism would

be susceptible to the abuses which arise from all arbitrary authority. "Indeed, I believe

that only if we postulate human rights can we provide a theory that adequately guards

humans against the abuses that utilitarianism might permit." (Regan, p.90) This

statement, by acknowledging that the origin and justification for a system of rights lies

in its functional, rather than intrinsic, properties, provides the basis, not only for his

refutation of Dr. Singer's animal utilitarianism, but also for a refutation of Dr. Regan's

animal rights theory, which is based upon the 'inherent' value of all feeling animals and

their interests. (1982, p.71)

If the Regan approach is more theoretically coherent in light of the impossibility

of interpersonal or interspecial utility comparison and allocation, it still finds itself on the

slippery slope of attempting to define the line 'below' which species do not possess some

or all rights. Dr. Regan's theory requires that the same judgement be made upon some

non-human species which he calls immoral when passed upon all non-human species; a

rights framework must fall apart unless a line is drawn between those beings which do

have rights and those that do not.

Dr. Regan neither questions nor defends the fundamental basis of the morality

which, he believes, demands that we consider animal's rights the same as our own, but

takes it on faith. He begins with the unsupported belief that animals are entitled to








11

equality with humans, and "postulates" a theory of animal rights to support this belief,

in the same way that a theory of human rights has been postulated to support the more

consistent ends of human protection from arbitrary authority. (Regan 1982, p. 90)

Libertarian political philosopher Robert Nozick has argued that animals must have

equal consideration on the basis of a similar and similarly presupposed moral theory,

according to which he finds no 'moral' basis for differentiating man from other species.

He makes an analogy to human enslavement by 'superior' space aliens in support of his

argument: if we would consider such an enslavement 'immoral,' we should so consider

our enslavement of animals. This argument, however, appeals to our self-interest; we

would perceive a violation of our well-being in an alien enslavement rather than an

immoral act. This concern for our own well-being, in fact, must be an important

consideration, if not the original basis for any moral theory, just as it provides the basis

for economic science.

Professor Nozick recognizes the gap left in his work (and the work of Drs. Singer

and Regan) by the absence of an explanation for his moral theory. "The completely

accurate statement of the moral background, including the precise statement of the moral

theory and its underlying basis, would require a full-scale presentation and is a task for

another time.... That task is so crucial, the gap left without its accomplishment so

yawning, that it is only a minor comfort to note that we here are following the

respectable tradition of Locke, who does not provide anything remotely resembling a

satisfactory explanation of the status and basis of the law of nature in his Second








12

Treatise." (p. 9)3 Nevertheless, like Drs. Singer and Regan, he puts his philosophical

cart before the horse and 'postulates' a journey. That he admits the gap does, however,

lead to a more profitable line of reasoning.

Professors Regan, Singer, and Nozick define animals as morally indistinguishable

from men, but can only define morality itself on an intuitive basis. They rest what they

claim to be a rational, even a scientific, framework upon a traditional foundation which

they then deny. They fail to define consistent and purposive ends when they presuppose

a moral theory without the benefit of a rational explanation (or divine inspiration), and

this failure makes the pursuit of their ends inconsistent and, so, infeasible. Indeed,

biological science has generated a consistent and feasible philosophical ordering,

grounded in evolution.

Many animal advocates cite the work of Charles Darwin as knocking out the

foundations of 'speciesism.' (Singer 1990, pp.209-212) Professor Darwin did, indeed,

redefine man's self-image by demonstrating his close natural relation to the other species;

but perhaps more relevant to our inquiry is his theory of man's moral development.

The acceptance of evolution has led to the collapse of the 'intrinsic value' basis

of man's self-centered world-view; but Professor Darwin himself begat a new theory of

morality based upon evolution that defines even more clearly the functional separation of

man from other species. In The Descent of Man, Professor Darwin presented a theory of

man's morality as the product of evolution. Man's 'moral sense' was promoted "through




3 John Locke did, however, have the comfortable support of a Biblical moral theory
that few in his time dared openly question.








13

natural selection: for those communities, which included the greatest number of the most

sympathetic members would flourish best and rear the greatest number of offspring."

(p.82) The seeds of a new ethical philosophy were planted when he suggests that "it

would be advisable, if found practible,...to take as the test of morality, the general good

or welfare of the community, rather than the general happiness; but this definition would

perhaps require some limitation on account of political ethics."(p. 98) Thus, he

recognizes that good and evil can be seen strictly as what is good or bad for the physical

survival of the community, including both selfish and selfless acts.'

This is key to the Darwinian revolution in moral philosophy. A rethinking of

basic moral theory by such philosophers as Thomas Huxley, Herbert Spencer, Friedrich

Nietzsche, and William Graham Sumner (who coined the term 'social Darwinist') denied

traditional morality for its lack of a rational foundation, and was based instead in man's

brute origins. (Mencken 1908, Sumner 1885, Spencer 1879, Huxley 1911) Human

morality, according to this view, is only justified and can only persist insofar as it

promotes some basic, generally physical, 'good' of the human species.

Modern socio-biology uses the theory of genetic selection, based upon the

assertion "that the fundamental unit of selection, and therefore of self-interest, is not the

species, or the group, nor even, strictly, the individual. It is the gene, the unit of

heredity." (Dawkins 1989, p. 11) Richard Dawkins, though "not advocating a morality

based on evolution", does a very good job of describing such a morality. (p. 2) One



Nevertheless, man's morality is limited and "his actions are largely determined by
the expressed wishes and judgement of his fellow-man, and unfortunately still oftener,
by his own strong, selfish desires." (p.86)








14

implication of our being 'bred' by the survival of individual genes is that we are more

accurately seen as 'vehicles' for the selection of genes than the direct subjects of

evolution. Another implication, more to the point here, is that such Darwinian concepts

as 'group selection' and behavior bred for the good of the species as a whole are

qualified, and individuals' bald self-interest is tempered only by traits and behavior

beneficial to genetically close relatives and, significantly, by more subtle self-interest of

the kind which typifies much human interaction. (Dawkins 1989)

Natural law, then, if it can be said to exist, are only those positive physical

circumstances which drive man's struggle for existence, the 'law of the jungle.' Under

this law, there is no right and wrong, except what is good and bad for the species (or the

relevant gene). Such human institutions as government, morality, law, and markets

evolve and survive in order to serve human purposes. If they do not, they cannot be

reasonably defended and they cannot survive in evolutionary competition with institutions

which do. Here is a concrete end, defined functionally and functionally sustainable.

Morality toward animals, according to Professor Darwin, is essentially a stochastic

by-product of a functional sympathy toward a growing circle of humans. "Sympathy

beyond the confines of man, that is humanity to the lower animals, seems to be one of

the latest moral acquisitions.... This virtue, one of the noblest with which man is

endowed, seems to arise incidentally from our sympathies becoming more and more

tender and more widely diffused, until they are extended to all sentient beings. "(p. 101)

The rationality of this sympathy, Professor Darwin's sentiments about its nobility aside,

may be judged by the standard he suggested earlier, that of 'the general good of the








15

community.' Since morality is based on man's historical competition with other species,

there exists no rationally definable 'natural' basis for the inclusion of animals a priori and

for their own sake.

Rational morality, to meet its human ends, must be concerned with functional, not

'intrinsic' values. Human institutions are valued for their functions and depend upon the

reciprocity implicit in the social contract; the inclusion of all humans in this contract

("government of the people, by the people, and for the people") serves a functional

human purpose.

The inclusion of animals on a comparable basis, on the other hand, will not serve

the same purpose, since animals cannot be expected to reciprocate morally. In order to

be functionally sustainable, evolutionarily or socially, the degree of animals' inclusion

in human society must based on some human purpose. Jan Narveson (1989) argues on

this basis for the exclusion of animals from the social contract. At least as important is

the other half of the argument, that all humans must be included in the social contract in

order to guarantee against the arbitrary exclusion of any. It is the clear line between our

own species and the rest that provides the only consistent functional definition of full

members of society. To use Dr. Regan's word, a system of rights must be postulated

extending to all humans and only humans in order to provide a moral theory that will

functionally guarantee human interests. The clear and natural boundary between man and

all other species is the only solid footing on the slippery slope of exclusion. It is

functionally necessary to make that distinction, for the good of the human species; and

the good of the species, according to Professor Darwin, is the mandate of nature.









16

Morality is a practical tool. Collectively, humans are moral because morality has

promoted human interests. This means that we can and should protect animals if we

prefer to do so, but only because it is what we, as a species or as individuals, prefer.

This is not to argue against animal welfare measures; it is simply to say that the

sovereignty of man is an established fact, and that man may and will, in his own interest

and according to the laws of nature, do whatsoever he decides is in his own perceived

interest, as does every other species in its own way.



Animal Welfare and Human Ends

In fact, man serves his own purpose by promoting the welfare of animals in many

ways.

The 'management ethic' offers the most rational positive argument for animal and

environmental protection, but does not justify rights or equal consideration for animals.

(Singer 1990) The preservation of the ecosystem as part of such an ethic provides direct

benefits to animals which have indirect benefits to humans.

A certain degree of animal welfare coincides also with profitable farming,

although profit maximization clearly does not produce animal welfare maximization, as

will be shown in a later section of this work.

Aesthetic values also seem to have a large role in our moral sentiments toward

animals. We view the extermination of rats differently from the death of a baby seal

largely because their aesthetic impacts upon us are very different. On this basis the

protection of aesthetically 'valuable' animals becomes a consumption good. The priorities








17

we place on such goods are the product of unscientific human preferences and can only

be measured by the ways in which we reveal those preferences as a society.

Most would argue that a certain kindness to animals is necessary and necessarily

enforced in order to prevent the moral degradation we feel is attendant to cruelty for its

own sake. This is, again, a consumption choice, based on human ends. We might even

decide that the granting of such rights as are advocated by Drs. Singer and Regan is

necessary to the moral evolution of mankind; but if we do, it should be with the

understanding that we do it in our own perceived interest.

Animal welfare, then, may be an intermediate input to human welfare. It also

may be a direct human consumption good, like mountain vistas or flowers in the city

parks. As such it must be weighed against other goods, including milk and eggs, fishing

and hunting, meat, or fur. Restrictions on each of these goods for the sake of animal

welfare will have a direct cost in human satisfaction. This is the fundamental trade-off

upon which public policy regarding animals must be based.

This chapter is not written to condemn animals; it is merely an attempt to

reconsider animals' place in human society in the context of man's natural history, and

so to clarify the ends of animal welfare measures. The only rational (i.e. purposive and

consistent) basis for man's protection of animals is the direct and indirect benefits he

derives. Homo sapiens has thrived through its use of animals for food, protection,

clothing, traction, and transport. The health of his physical environment depends in large

measure upon the survival of many other species in a balance so complicated that man's

poor understanding of it suggests caution in its care. Clearly, there are many arguments









18

for animal protection for man's own sake; but these must be valued for what they are to

man, and not for what they are to other species.

In this context, it is appropriate to consider the benefits we wish to bestow upon

animals in light of the costs to human society. It is an indirect recognition of the

practical truth of this that many animal welfare appeals emphasize the slightness of the

sacrifice they claim is necessary to provide animals with welfare. (Singer 1990; Regan

1982; PETA 1995) Since such material factors are, ultimately, the criteria upon which

we will make these decisions, we should be more fully informed regarding them.














CHAPTER 3
POLITICAL CONTEXT: DEFINING THE MARKET


Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want,
and deserve to get it good and hard. H.L. Mencken, 1949 p.622

Our increasingly urbanized and suburbanized society provides fertile ground for

appeals to the anthropomorphic sentiment many feel toward such "animals" as Mickey

Mouse, Bugs Bunny, Lassie, and such "edible" characters developed to sell related animal

products as the tuna fish that wants to taste good, Elsie the Borden Dairy Cow, and even

the bull on the glue bottle or the cow on the box of gelatine.

The practical result of the animal welfare debate will be decided in public forums

by any of a variety of voting rules, including legislative choice, direct voting, and

boycott. These decisions will be made in the context of awareness raised by various

animal welfare and rights groups, and will be informed by philosophy and, hopefully,

economics. While the agricultural community tends to view animal welfare activists as

outside the political mainstream, many single-issue groups have come to dominate the

debate with respect to their issue' and, as the beforementioned AP poll indicates, a








For example, the promoters of Prohibition in the 1910's and the opponents of gun
control in recent years.








20

growing majority of Americans seem willing to accept greater restrictions on their or,

more particularly, on others' use of animals.2



The Movement

The "movement" for improved treatment of animals is generally divided between

the welfaristss' and 'rightists', along lines defined by Drs. Singer and Regan and is more

or less radical in its demands than these philosophers. The largest group on what may

be called the extreme end of the animal advocacy spectrum is People for the Ethical

Treatment of Animals (PETA), which attracts nearly $11 million in annual support and

spending as much as $13 million yearly for a program which relies heavily on Dr.

Regan's rights approach. (PETA 1996) The organization promotes vegetarianism and

condemns all animal farming. They attract attention to their position by such means as

the strategic placement of people dressed as animals protesting for their lives. During a

recent American tour by the Pope, for example, a pair of PETA supporters dressed as

a cow and a nun made the most visible protest in New York and Baltimore. (City Paper,

Oct. 12, 1995) Their position on animal agriculture is made clear in their on-line

'Factsheet,'

...the factory farming system of modern agriculture strives to produce the most
meat, milk, and eggs as quickly and cheaply as possible, and in the smallest
amount of space possible.... Factory farming is an extremely cruel method of
raising animals, but because it is profitable, it will only increase. One way to stop
the abuses offactory farming is to support legislation that abolishes battery cages,
veal crates, and intensive-confinement systems. But the best way to save animals


2 This willingness to restrict the behavior of others is, of course, a hallmark of moral
legislation.








21

from the misery of factory farming is to stop buying and eating meat, milk, and
eggs. Vegetarianism and veganism mean eating for life: yours and theirs.
-People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

This appeal has attracted the support of such visible celebrities as the B-52's

musical group, singers Chrissie Hynde and k.d. lang, actors Elliott Gould and Winona

Ryder, and cartoonist Berke Breathed, among others. (Thomas 1990) Such support

attracts attention, if nothing else.

Other organizations concern themselves exclusively with the welfare of farm

animals. The Human Farming Association claims 90,000 members and has an annual

budget of over $1 million, derived almost entirely from direct contributions. Their

activities focus primarily on their "National Veal Boycott," but also oppose the use of

bovine growth hormones in milk production, the use of anti-biotics in farm animals, or

any type of confinement animal production which might be described as "factory

farming." (Human Farming Association 1995)

The Farm Animal Reform Movement (F.A.R.M.), originators of the "Great

American Meatout," have designated Ghandi's birthday, October 2, as "World Farm

Animals Day" in order "to memorialize the suffering and destruction of billions of

innocent, feeling farm animals. The world-wide observances feature exhibits, memorial

services, marches, vigils, and civil disobedience." This groups has an annual budget of

over $125,000, used for the promotion of a meatless diet, including the distribution of

materials for use in the public schools. The group also uses veal as a focal point,

expanding its message to discourage the use of all farm animal products. (F.A.R.M.

1996)








22

Finally, United Poultry Concerns, dedicated to the "effort to establish more

humane treatment of poultry and a healthier lifestyle," collected over $80,000 in 1995.

Among their activities were protesting a Honda ad depicting a chicken unable to cross the

road fast enough to avoid a speedy Prelude; placing 25 large paid advertisements in

Washington's subway system decrying chickens' exclusion from legal animal welfare

protection; holding a vegetarian Thanksgiving dinner in Frederick, Maryland, to publicize

the alternative to turkey; picketing the annual Maryland Gamefowl Breeders Association

Crabfeast to protest cockfighting; distributing 10,000 brochures against the ostrich and

emu trade; conducting mourning vigils for chickens; and providing poultry-friendly

teaching materials to science teachers. (United Poultry Concerns 1996)

In addition, many groups promoting a 'soft' animal welfare message in their fund-

raising, emphasizing protections for dogs and cats and curbs on use of lab animals for

cosmetics testing, in fact promote vegetarianism, veganismm' and severe restrictions on

animal agriculture in their other activities.

For example, the Humane Society of the United States has, since 1993, conducted

a "public-education initiative to heighten awareness of the impact our food choices have

on humans, animals, and the Earth." The Society "discourages people from buying food

produced by factory farms where animals are raised in completed confinement.... The

campaign promotes the 'three R's': refining the food you eat by purchasing only organic,

and humanely and sustainably obtainable products; reducing the consumption of animal

products; and replacing animal products with grains, beans, vegetables, and fruits."

(H.S.U.S. 1997) In a 1990 address, President John A. Hoyt of the H.S.U.S. explicitly








23

supported a campaign "targeting Frank Perdue, the symbol of the poultry industry... We

will relentlessly pressure Perdue to develop, promote, and implement systems that are

responsive to the birds behavioral and physical needs.... We have no doubt that the

Perdue campaign... will place farm animal welfare on the national agenda." (Hoyt 1990)

The H.S.U.S. has a staff of 115 in Washington and around the country. (Hoyt

1990) Their 1996 revenues were over $48 million. (HSUS 1996) In 1990, the Society

published a "Close-Up Report" on confinement agriculture. The report's conclusion

called for "humane sustainable agriculture" which "eschews intensive-confinement factory

systems,.. .rejectsdependence upon antibiotics, hormones, genetically engineered animals,

pesticides, herbicides, and synthetic fertilizers," in order "to promote healthful and

humane conditions for farm animals." (HSUS 1990) In addition, the Society conducts

an annual National Farm Animal Awareness Week. (HSUS 1997.)

Even traditional Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, seen by most

Americans as mainstream and moderate, will almost inevitably come to be dominated,

as has the Humane Society of the United States, by the passionate and committed people

who have provided such vitality to the 'radical' animal rights groups.



Public Opinion

These organized groups dedicated to animal welfare represent several regions on

one end of a conceptual spectrum of views toward animal welfare. Their work influences

the distribution of the general population on this spectrum, and this distribution defines

the public choice regarding the status of animals in our democratic society.









24

Some of the positions along such a spectrum may be represented by the following

characterizations, beginning with the most animal-centered and ending with the most

human-centered:

Equal rights for animals.

Equal consideration of animal welfare.

Comparable rights for animals.

Comparable consideration of animal welfare.

Some consideration of animal welfare, all animals.

Some consideration of animal welfare, some animals.

Animals as means to human ends only.

There is considerable overlap among these broadly characterized philosophies, but

they may be ordered, as above, in a single dimension according to the sacrifices each

expects man to make for the sake of animals' well-being.

An Associated Press poll conducted November 10 through 14, 1995, may

adequately reflect American opinion of animal welfare and rights on more than one level.

The results are given below3:

Some people say an animal's right to live free of suffering should be just
as important as a person's right to live free of suffering. Would you say
you...
38% Agree strongly
29% Agree somewhat
18% Disagree somewhat



SAttributed to Associated Press. "Source: AP national telephone poll of 1,004
adults taken Nov. 10-14 by ICR Survey Research Group of Media, Pa., part of AUS
Consultant. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3 percentage points, plus or
minus. Sum may not total 100 percent because of rounding. "Don't know" omitted."











12% Disagree strongly
Do you think there are circumstances where it's perfectly OK to kill an
animal for its fur or do you think it's...
59% ...always wrong
36% ...OK, in some circumstances
Do you think there are circumstances where it's perfectly OK to hunt an
animal for sport or do you think it's...
51% ...always wrong
47% ...OK, in some circumstances
Do you think the use of animals to test cosmetics is...
46% ...never right
21% ...seldom right
29% ...right under some circumstances
2% ...always right
Do you think the use of animals to test medical treatments is...
14% ...never right
15% ...seldom right
62% ...right under some circumstances
8% ...always right
How often do you eat meat, poultry, or fish?
2% Never
6% Rarely
21% Occasionally
71% Frequently
(Foster 1995)


The economist (and the philosopher) might note with particular interest the

answers to the first and last inquiries as an example of the contrast between stated and

expressed intentions. The abstract response differs greatly from the concrete. Similarly,

the expression of a public issue as a question of abstract principle, on the one hand, or

as a specific balancing between costs and benefits, on the other, will greatly affect the

issue's outcome.'



SOther polls have been commissioned by such groups as the American Farm Bureau
Federation, the American Veterinary Association, and the Animal Industries Foundation.
An attempt was made to acquire and examine the results of these polls for the final
dissertation, but communication with each of these groups revealed an inability or









26

Assuming the respondents to the Associated Press poll cited above to be both

truthful and representative of the American electorate, the median voter eats meat, poultry

or fish frequently; thinks that it is always wrong to kill an animal for its fur; thinks that

animal testing of medical treatments are right under some circumstances, but that animal

testing of cosmetics is seldom right; believes that hunting is always wrong; and agrees

somewhat with the proposition that "an animal's right to live free of suffering should be

just as important as a person's right to live free of suffering." (Foster 1995)

These results are consistent with a concern for animals, conditioned by self-

interest. The median poll respondent depicted offers animals one absolute protection,

from hunting; however, in 1994 only 5.9% of Americans bought hunting licenses,

indicating that the median respondent held no personal interest in hunting.5 (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service statistic cited in Foster 1995)

Whatever arguments may be brought to bear for or against animal welfare or

rights considerations, in our democratic society it has already become an issue by the

voice of a vocal minority and an apparently accepting majority, and will become more

important.



Democratic Processes

By its nature, the polity of a democratic society can impose any restriction or

bestow any right on any person, place, or thing which the political process chooses and



unwillingness to provide these results.

SSee footnote number 6.








27

which does not make the polity untenable. The only constraints are the process and, in

the longer term, the sustainability of the outcome.

In this country the process is defined in part by the federal constitution. This

constitution restricts the authority of government to deprive owners of property, and so

long as animals are considered to be property strictly, there exists protection from very

restrictive legislation. However, once animals are defined as more than property, the last

constitutional objection is gone, and the choice becomes purely political; there is nothing,

then, necessarily unconstitutional about animal welfare or rights legislation.

The legal history of animal welfare legislation in the United States dates to "The

Body of Liberties" enacted by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1641 which stated, "No

man shall exercise any Tiranny or Crueltie towards any bruite Creature which are usuallie

kept for man's use." (Animal Welfare Institute, p.1)

Many modem anti-cruelty laws may be read as forbidding many of the standard

practices to which animal activists object.6 The law in the state of Maryland, with which

the case study for this research is concerned, reads as follows:



27:59. Cruelty to animals a misdemeanor.



6 The Florida statute, which is typical of state anti-cruelty laws, reads as follows:
828.12. Cruelty to Animals. Whoever unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, tortures,
torments, deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, or unnecessarily or cruelly beats,
mutilates, or kills any animal, or causes the same to be done, or carries in or upon any
vehicle, or otherwise, any animal in a cruel or inhuman manner, is guilty of a
misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable...by a fine of not more than $5,000,
[imprisonment not exceeding 1 year, or both. (Florida Statute 775.082)] (p.18, Animal
Welfare Institute)








28

Any person who (1) overdrives, overloads, deprives of necessary
sustenance, tortures, torments, cruelly beats, mutilates or cruelly kills; or (2)
causes, procures or authorizes these acts; or (3) having the charge or custody of
an animal, either as owner or otherwise, inflicts unnecessary suffering or pain
upon the animal, or unnecessarily fails to provide the animal with nutritious food
in sufficient quantity, necessary veterinary care, proper drink, air, space, shelter
or protection from the weather; or (4) uses or permits to be used any bird, fowl,
or cock for the purpose of fighting with any other animal, which is commonly
known as cockfighting, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not
exceeding $1,000 or by imprisonment not to exceed 90 days, or both...
27:62 Definitions

The words 'torture,' 'torment,' and 'cruelty' mean every act, omission, or
neglect whereby unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain or suffering is caused
or permitted, and the word 'animal' means every living creature except man.
(Maryland Statutes, cited in Animals and Their Legal Rights, p.26)

This is representative of the vagueness of state anti-cruelty laws, which generally

leave the definition of cruelty so open to interpretation that any judge of a certain mind

could find against any farmer that he felt was causing 'unnecessary or unjustifiable

physical pain or suffering.' A Maryland broiler producer with, say, 100,000 birds could,

in theory, face over 24,000 years of 90 day sentences or $100,000,000 in fines for one

offending management practice.

Neither should the intent of the legislators at the time these laws were originally

passed be counted upon to protect traditional practices; modem judicial interpretation

makes great allowances for changing community standards in the literal interpretation of

old statutes. 'Unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain' might be interpreted in light of

such public views as were expressed in the poll referred to in the introduction of this

work; and new community standards may define as 'unnecessarily painful' any practice,

however essential to modem production or rooted in ageworn tradition, which causes any

pain, or even discomfort, to the animals involved.








29

Further, the provisions for 'proper drink, air, space,' etc., leave those production

parameters particularly subject to state jurisprudence. In addition, the definition of

"animals" to include "all living creatures" is broader than that in the dictionary, which

would itself define rats, cockroaches, and amoebas as "animals."

In short, the status quo of production agriculture does not have institutional inertia

on its side. Changing community standards regarding the status of animals need not be

acted upon legislatively to effect a change; they need only be recognized by, and

incorporated into the opinions of, individual judges.

Current law in many states is so open to interpretation as to require action merely

to preserve the status quo. This legal ambiguity, the growing anthropomorphic

sentiments of urban and suburban citizens, and the dominance of the audible debate by

one side are each significant; taken together they suggest a wide variety of possibilities

for the future of animals in human society.

In 1988, voters in Massachusetts were asked to pass judgement upon a ballot

initiative, the ballot summary of which read in full:

The proposed law would require the Commissioner of the
Department of Food and Agriculture to issue regulations to ensure that
farm animals are maintained in good health and that cruel or inhumane
practices are not used in the raising, handling or transportation of farm
animals.
The Commissioner would issue regulations, effective within four
years after passage of the proposed law, about the surgical procedures
used on farm animals, the transportation and slaughter offarm animals,
and the diet and housing of those animals. The Director of the Division
of Animal Health could issue exemption permits for a period of time up to
one year and one half to any farmer.
Under the proposed measure, an unpaid Scientific Advisory Board
on Farm Animal Welfare comprised of veterinarians and animal scientist
would also be established within the Department of Food and Agriculture.










The Board wold examine animal agricultural practices, issue for
publication certain reports on farm practices, and make non-binding
recommendations to the Commissioner about specific regulations. If
appropriated by the legislature, the Board may allocate an annual sum of
not more than ten cents per Massachusetts citizen to assist farmers in
adopting methods which are consistent with the purposes of this law.
The Director of the Division ofAnimal Health would be responsible
for enforcing regulations issued as a result of this proposed law. Persons
who violate the new law would be punished by a fine of up to $1,000.

Among the provisions of this law not mentioned in the Attorney General's "fair

and concise summary" were directives to the Commissioner to ensureue sufficient and

appropriate ventilation, flooring, bedding, space, and temperature control to maintain the

health and comfort of each farm animal" (emphasis added) and to ensure "healthful" and

"nourishing" diets "to maintain optimum health and well-being of each animal." In

addition, any construction or modification of an animal housing structure costing over

$10,000 would have to be reviewed by the Scientific Advisory Board, four of whose five

members would be appointed by the Governor only after being "nominated by at least

two nonprofit humane organizations constituted for the primary purpose of preventing

cruelty to animals and incorporated in Massachusetts." Finally, for purposes of

enforcement, the law would allow that "Any person residing in or incorporated in

Massachusetts may commence a civil suit in Superior Court on his own behalf to compel

the commissioner or director to perform any duty which is required" by this law. (Mass.

House Bill No. 4002)

That nearly 30% of voters supported this bill after a 2-150 defeat in the

Massachusetts House of Representatives and a 0-34 defeat in the state Senate, and after

a well-financed campaign by the Massachusetts Farm Bureau, suggests, again, that animal








31

welfare and animal rights must be addressed by the agricultural establishment in a serious

manner. (Department of Food and Agriculture) In Europe, Union recommendations and

individual country laws call for increasingly restrictive measures on behalf of animal

welfare. (See Animal Welfare Institute 1990.)



Animal Welfare: A Public Choice

It may be inferred from the comparison of legislator's animal welfare votes with

those of the public that the ballot initiative holds out the greatest hope for the animal

welfare movement. This is borne out by public choice analysis.7

Voting in legislatures is defined by vote trading, essentially a market for votes in

which votes are exchanged among legislators so that the issues most important to their

own constituents turn in their favor. Though commonly seen as unethical, vote trading

effects a theoretical Pareto improvement whereby each legislator's constituency, taken as

a whole, gains support for that issue which matters most to it. (Mueller 1989)

Much larger numbers of people materially depend upon animal agriculture than

are self-defined "animal activists". A balancing of relative interests would, then, seem

to favor the farmer, whose living is at stake, over the marginally interested majority.

Furthermore, many legislators, elected in geographically defined districts, are specifically





7 "The subject matter of public choice is the same as that of political science... The
methodology of public choice is that of economics, however. The basic behavioral
postulate of public choice, as for economics, is that man is an egotistic, rational, utility
maximizer." (Mueller 1989, p.1) In other words, the political agent is purposive and
consistent.








32

dependent upon farm constituencies, which are more geographically specific than the

dispersed supporters of animal welfare measures.

In contrast, isolated single issue votes by the general public favor the majority

above all, regardless of relative interest in the issue's outcome. According to an

important theorem of public choice theory,



If x is a single-dimensional issue, and all voters have single-peaked preferences

defined over x, then x,, the median position, cannot lose under majority rule."

(Mueller 1989, p. 66)



This theorem is demonstrated in Figure 2, also from Mueller (1989). Each "hill"

represents the preference of one voter for a provided quantity of some public good (x)

measured along the horizontal axis. The assumption of single-peaked preferences means

only that each voter has a single maximum preference for x (or for the x relative to its

direct costs, or opportunity costs in other public goods forgone), and that his preference

ordering falls monotonically as x is further from that peak. The position of the median

voter, represented by x,, cannot lose under majority rule because half the other voters

will always favor it over a smaller x, half will always favor it over a larger x, and the

median voter will always favor it, giving x, a majority against any alternative.

Applied to the animal welfare issue, the framers of a ballot initiative would wish

to define the most extreme position which will win a bare majority, so that in practical













Figure 1. Voter preferences on a single-dimensional issue



Median voter


From Mueller (1989)


Figure 2. Voter preferences on animal welfare.




Median voter ?


I E ~ E C-
2 -2



CCs CT C
72 2 E








34

terms as well, the median voter along the animal rights/welfare/use spectrum will define

the degree to which the welfare or rights of animals will be protected.

The representation of voters along the animal welfare spectrum represented in

Figure 3 is consistent with the polls discussed above. The median voter has been defined

above as concerned about animals' welfare, but not at any cost. We can only assume

such a median voter to be a rational economic agent, whose choice will depend upon a

weighing of all its known costs and benefits. This voter will, presumably and

consistently with economic theory, be willing to bear some personal costs for the sake of

animals and the satisfaction received from their improved welfare; but for the trade-off

to be efficient, it must be understood. Therefore, analysis of costs and benefits associated

with projects for the welfare of animals is not only justified, but would seem to be

demanded.

Finally, the bounded rationality of such economic agents tends toward a fuzzy

perception of self-interest. Even if corrected over time, this could, in the case of

inadequately considered animal welfare measures, cause expensive disruptions to animal

agriculture, to the detriment of producers and consumers. Again, foreknowledge has a

value which must be recognized.














CHAPTER 4
WELFARE, RIGHTS, AND THE BROILER INDUSTRY


"It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken. Frank Perdue

Concerns for the welfare of commercial poultry, particularly broilers, are less

confounded with such issues as aesthetics or human health and safety than are concerns

for other commercial farm animals. Chickens are not cute. They do not graze, thereby

adding charm to rural views. It is generally difficult to identify with chickens, except

in a relatively abstract and philosophical way. Human safety concerns are related much

more to processing practices than to the conditions in which the birds lived. The health

concerns attendant to meat-eating, commonly raised by animal advocates, are least for

chicken among farm animals.

It is for these reasons, among others, that the broiler industry is chosen for the

case study in this research. The estimated costs of regulation on behalf of animals may

be counted directly as the human cost of animal welfare. To a large extent we are not

indirectly promoting our own physical well-being by pursuing better conditions or higher

standing for broiler chickens, so that we may directly relate the pursuit of animal welfare,

as an end, to human economic goods forgone, as a means to that end.










The Maryland Broiler Industry

The application of modern mass production techniques to the broiler industry since

the 1950's and 1960's makes that industry a particularly useful case study in the

consideration of animal welfare. Almost inevitably, this industrialization represents the

future of commercial livestock production in the United States, as may be suggested by

more recent changes in hog and beef production. Other animal sectors are still in a

transition to what will more closely resemble the broiler industry.

According to one argument, the capital intensity of modem meat production, by

reducing the need for land, along with improvements in transportation of feedstuffs,

should lead increasingly to the efficient location of pork, beef, and other animal

production facilities nearer to urban centers. (Abdalla 1995) This has the potential to put

animal farms within the jurisdiction of animal-concerned constituencies.

However, the natural economic efficiencies of this movement are often outweighed

by the poor image such modern facilities seem to have in the eyes of urban and suburban

populations with respect to other aspects of the "factory farm." These difficulties are

generally associated with odor, unsightliness (in contrast to the "picture book" farms of

old or of imagination), and the risks of surface and groundwater pollution associated with

the large volumes of animal waste necessarily processed in large animal operations. Of

course, animal welfare is another of these concerns.

As such public perceptions lead to the redefinition of property rights, broiler and

other livestock industries will face increasing scrutiny. Proximity to cities and suburbs








37

and sites in urban states will become a political, and so economic, liability. (Abdalla and

Shaffer 1997)



Table 1. Broilers: Production and price, 1934-94'


Production, Thousands Price per Pound2
Year Birds Pounds Cents 1994 Dollars

1934 34,030 96,594 19.3 2.14
1944 274,149 817,605 28.8 2.43
1954 1,047,798 3,236,248 23.1 1.27
1964 2,161,172 7,521,269 14.2 .68
1974 2,992,820 11,320,396 21.5 .65
1984 4,283,020 17,861,023 33.7 .48
1994 7,017,540 32,528,500 35.0 .35

1/ Marketing year December 1-November 30.
2/ Liveweight equivalent price.
3/ 1994 is preliminary.
Sources: Poultry: Production and Value, Annual Summary, National Agricultural
Statistics Service, USDA. CPI: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.


In many ways the Maryland broiler industry is ahead of other meat industries.

Its growth has been associated in part with its proximity to the large markets of the

Northeast. It resides in a primarily urban and suburban state and so is subject to state

regulation by a state government answering to an urban and suburban constituency.

Because its move into such a "neighborhood" pre-dates many of the present concerns for

animal pollution and the calls for collective action against animal production, the

Maryland broiler industry offers a lesson on such conflict between the direct economic








38

benefits of location and public perceptions about the "factory farm," perceptions which

will define collective public action.

In 1995, the broilers produced 63% of producer revenues in the $18.6 billion U.S.

poultry sector, including eggs, turkey, and other meat-type chickens. (NASS 1996) As

can be seen in Table 1, there has been enormous growth in the broiler industry since its

modest beginnings. Large reductions in cost of production, and so in price, have fed the

demand which has made such growth possible.



Table 2. Top broiler firms: market share and number of plants, selected years 1/


Percentage of total U.S. Number of slaughter plants operated
slaughter
Year 4 largest 8 largest 20 4 largest 8 largest 20 largest
firms firms largest firms firms firms
firms

1960 12 18 32 21 31 52
1964 18 28 44 36 51 80
1968 18 29 47 31 48 84
1972 17 29 43 25 47 80
1976 18 31 55 26 47 91
1980 23 39 66 34 60 104
1984 34 51 73 41 68 105
1987 38 55 78 50 77 116

1/ Includes only those firms slaughtering broilers under Federal inspection.
Source: Lasley 1988.








39

There has been a steady trend since 1959 toward industrial concentration in the

sector, with a few large integrated companies controlling larger and larger shares of

production, in order to take advantage of economies of scale in processing and marketing.

(See Table 2.) These companies control all aspects of production and processing directly

or indirectly. Indirect control of the 'growing out' of broilers is maintained by the

contract under which independent operators produce the grown bird. These large

integrators typically hatch eggs from purchased breeding stock, and harvest, process, and

market the grown birds. The integrators provide the growers with nearly all inputs to

production, including feed, chicks, veterinary services, and production advice. The

growers own only the broiler houses (often built to integrator specification) and

equipment, and provide the labor, management, and capital-related expenses. (Knoeber

and Thurman 1995, Lasley et al. 1988)

These large integrated processors have returns to scale and size so great that there

is no effective market for live broilers. "Due to integration in the industry, there is no

farm-level broiler price, so the USDA constructs a farm-level equivalent price by

subtracting estimated processing and marketing costs from observed retail prices."

(Knoeber and Thurman 1995, p.492.) The four largest integrators in 1990 controlled

41.2% of production nationally. (Knoeber and Thurman 1995)

The grower operation is concerned with the growth of the birds from the setting

of a flock of integrator provided chicks to their catching, after seven weeks of growth,

of four-pound birds, ready for slaughter and processing.








40

The closed, intensive nature of broiler production, and the careful control of the

birds themselves, lead to less direct and less extensive conflict between production and

human habitat, so that the issue of broiler welfare, when it is raised, is less to be

confounded with the 'not in my backyard' concerns described above, which have plagued

many new and established dairy, pork, and even egg operations. Since broilers are less

aesthetically pleasing and less prone to personification than most mammals, the issue of

their welfare is more specifically about the nature of human responsibilities to other

species. For these reasons, the broiler industry is a useful case study for examining the

ends and means of animal welfare.

Maryland, as an increasingly urban and suburban state with a large animal

production industry, may be seen as a relatively likely area for the success of the animal

welfare lobby. The state's ballot initiative process would allow a small committed group

to place an animal welfare bill on the ballot. A large urban population in both Baltimore

and the 'edge cities' around the District of Columbia, with limited exposure to production

agriculture, are more likely to support such an initiative. In such a vote the passion of

faint-heartedness of each vote has no bearing on the outcome; if the median voter is only

barely convinced to vote "for the animals," his vote counts is weighed the same as all the

rest.

The geographic isolation of broiler production from those centers also might

weaken its appeal and potential ability to mount a campaign in opposition. The broiler

industry is a large part of Maryland's rural economy, especially in those eight counties










where production is concentrated; a large impact upon production would have a large

general impact upon those counties.



Table 3. Broilers: Production, Price, and Value by State and Total, 1995 2

State 1,000 1,000 Price/Lb.3 Value of
Birds Pounds Production
($1,000)
AL 900,000 4,230,000 .340 1,438,200
AR 1,107,300 4,982,900 .355 1,768,930
CA 235,800 1,179,000 .325 383,175
DE 263,100 1,394,400 .340 474,096
GA 1,070,000 5,136,000 .345 1,771,920
MD 295,700 1,360,200 .340 462,468
MS 644,000 2,962,400 .335 992,404
NC 670,100 3,417,500 .340 1,161,950
TX 395,200 1,746,800 .370 646,316
VA 260,100 1,196,500 .335 400,828

FL 139,800 615,100 .355 218,361

US' 7,325,670 34,222,000 .344 11,762,222

'December 1, 1994, through November 30, 1995.
2Broiler production including other domestic meat-type breeds.
'Liveweight equivalent prices, derived from ready-to-cook (RTC) prices using the
following formulas: (RTC price minus processing cost) X (dressing percentage) =
liveweight equivalent price.
'Excludes States producing less than 500,000 birds.
Soure: "Poultry Production and Value Summary", Released May 2, 1996, by the
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.








42

In 1995, Maryland's 690,000 tons of broiler production ranked seventh among the

United States. (See Table 3.) This $462 million industry has an enormous impact on

Maryland's eight Eastern Shore counties, which form her part of the larger Delmarva

(Delaware-Maryland-Virginia) peninsula. This value of production is equal to more than

8% of personal income in these counties, which in 1992 produced 99.7% of the state's

257,209,663 broilers and other meat-type chickens, and contained all but six of the state's

1070 farms selling over 2,000 birds. The other Delmarva states, Delaware and Virginia,

produce another 1.3 million tons of broilers, and contain the other two thirds of a $1.3

billion regional industry. (U.S. Dept. of Commerce; See Table 4.)

The mean annual sales per Eastern Shore farm is about 240,770 birds. (U.S.

Dept. of Commerce) The median bird is produced on a farm producing 200,000 to

500,000 annually, and the median farm produces just over 200,000 birds. Poultry and

poultry products accounted for 63% of 1992 sales of livestock and poultry products and

42% of all agricultural sales in Maryland. (p 10, U.S. Dept. of Commerce)



Potential Restrictions

The most extreme and most unlikely restriction upon the broiler industry in the

state of Maryland would be a ban on all animal agriculture. This could be simply

evaluated as the loss of animal-based agricultural economic activity and the complete

depreciation of all unmovable and unadaptable capital in the sector. Beyond such a ban,

there is a large range of restrictions upon production practices desired by more or less of

the animal welfare community.








43

It has already been shown that the Maryland animal cruelty statute is so broadly

written as to allow severe restrictions on all animal agriculture, if a small minority of

judges and bureaucrats were to so interpret it. As animal welfare becomes more widely

debated, the state's attitude toward animals and their keepers will necessarily be redefined

and refined.

Restrictions could include bans on de-beaking and toe-trimming, both seen as

detrimental to animal welfare by animal advocates and as vital to the health of the birds

by growers. Any production system employing such restrictions would necessarily be

significantly different from current practices, or would, at the least, require study by

poultry scientists to determine their impacts upon production.

The requirement of a specific amount of floor space per animal is a common

demand from animal advocates of all animal production industries. In addition, as a

continuously variable input to existing production systems it has been studied in the

poultry science literature, and the results of these studies may be applied to an economic

consideration. This restriction will be examined in more detail in Chapters 5 and 6.









44


C, ; -| 00 000


y I


u i *. ; i~- -r Ax R r i '
re l -X z r .
t r. I -' r 0

r, -, r


", -^ .l,: 7, 3. $i





g r- En- r 4
a-



















0000000- 00 0
en e
in CM 00



SCon







1- 0



IU __^ ^*.iM^.-- m -L^ <














CHAPTER 5
AN ECONOMIC THEORY OF ANIMAL WELFARE: DEFINING MEANS


"Rabbits for sale:
Bunnies
Breeders
Fryers"
sign seen on State Route 24 outside Waldo, Florida

Using an imperfect but uniquely scientific index of animal welfare ordering, an

integrated theory of production and welfare can be developed in the neo-classical

framework to formally express a relationship between animal welfare and economic

production.



Defining Welfare

Framing such an economic theory of animal welfare depends upon developing a

definition of animal welfare which is consistent with observable data and which is

relevant to the economic decisions of animal production.

A large and growing animal and poultry science literature explores the relationship

between farming practice and various indices of animal well-being. Three of these

indices which have been widely studied are animal preferences and behavior,

physiological stress, and productivity.

In Europe most recent scientific research on animal well-being has focused upon

preferences and other behavioral criteria. The absence of "natural" patterns of behavior,








46

stereotypic behavior ("persistent, highly repetitive behaviors without obvious purpose"),

and "vacuum" behavior (behavior inappropriate to the relatively barren environment of

a production facility, such as birds "dust-bathing" on a concrete floor) are all seen as

indicating "mental suffering" on the part of the animal. Duncan and Petherick have been

cited as suggesting that "animal welfare is dependent solely on the mental, psychological,

and cognitive needs of the animals concerned."(Craig and Swanson 1994, p.927) This

may have intuitive appeal to the economist who defines human welfare as the fulfillment

of purposive and consistent preferences.

At first sight the economist may also be attracted to the preference ordering

approach to animal welfare which is now gaining support in the animal sciences. The

choices animals make among freely 'offered' multiple alternatives are recorded as a

revealed preference ordering. The technique is further advanced by throwing up obstacles

to the animals' choice of one option over another; this is supposed to suggest a 'price',

or willingness to pay, on the part of the animal. (Duncan 1992)

The same economist will, presumably, recognize on closer examination that the

significance of such results is based upon an assumption that animals, like homo

economics, are purposive and consistent in their preferences, and that their cognitive

abilities allow them to efficiently determine means to their preferred ends. Even the

proponents of this approach recognize that animals often choose what is contrary to their

physical well-being, especially farm animals whose artificial selection or artificial

environment are not compatible with the assumption of instinctive self-interest. In these

cases, where physical well-being is not promoted by the animal's preferred alternative,








47

these supporters of the preference approach will define the inconsistency as an exception

to their general rule, and acknowledge that the health promoting alternative represents a

higher level of welfare. (Duncan 1992)

Since the 1960's, many researchers have attempted to define the overall well-being

of animals by the presence or absence of physiological 'stress', as measured by a specific

bio-chemical response. The long-held assumption that all stressors produce identical

physiological responses in the higher animals (i.e. stimulation of the pituitary and adrenal

cortex) has now been abandoned. There are, in fact, no physiological responses that are

consistently correlated with all stressors, so that stressors must ultimately be defined as

those factors which produce long-term negative impacts on physical well-being. (Hill

1983) In addition, significant observation effects related to the handling of animals for

measurement purposes can seriously confound results. (Craig and Adams 1983) As with

behavior and preferences, those supporting the use of physiological indicators of stress

to measure overall well-being define as exceptions to their general rule those cases in

which physical well-being is not consistent with the measured level of their indicators.

(Hill 1983) In addition, some stress, especially early in life, has been shown to advance

long-term welfare by promoting adaptations which allow the animal to better cope with

other, later stressors. (Craig and Swanson 1994) In the absence of a consistent

physiological response, the concept of stress as a measure of well-being is tautological,

as well-being simply becomes the absence of stress.

The most consistent, measurable, and scientifically legitimate indicator of animal

well-being is the productivity of the animal. Since productivity, measured by mortality,








48

reproduction, and weight gain, indicates much about the health of the animal, and since

physical well-being is consistently defined as a necessary basis for overall well-being, a

scientific approach to animal welfare may be effectively based upon identifying

productivity with welfare (Macindoe 1987).'

Several criticisms are made against productivity as a measure of welfare.' First

are the objections to average productivity, which fails to account for welfare differences

among animals within a group. (Hill 1983) However, among animals of homogeneous

age, breeding, and physical characteristics, such as typifies production agriculture, these

differences should be minimal. (Craig and Adams 1983) In addition, the lack of a

definitive weighting of reproduction, mortality, and weight gain (and milk production,

for milking animals) leads critics to represent productivity measurements as potentially

contradictory. (Hill 1983) This is true to some degree, but may be countered by pointing

out the correlations among rates of reproduction, longevity, and growth within most

species. Where such correlations do not exist this criticism warrants consideration, if

only in a context of weaker alternative measures.





SProductivity may be an even more appropriate index of animal well-being in light
of the "social Darwinist" philosophy outlined above; the definition of well-being by those
outcomes which would tend to represent evolutionary success may be the best measure
of "the general good or welfare of the community", or alternatively, the best measure of
the success of the genetic vehicle.

2 Another concern may be the presumably negative impact on welfare from such
practices which attempt, over the lifetime of the animal, to alter the nature of the animal
product, such as the swelling of duck livers and the whitening of veal. This may be
examined as a matter of animal health. Most animal productivity measures, however, are
consistent with animal health.








49

The field of economic history, in fact, has adopted physical height as the best

index of the former well-being of the mute dead. Graves are now robbed in the name

of economic science, bones are measured, and the deceased are returned, confident that

their feet and inches have revealed what their mouths never will, namely their welfare

relative to their shorter ancestor or taller descendent. (Steckel 1995) If these economists

can evaluate welfare from the bones of the dead and make comparisons across vast

genetic, geographic, and chronological diversity, then we can certainly find value in such

an index among genetically homogenous broilers in the same building at the same time,

with the only difference the conditions of their captivity.

Another, more common, criticism of productivity as a measure of animal welfare

comes from critics' confusion of animal productivity with profitability. (Craig and Adams

1983; Curtis 1988) The relationship between profitability and productivity, and their

different implications for animal well-being, is our next consideration.



Welfare and Production

For those animals for which the identity of measurable welfare with measurable

health, and so with per animal productivity, has been established, an economic evaluation

of welfare can easily be conceived in the context of microeconomic production theory.



The theory of the firm provides a framework for considering animal welfare in

relation to human costs. The relationship between cost and welfare can be established

theoretically under both welfare and profit maximization.










Consider a strictly concave production function,

(1) y = f(xbX,x,,,x),

where

(2) f1 > 0

(3) f, < 0

(4) faf, f, > 0,

for i,j = b,h,f,l, and where y is liveweight broiler production, Xb is the number of chicks

set in the flock, and the x,, x,, and x, are housing, feed, and labor inputs, respectively.

This production function and its impact upon per animal welfare, as we have defined it,

may be analyzed in the contexts of maximization of that welfare, of farm-level profit

maximization the aim of the grower, and of per unit cost minimization the aim of the

corporate integrator.



Welfare Maximization

Taking productivity per bird as a monotonically increasing function of welfare,

as is consistent with our definition of productivity as an index of welfare ordering,

welfare maximization takes the form of the following optimization:

(5) Max (y/x) = f(Xb,,xh,,X,)/X,,

for which first order conditions

(6) 5(y/xb)/Xb = (xf-f)/x2 = 0

(7) a(y/x.)/xb, = fbx, = 0

(8) 6(y/xb)/xf = fxb = 0










(9) 5(y/x_,)/bx, = f,/x, = 0

solve to

(10) f, = f/xb

(11) f = f, = f, = 0.

That is, the marginal product of additional birds is equal to the average product per bird,

and the housing, feed, and labor inputs are used until their marginal product is null. This

optimum can be achieved if it is assumed that the per-bird productivity returns to the non-

bird inputs diminish to zero (or, more practically, become statistically indistinguishable

from zero)'. The cost of production will be xJb + x*Ir + xf'r, + x'r,, where x*' is the

welfare-maximizing level of input i, and r, is the given price of input i.

Such an optimization, of course, is both theoretically and practically inconsistent

with profitable farming, as has been confusedly pointed out by most critics of animal

productivity as a index of animal welfare. It does, however, offer a useful starting point

for considering the relationship between welfare and profitability.



Firm Profit Maximization

The production firm described in standard economic theory faces a production

technology, such as that stated above, and a set of market input and output prices, and

maximizes firm profits;



SIt should be further understood that the productivity of animal welfare can only
reasonably be seen as indicative of ordinal utility, and that attempts to compare different
increments of utility/growth along the production function or to compare the welfare of
two significantly different chickens would be unscientific and irrelevant to economic
analysis.










(12) Profit = f(xb,xi,xf,xl)p Xrb r r -xfr i-fr.

Profit maximization is defined by the first order conditions

(13) b(Profit)/5x, = fp r, = 0,

which solve to

(14) f, = r,/p,

for all i = b,h,f,l.

Farm-level profit maximization, then, approaches welfare maximization, as

defined by equations (10) and (11), as the cost of chicks set approaches one hundred

percent of total cost of production, which is again defined by x'rb, + x Xhr + x'fr, + xIr,,

where x, is now the firm profit-maximizing level of input i, and r, remains the given

price of input i. This condition obviously differs greatly from the current cost structure

of broiler production, (see Chapter 6, Table 3,) but the extent to which the profit

maximizing welfare outcome differs from that of welfare maximization depends upon the

curvature of the production function. One significant implication of this is that the

assessment of a head tax on farm animals, in place of taxes on other inputs to animal

agriculture, would alter profit maximization (and cost minimization, based on results

presented below,) outcomes in favor of animal welfare.



Constrained Firm Profit Maximization

Consider the constraint of such a firm by a floor space requirement, as has been

discussed above among potential restrictions, which fixes a minimum ratio (k) of housing

inputs (x4) to chicks set (x,),










(15) x,/x > or = k.

Assuming the constraint to be binding, we may describe it as an equality in the

producer's optimization,

(16) Profit = f(Xb,xh,xr,x,)p x -x x xrr -xr.

s.t. x kx, = 0,

an optimization whose Lagrangian is

(17) L = f(xb,xh,xr,x,)p XI b xr xr, -xrI + m(,x kx).

The first order conditions for this Lagrangian solve to

(18) fb = (rb + mk)/p

(19) f> = (r. m)/p

(20) f, = r,/p

(21) f, = r,/p.

This constraint, then, has the same positive impact upon welfare as the combination of

an addition to the input price of chicks (r,) equal to the shadow price of the constraint (m)

times the constrained bird per housing unit ratio (k) and a reduction of m from the input

price for housing (r,) equal to m; that is, given a production function, the animal welfare

effect is directly related to the cost of the constraint, defined by the Lagrangian m.

This establishes a direct functional relationship between human welfare, as

measured by the market in dollars and cents, and animal welfare, measured by

productivity as a chosen proxy for physical well-being. This "welfare" relationship,

expressed by the outcomes of a constraint of the production function, can be considered

in the context of other human optimizations of animal production processes.










Contract Broiler Optimization

In contrast to the classical profit-maximizing farm, the typical broiler growout

operation is defined by the terms of the grower's contract with the integrator. As

indicated above, the modern integrated poultry processing firm is large in scale and

maintains a high degree of control over the production decisions of its contract growers,

primarily through this contract, which is written by the integrator to provide incentives

to per-unit cost minimization. Before considering the grower, then, it is important to

define the objective of the integrator.

The large scale of operation of the integrated poultry firms makes per-unit cost

minimization their logical economic aim at the level of the broiler house, the duplicability

of which essentially eliminates scale effects for the integrator in the growout stage of

broiler production. The integrators' decisions are oriented to cost minimization, and that

mandate is imposed upon the grower by the terms of his contract and by the lack of a

market for independent broiler production. So much, in fact, is production integrated

with processing that there no longer exists a meaningful market price for live broilers;

U.S.D.A. price estimates are based upon the 'ready-to-cook' price less estimates of

processing costs. (Footnote 3; Chapter 4, Table 3; Knoeber and Thurman 1995)

The integrator's objective may be stated as the minimization of the price of the

live broiler input to the processing operation. The unconstrained dual of per-unit cost

minimization is per-unit profit maximization, i.e.,

(22) Max Prof/y = p rx/y

= Min (-p + rx/y)










= -p + Min rx/y,

where p is a exogenous. This last term will be a more convenient expression of the

optimization under discussion.

Consider the per unit cost minimization/ profit maximization objective, subject to

given prices (p,r,r,,r,rt),

(23) Max Prof/y = {p(f(xb,,xf,x,,) xbb xr xr, x,r}/f(,x,x,,x,),

whose first order conditions solve to

(24) fb = rd[(xbrb + x'rb + x',r, + x'rT)/f

(25) f1 = r'/[(x'rd + x'h + xrr, + x',r,)/f

(26) ff = r/[(xrb + Xbhr + x'rf + xr,)/f]

(27) f, = r,/[(x'rb + xbrb + x'rr, + x'r,)/f

Similarly to profit maximization, cost minimization approaches an animal welfare

maximizing outcome, (i.e., equations (24-27) approach the conditions expressed in

equations (10) and (11),) as x'rb approaches one hundred percent of the cost of

production.

Alternatively, (24-27) may be expressed as

(28) (x',rb + x'r, + x'r, + x r,)/f = rdfb = rb/fh = r/f, = r,/f,.

The last four terms of this equation are, of course, a standard result for cost minimization

and profit maximization; with the first term, the equation also produces a scale solution

(if one exists) for unit-cost minimization/per unit profit maximization at the broiler house

level.








56

The grower contract is the vehicle for the translation of integrator unit-cost

minimization into grower profit maximization. These contracts typically set the grower's

price (p), presumably at something estimated by the integrator at or near the minimum

cost of production. The broiler houses are built to contract specifications, effectively

establishing a duplicable, but not continuously variable, x, for the grower operation. The

number and quality of chicks set for each growout (x) is determined and provided by the

integrator. In addition, growers obtain feed exclusively from the integrators, who thereby

establish its quality and its effective price (r,). In addition, the veterinary services and

technical assistance must direct, to some degree, the grower's production practices. The

high degree of market concentration in the broiler processing industry must also be

significant in defining a condition of monopsonistic competition among integrators,

limiting the alternatives of growers unhappy with the terms of their contract, almost

certainly to an extent that allows integrators to set a bare break-even (cost-minimizing)

price for live broilers, accounting for no profits beyond the market value of the grower's

labor and the opportunity cost of capital.

Broiler contracts are generally based on "tournament pricing", under which

growers are paid more per unit as their costs per unit are lower than other "competing"

growers in a given period of time. The dominance of this pricing scheme in broilers

particularly has been attributed to the high market concentration in the processing sector;

this offers the large numbers of growers relative to processors which is favorable to

effective tournament pricing (Barry et al. 1992).








57

The contract performance of growers is measured by a 'settlement cost', based

upon a formula:

(28) sc, = (xrb + xr)/y,

where sc, is the individual grower's settlement cost (Knoeber and Thurman 1995). Under

these terms, r, and r, are established by the integrators. The price paid the grower (p)

is a base price (p,) plus (or minus) the amount which the grower's settlement cost is less

than (or greater than) the average settlement cost (sc.) among contracted growers during

a limited time period:

(29) p, = po + (sc ((Xrb + xr)I/y))

This determines the grower's profit function,

(30) Profit = f(xb,,x,,x,,x)(p + (sc. (xbrb + xrf)/f(Xb,x,,x,,xI)) xr, -xr,.

This reduces to an apparently standard profit maximization

(31) Max Profit = f(x,,x,,x,,x)(p + sc) xr xr, xr, xr,,

except that x,, x,, rb, r,, and p, are explicitly determined by the integrator. With xb and

x, fixed, the first order conditions solve to

(32) f1(x,x.,x,,x,) = r/(p0 + sc)

(33) f,(xb,x,x,,x,) = rI/(p, + sc)

More importantly, the integrator defines, on average, (p, + sc), which is

effectively the grower's output price; if the integrator has adequate cost information, this

price may be set equal to an average minimum unit cost, leaving the grower no economic

choice for profit maximization but an approximation to unit-cost minimization. Such

contracts shift broiler price risk onto the integrator, but impose a large degree of cost








58

minimization per unit of production upon the grower through integrator-determined inputs

and prices.

It is clear, then, that the integrator is the defining decision maker in the

production process, and that it will be more useful to treat broiler production as subject

to unit-cost minimization.



Constrained Contract Broiler Optimization

Consider, then, the effective imposition of the same per-bird housing requirement

upon per unit cost minimization, fixing a minimum ratio (k) of housing inputs to birds

(xb/4). The integrator's constrained optimization, again assuming the constraint is

binding, is

(34) Max(Prof/y) = {p(f(,xh1,xf,x,) Xbb xar xr, X brT}/f(xx,,x3,X),

s.t. x kxb = 0.

The Lagrangian function for this optimization is

(35) L = {pf xbr x xr xr,}/f m(x, kx),

where m is the Lagrangian multiplier. First order conditions solve to

(36) f = (rb-mkf)/[(xrb + xr, + x*fr, + x'r,)/f]

(37) fi = (r,+mf)/[(x'rb + X',r + xrf + x',r)/f]

(38) f, = r,/[(x'rb + x'.r + x'fr + x'r,)/fl

(39) f, = r,/[(x'br + x'b + x',r, + x)/fl.

This also may be expressed as

(40) (xbrb+ Xr,+xrr+xJr1)/f = (r,-mkf)/f = (r,+mf)/f, = r,/f, = rl/f,.








59

If m is positive, the constraint is effective. If it is negative, it is not and the

producer optimization is effectively unconstrained.

Compare this with the unconstrained producer optimization,

(28) (xbrb + x r + xrf + xr1)/f = rdfb = r/fb = rff = r1/f.

Given a well-behaved production function and assuming no scale effect, an

effective restriction (one for which m is positive) will reduce the output per housing

input. The effect on the feed and labor inputs is ambiguous. Most significant to this

research, cost per unit is increased by a magnitude defined by m on the one hand, and

output per bird is increased on the other, achieving in some measure an increase in

welfare according to our index.

It is the weighing of this increment of animal welfare against the corresponding

increase in direct and indirect human costs that represents the fundamental trade-offs

which must be decided upon as animal welfare takes a prominent place in public

discourse. In Chapter 6 this trade-off is quantified by means consistent with the theory

drawn above.














CHAPTER 6
EVALUATING MEANS: MARYLAND BROILERS



A case study will demonstrate a method of evaluating the human costs of

restricting agriculture on behalf of animals and, to some extent, of putting those costs in

the context of effects on animal welfare. Hypothetical restrictions on Maryland broiler

production are considered and experimental poultry science data are used to incorporate

alternative production relationships both in economic terms and in terms of impacts on

the birds. The results are presented only as an example of the type of information which

may profitably inform policy decisions affecting economic production and animal welfare.

Another study examining the effect of a mandatory lower housing density in

broiler production was done by Simpson and Rollin (1984). This was a static comparison

of costs for a standard practice and a doubling of floor space, assuming no effect on

animal productivity and not evaluating impacts on animal welfare. Based upon a 1981

budget for an 18,000 bird broiler house in Central Georgia, the authors estimated a 27%

increase in cost per pound of broiler production on the basis of assumed increases in costs

for the building, litter, fuel, and power. That study doubled floor space per bird by

doubling the size of the broiler house; the present study will consider instead the impacts

on existing operations.










Data

A firm budget for a representative Maryland broiler operation was compiled using

data from published sources, especially a broiler cost and returns budget for 1992 by the

U.S.D.A.'s Economic Research Service and Delmarva broiler budgets estimated at the

University of Delaware (ERS 1993; Gempesaw et al. 1994; Gempesaw et al. 1992;

Gempesaw and Bhargava 1990; Gempesaw et al. 1989.)



Table 5. Effects of broiler density on body weight and feed conversion

Density Body weight (g.) Feed Conversion
(Std. dev.) (Std. dev.)
0.05 1895 2.25
(226.7) (0.085)
0.07 2001 2.20
(261.9) (0.065)
0.09 2064 2.22
(230.6) (0.060)
0.11 2055 2.33
(293.5) (0.139)

Source: Cravener, T.L., et al. "Broiler Production Under Varying Population
Densities," in Poultry Science 1992, 71:427-433.


Data from poultry science research were used to represent the relationship between

housing density, on the one hand, and body weight and feed efficiency, on the other hand

(Cravener et al. 1992). The experimental results after seven weeks of four different

population densities are incorporated into the model. The feed efficiency results are








62

consistent with numbers reported by USDA and the Delaware researchers, and were

incorporated directly into the model; the experimental body weight numbers differed

somewhat from the Delaware numbers, so they were normalized to be consistent with

reported average body weights.

Another significant element of both the welfare and production outcomes

addressed by the Cravener study cited above is mortality. Clearly, changes in mortality

will influence the volume of production. It will also have an impact on welfare which

would confound an analysis of animal welfare based upon productivity. It is fortunate

for the simplicity of interpretation of the following analysis that Dr. Cravener and his

colleagues found no statistically significant impact on mortality associated with the

variations in density which their study examined.

Although such experimental data must be used with caution, they nevertheless

form a useful basis for developing analysis incorporating production relationships which

vary with density.



Model

The model itself begins with a baseline simulation of costs on a representative

Maryland broiler operation, based upon the budget data described above. With facility

size assumed to be fixed, impacts on cost from changes in broiler density are estimated.

Fixed costs are assumed fixed and most variable costs are changed in proportion to the

number of birds set in the house, given each density level.








63

The grower's variable expenses include costs which vary in proportion to the

number of flocks set, and costs which vary in proportion to the number of birds set.

Costs for fuel and electricity and litter are assumed to vary with the number of flocks set,

which we further assume to be 6 per house per year. Expenses for hired labor, operating

loan interest, and an "other production costs" category including insecticides,

disinfectants, rodent control, light bulbs, and other utilities, are taken to be variable with

the number of birds set.

The grower's fixed expenses are constant per house. These are the interest

payments on the fixed investment in the house and equipment, the payment to land,

repairs and maintenance, and taxes.

The integrator's costs are all variable. The cost of chicks, medication and

vaccination, catch and haul, condemnations, and field services are all taken as variable

with the number of birds set. This consistency of cost per bird from setting to hauling

is based upon the experimental evidence that the effect on the rate of mortality from the

variations in density that we consider here is not statistically significant; this means that

the number of birds caught and hauled will be in constant proportion to the number of

birds set.

The integrator's feed cost varies with both the number of birds set and the average

amount of feed consumed by each bird. This average consumption is a function in turn

of the feed conversion ratio and the average weight. The feed cost, then, at each density

was calculated as feed efficiency times body weight times the price given by the 1992

USDA study (16.28 cents per pound). Each of the other relationships is made explicit








64

in the tables below showing the model's results. This is the non-linear element of the

cost analysis.

Analysis is based upon unit cost minimization. The original intention for this

work was to model the profitability of the contract grower over time, but this presented

several problems, especially a theoretical inconsistency.' First and as discussed earlier,

the grower does not face a given set of prices; regulatory constraints on his production

are likely to result in new contract terms, dictated by the integrator and aimed at unit cost

minimization under the new conditions. Second, the contractual nature of broiler

production, by eliminating the discovery of an effective farm level market price, makes

the necessarily dependent estimation of profits speculative at best and meaningless at

worst. Third, the broiler house is a duplicable unit of production which, in many senses,

eliminates economies of scale at the levels of both the contract grower and the integrator.

Analysis of unit cost neatly answered both the theoretical and the practical needs

of this study. It is consistent with the present theoretical framework, it is a simpler and,

consequently, more flexible analytical approach, and it does not depend upon an unknown

or non-existent farm-level market price for finished broilers.

The model, as presented, is static. The addition of a stochastic element was

considered but, again, the contractual nature of the grower's "market" complicates this

application. Looked at from the farm level (ignoring for the moment inconsistencies with

our theoretical conclusions), the grower contract eliminates much of the grower's risk and



SFor such animal industries as continue to consist of traditional firm profit
maximizers, such as beef, dairy, or, until recent years, pork, a profit maximization
approach would be appropriate.








65

otherwise complicates analysis. Considered at the level of the integrator, stochasticity in

the individual broiler house becomes negligible as the number of integrator-contracted

houses grows very large; unit cost minimization is the aim, over many grower contracts

and in the long run.



Constraints

Space per bird was established in Chapter 4 as the restriction to be considered.

This is expressed in the model by holding the size of the houses constant and varying the

number of birds. This is reasonable for an analysis of impacts upon existing operations.

Based on the cost relationships and the experimental production data described

above, total and per kilogram costs are calculated for a number of birds per house

corresponding to the experimental densities, demonstrating the potential effect of each

density on unit cost and, by implication from per bird productivity, on welfare.



Results

The model and the model's results are presented in Tables 6, 7, and 8.

Table 6 shows in more detail the parameters of the model. As noted above, these

are a composite of the numbers presented in several studies, as are the cost of production

numbers. The current, or baseline, density of 0.0744 square meters per bird is based on

this composite baseline and is presented for comparison. Its production parameters are

not directly comparable to the experimental results, so the experimental body weights and

feed efficiency results were normalized for consistency with the baseline; this








66

inconsistency is to be expected, since the actual production baseline results were not

observed under the same experimental conditions as the four experimental densities. This

normalization to the baseline scenario is necessary to estimate changes in commercial

production costs to be expected from the imposition of the experimental densities.


TABLE 6. Cost of Production Simulation Production Parameters

.05 m2 .07 m2 Current .09 m2 .11 m2
Density
Density, me/bird 0.05 0.07 0.0744 0.09 0.11
House area, m2 1859 1859 1859 1859 1859
Fixed investment, $/m' 74 74 74 74 74
Birds/house (1,000) 37.19 26.56 25.00 20.66 16.90
Houses 3 3 3 3 3
Land, acres 10 10 10 10 10
Flocks/year 6 6 6 6 6
Avg. mortality, % 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Feed efficiency ratio 2.25 2.20 2.00 2.22 2.33
(normalized) 2.07 2.02 2.00 2.04 2.15
Avg. bird weight, g 1895 2001 2180 2064 2055
,g (normalized) 2045.1 2159.5 2180.0 2227.5 2217.8

Long-term int. rate, % 8 8 8 8 8
Operating loan rate, % 6 6 6 6 6
Prod'n/house/year, kg 440,319 332,107 315,555 266,438 217,044


Table 7 contains estimated total production costs per house per year. Fixed costs

are, of course, unchanged. Fuel and electricity and litter are unchanged, as they vary by

only with the number of flocks set and that is assumed fixed at six.










TABLE 7. Cost of Production Simulation Total Annual Costs per House
.05 m2 .07 m2 Current .09m2 .11 m
Density

GROWER VARIABLE COSTS PER HOUSE PER YEAR:
Fuel & Electricity 4,248 4,248 4,248 4,248 4,248
Litter 900 900 900 900 900
Hired Labor (i1/bird) 2,153 1,538 1,448 1,196 979
Operating loan interest 281 201 189 156 128
Other production costs 2,374 1,696 1,596 1,319 1,079
TOTAL 9,956 8,582 8,380 7,819 7,333

GROWER FIXED COSTS PER HOUSE PER YEAR:
Land payments 143 143 143 143 143
Interest on facility 11,047 11,047 11,047 11,047 11,047
Repairs/maintenance 717 717 717 717 717
Taxes 287 287 287 287 287
TOTAL 12,195 12,195 12,195 12,195 12,195

INTEGRATOR COSTS PER HOUSE PER YEAR:
Feed ($0.17908/kg) 163,224 120,137 113,019 97,336 83,567
Chicks ($0.018/bird) 38,755 27,682 26,055 21,530 17,616
Medicine, Vaccination 5,167 3,691 3,474 2,871 2,349
($0.024/bird)
Catch & Haul 12,918 9,227 8,685 7,177 5,872
($0.06/bird) _
Condemnations 3,617 2,584 2,432 2,010 1,644
($0.0168/bird)
Field Services 5,167 3,691 3,474 2,871 2,349
($0.024/bird)
TOTAL 228,849 167,012 157,139 133,794 113,396

TOTAL COSTS 251,000 187,789 177,714 153,808 132,924
CHANGE IN TOTAL 73,286 10,075 0 (23,906) (44,790)








68

Hired labor, operating loan interest, and "other" grower production expenses vary

directly with the number of birds defined by each density. Costs of chicks, medicine and

vaccination, catch and haul, condemnations, and field services, among integrator costs

also vary directly with the number of birds defined by each density. Each of these costs

is a linear function of the number of birds, which is in turn an inverse function of the

specified densities.

The integrator's feed cost, in contrast, is equal to the number of birds set times

the survival rate times the average finished bird weight times the average feed conversion

ratio times the (given) price of feed per kilogram. It is this cost into which the

experimental data of Dr. Cravener and colleagues enters.

Table 8 shows the same costs per kilogram of finished liveweight broiler. (See

Table 6.) Total production in kilograms is the number of birds set times the survival rate

times the average finished body weight. This is the denominator for the unit costs

presented in this table and the other way in which the Cravener data enters the analysis.

Density has two effects on unit costs. Unit costs are increased as lower density

causes fixed and quasi-fixed input costs to be spread over fewer birds; unit costs are first

decreased then increased again as lower density has first a positive, then a negative effect

on both feed efficiency (which falls again after .07 square meters) and average body

weight (which falls after .09 square meters.)

The results indicate that unit cost is lowest at .07 square meters per bird, among

the four experimental densities. Again, that this is close to the observed density of .0744

helps to validate both the experimental results and the model as a whole.










TABLE 8. Cost of Production Simulation Costs per Kilogram
.05 m2 .07 m' Current .09m' .11 m2
Density
VARIABLE GROWER COSTS:
Fuel & Electricity 0.0096 0.128 0.0135 0.0159 0.0196
Litter 0.0020 0.0027 0.0029 0.0034 0.0041
Hired Labor 0.0049 0.0046 0.0046 0.0045 0.0045
Operating loan interest 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006
Other production costs 0.0054 0.0051 0.0051 0.0049 0.0050
TOTAL 0.0226 0.0258 0.0266 0.0293 0.0338

FIXED GROWER COSTS:
Land payments 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0007
Interest on facility 0.0251 0.0333 0.0350 0.0415 0.0509
Repairs/maintenance 0.0016 0.0022 0.0023 0.0027 0.0033
Taxes 0.0007 0.0009 0.0009 0.0011 0.0013
TOTAL 0.0277 0.0367 0.0386 0.0458 0.0562

INTEGRATOR COSTS:
Feed 0.3707 0.3617 0.3582 0.3653 0.3850
Chicks 0.0880 0.0834 0.0826 0.0808 0.0812
Medicine and Vaccinations 0.0117 0.0111 0.0110 0.0108 0.0108
Catch and Haul 0.0293 0.0278 0.0275 0.0269 0.0271
Condemnations 0.0082 0.0078 0.0077 0.0075 0.0076
Field Services 0.0117 0.0111 0.0110 0.0108 0.0108
TOTAL 0.5197 0.5029 0.4980 0.5022 0.5225

TOTAL UNIT COST 0.5700 0.5654 0.5632 0.5773 0.6124
CHANGE IN UNIT COST 0.0069 0.0023 0.0000 0.0141 0.0493










Grower Impacts

The Delaware researchers cited above treat production across the Delmarva

peninsula as identical, presumably because it is a relatively small area with similar

resource endowments across each of the three states' portions. Given this assumption,

new investment in Maryland broiler houses will cease if minimum housing densities in

that state were to be fixed at .09 or .11 square meters per bird, or any other level

significantly above the cost minimizing density which is, presumedly, the current density

of .074. This is a trivial result (assuming, also, that the land occupied by the grower

operation is valued by the market for its value to some other, less productive, use.)

The model estimates the increase in total and per unit production costs to be

expected from a space constraint upon production. Obviously, those densities so high as

to raise unit costs will not be applied, as they serve the purpose of neither the grower nor

the animal welfarist.

Depreciation or abandonment of existing facilities, on the other hand, will depend

upon the specific costs associated with each density. Again given competition from

unconstrained and otherwise identical producers in neighboring states, all increases in the

unit cost of production will be capitalized into the value of existing facilities. Facilities

will be abandoned when their value in broiler production becomes negative.

Within the present cost minimization analysis and given the existence of the

opportunity to duplicate the baseline scenario in Delaware or Virginia, depreciation of a

Maryland facility may be calculated from these cost of production numbers.








71

If, as we have assumed, the broiler house facility is duplicable, then like any

intermediate input in a competitive market, its cost of replacement which is equal to its

use value over time, or the present value of its stream of marginal products, which we

may approximate as

(41) Vh = VMP, / r

or put another way,

(42) VMP = k r

where VMPb is the annual value of marginal product of the broiler house, k is the

cost of replacement, and r is the future discount rate. In this case the long-term interest

rate is an appropriate future discount rate, since it represents the opportunity cost of the

capital sunk into the facility.

An effective animal welfare constraint on cost-minimizing production will have

a dual effect on the value of the facilities marginal product. The first component is a unit

cost of production effect, which depreciates the facility by making its production process

less efficient; the second component is a production effect, which reduces the value of

the facility by limiting the number of inputs (birds set) to the production process and, so,

limiting the volume of production. The reduced present value of annual product plus the

present value of the reduction of annual product, is embedded in the economic value of

the facility (assuming no other use value) and can be expressed as

(43) D =((c,-co)-(co(y, -yo)))/r

where D is depreciation, Co is the baseline long-run cost of production (which also serves

effectively as the value of production, given the zero profits we may assume of the








72

grower), c, is welfare-constrained cost of production (including the original, sunk cost

of the facility), yo is baseline production, y, is the welfare constrained production, and

r is the future discount rate.

The depreciation of a $138,089 facility under each density requirement is

presented in Table 9. At the 6% long-term interest rate assumed in the model, this

facility will lose 45.3% of its value under a .09 square meters per bird restriction. At

.11 a total loss of economic value is suffered.


TABLE 9. Depreciation of $139,089 Fixed Investment, by density

.05 m' .07 m' Current .09 m2 .11 m
Density

Increase in variable $73,286 $10,075 $0 ($23,906) ($44,790)
costs:
Original cost/kg $0.563 $0.563 $0.563 $0.563 $0.563
Change in annual 124,764 16,552 0 (49,117) (98,511)
prod., kg
Depreciation, fixed investment:
At 8%, $ $37,765 $9,413 $0 $46,946 $133,620
At 8%, % 27.3% 6.8% 0.0% 34.0% 96.8%
At 6%, $ $50,354 $12,550 $0 $62,594 $178,160
At 6%, % 36.5% 9.1% 0.0% 45.3% 129.0%
At 4%, $ $75,531 $18,825 $0 $93,891 $267,240
At 4%, % 54.7% 13.6% 0.0% 68.0% 193.5%


The impact of such depreciation on the facility's economic life depends upon its

natural economic depreciation. Whenever age and technical obsolescence pushed the

house's value of marginal product below zero, production would cease.








73

The impacts upon Maryland's broiler sector in the aggregate could be substantial.

Assuming the model to be representative of Maryland broiler production, the fixed

investment for the state's 690,000 tons of production in 1995 was about $278,000,000.

The depreciation calculated from the model's results would translate into depreciation of

$101.5 million at .05 square meters per bird, $125.9 million at .09, and $278 million (or

100% of investment) at .11.

This means that a restriction of. 11 square meters per bird would make production

uneconomic, even considering fixed investment as sunk cost. A .09 square meter

restriction would cause production to cease as each facility's economic depreciation

reached 54.7% of original investment; that is, when the value of its marginal product

falls below 45.3% of its initial value. In the short term, production would be directly

reduced from 690,000 to 582,600 tons at .09 square meters per bird due specifically to

the reduced capacity of the facilities; and, of course, at .11 production would fall to zero.


Regional Economic Impacts

Assuming the baseline unit cost of production as a unit value, a loss in the value

of output delivered to final demand can be calculated and used to estimate impacts on the

Eastern Shore economy, using final-demand multipliers calculated by the Bureau of

Economic Analysis. These multipliers are the output of the Bureau's Regional Input-

Output Modeling System, or RIMS II. They are based on the 1987 Benchmark National

Input-Output Table and 1992 regional data. This means that the basic framework analysis

for the interaction of industries is based on 1987 numbers, and that the numbers input for

Maryland's Eastern Shore were for 1992. (Department of Commerce 1997)








74

The initial value of 690,000 tons of liveweight broilers, at our estimated baseline

cost of production of $0.563, is $1,709,268. This is the value by which delivery to final

demand is reduced under a .11 square meters constraint. The estimated short-run

production of 582,000 tons at .09 square meters, valued at the same cost of production

(since the national supply is assumed to be infinitely elastic at that price) is worth

$1,441,730,400, a loss of $267,537,600 to delivery to final demand.

In Table 10, output, earnings, and employment coefficients are used to estimate

the multiplied impact upon the Eastern Shore resulting from the loss of delivery to final

demand associated with each effective constraint.


Table 10. Regional Economic Impacts of Constraints on Eastern Shore Broiler Production

Multiplier .09 square .11 square
meter meter
Loss of production, tons 108,000 690,000
Loss of delivery to final demand $267,537,600 $1,709,268,000
Multiplied output effect 2.4233 $648,323,870 $4,142,069,100
Multiplied earnings effect 0.5206 $139,280,070 $889,844,920
Multiplied employment effect 28.8423 7716 49,299


The output multiplier is "the total dollar change in output that occurs in all

industries for each additional dollar of output delivered to final demand" by the poultry

and eggs sector in Maryland's Eastern Shore. The earnings multiplier is "the total dollar

change in earnings of households employed by all industries for each additional dollar of

output delivered to final demand" by the sector. The employment multiplier is the








75

number of jobs in the region directly and indirectly associated with each million dollars

of additional output delivered to final demand by that sector.

According to these estimates, household earnings directly and indirectly dependent

on the broiler industry are equal to 16% of personal income in the eight counties of

Caroline, Dorchester, Kent, Queen Anne's, Somerset, Talbot, Wicomico, and Worcester.

(Department of Commerce; see Table 4.) Even the loss of household earnings associated

with the .09 square meter constraint is equal to 2.5% of the region's household earnings.

These are the human costs of animal welfare on the Eastern Shore.

It is to be expected that the impact of a single state's restriction of broiler

production would produce, at most, a short-term consumer impact, under the assumption

that neighboring states face conditions which would differ only by the absence of housing

restrictions, and that these states would increase supply to make up for the potential

Maryland shortfall. In the case of Maryland, this is a reasonable assumption. The

budgets drawn for Delmarva broiler production at the University of Delaware make

neither cost distinctions nor other distinctions among Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia.

(Gempesaw et al. 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994; Bacon et al. 1994). In a oligopsonistic

market, such as contract broiler production, the integrator can impose almost all of the

costs of facility depreciation related to animal welfare upon the grower. Aside from costs

associated with the short-run decline in production capacity, there should be no consumer

impact.










Animal Welfare Impacts

These enumerated economic impacts upon humans resulting from animal welfare

restrictions demonstrate one side of the trade-off between human and animal welfare.

The other side, the impact upon chickens raised in broiler production, is more than the

direct impact of conditions changed by mandate.

In the short-run, an index of improved animal welfare can be inferred from the

increase in per animal weight. As discussed above, the animal welfare maximizing

outcome would be appear to be achieved at a density of .09 square meters per bird. The

magnitude of this welfare improvement over any other density can not be determined;

only a welfare ordering can be drawn from the work of Dr. Cravener et al.


Table 11. Inferred Welfare Ordering, by Density, Assuming Equal Bird Numbers2

Square meters per bird Man: Cost (order) Chicken: Body weight (order)
.05 $0.5700 (2) 1895 (4)
.07 $0.5654 (1) 2001 (3)
.09 $0.5773 (3) 2064 (1)
.11 $0.6124 (4) 2055 (2)


However, as Maryland's industry declines as a result of production constraints,

the number of birds benefitting from the new conditions will decline as well, as they are

shifted to unconstrained production facilities in neighboring states. In the long run the

impact upon animal welfare of any state law in isolation will be negligible if it makes


2 If we were negotiating with chickens for one of these arrangements, only .07 and
.09 square meters per bird would be in the Edgeworth core, since neither .05 or .11
would be Pareto optimal among these choices.








77

production uneconomic. This means, then, that a .11 square meter restriction would have

no impact on the welfare of broiler chickens, since birds grown in other states instead of

Maryland would be raised at the baseline density.



Additional Considerations

The interaction between states' animal welfare restrictions on competing state

industries opens up an new set of considerations to be addressed as a problem in game

theory. Each state's choice of outcomes would be conditioned by each competing state's

decision. For example, the severe restriction of broiler production by both Maryland and

Virginia would, by shifting production to Delaware, greatly increase Delaware's

economic stake in the industry. On the other hand, Delaware's decision would also have

a much greater potential impact on welfare once the other states had closed the door to

existing production methods.

Unlike most other conflicts between animal agriculture and the general population,

such as over odor, noise, or, especially, water quality, animal welfare issues are not, in

principle, a "not in my back yard" concern. One should not expect an animal welfarist

to be satisfied if all the "factory farms" move out of state.

Therefore, if the supporters of such a local measure as a state broiler space

requirement wished to maximize the "welfare" of a large number of birds, they would

most rationally promote a restriction that achieved some balance between individual bird

"welfare" and production profitability, suggesting that a local scale for collective animal

welfare action is conducive to a balanced, perhaps negotiated, compromise. By contrast,








78

national regulation could adopt the extensive "command and control" approach so popular

with the promoters of ever more collective action. There would be no check on such

regulation except the very diluted check of voter (and contributor) dissatisfaction.

Support for that alternative, Federal regulation, must overcome the considerable

resistance of agriculture's disproportionate representation in the U.S. Senate, a body

whose traditional role is, after all, to give a place to caution in the development of

government. Only Federal regulation, with effective protection for "animal-friendly"

production, would eliminate the state versus state game aspect of the policy decision,

leading, however, to international games of "chicken," if you will.














CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS


A man may well bring a horse to the water,
But he cannot make him drinke without he will.
John Heywood (1497-1580)
(Bartlett 1938)

This work was an attempt to trace the animal welfare debate from philosophical

premises, through social and political processes, to economic conclusions.



Philosophy

The desire to find an "intrinsic" basis for universal human rights led some

philosophers to observe that not all men are superior to all animals and that some

animals, therefore, are "intrinsically" entitled to the same rights and considerations as

man. Some argued further that if some animals are entitled to such rights, all must be.

It is this thinking which has largely framed the terms of the debate over animals' place

in human society.

"Intrinsic" definitions must be subjective. They invite such abuses as the Soviet

use of mental asylums to deny the rights of political opponents or, alternatively, the

arbitrary inclusion of the lowest animals which can be (subjectively) judged as the

"intrinsic" equal of the most debilitated human.








80

Rights, and all morality, must be defined in functional terms. The clear and

undeniably objective definition of the human species from other species can functionally

define rights-holders so that, on the one hand, all humans may be confident of their place

and, on the other, the social contract is not extended to other species who cannot be

reasonably expected to contribute by their voluntary participation. No system of rights

is sustainable which does not work, so workability must be a priority in discussing

systems of rights.

It should be understood, therefore, that the sustainability of any system of

protections for animals must be grounded in whatever human ends are served by those

protections. If we protect animals, it is, quite reasonably, because we derive short and

long-term benefits from doing so; if we do not, it is, just as reasonably, because we find

that the costs outweight those benefits. For this reason economic analyses of the human

costs associated with animal protections are not only justified, but must be the basis for

any informed decision on animal welfare.



Social and Political Processes

Public choice theory, by applying economic methods to political processes, offers

useful analyses of those processes. A brief consideration of demographic and

constitutional issues in this work leads to a conclusion about the type of jurisdiction which

is most likely to implement pioneering animal welfare measures. Such a jurisdiction

contains a committed animal welfare movement depending upon a constitutional

arrangement which allows the weak preference of an urban and suburban majority to








81

decide the issue against the large stake of an agricultural minority. Maryland is such a

jurisdiction, so her Eastern Shore broiler industry could be a subject of such pioneering

measures. For this reason, and because the contract-oriented structure of the broiler

industry appears to represent the future of other animal industries, economic analysis of

the effects of such measures in this context can both meet a more or less immediate

purpose and demonstrate a methodology for considering animal welfare in other animal

industries.



Economic Theory

An economic theory of animal welfare has been lacking; this work proposes one

such theory. It is a tenet of economic theory that welfare cannot be directly compared

among individuals; this holds, presumably, for animals as well as humans. However, just

as economic historians have settled on the size of human remains as a proxy for human

welfare across time and place, so may we settle upon per animal productivity as a proxy

for the well-being of animals, certainly within a homogeneous genetic stock and under

similar conditions. High productivity is closely correlated with a general state of good

health, to which all definitions of animal welfare defer, but which is not itself easily

quantifiable. It is also important to recall that any such measure of welfare can only be

a relative index, and not an absolute measure, of each animal's (or each person's)

welfare. To the extent that we choose to aggregate welfare across animals, we are

assuming them to be identical. This is not an unreasonable assumption in many animal

production contexts.








82

Per animal productivity is only one among several rough indices of animals'

physical well-being. It is at least as good as the rest, and has the analytical benefit that

it may be integrated into the framework of economic production analysis. In this

framework we can make direct comparisons of production systems in terms of both the

per-animal productivity and the unit cost of animal output.



Results and Suggestions for Further Research

The results of the quantitative analysis in this work bear out the theoretical

conclusions. There is some trade-off between animal welfare and human costs, although

their optima may be closer together than is believed. The methods of this quantitative

analysis can, with little difficulty be adapted to analysis of any animal welfare measure

whose impact on the production function is understood. Application to a profit-

maximizing firm in other meat production industries is more complicated, but is standard

to production economics, with only the innovation of observing per animal productivity

as an index of welfare.

Additional thought must be given to the changes in animal genetics. As breeding

and new genetic technologies take each animal farther from the genetic composition

defined by evolution, body weight and reproductive success require closer examination

as measures of welfare in an evolutionary context. The reshaping of animals by man

does, after all, complicate this analysis.










Conclusions

The scientific economist, if he has done his job well, may lead his audience to

understand their choices among the uses of scarce resources. However, just as the mare

will not be watered except by her own choice, so that audience needs the economist to

get out of their way when he is done and let them decide for themselves.

This work, aspiring to a properly scientific economics, will not attempt to reach

a conclusion on the subjective choice at the heart of the work, the choice of a role for

animals in human society. This research has attempted to frame a human choice in

rational terms, so that it might be made with open eyes. This framing, however, bears

some brief comment.

The philosophies driving and defining much of the popular debate on animal

welfare do not have a rational basis. Humanity should not continue to accept

unquestioned premises as the basis for so important a moral development. If a more

rational course has been defined by the recycling within these pages of old and forgotten

considerations of man and nature, so much the better.

Nevertheless, however rational such a course may be, those who do not choose

to follow it can not simply be ignored. If their numbers are large enough, they must be

considered in the calculus of collective action; this is pragmatism. Those who would

bury their heads in the sand, hoping such a movement as animal welfarism will go away

on its own may find themselves particularly exposed.

With regard to economic science, animal welfare may be seen as a great exposer

of weak methodology and weaker assumptions. The assumptions made by many








84

regarding the interpersonal comparability of human welfare are even more clearly shown

to be untenable in the light of its perfect analogy to comparisons among members of

different species. If, similarly, the presentation of this analogy helps to discredit the

demonstrably flawed elements of welfare economics as generally practiced, so much the

better.

Finally, if this work successfully encourages a more sober balancing of what man

has to gain and what he has to lose from offering more to the animals with whom he

shares the planet, so much the better.














REFERENCES


Abdalla, Charles W., Les E. Lanyon, and Milton C. Hallberg. "What We Know About
Historical Trends in Firm Location Decisions and Regional Shifts: Policy Issues for an
Industrializing Animal Sector", in American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77
(December 1995), pp. 1229-1236.

Abdalla, Charles W., and James D. Shaffer. "Politics and Markets in the Articulation
of Preferences for Attributes of the Rapidly Changing Food and Agricultural Sectors:
Framing the Issues," in Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 29, 1 (July
1997), pp. 57-71.

Animal Welfare Institute. Animals and their Legal Rights, 4th Edition. Washington,
1990.

Bacon, J.R., C.M. Gempesaw II, I. Supitaningsih, J. Hankins. "The Economics of
Broiler, Grain, and Trout Production as a Risk Diversification Strategy," in Aquaculture
127 (1994), pp. 91-102.

Barry, Peter J., Steven T. Sonka, and Kaouthar Lajili. "Vertical Coordination, Financial
Structure, and the Changing Theory of the Firm." in American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 74 (December 1992), pp. 1219-1225.

Bartlett, John, ed. Familiar Ootations, 11th edition. Boston, 1938.

"'Cow,' 'Nun' Protest Papal Visit." City aper of Baltimore. October 12, 1995, p.12.

Craig, J.V., and A.W. Adams. "Behavior and Well-being of Hens in Alternative
Housing Environments." Contribution No. 83-248-J, Department of Animal Sciences and
Industry, Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Manhattan, Kansas. 1983.

Craig, J.V., and J.C. Swanson. "Review: Welfare Perspectives on Hens Kept for Egg
Production." Poultry Science 73 (1994) pp. 921-938.

Cravener, T.L., W.B. Roush, and M.M. Mashaly. "Broiler Production under Varying
Population Densities," in Poultry Science 71 (1992) pp. 427-433.








86

Curtis, Stanley E. "Animal welfare and its impact on animal agriculture in the United
States," a paper presented at the Conference on Emerging Issues in Animal Agriculture,
April 19, 1988.

Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man. 1871.

Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene, 2nd ed. Oxford, 1989.

Department of Food and Agriculture, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Miscellaneous
files and conversations with officials, 1995.

Duncan, Ian J.H. "Measuring Preferences and the Strength of Preferences," Pultry
Science 71 (1992) pp. 658-663.

Farm Animal Reform Movement, Bethesda, Maryland. Pamphlet, correspondence, and
audited financial statements for 1995 and 1996.

Foster, David. "Poll on animal rights yields surprising results," The Gainesville Sun,
Sunday, December 3, 1995. p. 3A.

Gardner, B. Delworth. Plowing Ground in Washington: The Political Economy of U.S.
Agriculture. San Francisco, 1995.

Gempesaw, C., J. Bacon, D. Burdette, L. Konwar, and S. Glassman. "A PC-Based
Central Monitoring System for Aquaculture Production," in Computers in Agricultural
Extension Programs. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. St. Joseph, Michigan,
1992.

Gempesaw, C.M., J.R. Bacon, and C. Halbrendt. "Economic Evaluation of the Use of
Growth Regulators by Contract Broiler Growers," in Poultry Science 68 (1989) pp. 1055-
1062.

Gempesaw, Conrado M., and Swati Bhargava. "Interregional Profitability Analysis of
Contract Broiler Grower Investment Decisions," in Poultry Science 69 (1990) pp. 2092-
2101.

Gempesaw, C., F. Albay, and J. Bacon. "Free Trade and Broiler Growout Returns," in
Poultry Science 73 (1994) pp. 1370-1380.

Guithier, Harold D., and Van Buer, Michelle. "The Economics and Politics of Animal
Welfare and Animal Rights: The Implications for Farm Management and Marketing
Economists", presented at Farm Management and Marketing Extension Workshop, St.
Louis, May 7-9, 1991.










Hicks, John. Value and Capital, 2nd Ed. Oxford, 1946.

Hill, J.A. "Indicators of Stress in Poultry," World's Poultry Science Journal 39
(February 1983) pp. 24-30.

The Holy Bible. New International Version. 1978.

Hoyt, John A. "Exploring A Common Ground," an address presented at the "Future
Trends in Animal Agriculture" Northeast Regional Symposium, March 22, 1990.

Human Farming Association, San Francisco, California. Various pamphlets and letters,
including an audited financial statement for calendar years 1993 and 1994. All are dated
1995.

Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C. "Close-Up Report: Intensive
Confinement." February 1990.

Human Society of the United States, Washington, D.C. World Wide Web page "HSUS -
Good for you: Choosing a Human Diet", 1997.

Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C. "Consolidated Statements and
Report of Independent Auditors." December 31, 1996.

Huxley, Thomas. Evolution and Ethics. New York, 1911.

Knoeber, Charles R., and Walter N. Thurman. "'Don't Count Your Chickens...': Risk
and Risk Shifting in the Broiler Industry." American Journal of Agricultural Economics.
77 (August 1995) pp. 486-496.

Macindoe, R.N.. "Alternative Systems for Housing Layers," in Intensive Animal
Welfare. Peter Henry et al., ed. Indooroopilly, Queensland, Australia, 1987. Pp. 125-
137.

Massachusetts House Bill Number 4002, entitled "An Act relative to improving the health
of farm animals and promoting the use of human practices in animal husbandry."
Submitted by initiative petition, December 2, 1987; also Question 3 in the biennial
election of November 1988.

Mencken, H.L. Friedrich Nietzsche. New York, 1908.

Mencken, H.L. A Mencken Chrestomathy. New York, 1949.

Mueller, Dennis C. Public Choice I. Cambridge, 1989.










Narveson, Jan. "A Defense of Meat Eating", in Singer and Regan, ed., 1989.

Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State. and Utopia. 1974.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. "Factsheets" obtained from the
organization's World Wide Web site, "http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/peta/fsveg01.htm"
through "/fsveglO.htm". 1996.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Norfolk, Virginia. (PETA) Annual
Financial Statements for 1995 and 1996.

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), "Poultry Production and Value
Summary", Released May 2, 1996. Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.

Rachels, James. "Darwin, Species, and Morality," in Regan and Singer, 1989.

Regan, Tom. All That Dwell Therein: Animal Rights and Environmental Ethics.
Berkeley, 1982.

Regan, Tom, and Peter Singer, ed. Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2nd ed.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1989.

Robbins, Lionel. An Essay on the Nature & Significance of Economic Science, 2nd ed.
London, 1949 [1935, 1st ed. 1932].

Simpson, James R., and Bernard E. Rollin. "Economic Consequences of Animal Rights
Programs," Journal of Business Ethics, 3 (1984) pp. 215-225.

Singer, Peter. "All Animals are Equal," in Regan and Singer, eds., 1989.

Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation, 2nd Ed. New York, 1990.

Spencer, Herbert. The Data of Ethics. New York, 1879.

Steckel, Richard H. "Stature and the Standard of Living," in Journal of Economic
Literature, Vol. XXXIII (December 1995) pp. 1903-1940.

Sumner, William Graham. Collected Essays in Political and Social Science. New York,
1885.

Thomas, Dana. "Animal Magnetism," in The Washington Post, September 17, 1990. p.
Bl.








89

Thompson, Paul B., and Stanley Curtis. "Farm Animal Welfare and Animal Rights" in
Ethics, Public Policy, and Agriculture. ed. Paul B. Thompson et al. New York, 1994.

United Poultry Concerns, Potomac, Maryland. "Annual Report for 1995" and Poultry
ress, Spring 1996.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Livestock and Poultry
Situation and Outlook, LPS-62. Washington, D.C., November 1993.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1992 Census of Agriculture. Vol
1. Part 20. Maryland State and County Data. Washington, 1994.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Input-Output
Modeling System (RIMS II). Output generated 1997.














BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH


Roger Cryan was raised by his parents, Martin and Meike Cryan, in Grahamsville,

N.Y. He received a Bachelor of Arts in International Studies from The Johns Hopkins

University in 1987. A long graduate career at the University of Florida has been

punctuated by work for the Cities of Waldo and Gainesville, Florida, the Volunteer

Center of Alachua County, and the World Bank. His current position with the Atlanta

Milk Market Administrator will, he hopes, lead to bigger and better things.

The two most important events in his life have been his wedding to Regina Pana

on June 2, 1992, and the birth of his daughter, Eli Pana Cryan, on September 2, 1996.














I certify that I have ready this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.


Thomas Spreen, Chair
Professor of Food and Resource Economics

I certify that I have ready this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.


R. JeHey Burkhardt
Professor of Food and Resource Economics

I certify that I have ready this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
6- QC9LV-a
Rodney L. Cl uer
Professor of Food and Resource Economics

I certify that I have ready this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.


Johrnolt
Professor of Food and Resource Economics

I certify that I have ready this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of tor of Philosophy.


David Mulkey
Professor of Food and Resource Economics















I certify that I have ready this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of D-..Tr T5 P hloso hy. /


lay/A. Bucklin
P6ofessor of Agricultural and Biological Engineering

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of
Agriculture and the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Phi ophy.

December 1997
/Dean, College of Agriculture



Dean, Graduate School









































I 1262 0 556 5991llllli lllll
3 1262 08556 5991




Full Text
2
The aims of the animal welfare and animal rights movement have been closely
associated with the academic philosophical debate over animals status in human society.
These aims are examined in this work to discern any purposive and consistent ends that
they might contain.
Whether, when, and how public sentiment will be translated into direct
government action will have economic implications for agriculture and the consuming
public. Inevitably, the perceived benefits of animal welfare measures will be weighed,
however imperfectly, against human costs. To that end, specific economic impacts
should be investigated, so that any restrictive measures taken on behalf of animals may
be based upon a balanced prior consideration. This research proposes one theoretical
basis for the economic consideration of animal welfare, based upon productivity as a
measure of welfare. Further, it attempts to establish one methodology for such economic
consideration through an examination of the impact of hypothetical animal welfare
restrictions on contract broiler production in the state of Maryland.
Problem Statement
The upsurge of popular concern for animal welfare and of animal rights activism
has led a wide variety of groups to make a wider variety of demands on agriculture.
These demands have progressively included curbs on particularly intensive forms of
animal production, a ban on all animal products and animal agriculture, and, finally, legal
protection for animals comparable with that provided humans. The ultimate success of
these groups, if that success results in effective constraints upon agricultural practices,


29
Further, the provisions for proper drink, air, space, etc., leave those production
parameters particularly subject to state jurisprudence. In addition, the definition of
"animals" to include "all living creatures" is broader than that in the dictionary, which
would itself define rats, cockroaches, and amoebas as "animals.
In short, the status quo of production agriculture does not have institutional inertia
on its side. Changing community standards regarding the status of animals need not be
acted upon legislatively to effect a change; they need only be recognized by, and
incorporated into the opinions of, individual judges.
Current law in many states is so open to interpretation as to require action merely
to preserve the status quo. This legal ambiguity, the growing anthropomorphic
sentiments of urban and suburban citizens, and the dominance of the audible debate by
one side are each significant; taken together they suggest a wide variety of possibilities
for the future of animals in human society.
In 1988, voters in Massachusetts were asked to pass judgement upon a ballot
initiative, the ballot summary of which read in full:
The proposed law would require the Commissioner of the
Department of Food and Agriculture to issue regulations to ensure that
farm animals are maintained in good health and that cruel or inhumane
practices are not used in the raising, handling or transportation of farm
animals.
The Commissioner would issue regulations, effective within four
years after passage of the proposed law, about the surgical procedures
used on farm animals, the transportation and slaughter of farm animals,
and the diet and housing of those animals. The Director of the Division
of Animal Health could issue exemption permits for a period of time up to
one year and one half to any farmer.
Under the proposed measure, an unpaid Scientific Advisory Board
on Farm Animal Welfare comprised of veterinarians and animal scientist
would also be established within the Department of Food and Agriculture.


31
welfare and animal rights must be addressed by the agricultural establishment in a serious
manner. (Department of Food and Agriculture) In Europe, Union recommendations and
individual country laws call for increasingly restrictive measures on behalf of animal
welfare. (See Animal Welfare Institute 1990.)
Animal Welfare: A Public Choice
It may be inferred from the comparison of legislators animal welfare votes with
those of the public that the ballot initiative holds out the greatest hope for the animal
welfare movement. This is borne out by public choice analysis.7
Voting in legislatures is defined by vote trading, essentially a market for votes in
which votes are exchanged among legislators so that the issues most important to their
own constituents turn in their favor. Though commonly seen as unethical, vote trading
effects a theoretical Pareto improvement whereby each legislators constituency, taken as
a whole, gains support for that issue which matters most to it. (Mueller 1989)
Much larger numbers of people materially depend upon animal agriculture than
are self-defined "animal activists". A balancing of relative interests would, then, seem
to favor the farmer, whose living is at stake, over the marginally interested majority.
Furthermore, many legislators, elected in geographically defined districts, are specifically
7 "The subject matter of public choice is the same as that of political science... The
methodology of public choice is that of economics, however. The basic behavioral
postulate of public choice, as for economics, is that man is an egotistic, rational, utility
maximizer. (Mueller 1989, p. 1) In other words, the political agent is purposive and
consistent.


75
number of jobs in the region directly and indirectly associated with each million dollars
of additional output delivered to final demand by that sector.
According to these estimates, household earnings directly and indirectly dependent
on the broiler industry are equal to 16% of personal income in the eight counties of
Caroline, Dorchester, Kent, Queen Anne's, Somerset, Talbot, Wicomico, and Worcester.
(Department of Commerce; see Table 4.) Even the loss of household earnings associated
with the .09 square meter constraint is equal to 2.5% of the regions household earnings.
These are the human costs of animal welfare on the Eastern Shore.
It is to be expected that the impact of a single states restriction of broiler
production would produce, at most, a short-term consumer impact, under the assumption
that neighboring states face conditions which would differ only by the absence of housing
restrictions, and that these states would increase supply to make up for the potential
Maryland shortfall. In the case of Maryland, this is a reasonable assumption. The
budgets drawn for Delmarva broiler production at the University of Delaware make
neither cost distinctions nor other distinctions among Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia.
(Gempesaw et al. 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994; Bacon et al. 1994). In a oligopsonistic
market, such as contract broiler production, the integrator can impose almost all of the
costs of facility depreciation related to animal welfare upon the grower. Aside from costs
associated with the short-run decline in production capacity, there should be no consumer
impact.


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Roger Cryan was raised by his parents, Martin and Meike Cryan, in Grahamsville,
N.Y. He received a Bachelor of Arts in International Studies from The Johns Hopkins
University in 1987. A long graduate career at the University of Florida has been
punctuated by work for the Cities of Waldo and Gainesville, Florida, the Volunteer
Center of Alachua County, and the World Bank. His current position with the Atlanta
Milk Market Administrator will, he hopes, lead to bigger and better things.
The two most important events in his life have been his wedding to Regina Pana
on June 2, 1992, and the birth of his daughter, Elli Pana Cryan, on September 2, 1996.
90


89
Thompson, Paul B., and Stanley Curts. "Farm Animal Welfare and Animal Rights in
Ethics. Public Policy, and Agriculture, ed. Paul B. Thompson et al. New York, 1994.
United Poultry Concerns, Potomac, Maryland. "Annual Report for 1995" and Poultry
Press. Spring 1996.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Livestock and Poultry
Situation and Outlook. LPS-62. Washington, D.C., November 1993.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1992 Census of Agriculture. Vol
1. Part 20. Maryland State and County Data. Washington, 1994.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Input-Output
Modeling System (RIMS ID. Output generated 1997.


21
from the misery of factory farming is to stop buying and eating meat, milk, and
eggs. Vegetarianism and veganism mean eating for life: yours and theirs.
-People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
This appeal has attracted the support of such visible celebrities as the B-52s
musical group, singers Chrissie Hynde and k.d. lang, actors Elliott Gould and Winona
Ryder, and cartoonist Berke Breathed, among others. (Thomas 1990) Such support
attracts attention, if nothing else.
Other organizations concern themselves exclusively with the welfare of farm
animals. The Human Farming Association claims 90,000 members and has an annual
budget of over $1 million, derived almost entirely from direct contributions. Their
activities focus primarily on their "National Veal Boycott," but also oppose the use of
bovine growth hormones in milk production, the use of anti-biotics in farm animals, or
any type of confinement animal production which might be described as "factory
farming." (Human Farming Association 1995)
The Farm Animal Reform Movement (F.A.R.M.), originators of the "Great
American Meatout," have designated Ghandis birthday, October 2, as "World Farm
Animals Day" in order "to memorialize the suffering and destruction of billions of
innocent, feeling farm animals. The world-wide observances feature exhibits, memorial
services, marches, vigils, and civil disobedience." This groups has an annual budget of
over $125,000, used for the promotion of a meatless diet, including the distribution of
materials for use in the public schools. The group also uses veal as a focal point,
expanding its message to discourage the use of all farm animal products. (F.A.R.M.
1996)


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Economics is the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship
between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses. Lionel
Robbins, 1935, p. 16
A December 1995 Associated Press poll highlights the changing attitudes of the
American people toward animals. In addition to the growth of existing majorities
opposed to "indiscriminate" animal testing and killing animals for fur, new majorities
now consider sport hunting to be "always wrong" and agree with the idea that "an
animals right to live free of suffering should be just as important as a persons right to
live free of suffering." (Gainesville Sun, December 3, 1995, p. 3A) Such an expressed
public philosophy has significant implications for both the producers and consumers of
farm animals. If these views continue to become more common among a population
alienated from the production of its food, government animal welfare policies could
change the way of life of millions of American producers and consumers of animal
products.
Since the relationship of means to ends is the subject of economic science,
agricultural economists are behooved to consider the animal welfare ends desired by both
the movement and the public, and, in turn, to evaluate the rational means to those ends,
whatever they may be.
1


67
TABLE 7. Cost of Production Simulation Total Annual Costs per House
.05 m2
.07 m2
Current
Density
.09 m2
.11 m2
GROWER VARIABLE COSTS PER HOUSE PER YEAR:
Fuel & Electricity
4,248
4,248
4,248
4,248
4,248
Litter
900
900
900
900
900
Hired Labor (lc/bird)
2,153
1,538
1,448
1,196
979
Operating loan interest
281
201
189
156
128
Other production costs
2,374
1,696
1,596
1,319
1,079
TOTAL
9,956
8,582
8,380
7,819
7,333
GROWER FIXED COSTS PER HOUSE PER YEAR:
Land payments
143
143
143
143
143
Interest on facility
11,047
11,047
11,047
11,047
11,047
Repairs/maintenance
717
717
717
717
717
Taxes
287
287
287
287
287
TOTAL
12,195
12,195
12,195
12,195
12,195
INTEGRATOR COSTS PER HOUSE PER YEAR:
Feed ($0.17908/kg)
163,224
120,137
113,019
97,336
83,567
Chicks ($0.018/bird)
38,755
27,682
26,055
21,530
17,616
Medicine, Vaccination
($0.024/bird)
5,167
3,691
3,474
2,871
2,349
Catch & Haul
($0.06/bird)
12,918
9,227
8,685
7,177
5,872
Condemnations
($0.0168/bird)
3,617
2,584
2,432
2,010
1,644
Field Services
($0.024/bird)
5,167
3,691
3,474
2,871
2,349
TOTAL
228,849
167,012
157,139
133,794
113,396
TOTAL COSTS
251,000
187,789
177,714
153,808
132,924
CHANGE IN TOTAL
73,286
10,075
0
(23,906)
(44,790)


10
He differs from Dr. Singer in denying, based on criticisms of utilitarian theory
similar to those above, that each humans obligation is to maximize the aggregate utility
of all creatures. He questions the necessarily centralized utilitarian program and finds it
lacking. The authoritarian control demanded by any system of direct utilitarianism would
be susceptible to the abuses which arise from all arbitrary authority. "Indeed, I believe
that only if we postulate human rights can we provide a theory that adequately guards
humans against the abuses that utilitarianism might permit. (Regan, p.90) This
statement, by acknowledging that the origin and justification for a system of rights lies
in its functional, rather than intrinsic, properties, provides the basis, not only for his
refutation of Dr. Singers animal utilitarianism, but also for a refutation of Dr. Regans
animal rights theory, which is based upon the inherent value of all feeling animals and
their interests. (1982, p.71)
If the Regan approach is more theoretically coherent in light of the impossibility
of interpersonal or interspecial utility comparison and allocation, it still finds itself on the
slippery slope of attempting to define the line below which species do not possess some
or all rights. Dr. Regans theory requires that the same judgement be made upon some
non-human species which he calls immoral when passed upon all non-human species; a
rights framework must fall apart unless a line is drawn between those beings which do
have rights and those that do not.
Dr. Regan neither questions nor defends the fundamental basis of the morality
which, he believes, demands that we consider animals rights the same as our own, but
takes it on faith. He begins with the unsupported belief that animals are entitled to


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 EZNICW30I_9XFOS1 INGEST_TIME 2013-11-16T01:00:52Z PACKAGE AA00014248_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


86
Curtis, Stanley E. "Animal welfare and its impact on animal agriculture in the United
States, a paper presented at the Conference on Emerging Issues in Animal Agriculture,
April 19, 1988.
Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man. 1871.
Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. 2nd ed. Oxford, 1989.
Department of Food and Agriculture, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Miscellaneous
files and conversations with officials, 1995.
Duncan, Ian J.H. "Measuring Preferences and the Strength of Preferences, Poultry
Science 71 (1992) pp. 658-663.
Farm Animal Reform Movement, Bethesda, Maryland. Pamphlet, correspondence, and
audited financial statements for 1995 and 1996.
Foster, David. "Poll on animal rights yields surprising results," The Gainesville Sun.
Sunday, December 3, 1995. p. 3A.
Gardner, B. Delworth. Plowing Ground in Washington: The Political Economy of II.S.
Agriculture. San Francisco, 1995.
Gempesaw, C., J. Bacon, D. Burdette, L. Konwar, and S. Glassman. "A PC-Based
Central Monitoring System for Aquaculture Production," in Computers in Agricultural
Extension Programs. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. St. Joseph, Michigan,
1992.
Gempesaw, C.M., J.R. Bacon, and C. Halbrendt. "Economic Evaluation of the Use of
Growth Regulators by Contract Broiler Growers," in Poul try Science 68 (1989) pp. 1055-
1062.
Gempesaw, Conrado M., and Swati Bhargava. "Interregional Profitability Analysis of
Contract Broiler Grower Investment Decisions," in Poultry Science 69 (1990) pp. 2092-
2101.
Gempesaw, C., F. Albay, and J. Bacon. "Free Trade and Broiler Growout Returns," in
Poultry Science 73 (1994) pp. 1370-1380.
Guithier, Harold D., and Van Buer, Michelle. "The Economics and Politics of Animal
Welfare and Animal Rights: The Implications for Farm Management and Marketing
Economists", presented at Farm Management and Marketing Extension Workshop, St.
Louis, May 7-9, 1991.


68
Hired labor, operating loan interest, and "other" grower production expenses vary
directly with the number of birds defined by each density. Costs of chicks, medicine and
vaccination, catch and haul, condemnations, and field services, among integrator costs
also vary directly with the number of birds defined by each density. Each of these costs
is a linear function of the number of birds, which is in turn an inverse function of the
specified densities.
The integrators feed cost, in contrast, is equal to the number of birds set times
the survival rate times the average finished bird weight times the average feed conversion
ratio times the (given) price of feed per kilogram. It is this cost into which the
experimental data of Dr. Cravener and colleagues enters.
Table 8 shows the same costs per kilogram of finished liveweight broiler. (See
Table 6.) Total production in kilograms is the number of birds set times the survival rate
times the average finished body weight. This is the denominator for the unit costs
presented in this table and the other way in which the Cravener data enters the analysis.
Density has two effects on unit costs. Unit costs are increased as lower density
causes fixed and quasi-fixed input costs to be spread over fewer birds; unit costs are first
decreased then increased again as lower density has first a positive, then a negative effect
on both feed efficiency (which falls again after .07 square meters) and average body
weight (which falls after .09 square meters.)
The results indicate that unit cost is lowest at .07 square meters per bird, among
the four experimental densities. Again, that this is close to the observed density of .0744
helps to validate both the experimental results and the model as a whole.


25
12% Disagree strongly
Do you think there are circumstances where its perfectly OK to kill an
animal for its fur or do you think its...
59 % .. .always wrong
36% ...OK, in some circumstances
Do you think there are circumstances where its perfectly OK to hunt an
animal for sport or do you think its...
51% ...always wrong
47% ...OK, in some circumstances
Do you think the use of animals to test cosmetics is...
46% ...never right
21% ...seldom right
29% ...right under some circumstances
2% ...always right
Do you think the use of animals to test medical treatments is...
14% ...never right
15% ...seldom right
62% ...right under some circumstances
8% ...always right
How often do you eat meat, poultry, or fish?
2% Never
6% Rarely
21 % Occasionally
71% Frequently
(Foster 1995)
The economist (and the philosopher) might note with particular interest the
answers to the first and last inquiries as an example of the contrast between stated and
expressed intentions. The abstract response differs greatly from the concrete. Similarly,
the expression of a public issue as a question of abstract principle, on the one hand, or
as a specific balancing between costs and benefits, on the other, will greatly affect the
issues outcome.4
4 Other polls have been commissioned by such groups as the American Farm Bureau
Federation, the American Veterinary Association, and the Animal Industries Foundation.
An attempt was made to acquire and examine the results of these polls for the final
dissertation, but communication with each of these groups revealed an inability or


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
ANIMAL WELFARE: ENDS AND MEANS
By
Roger Cryan
December 1997
Chairman: Dr. Thomas Spreen
Major Department: Department of Food and Resource Economics
The social side of the animal welfare debate has been inadequately informed by
economic science. This work examines the philosophical debate over animal welfare and
proposes an alternative approach. It examines the prospects of the animal welfare/rights
movement in the context of public choice theory. An economic theory of animal welfare
is developed. Finally, a case study is used to demonstrate one methodology for
estimating the direct human costs of animal welfare restrictions.
vt


87
Hicks, John. Value and Capital. 2nd Ed. Oxford, 1946.
Hill, J.A. "Indicators of Stress in Poultry," Worlds Poultry Science Journal 39
(February 1983) pp. 24-30.
The Holy Bible. New International Version. 1978.
Hoyt, John A. "Exploring A Common Ground," an address presented at the "Future
Trends in Animal Agriculture" Northeast Regional Symposium, March 22, 1990.
Human Farming Association, San Francisco, California. Various pamphlets and letters,
including an audited financial statement for calendar years 1993 and 1994. All are dated
1995.
Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C. "Close-Up Report: Intensive
Confinement." February 1990.
Human Society of the United States, Washington, D.C. World Wide Web page "HSUS -
Good for you: Choosing a Human Diet", 1997.
Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C. "Consolidated Statements and
Report of Independent Auditors." December 31, 1996.
Huxley, Thomas. Evolution and Ethics. New York, 1911.
Knoeber, Charles R., and Walter N. Thurman. "Dont Count Your Chickens...: Risk
and Risk Shifting in the Broiler Industry." American Journal of Agricultural Economics.
77 (August 1995) pp. 486-496.
Macindoe, R.N.. "Alternative Systems for Housing Layers," in Intensive Animal
Welfare. Peter Henry et al., ed. Indooroopilly, Queensland, Australia, 1987. Pp. 125-
137.
Massachusetts House Bill Number 4002, entitled "An Act relative to improving the health
of farm animals and promoting the use of human practices in animal husbandry."
Submitted by initiative petition, December 2, 1987; also Question 3 in the biennial
election of November 1988.
Mencken, H.L. Friedrich Nietzsche. New York, 1908.
Mencken, H.L. A Mencken Chrestomathy. New York, 1949.
Mueller, Dennis C. Public Choice II. Cambridge, 1989.


78
national regulation could adopt the extensive "command and control" approach so popular
with the promoters of ever more collective action. There would be no check on such
regulation except the very diluted check of voter (and contributor) dissatisfaction.
Support for that alternative, Federal regulation, must overcome the considerable
resistance of agricultures disproportionate representation in the U.S. Senate, a body
whose traditional role is, after all, to give a place to caution in the development of
government. Only Federal regulation, with effective protection for "animal-friendly"
production, would eliminate the state versus state game aspect of the policy decision,
leading, however, to international games of "chicken," if you will.


12
Treatise." (p. 9)3 Nevertheless, like Drs. Singer and Regan, he puts his philosophical
cart before the horse and postulates a journey. That he admits the gap does, however,
lead to a more profitable line of reasoning.
Professors Regan, Singer, and Nozick define animals as morally indistinguishable
from men, but can only define morality itself on an intuitive basis. They rest what they
claim to be a rational, even a scientific, framework upon a traditional foundation which
they then deny. They fail to define consistent and purposive ends when they presuppose
a moral theory without the benefit of a rational explanation (or divine inspiration), and
this failure makes the pursuit of their ends inconsistent and, so, infeasible. Indeed,
biological science has generated a consistent and feasible philosophical ordering,
grounded in evolution.
Many animal advocates cite the work of Charles Darwin as knocking out the
foundations of speciesism. (Singer 1990, pp.209-212) Professor Darwin did, indeed,
redefine mans self-image by demonstrating his close natural relation to the other species;
but perhaps more relevant to our inquiry is his theory of mans moral development.
The acceptance of evolution has led to the collapse of the intrinsic value basis
of mans self-centered world-view; but Professor Darwin himself begat a new theory of
morality based upon evolution that defines even more clearly the functional separation of
man from other species. In The Descent of Man, Professor Darwin presented a theory of
mans morality as the product of evolution. Mans 'moral sense was promoted "through
3 John Locke did, however, have the comfortable support of a Biblical moral theory
that few in his time dared openly question.


43
It has already been shown that the Maryland animal cruelty statute is so broadly
written as to allow severe restrictions on all animal agriculture, if a small minority of
judges and bureaucrats were to so interpret it. As animal welfare becomes more widely
debated, the states attitude toward animals and their keepers will necessarily be redefined
and refined.
Restrictions could include bans on de-beaking and toe-trimming, both seen as
detrimental to animal welfare by animal advocates and as vital to the health of the birds
by growers. Any production system employing such restrictions would necessarily be
significantly different from current practices, or would, at the least, require study by
poultry scientists to determine their impacts upon production.
The requirement of a specific amount of floor space per animal is a common
demand from animal advocates of all animal production industries. In addition, as a
continuously variable input to existing production systems it has been studied in the
poultry science literature, and the results of these studies may be applied to an economic
consideration. This restriction will be examined in more detail in Chapters 5 and 6.


37
and sites in urban states will become a political, and so economic, liability. (Abdalla and
Shaffer 1997)
Table 1. Broilers: Production and price, 1934-94'
Production, Thousands
Price per Pound2
Year
Birds
Pounds
Cents
1994 Dollars
1934
34,030
96,594
19.3
2.14
1944
274,149
817,605
28.8
2.43
1954
1,047,798
3,236,248
23.1
1.27
1964
2,161,172
7,521,269
14.2
.68
1974
2,992,820
11,320,396
21.5
.65
1984
4,283,020
17,861,023
33.7
.48
1994
7,017,540
32,528,500
35.0
.35
1/ Marketing year December 1-November 30.
2/ Liveweight equivalent price.
3/ 1994 is preliminary.
Sources: Poultry: Production and Value, Annual Summary, National Agricultural
Statistics Service, USDA. CPI: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.
In many ways the Maryland broiler industry is ahead of other meat industries.
Its growth has been associated in part with its proximity to the large markets of the
Northeast. It resides in a primarily urban and suburban state and so is subject to state
regulation by a state government answering to an urban and suburban constituency.
Because its move into such a "neighborhood" pre-dates many of the present concerns for
animal pollution and the calls for collective action against animal production, the
Maryland broiler industry offers a lesson on such conflict between the direct economic


28
Any person who (1) overdrives, overloads, deprives of necessary
sustenance, tortures, torments, cruelly beats, mutilates or cruelly kills; or (2)
causes, procures or authorizes these acts; or (3) having the charge or custody of
an animal, either as owner or otherwise, inflicts unnecessary suffering or pain
upon the animal, or unnecessarily fails to provide the animal with nutritious food
in sufficient quantity, necessary veterinary care, proper drink, air, space, shelter
or protection from the weather; or (4) uses or permits to be used any bird, fowl,
or cock for the purpose of fighting with any other animal, which is commonly
known as cockfighting, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not
exceeding $1,000 or by imprisonment not to exceed 90 days, or both...
27:62 Definitions
The words torture, torment, and 'cruelty' mean every act, omission, or
neglect whereby unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain or suffering is caused
or permitted, and the word animal means every living creature except man.
(Maryland Statutes, cited in Animals and Their Legal Rights, p.26)
This is representative of the vagueness of state anti-cruelty laws, which generally
leave the definition of cruelty so open to interpretation that any judge of a certain mind
could find against any farmer that he felt was causing unnecessary or unjustifiable
physical pain or suffering. A Maryland broiler producer with, say, 100,000 birds could,
in theory, face over 24,000 years of 90 day sentences or $100,000,000 in fines for one
offending management practice.
Neither should the intent of the legislators at the time these laws were originally
passed be counted upon to protect traditional practices; modem judicial interpretation
makes great allowances for changing community standards in the literal interpretation of
old statutes. Unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain might be interpreted in light of
such public views as were expressed in the poll referred to in the introduction of this
work; and new community standards may define as unnecessarily painful any practice,
however essential to modem production or rooted in agewom tradition, which causes any
pain, or even discomfort, to the animals involved.


50
Consider a strictly concave production function,
(1) y = f(xt,,xt,xt,x1),
where
(2) f, > 0
(3) f < 0
(4) f.fj f, > 0,
for i,j = b,h,f,l, and where y is liveweight broiler production, xb is the number of chicks
set in the flock, and the x, x and x, are housing, feed, and labor inputs, respectively.
This production function and its impact upon per animal welfare, as we have defined it,
may be analyzed in the contexts of maximization of that welfare, of farm-level profit
maximization the aim of the grower, and of per unit cost minimization the aim of the
corporate integrator.
Welfare Maximization
Taking productivity per bird as a monotonically increasing function of welfare,
as is consistent with our definition of productivity as an index of welfare ordering,
welfare maximization takes the form of the following optimization:
(5) Max (y/x*) = f(xb,xl,x[,x1)/xb,
for which first order conditions
(6)
5(y/x)/5xb = (xbf-f)/x2 = 0
(7)
5(y/xb)/5xb = fb/xb = 0
(8)
5(y/x)/xf = ff/xb = 0


Voter preference g Voter preference
33
Figure 1. Voter preferences on a single-dimensional issue
Mueller (1989)
Figure 2. Voter preferences on animal welfare.
Equal rights


16
Morality is a practical tool. Collectively, humans are moral because morality has
promoted human interests. This means that we can and should protect animals if we
prefer to do so, but only because it is what we, as a species or as individuals, prefer.
This is not to argue against animal welfare measures; it is simply to say that the
sovereignty of man is an established fact, and that man may and will, in his own interest
and according to the laws of nature, do whatsoever he decides is in his own perceived
interest, as does every other species in its own way.
Animal Welfare and Human Ends
In fact, man serves his own purpose by promoting the welfare of animals in many
ways.
The management ethic offers the most rational positive argument for animal and
environmental protection, but does not justify rights or equal consideration for animals.
(Singer 1990) The preservation of the ecosystem as part of such an ethic provides direct
benefits to animals which have indirect benefits to humans.
A certain degree of animal welfare coincides also with profitable farming,
although profit maximization clearly does not produce animal welfare maximization, as
will be shown in a later section of this work.
Aesthetic values also seem to have a large role in our moral sentiments toward
animals. We view the extermination of rats differently from the death of a baby seal
largely because their aesthetic impacts upon us are very different. On this basis the
protection of aesthetically valuable animals becomes a consumption good. The priorities


40
The closed, intensive nature of broiler production, and the careful control of the
birds themselves, lead to less direct and less extensive conflict between production and
human habitat, so that the issue of broiler welfare, when it is raised, is less to be
confounded with the not in my backyard concerns described above, which have plagued
many new and established dairy, pork, and even egg operations. Since broilers are less
aesthetically pleasing and less prone to personification than most mammals, the issue of
their welfare is more specifically about the nature of human responsibilities to other
species. For these reasons, the broiler industry is a useful case study for examining the
ends and means of animal welfare.
Maryland, as an increasingly urban and suburban state with a large animal
production industry, may be seen as a relatively likely area for the success of the animal
welfare lobby. The states ballot initiative process would allow a small committed group
to place an animal welfare bill on the ballot. A large urban population in both Baltimore
and the edge cities around the District of Columbia, with limited exposure to production
agriculture, are more likely to support such an initiative. In such a vote the passion of
faint-heartedness of each vote has no bearing on the outcome; if the median voter is only
barely convinced to vote "for the animals," his vote counts is weighed the same as all the
rest.
The geographic isolation of broiler production from those centers also might
weaken its appeal and potential ability to mount a campaign in opposition. The broiler
industry is a large part of Marylands rural economy, especially in those eight counties


54
Contract Broiler Optimization
In contrast to the classical profit-maximizing farm, the typical broiler growout
operation is defined by the terms of the growers contract with the integrator. As
indicated above, the modern integrated poultry processing firm is large in scale and
maintains a high degree of control over the production decisions of its contract growers,
primarily through this contract, which is written by the integrator to provide incentives
to per-unit cost minimization. Before considering the grower, then, it is important to
define the objective of the integrator.
The large scale of operation of the integrated poultry firms makes per-unit cost
minimization their logical economic aim at the level of the broiler house, the duplicability
of which essentially eliminates scale effects for the integrator in the growout stage of
broiler production. The integrators decisions are oriented to cost minimization, and that
mandate is imposed upon the grower by the terms of his contract and by the lack of a
market for independent broiler production. So much, in fact, is production integrated
with processing that there no longer exists a meaningful market price for live broilers;
U.S.D.A. price estimates are based upon the Teady-to-cook price less estimates of
processing costs. (Footnote 3; Chapter 4, Table 3; Knoeber and Thurman 1995)
The integrators objective may be stated as the minimization of the price of the
live broiler input to the processing operation. The unconstrained dual of per-unit cost
minimization is per-unit profit maximization, i.e.,
(22) Max Prof/y = p rx/y
= Min (-p + rx/y)


59
If m is positive, the constraint is effective. If it is negative, it is not and the
producer optimization is effectively unconstrained.
Compare this with the unconstrained producer optimization,
(28) (x,r, + xtrt + x,rf + x,r,)/f = rs/fb = r/fh = xjf, = r,/f,.
Given a well-behaved production function and assuming no scale effect, an
effective restriction (one for which m is positive) will reduce the output per housing
input. The effect on the feed and labor inputs is ambiguous. Most significant to this
research, cost per unit is increased by a magnitude defined by m on the one hand, and
output per bird is increased on the other, achieving in some measure an increase in
welfare according to our index.
It is the weighing of this increment of animal welfare against the corresponding
increase in direct and indirect human costs that represents the fundamental trade-offs
which must be decided upon as animal welfare takes a prominent place in public
discourse. In Chapter 6 this trade-off is quantified by means consistent with the theory
drawn above.


38
benefits of location and public perceptions about the "factory farm," perceptions which
will define collective public action.
In 1995, the broilers produced 63% of producer revenues in the $18.6 billion U.S.
poultry sector, including eggs, turkey, and other meat-type chickens. (NASS 1996) As
can be seen in Table 1, there has been enormous growth in the broiler industry since its
modest beginnings. Large reductions in cost of production, and so in price, have fed the
demand which has made such growth possible.
Table 2. Top broiler firms: market share and number of plants, selected years 1/
Percentage of total U.S.
slaughter
Number of slaughter plants operated
Year
4 largest
firms
8 largest
firms
20
largest
firms
4 largest
firms
8 largest
firms
20 largest
firms
1960
12
18
32
21
31
52
1964
18
28
44
36
51
80
1968
18
29
47
31
48
84
1972
17
29
43
25
47
80
1976
18
31
55
26
47
91
1980
23
39
66
34
60
104
1984
34
51
73
41
68
105
1987
38
55
78
50
77
116
1/ Includes only those firms slaughtering broilers under Federal inspection.
Source: Lasley 1988.


CHAPTER 6
EVALUATING MEANS: MARYLAND BROILERS
A case study will demonstrate a method of evaluating the human costs of
restricting agriculture on behalf of animals and, to some extent, of putting those costs in
the context of effects on animal welfare. Hypothetical restrictions on Maryland broiler
production are considered and experimental poultry science data are used to incorporate
alternative production relationships both in economic terms and in terms of impacts on
the birds. The results are presented only as an example of the type of information which
may profitably inform policy decisions affecting economic production and animal welfare.
Another study examining the effect of a mandatory lower housing density in
broiler production was done by Simpson and Rollin (1984). This was a static comparison
of costs for a standard practice and a doubling of floor space, assuming no effect on
animal productivity and not evaluating impacts on animal welfare. Based upon a 1981
budget for an 18,000 bird broiler house in Central Georgia, the authors estimated a 27%
increase in cost per pound of broiler production on the basis of assumed increases in costs
for the building, litter, fuel, and power. That study doubled floor space per bird by
doubling the size of the broiler house; the present study will consider instead the impacts
on existing operations.
60


53
(15) Xj/x,, > or = k.
Assuming the constraint to be binding, we may describe it as an equality in the
producers optimization,
(16) Profit = f(Xh,xh,xF,x,)p xrb xhrh xfrf -x,r,.
s.t. Xj loq = 0,
an optimization whose Lagrangian is
(17) L = f(xb,xll,xr,xl)p xj-,, xtrh xfr, -x,r, + m(xt kx).
The first order conditions for this Lagrangian solve to
(18) f = (r + mk)/p
(19) f = (r m)/p
(20) f, = r,/p
(21) f, = r,/p.
This constraint, then, has the same positive impact upon welfare as the combination of
an addition to the input price of chicks (r) equal to the shadow price of the constraint (m)
times the constrained bird per housing unit ratio (k) and a reduction of m from the input
price for housing (r) equal to m; that is, given a production function, the animal welfare
effect is directly related to the cost of the constraint, defined by the Lagrangian m.
This establishes a direct functional relationship between human welfare, as
measured by the market in dollars and cents, and animal welfare, measured by
productivity as a chosen proxy for physical well-being. This "welfare" relationship,
expressed by the outcomes of a constraint of the production function, can be considered
in the context of other human optimizations of animal production processes.


13
natural selection: for those communities, which included the greatest number of the most
sympathetic members would flourish best and rear the greatest number of offspring."
(p.82) The seeds of a new ethical philosophy were planted when he suggests that "it
would be advisable, if found practible,...to take as the test of morality, the general good
or welfare of the community, rather than the general happiness; but this definition would
perhaps require some limitation on account of political ethics, "(p. 98) Thus, he
recognizes that good and evil can be seen strictly as what is good or bad for the physical
survival of the community, including both selfish and selfless acts.4
This is key to the Darwinian revolution in moral philosophy. A rethinking of
basic moral theory by such philosophers as Thomas Huxley, Herbert Spencer, Friedrich
Nietzsche, and William Graham Sumner (who coined the term social Darwinist) denied
traditional morality for its lack of a rational foundation, and was based instead in mans
brute origins. (Mencken 1908, Sumner 1885, Spencer 1879, Huxley 1911) Human
morality, according to this view, is only justified and can only persist insofar as it
promotes some basic, generally physical, good of the human species.
Modem socio-biology uses the theory of genetic selection, based upon the
assertion "that the fundamental unit of selection, and therefore of self-interest, is not the
species, or the group, nor even, strictly, the individual. It is the gene, the unit of
heredity." (Dawkins 1989, p. 11) Richard Dawkins, though "not advocating a morality
based on evolution", does a very good job of describing such a morality, (p. 2) One
4 Nevertheless, mans morality is limited and "his actions are largely determined by
the expressed wishes and judgement of his fellow-man, and unfortunately still oftener,
by his own strong, selfish desires." (p.86)


5
An economic theory of animal welfare is developed, based upon the ordering of
animal welfare by productivity per animal. A neo-classical production framework is used
to consider the theoretical impact of welfare restrictions on "welfare", production, and
profitability.
A case study is used to demonstrate a methodology for the analysis of the farm-
level impacts of hypothetical but plausible animal welfare restrictions on broiler producers
in the state of Maryland. After a review of broiler production, and Marylands industry
in particular, a representative farm is modelled to estimate the firm-level economic impact
over time of potential animal welfare restrictions. Such results are used to draw
conclusions regarding impacts on supply and profitability, as well as the multiplied effect
on the local and state economies of changes in industry sales.


3
would have considerable economic consequences for those engaged in the production of
animals and animal products.
In many ways the debate over farm animal welfare lacks a substantive
philosophical context. Concern for animals generally has been expressed, even by
professional philosophers, in emotional terms on intuitive premises. A sound
philosophical foundation for this conversation is needed to frame the policy questions and
define our real concerns about animals.
A substantive economic context is still more sorely lacking. Economic science
takes human values as given and demands of the "rational economic agent only that his
preferences are "consistent" and "purposive". (Robbins 1935, pp. 90-93) Once the aims
of a philosophy have been translated into such a consistent and purposive expression of
desired ends, economic analysis allows useful evaluation of the required means.
However, society must decide among ends and means, as a whole and as
individuals, on the basis of available information. The role of economics and social
science is to inform the decision, not to make it. Once the consistent and purposive ends
pursued by our society with regard to animals have been clearly identified, an economic
context can be developed to evaluate means to those decided ends. This research is an
economists attempt to begin both the identification of ends and the evaluation of means,
with respect to the issue of animal welfare.


66
inconsistency is to be expected, since the actual production baseline results were not
observed under the same experimental conditions as the four experimental densities. This
normalization to the baseline scenario is necessary to estimate changes in commercial
production costs to be expected from the imposition of the experimental densities.
TABLE 6. Cost of Production Simulation Production Parameters
.05 m2
.07 m2
Current
Density
.09 m2
.11 m2
Density, mVbird
0.05
0.07
0.0744
0.09
0.11
House area, m2
1859
1859
1859
1859
1859
Fixed investment, $/m2
74
74
74
74
74
Birds/house (1,000)
37.19
26.56
25.00
20.66
16.90
Houses
3
3
3
3
3
Land, acres
10
10
10
10
10
Flocks/year
6
6
6
6
6
Avg. mortality, %
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
Feed efficiency ratio
2.25
2.20
2.00
2.22
2.33
" (normalized)
2.07
2.02
2.00
2.04
2.15
Avg. bird weight, g
1895
2001
2180
2064
2055
,g (normalized)
2045.1
2159.5
2180.0
2227.5
2217.8
Long-term int. rate, %
8
8
8
8
8
Operating loan rate, %
6
6
6
6
6
Prodn/house/year, kg
440,319
332,107
315,555
266,438
217,044
Table 7 contains estimated total production costs per house per year. Fixed costs
are, of course, unchanged. Fuel and electricity and litter are unchanged, as they vary by
only with the number of flocks set and that is assumed fixed at six.


46
stereotypic behavior ("persistent, highly repetitive behaviors without obvious purpose"),
and "vacuum behavior (behavior inappropriate to the relatively barren environment of
a production facility, such as birds "dust-bathing" on a concrete floor) are all seen as
indicating "mental suffering" on the part of the animal. Duncan and Petherick have been
cited as suggesting that "animal welfare is dependent solely on the mental, psychological,
and cognitive needs of the animals concerned."(Craig and Swanson 1994, p.927) This
may have intuitive appeal to the economist who defines human welfare as the fulfillment
of purposive and consistent preferences.
At first sight the economist may also be attracted to the preference ordering
approach to animal welfare which is now gaining support in the animal sciences. The
choices animals make among freely offered multiple alternatives are recorded as a
revealed preference ordering. The technique is further advanced by throwing up obstacles
to the animals choice of one option over another; this is supposed to suggest a price,
or willingness to pay, on the part of the animal. (Duncan 1992)
The same economist will, presumably, recognize on closer examination that the
significance of such results is based upon an assumption that animals, like homo
economicus, are purposive and consistent in their preferences, and that their cognitive
abilities allow them to efficiently determine means to their preferred ends. Even the
proponents of this approach recognize that animals often choose what is contrary to their
physical well-being, especially farm animals whose artificial selection or artificial
environment are not compatible with the assumption of instinctive self-interest. In these
cases, where physical well-being is not promoted by the animals preferred alternative,


76
Animal Welfare Impacts
These enumerated economic impacts upon humans resulting from animal welfare
restrictions demonstrate one side of the trade-off between human and animal welfare.
The other side, the impact upon chickens raised in broiler production, is more than the
direct impact of conditions changed by mandate.
In the short-run, an index of improved animal welfare can be inferred from the
increase in per animal weight. As discussed above, the animal welfare maximizing
outcome would be appear to be achieved at a density of .09 square meters per bird. The
magnitude of this welfare improvement over any other density can not be determined;
only a welfare ordering can be drawn from the work of Dr. Cravener et al.
Table 11. Inferred Welfare Ordering, by Density, Assuming Equal Bird Numbers2
Square meters per bird
Man: Cost (order)
Chicken: Body weight (order)
.05
$0.5700 (2)
1895 (4)
.07
$0.5654 (1)
2001 (3)
.09
$0.5773 (3)
2064 (1)
.11
$0.6124 (4)
2055 (2)
However, as Marylands industry declines as a result of production constraints,
the number of birds benefitting from the new conditions will decline as well, as they are
shifted to unconstrained production facilities in neighboring states. In the long run the
impact upon animal welfare of any state law in isolation will be negligible if it makes
2 If we were negotiating with chickens for one of these arrangements, only .07 and
.09 square meters per bird would be in the Edgeworth core, since neither .05 or .11
would be Pareto optimal among these choices.


30
The Board wold examine animal agricultural practices, issue for
publication certain reports on farm practices, and make non-binding
recommendations to the Commissioner about specific regulations. If
appropriated by the legislature, the Board may allocate an annual sum of
not more than ten cents per Massachusetts citizen to assist farmers in
adopting methods which are consistent with the purposes of this law.
The Director of the Division of Animal Health would be responsible
for enforcing regulations issued as a result of this proposed law. Persons
who violate the new law would be punished by a fine of up to $1,000.
Among the provisions of this law not mentioned in the Attorney Generals "fair
and concise summary" were directives to the Commissioner to (e)nsure sufficient and
appropriate ventilation, flooring, bedding, space, and temperature control to maintain the
health and comfort of each farm animal" (emphasis added) and to ensure "healthful" and
"nourishing" diets "to maintain optimum health and well-being of each animal." In
addition, any construction or modification of an animal housing structure costing over
$10,000 would have to be reviewed by the Scientific Advisory Board, four of whose five
members would be appointed by the Governor only after being "nominated by at least
two nonprofit humane organizations constituted for the primary purpose of preventing
cruelty to animals and incorporated in Massachusetts." Finally, for purposes of
enforcement, the law would allow that "Any person residing in or incorporated in
Massachusetts may commence a civil suit in Superior Court on his own behalf to compel
the commissioner or director to perform any duty which is required" by this law. (Mass.
House Bill No. 4002)
That nearly 30% of voters supported this bill after a 2-150 defeat in the
Massachusetts House of Representatives and a 0-34 defeat in the state Senate, and after
a well-financed campaign by the Massachusetts Farm Bureau, suggests, again, that animal


52
(12)
Profit = fix^Xt.Xj.x^p xbr xhr xfr, -x,r
Profit maximization is defined by the first order conditions
(13)
5(Profit)/5x, = f,p r¡ = 0,
which solve to
(14)
= r,/p,
for all i = b,h,f,l.
Farm-level profit maximization, then, approaches welfare maximization, as
defined by equations (10) and (11), as the cost of chicks set approaches one hundred
percent of total cost of production, which is again defined by xVr + xVn + x',rf + x,r
where x', is now the firm profit-maximizing level of input i, and r¡ remains the given
price of input i. This condition obviously differs greatly from the current cost structure
of broiler production, (see Chapter 6, Table 3,) but the extent to which the profit
maximizing welfare outcome differs from that of welfare maximization depends upon the
curvature of the production function. One significant implication of this is that the
assessment of a head tax on farm animals, in place of taxes on other inputs to animal
agriculture, would alter profit maximization (and cost minimization, based on results
presented below,) outcomes in favor of animal welfare.
Constrained Firm Profit Maximization
Consider the constraint of such a firm by a floor space requirement, as has been
discussed above among potential restrictions, which fixes a minimum ratio (k) of housing
inputs (xj to chicks set (xb),


23
supported a campaign "targeting Frank Perdue, the symbol of the poultry industry... We
will relentlessly pressure Perdue to develop, promote, and implement systems that are
responsive to the birds behavioral and physical needs.... We have no doubt that the
Perdue campaign... will place farm animal welfare on the national agenda. (Hoyt 1990)
The H.S.U.S. has a staff of 115 in Washington and around the country. (Hoyt
1990) Their 1996 revenues were over $48 million. (HSUS 1996) In 1990, the Society
published a "Close-Up Report" on confinement agriculture. The reports conclusion
called for "humane sustainable agriculture" which "eschews intensive-confinement factory
systems,... rejects dependence upon antibiotics, hormones, genetically engineered animals,
pesticides, herbicides, and synthetic fertilizers," in order "to promote healthful and
humane conditions for farm animals." (HSUS 1990) In addition, the Society conducts
an annual National Farm Animal Awareness Week. (HSUS 1997.)
Even traditional Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, seen by most
Americans as mainstream and moderate, will almost inevitably come to be dominated,
as has the Humane Society of the United States, by the passionate and committed people
who have provided such vitality to the radical animal rights groups.
Public Opinion
These organized groups dedicated to animal welfare represent several regions on
one end of a conceptual spectrum of views toward animal welfare. Their work influences
the distribution of the general population on this spectrum, and this distribution defines
the public choice regarding the status of animals in our democratic society.


74
The initial value of 690,000 tons of liveweight broilers, at our estimated baseline
cost of production of $0,563, is $1,709,268. This is the value by which delivery to final
demand is reduced under a .11 square meters constraint. The estimated short-run
production of 582,000 tons at .09 square meters, valued at the same cost of production
(since the national supply is assumed to be infinitely elastic at that price) is worth
$1,441,730,400, a loss of $267,537,600 to delivery to final demand.
In Table 10, output, earnings, and employment coefficients are used to estimate
the multiplied impact upon the Eastern Shore resulting from the loss of delivery to final
demand associated with each effective constraint.
Table 10. Regional Economic Impacts of Constraints on Eastern Shore Broiler Production
Multiplier
.09 square
meter
.11 square
meter
Loss of production, tons
108,000
690,000
Loss of delivery to final demand
$267,537,600
$1,709,268,000
Multiplied output effect
2.4233
$648,323,870
$4,142,069,100
Multiplied earnings effect
0.5206
$139,280,070
$889,844,920
Multiplied employment effect
28.8423
7716
49,299
The output multiplier is "the total dollar change in output that occurs in all
industries for each additional dollar of output delivered to final demand by the poultry
and eggs sector in Marylands Eastern Shore. The earnings multiplier is "the total dollar
change in earnings of households employed by all industries for each additional dollar of
output delivered to final demand" by the sector. The employment multiplier is the


17
we place on such goods are the product of unscientific human preferences and can only
be measured by the ways in which we reveal those preferences as a society.
Most would argue that a certain kindness to animals is necessary and necessarily
enforced in order to prevent the moral degradation we feel is attendant to cruelty for its
own sake. This is, again, a consumption choice, based on human ends. We might even
decide that the granting of such rights as are advocated by Drs. Singer and Regan is
necessary to the moral evolution of mankind; but if we do, it should be with the
understanding that we do it in our own perceived interest.
Animal welfare, then, may be an intermediate input to human welfare. It also
may be a direct human consumption good, like mountain vistas or flowers in the city
parks. As such it must be weighed against other goods, including milk and eggs, fishing
and hunting, meat, or fur. Restrictions on each of these goods for the sake of animal
welfare will have a direct cost in human satisfaction. This is the fundamental trade-off
upon which public policy regarding animals must be based.
This chapter is not written to condemn animals; it is merely an attempt to
reconsider animals place in human society in the context of mans natural history, and
so to clarify the ends of animal welfare measures. The only rational (i.e. purposive and
consistent) basis for mans protection of animals is the direct and indirect benefits he
derives. Homo sapiens has thrived through its use of animals for food, protection,
clothing, traction, and transport. The health of his physical environment depends in large
measure upon the survival of many other species in a balance so complicated that mans
poor understanding of it suggests caution in its care. Clearly, there are many arguments


27
which does not make the polity untenable. The only constraints are the process and, in
the longer term, the sustainability of the outcome.
In this country the process is defined in part by the federal constitution. This
constitution restricts the authority of government to deprive owners of property, and so
long as animals are considered to be property strictly, there exists protection from very
restrictive legislation. However, once animals are defined as more than property, the last
constitutional objection is gone, and the choice becomes purely political; there is nothing,
then, necessarily unconstitutional about animal welfare or rights legislation.
The legal history of animal welfare legislation in the United States dates to "The
Body of Liberties" enacted by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1641 which stated, "No
man shall exercise any Tiranny or Crueltie towards any bruite Creature which are usuallie
kept for mans use." (Animal Welfare Institute, p. 1)
Many modem anti-cruelty laws may be read as forbidding many of the standard
practices to which animal activists object.6 The law in the state of Maryland, with which
the case study for this research is concerned, reads as follows:
27:59. Cruelty to animals a misdemeanor.
6 The Florida statute, which is typical of state anti-cruelty laws, reads as follows:
828.12. Cruelty to Animals. Whoever unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, tortures,
torments, deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, or unnecessarily or cruelly beats,
mutilates, or kills any animal, or causes the same to be done, or carries in or upon any
vehicle, or otherwise, any animal in a cruel or inhuman manner, is guilty of a
misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable...by a fine of not more than $5,000,
[imprisonment not exceeding 1 year, or both. (Florida Statute 775.082)] (p.18, Animal
Welfare Institute)


57
The contract performance of growers is measured by a settlement cost, based
upon a formula:
(28) sc, = (xbr + x,r,)/y,
where sc, is the individual growers settlement cost (Knoeber and Thurman 1995). Under
these terms, r and rr are established by the integrators. The price paid the grower (p8)
is a base price (p0) plus (or minus) the amount which the growers settlement cost is less
than (or greater than) the average settlement cost (sc,) among contracted growers during
a limited time period:
(29) P8 = Po + (sc. ((xbr + x,r,)/y))
This determines the growers profit function,
(30) Profit = fix^x^Xf.x.Kpo + (sc, (xr + xfrf)/f(xb,xh,xx,))) xfr, -x,r,.
This reduces to an apparently standard profit maximization
(31) Max Profit = f(xb,xk,x(>xl)(p> + sc,) xbrb x,rt x,r, x,r
except that xb, x, rb, rf, and p are explicitly determined by the integrator. With xb and
xb fixed, the first order conditions solve to
(32) fifxh.x^xt.x,) = r,/(p + sc.)
(33) f.iXhA.Xr.x,) = r,/(po + sc,)
More importantly, the integrator defines, on average, (p + sc,), which is
effectively the growers output price; if the integrator has adequate cost information, this
price may be set equal to an average minimum unit cost, leaving the grower no economic
choice for profit maximization but an approximation to unit-cost minimization. Such
contracts shift broiler price risk onto the integrator, but impose a large degree of cost


CHAPTER 5
AN ECONOMIC THEORY OF ANIMAL WELFARE: DEFINING MEANS
"Rabbits for sale:
Bunnies
Breeders
Fryers"
- sign seen on State Route 24 outside Waldo, Florida
Using an imperfect but uniquely scientific index of animal welfare ordering, an
integrated theory of production and welfare can be developed in the neo-classical
framework to formally express a relationship between animal welfare and economic
production.
Defining Welfare
Framing such an economic theory of animal welfare depends upon developing a
definition of animal welfare which is consistent with observable data and which is
relevant to the economic decisions of animal production.
A large and growing animal and poultry science literature explores the relationship
between farming practice and various indices of animal well-being. Three of these
indices which have been widely studied are animal preferences and behavior,
physiological stress, and productivity.
In Europe most recent scientific research on animal well-being has focussed upon
preferences and other behavioral criteria. The absence of "natural" patterns of behavior,
45


56
The grower contract is the vehicle for the translation of integrator unit-cost
minimization into grower profit maximization. These contracts typically set the growers
price (ps), presumably at something estimated by the integrator at or near the minimum
cost of production. The broiler houses are built to contract specifications, effectively
establishing a duplicable, but not continuously variable, x for the grower operation. The
number and quality of chicks set for each growout (x6) is determined and provided by the
integrator. In addition, growers obtain feed exclusively from the integrators, who thereby
establish its quality and its effective price (r,). In addition, the veterinary services and
technical assistance must direct, to some degree, the growers production practices. The
high degree of market concentration in the broiler processing industry must also be
significant in defining a condition of monopsonistic competition among integrators,
limiting the alternatives of growers unhappy with the terms of their contract, almost
certainly to an extent that allows integrators to set a bare break-even (cost-minimizing)
price for live broilers, accounting for no profits beyond the market value of the growers
labor and the opportunity cost of capital.
Broiler contracts are generally based on "tournament pricing, under which
growers are paid more per unit as their costs per unit are lower than other "competing"
growers in a given period of time. The dominance of this pricing scheme in broilers
particularly has been attributed to the high market concentration in the processing sector;
this offers the large numbers of growers relative to processors which is favorable to
effective tournament pricing (Barry et al. 1992).


REFERENCES
Abdalla, Charles W., Les E. Lanyon, and Milton C. Hallberg. "What We Know About
Historical Trends in Firm Location Decisions and Regional Shifts: Policy Issues for an
Industrializing Animal Sector", in American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 77
(December 1995), pp. 1229-1236.
Abdalla, Charles W., and James D. Shaffer. "Politics and Markets in the Articulation
of Preferences for Attributes of the Rapidly Changing Food and Agricultural Sectors:
Framing the Issues," in Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 29, 1 (July
1997), pp. 57-71.
Animal Welfare Institute. Animals and their Legal Rights. 4th Edition. Washington,
1990.
Bacon, J.R., C.M. Gempesaw II, I. Supitaningsih, J. Hankins. "The Economics of
Broiler, Grain, and Trout Production as a Risk Diversification Strategy," in Aquaculture
127 (1994), pp. 91-102.
Barry, Peter J., Steven T. Sonka, and Kaouthar Lajili. "Vertical Coordination, Financial
Structure, and the Changing Theory of the Firm." in American Journal of Agricultural
Economics. 74 (December 1992), pp. 1219-1225.
Bartlett, John, ed. Familiar Quotations. 11th edition. Boston, 1938.
Cow, Nun Protest Papal Visit." City Paper of Baltimore. October 12, 1995, p.12.
Craig, J.V., and A.W. Adams. "Behavior and Well-being of Hens in Alternative
Housing Environments." Contribution No. 83-248-J, Department of Animal Sciences and
Industry, Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Manhattan, Kansas. 1983.
Craig, J.V., and J.C. Swanson. "Review: Welfare Perspectives on Hens Kept for Egg
Production." Poultry Science 73 (1994) pp. 921-938.
Cravener, T.L., W.B. Roush, and M.M. Mashaly. "Broiler Production under Varying
Population Densities," in Poultry Science 71 (1992) pp. 427-433.
85


84
regarding the interpersonal comparability of human welfare are even more clearly shown
to be untenable in the light of its perfect analogy to comparisons among members of
different species. If, similarly, the presentation of this analogy helps to discredit the
demonstrably flawed elements of welfare economics as generally practiced, so much the
better.
Finally, if this work successfully encourages a more sober balancing of what man
has to gain and what he has to lose from offering more to the animals with whom he
shares the planet, so much the better.


83
Conclusions
The scientific economist, if he has done his job well, may lead his audience to
understand their choices among the uses of scarce resources. However, just as the mare
will not be watered except by her own choice, so that audience needs the economist to
get out of their way when he is done and let them decide for themselves.
This work, aspiring to a properly scientific economics, will not attempt to reach
a conclusion on the subjective choice at the heart of the work, the choice of a role for
animals in human society. This research has attempted to frame a human choice in
rational terms, so that it might be made with open eyes. This framing, however, bears
some brief comment.
The philosophies driving and defining much of the popular debate on animal
welfare do not have a rational basis. Humanity should not continue to accept
unquestioned premises as the basis for so important a moral development. If a more
rational course has been defined by the recycling within these pages of old and forgotten
considerations of man and nature, so much the better.
Nevertheless, however rational such a course may be, those who do not choose
to follow it can not simply be ignored. If their numbers are large enough, they must be
considered in the calculus of collective action; this is pragmatism. Those who would
bury their heads in the sand, hoping such a movement as animal welfarism will go away
on its own may find themselves particularly exposed.
With regard to economic science, animal welfare may be seen as a great exposer
of weak methodology and weaker assumptions. The assumptions made by many


48
reproduction, and weight gain, indicates much about the health of the animal, and since
physical well-being is consistently defined as a necessary basis for overall well-being, a
scientific approach to animal welfare may be effectively based upon identifying
productivity with welfare (Macindoe 1987).1
Several criticisms are made against productivity as a measure of welfare.2 First
are the objections to average productivity, which fails to account for welfare differences
among animals within a group. (Hill 1983) However, among animals of homogeneous
age, breeding, and physical characteristics, such as typifies production agriculture, these
differences should be minimal. (Craig and Adams 1983) In addition, the lack of a
definitive weighting of reproduction, mortality, and weight gain (and milk production,
for milking animals) leads critics to represent productivity measurements as potentially
contradictory. (Hill 1983) This is true to some degree, but may be countered by pointing
out the correlations among rates of reproduction, longevity, and growth within most
species. Where such correlations do not exist this criticism warrants consideration, if
only in a context of weaker alternative measures.
' Productivity may be an even more appropriate index of animal well-being in light
of the "social Darwinist philosophy outlined above; the definition of well-being by those
outcomes which would tend to represent evolutionary success may be the best measure
of "the general good or welfare of the community", or alternatively, the best measure of
the success of the genetic vehicle.
2 Another concern may be the presumably negative impact on welfare from such
practices which attempt, over the lifetime of the animal, to alter the nature of the animal
product, such as the swelling of duck livers and the whitening of veal. This may be
examined as a matter of animal health. Most animal productivity measures, however, are
consistent with animal health.


24
Some of the positions along such a spectrum may be represented by the following
characterizations, beginning with the most animal-centered and ending with the most
human-centered:
Equal rights for animals.
Equal consideration of animal welfare.
Comparable rights for animals.
Comparable consideration of animal welfare.
Some consideration of animal welfare, all animals.
Some consideration of animal welfare, some animals.
Animals as means to human ends only.
There is considerable overlap among these broadly characterized philosophies, but
they may be ordered, as above, in a single dimension according to the sacrifices each
expects man to make for the sake of animals well-being.
An Associated Press poll conducted November 10 through 14, 1995, may
adequately reflect American opinion of animal welfare and rights on more than one level.
The results are given below3:
Some people say an animals right to live free of suffering should be just
as important as a persons right to live free of suffering. Would you say
you...
38% Agree strongly
29% Agree somewhat
18% Disagree somewhat
3 Attributed to Associated Press. "Source: AP national telephone poll of 1,004
adults taken Nov. 10-14 by ICR Survey Research Group of Media, Pa., part of AUS
Consultant. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3 percentage points, plus or
minus. Sum may not total 100 percent because of rounding. "Dont know omitted."


CHAPTER 3
POLITICAL CONTEXT: DEFINING THE MARKET
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want,
and deserve to get it good and hard. H.L. Mencken, 1949 p.622
Our increasingly urbanized and suburbanized society provides fertile ground for
appeals to the anthropomorphic sentiment many feel toward such "animals" as Mickey
Mouse, Bugs Bunny, Lassie, and such "edible" characters developed to sell related animal
products as the tuna fish that wants to taste good, Elsie the Borden Dairy Cow, and even
the bull on the glue bottle or the cow on the box of gelatine.
The practical result of the animal welfare debate will be decided in public forums
by any of a variety of voting rules, including legislative choice, direct voting, and
boycott. These decisions will be made in the context of awareness raised by various
animal welfare and rights groups, and will be informed by philosophy and, hopefully,
economics. While the agricultural community tends to view animal welfare activists as
outside the political mainstream, many single-issue groups have come to dominate the
debate with respect to their issue1 and, as the beforementioned AP poll indicates, a
1 For example, the promoters of Prohibition in the 1910s and the opponents of gun
control in recent years.
19


4
Research Objectives
Animal welfare, for the most part, has been examined superficially by social
scientists familiar with agriculture (Guithier and Van Buer 1991; Simpson and Rollin
1984). If it is one role of agricultural economics to assess the interaction of the farm
sector with society at large, the field can have a useful place in the now disjointed debate
over the status of farm animals, from which the agricultural establishment has been
largely excluded (or from which it has excluded itself), despite its enormous stake in the
outcome.
A discussion of this issue and the suggestion of an economic methodology to
explore the human costs of the pursuit of welfare for animals are the purposes of this
research.
The philosophical discussion upon which much of the animal welfare debate has
been based is explored. This burgeoning literature is re-examined and a new basis for
the consideration of the status of animals is suggested which makes clear the soundness
of weighing animal welfare in light of its cost to humans.
The animal welfare movement is described. Its potential for success and a
practical definition of the animal welfare issue are considered in the context of public
choice theory and the political processes involved. Constitutional issues suggest the
means by which an animal welfare agenda could most easily be translated into law, and
demographic considerations may indicate jurisdictions in which such laws would be most
likely.


Narveson, Jan. "A Defense of Meat Eating, in Singer and Regan, ed., 1989.
Nozick, Robert. Anarchy. State, and Utopia. 1974.
88
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. "Factsheets" obtained from the
organizations World Wide Web site, "http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/peta/fsveg01.htm"
through 7fsvegl0.htm". 1996.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Norfolk, Virginia. (PETA) Annual
Financial Statements for 1995 and 1996.
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), "Poultry Production and Value
Summary", Released May 2, 1996. Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Rachels, James. "Darwin, Species, and Morality," in Regan and Singer, 1989.
Regan, Tom. All That Dwell Therein: Animal Rights and Environmental Ethics.
Berkeley, 1982.
Regan, Tom, and Peter Singer, ed. Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2nd ed.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1989.
Robbins, Lionel. An Essay on the Nature & Significance of Economic Science. 2nd ed.
London, 1949 [1935, 1st ed. 1932],
Simpson, James R., and Bernard E. Rollin. "Economic Consequences of Animal Rights
Programs," Journal of Business Ethics. 3 (1984) pp. 215-225.
Singer, Peter. "All Animals are Equal," in Regan and Singer, eds., 1989.
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. 2nd Ed. New York, 1990.
Spencer, Herbert. The Data of Ethics. New York, 1879.
Steckel, Richard H. "Stature and the Standard of Living," in Journal of Economic
Literature. Vol. XXXIH (December 1995) pp. 1903-1940.
Sumner, William Graham. Collected Essays in Political and Social Science. New York,
1885.
Thomas, Dana. "Animal Magnetism," in
Bl.
;, September 17, 1990. p.


62
consistent with numbers reported by USDA and the Delaware researchers, and were
incorporated directly into the model; the experimental body weight numbers differed
somewhat from the Delaware numbers, so they were normalized to be consistent with
reported average body weights.
Another significant element of both the welfare and production outcomes
addressed by the Cravener study cited above is mortality. Clearly, changes in mortality
will influence the volume of production. It will also have an impact on welfare which
would confound an analysis of animal welfare based upon productivity. It is fortunate
for the simplicity of interpretation of the following analysis that Dr. Cravener and his
colleagues found no statistically significant impact on mortality associated with the
variations in density which their study examined.
Although such experimental data must be used with caution, they nevertheless
form a useful basis for developing analysis incorporating production relationships which
vary with density.
Model
The model itself begins with a baseline simulation of costs on a representative
Maryland broiler operation, based upon the budget data described above. With facility
size assumed to be fixed, impacts on cost from changes in broiler density are estimated.
Fixed costs are assumed fixed and most variable costs are changed in proportion to the
number of birds set in the house, given each density level.


26
Assuming the respondents to the Associated Press poll cited above to be both
truthful and representative of the American electorate, the median voter eats meat, poultry
or fish frequently; thinks that it is always wrong to kill an animal for its fur; thinks that
animal testing of medical treatments are right under some circumstances, but that animal
testing of cosmetics is seldom right; believes that hunting is always wrong; and agrees
somewhat with the proposition that "an animals right to live free of suffering should be
just as important as a persons right to live free of suffering." (Foster 1995)
These results are consistent with a concern for animals, conditioned by self-
interest. The median poll respondent depicted offers animals one absolute protection,
from hunting; however, in 1994 only 5.9% of Americans bought hunting licenses,
indicating that the median respondent held no personal interest in hunting.5 (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service statistic cited in Foster 1995)
Whatever arguments may be brought to bear for or against animal welfare or
rights considerations, in our democratic society it has already become an issue by the
voice of a vocal minority and an apparently accepting majority, and will become more
important.
By its nature, the polity of a democratic society can impose any restriction or
bestow any right on any person, place, or thing which the political process chooses and
unwillingness to provide these results.
5 See footnote number 6.


Dedication
This work is dedicated to my daughter, EUi, and my wife, Rene, without either
of whom it likely would not have been completed.



PAGE 1

$1,0$/ :(/)$5( (1'6 $1' 0($16 %\ 52*(5 &5<$1 $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( 6&+22/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

'HGLFDWLRQ 7KLV ZRUN LV GHGLFDWHG WR P\ GDXJKWHU (8L DQG P\ ZLIH 5HQH ZLWKRXW HLWKHU RI ZKRP LW OLNHO\ ZRXOG QRW KDYH EHHQ FRPSOHWHG

PAGE 3

$&.12:/('*(0(176 WKDQN WKH PHPEHUV RI P\ GHJUHH FRPPLWWHH YDULRXVO\ IRU WKHLU LQWHOOHFWXDO SHUVRQDO DQG QRW OHDVW LPSRUWDQWO\ ILQDQFLDO VXSSRUW WKURXJK WKH ORQJ MRXUQH\ IURP VWDUW WR ILQLVK $GGLWLRQDO WKDQNV DUH GXH WR 0LFKDHO 2OH[D &RQUDGR *HPSHVDZ 5LFKDUG 5H\QQHOOV DQG QXPHURXV RWKHU SDUWLHV IRU WKHLU LQWHUHVW LQ DQG FRQWULEXWLRQV WR P\ UHVHDUFK DOVR DFNQRZOHGJH WKH ODFN RI FRRSHUDWLRQ IURP RWKHUV ZKRVH YHUWHEUDO IRUWLWXGH ZDV LQDGHTXDWH WR SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ VXFK GDULQJ ZRUN

PAGE 4

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
PAGE 5

0RGHO &RQVWUDLQWV 5HVXOWV *URZHU ,PSDFWV 5HJLRQDO (FRQRPLF ,PSDFWV $QLPDO :HOIDUH ,PSDFWV $GGLWLRQDO &RQVLGHUDWLRQV &21&/86,216 3KLORVRSK\ 6RFLDO DQG 3ROLWLFDO 3URFHVVHV (FRQRPLF 7KHRU\ 5HVXOWV DQG 6XJJHVWLRQV IRU )XUWKHU 5HVHDUFK &RQFOXVLRQV 5()(5(1&(6 %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ Y

PAGE 6

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

PAGE 7

&+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 (FRQRPLFV LV WKH VFLHQFH ZKLFK VWXGLHV KXPDQ EHKDYLRXU DV D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ HQGV DQG VFDUFH PHDQV ZKLFK KDYH DOWHUQDWLYH XVHV /LRQHO 5REELQV S $ 'HFHPEHU $VVRFLDWHG 3UHVV SROO KLJKOLJKWV WKH FKDQJLQJ DWWLWXGHV RI WKH $PHULFDQ SHRSOH WRZDUG DQLPDOV ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKH JURZWK RI H[LVWLQJ PDMRULWLHV RSSRVHG WR LQGLVFULPLQDWH DQLPDO WHVWLQJ DQG NLOOLQJ DQLPDOV IRU IXU QHZ PDMRULWLHV QRZ FRQVLGHU VSRUW KXQWLQJ WR EH DOZD\V ZURQJ DQG DJUHH ZLWK WKH LGHD WKDW DQ DQLPDOfV ULJKW WR OLYH IUHH RI VXIIHULQJ VKRXOG EH MXVW DV LPSRUWDQW DV D SHUVRQfV ULJKW WR OLYH IUHH RI VXIIHULQJ *DLQHVYLOOH 6XQ 'HFHPEHU S $f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fPRYHPHQWf DQG WKH SXEOLF DQG LQ WXUQ WR HYDOXDWH WKH UDWLRQDO PHDQV WR WKRVH HQGV ZKDWHYHU WKH\ PD\ EH

PAGE 8

7KH DLPV RI WKH DQLPDO ZHOIDUH DQG DQLPDO ULJKWV PRYHPHQW KDYH EHHQ FORVHO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH DFDGHPLF SKLORVRSKLFDO GHEDWH RYHU DQLPDOVf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

PAGE 9

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f HFRQRPLF DJHQW RQO\ WKDW KLV SUHIHUHQFHV DUH FRQVLVWHQW DQG SXUSRVLYH 5REELQV SS f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fV DWWHPSW WR EHJLQ ERWK WKH LGHQWLILFDWLRQ RI HQGV DQG WKH HYDOXDWLRQ RI PHDQV ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKH LVVXH RI DQLPDO ZHOIDUH

PAGE 10

5HVHDUFK 2EMHFWLYHV $QLPDO ZHOIDUH IRU WKH PRVW SDUW KDV EHHQ H[DPLQHG VXSHUILFLDOO\ E\ VRFLDO VFLHQWLVWV IDPLOLDU ZLWK DJULFXOWXUH *XLWKLHU DQG 9DQ %XHU 6LPSVRQ DQG 5ROOLQ f ,I LW LV RQH UROH RI DJULFXOWXUDO HFRQRPLFV WR DVVHVV WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI WKH IDUP VHFWRU ZLWK VRFLHW\ DW ODUJH WKH ILHOG FDQ KDYH D XVHIXO SODFH LQ WKH QRZ GLVMRLQWHG GHEDWH RYHU WKH VWDWXV RI IDUP DQLPDOV IURP ZKLFK WKH DJULFXOWXUDO HVWDEOLVKPHQW KDV EHHQ ODUJHO\ H[FOXGHG RU IURP ZKLFK LW KDV H[FOXGHG LWVHOIf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

PAGE 11

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fV LQGXVWU\ LQ SDUWLFXODU D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH IDUP LV PRGHOOHG WR HVWLPDWH WKH ILUPOHYHO HFRQRPLF LPSDFW RYHU WLPH RI SRWHQWLDO DQLPDO ZHOIDUH UHVWULFWLRQV 6XFK UHVXOWV DUH XVHG WR GUDZ FRQFOXVLRQV UHJDUGLQJ LPSDFWV RQ VXSSO\ DQG SURILWDELOLW\ DV ZHOO DV WKH PXOWLSOLHG HIIHFW RQ WKH ORFDO DQG VWDWH HFRQRPLHV RI FKDQJHV LQ LQGXVWU\ VDOHV

PAGE 12

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fLQWULQVLFf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fV PRUDO UHODWLRQVKLS WR DQLPDO FDQ RQO\ EH FODULILHG LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI PDQfV PRUDO UHODWLRQVKLS WR PDQn 7KH FXUUHQW FRQYHQWLRQDO SKLORVRSKLFDO DUJXPHQWV IRU DQLPDO n 7KH DXWKRU EHJV WKDW WKH UHDGHU H[FXVH WKH SROLWLFDOO\ LQFRUUHFW EXW WUDGLWLRQDO XVH RI fPDQf ZKHQ UHIHUULQJ JHQHUDOO\ WR WKH KXPDQ UDFH DV D SUHIHUDEOH DOWHUQDWLYH WR WKH

PAGE 13

ZHOIDUH DQG DQLPDO ULJKWV VWDUW IURP D ZHDNO\ GHILQHG SRVLWLRQ ZLWK DQ XQGHUGHYHORSHG IRXQGDWLRQ 7KH $FDGHPLF 0DLQVWUHDP 0RUH LPSRUWDQWO\ IRU WKLV UHVHDUFK GHILQLQJ WKH SKLORVRSKLHV GULYLQJ WKH GHPDQGV RI WKH DQLPDO ZHOIDUH DQG ULJKWV PRYHPHQW LV YLWDO WR IUDPLQJ WKH HFRQRPLF TXHVWLRQ ZLWKRXW XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH HQGV SXUVXHG RQH FDQQRW DGHTXDWHO\ HYDOXDWH WKH PHDQV QHFHVVDU\ WR WKRVH HQGV 7KH PRVW LQIOXHQWLDO ZULWHUV RQ WKH WRSLF KDYH EHHQ 3HWHU 6LQJHU ZKR GHPDQGV LPSURYHG FRQGLWLRQV IRU IDUP DQG RWKHU DQLPDOV RQ WKH EDVLV RI fHTXDO FRQVLGHUDWLRQf LQ DQ XWLOLWDULDQ V\VWHP DQG 7RP 5HJDQ ZKR DUJXHV WKDW DQLPDOV DUH HQWLWOHG WR ULJKWV ZKLFK DUH FRPSDUDEOH RU LGHQWLFDO WR WKRVH RI KXPDQV 7KHVH WZR ZULWHUV KDYH ODUJHO\ VHW WKH SKLORVRSKLFDO WHUPV RI WKH EURDGHU GHEDWH DERXW DQLPDOVf PRUDO VWDWXV LQ KXPDQ VRFLHW\ WKLV FDQ EH VHHQ LQ WKH H[WHQVLYH FULWLFDO OLWHUDWXUH GHYRWHG WR WKH VOLJKW GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH URXWHV HDFK WDNHV WR UHDFK WKH VDPH SUDFWLFDO FRQFOXVLRQV 7KRPSVRQ DQG &XUWLV f 3HWHU 6LQJHU DUJXHV WKDW DQLPDOV DUH HQWLWOHG WR HTXDO FRQVLGHUDWLRQ ZLWK KXPDQV RQ WKH EDVLV RI WKHLU SK\VLFDO FDSDFLW\ WR VXIIHU DQG WKH ODFN RI DQ LQWULQVLF GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ KXPDQV DQG DQLPDOV 7KLV DUJXPHQW IRU RXU HTXDO FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI DQLPDOV UHVWV XSRQ WKUHH SUHPLVHV )LUVW VXIIHULQJ LV LQWULQVLFDOO\ HYLO VHFRQG DQLPDO VXIIHULQJ LV PRUDOO\ LQGLVWLQJXLVKDEOH IURP RXU RZQ DQG WKLUG EHFDXVH VXIIHULQJ LV HYLO KXPDQ WLUHVRPH UHSHWLWLRQ RI VXFK SKUDVHV DV fPDQ DQG ZRPDQf RU fKXPDQ EHLQJVf

PAGE 14

VRFLHW\ LV REOLJHG WR PLQLPL]H LW LQ DOO IRUPV ,I RQH DFFHSWV WKHVH SUHPLVHV DV GHILQLQJ QHFHVVDU\ KXPDQ HQGV LW LV LQGHHG D WULYLDO FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW KXPDQ VRFLHW\ PXVW JLYH FRQVLGHUDWLRQ WR WKH SDLQ DQG SOHDVXUH RI DQLPDOV HTXDO ZLWK WKDW JLYHQ WR WKH SDLQ DQG SOHDVXUH RI KXPDQV 6LQJHU f %HFDXVH WKH\ DUH WDNHQ DV JLYHQ E\ 'U 6LQJHU HDFK RI WKHVH WKUHH SUHPLVHV PXVW EH TXHVWLRQHG 7KH ILUVW DQG WKLUG DUH WKH EDVHV IRU XWLOLWDULDQ SKLORVRSKLHV JHQHUDOO\ 8WLOLWDULDQV KROG WKDW VRFLHW\ VKRXOG PD[LPL]H WKH VXP RI KDSSLQHVV DFURVV LQGLYLGXDOV 7KLV UHTXLUHV WKH IHDVLELOLW\ RI LQWHUSHUVRQDO FRPSDULVRQV RI XWLOLW\ DQG GHQLHV WKH LQGLYLGXDOfV XQLTXH TXDOLILFDWLRQV WR SXUVXH KLV RZQ HQGV 7KDW VXFK FRPSDULVRQV KDYH QR VFLHQWLILF OHJLWLPDF\ LV D WHQHW RI HFRQRPLF VFLHQFH 5REELQV +LFNV *DUGQHU S f 7KH YDOXDWLRQV QHFHVVDU\ IRU D XWLOLWDULDQ EDODQFLQJ RI HQGV ZRXOG WKHUHIRUH EH VR DUELWUDU\ DV WR GHQ\ WKH HIILFLHQF\ RI OLEHUW\ ZLWKRXW HIIHFWLQJ D VFLHQWLILFDOO\ MXVWLILDEOH fXWLOLW\f PD[LPL]DWLRQ 7KLV LV UDWKHU PRUH D FRQFOXVLRQ RI HFRQRPLF VFLHQFH WKDQ DQ DUJXPHQW RI SKLORVRSK\ EXW VHUYHV ERWK SXUSRVHV 7KLV VWDQGDUG FULWLFLVP RI XWLOLWDULDQLVP DV DQ HFRQRPLF SKLORVRSK\ EHFRPHV FOHDUHU ZKHQ DSSOLHG WR 'U 6LQJHUfV IRUPXODWLRQ RI PHDVXUDEOH FRPSDUDELOLW\ RI XWLOLW\ DPRQJ VSHFLHV ,Q IDFW KH EHOLHYHV WKDW VRFLHW\ FDQ GHWHUPLQH WKH DPRXQW RI SDLQ RU SOHDVXUH D SDUWLFXODU SUDFWLFH FDXVHV D IDUP DQLPDO GLUHFWO\ FRPSDUH WKDW WR WKH SDLQ RU SOHDVXUH ZKLFK WKHUHE\ DFFUXHV WR KXPDQV DQG GLFWDWH ZKHWKHU WKDW SUDFWLFH VKDOO FRQWLQXH 6LQJHU f 7KH SXUVXLW RI VXFK D ZHLJKWHG XWLOLW\ REMHFWLYH E\ DQ XWLOLWDULDQ VWDWH GHSHQGV XSRQ WKH DUELWUDU\ FULWHULD E\ ZKLFK WKDW VWDWH PHDVXUHV WKH LQGLYLGXDO KDSSLQHVV RI HDFK PDQ DQG HDFK EHDVW 2Q WKH EDVLV RI ZKDW RWKHUV FODLP ZLOO SURGXFH

PAGE 15

WKH JUHDWHVW KDSSLQHVV IRU QRQKXPDQ DQLPDOV PDQ LV GHQLHG WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR SXUVXH KLV RZQ LQWHUHVW 8WLOLWDULDQLVP FDQQRW SURYLGH DQ REMHFWLYH EDVLV IRU VRFLDO RUGHU DPRQJ PHQ DQG LW FHUWDLQO\ FDQQRW DPRQJ VSHFLHV 'U 6LQJHUfV VHFRQG SUHPLVH OLQNV PDQfV LQWHUHVW WR WKDW RI DQLPDOV E\ GHQ\LQJ DQ\ IXQGDPHQWDO LQWULQVLF GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ PHQ DQG DQLPDOV WKDW FRXOG SURYLGH DQ\ PRUDO EDVLV IRU GLVUHJDUGLQJ WKH LQWHUHVWV RI DQLPDOV 6LQJHU Sf ,Q HIIHFW KH DGRSWV WKH SRVLWLRQ RI HLJKWHHQWK FHQWXU\ XWLOLWDULDQ SKLORVRSKHU -HUHP\ %HQWKDP WKDW WKH EDVLV IRU XWLOLWDULDQ FRQVLGHUDWLRQ LV QRW &DQ WKH\ UHDVRQ" QRU &DQ WKH\ WDON" EXW &DQ WKH\ VXIIHU"Sf 7KDW LV KH LGHQWLILHV DOO VXIIHULQJ DQG GHFLGHV RQ WKDW EDVLV WKDW DQLPDOV DUH HQWLWOHG WR HTXDO FRQVLGHUDWLRQ ZLWK KXPDQV +XPDQ XQZLOOLQJQHVV WR JUDQW WKDW FRQVLGHUDWLRQ LV WKHUHIRUH D IRUP RI ELJRWU\ 'U 6LQJHU FDOOV DIWHU 5LFKDUG 5\GHU fVSHFLHVLVP f6LQJHU 5\GHU f /LNH 'U 6LQJHU 7RP 5HJDQ f GHQLHV PDQfV ULJKW WR PDNH D PRUDO GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ KXPDQV DQG DQLPDOV EDVHG RQ WKH DEVHQFH RI DQ LQWULQVLF GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ KXPDQV DQG DQLPDOV IXUWKHU DUJXLQJ WKDW DQLPDOV DUH HQWLWOHG WR ZKDWHYHU OHJDO DQG KXPDQ ULJKWV WKDW WKH\ DUH FDSDEOH RI HQMR\LQJ 'U 5HJDQ DVVHUWV HDFK DQLPDOfV ULJKW WR SXUVXH LWV RZQ LQWHUHVWV DV WKH VXEMHFW RI D OLIH RQ WKH EDVLV RI LWV DELOLW\ WR fYDOXHf WKRVH LQWHUHVWV DQ DVVHUWLRQ IRU ZKLFK KH GUDZV H[SOLFLWO\ IURP 'U 6LQJHUfV DUJXPHQWV IRU DQLPDOVf FDSDFLW\ WR VXIIHU 7KLV OHDGV WR KLV FODLP IRU DQLPDOVf HTXDO FRQVLGHUDWLRQ DQG LQGHSHQGHQW OHJDO VWDQGLQJ LQ KXPDQ VRFLHW\ ,Q WKLV 'U 6LQJHU LV fOLIWLQJ KLPVHOI E\ KLV ERRW VWUDSVf VLQFH KLV UHMHFWLRQ RI WUDGLWLRQDO PRUDO WKHRU\ UHOLHV XSRQ WKDW WKHRU\ IRU LWV IRXQGDWLRQ

PAGE 16

+H GLIIHUV IURP 'U 6LQJHU LQ GHQ\LQJ EDVHG RQ FULWLFLVPV RI XWLOLWDULDQ WKHRU\ VLPLODU WR WKRVH DERYH WKDW HDFK KXPDQfV REOLJDWLRQ LV WR PD[LPL]H WKH DJJUHJDWH XWLOLW\ RI DOO FUHDWXUHV +H TXHVWLRQV WKH QHFHVVDULO\ FHQWUDOL]HG XWLOLWDULDQ SURJUDP DQG ILQGV LW ODFNLQJ 7KH DXWKRULWDULDQ FRQWURO GHPDQGHG E\ DQ\ V\VWHP RI GLUHFW XWLOLWDULDQLVP ZRXOG EH VXVFHSWLEOH WR WKH DEXVHV ZKLFK DULVH IURP DOO DUELWUDU\ DXWKRULW\ ,QGHHG EHOLHYH WKDW RQO\ LI ZH SRVWXODWH KXPDQ ULJKWV FDQ ZH SURYLGH D WKHRU\ WKDW DGHTXDWHO\ JXDUGV KXPDQV DJDLQVW WKH DEXVHV WKDW XWLOLWDULDQLVP PLJKW SHUPLWf 5HJDQ Sf 7KLV VWDWHPHQW E\ DFNQRZOHGJLQJ WKDW WKH RULJLQ DQG MXVWLILFDWLRQ IRU D V\VWHP RI ULJKWV OLHV LQ LWV IXQFWLRQDO UDWKHU WKDQ LQWULQVLF SURSHUWLHV SURYLGHV WKH EDVLV QRW RQO\ IRU KLV UHIXWDWLRQ RI 'U 6LQJHUfV DQLPDO XWLOLWDULDQLVP EXW DOVR IRU D UHIXWDWLRQ RI 'U 5HJDQfV DQLPDO ULJKWV WKHRU\ ZKLFK LV EDVHG XSRQ WKH fLQKHUHQWf YDOXH RI DOO IHHOLQJ DQLPDOV DQG WKHLU LQWHUHVWV Sf ,I WKH 5HJDQ DSSURDFK LV PRUH WKHRUHWLFDOO\ FRKHUHQW LQ OLJKW RI WKH LPSRVVLELOLW\ RI LQWHUSHUVRQDO RU LQWHUVSHFLDO XWLOLW\ FRPSDULVRQ DQG DOORFDWLRQ LW VWLOO ILQGV LWVHOI RQ WKH VOLSSHU\ VORSH RI DWWHPSWLQJ WR GHILQH WKH OLQH fEHORZf ZKLFK VSHFLHV GR QRW SRVVHVV VRPH RU DOO ULJKWV 'U 5HJDQfV WKHRU\ UHTXLUHV WKDW WKH VDPH MXGJHPHQW EH PDGH XSRQ VRPH QRQKXPDQ VSHFLHV ZKLFK KH FDOOV LPPRUDO ZKHQ SDVVHG XSRQ DOO QRQKXPDQ VSHFLHV D ULJKWV IUDPHZRUN PXVW IDOO DSDUW XQOHVV D OLQH LV GUDZQ EHWZHHQ WKRVH EHLQJV ZKLFK GR KDYH ULJKWV DQG WKRVH WKDW GR QRW 'U 5HJDQ QHLWKHU TXHVWLRQV QRU GHIHQGV WKH IXQGDPHQWDO EDVLV RI WKH PRUDOLW\ ZKLFK KH EHOLHYHV GHPDQGV WKDW ZH FRQVLGHU DQLPDOfV ULJKWV WKH VDPH DV RXU RZQ EXW WDNHV LW RQ IDLWK +H EHJLQV ZLWK WKH XQVXSSRUWHG EHOLHI WKDW DQLPDOV DUH HQWLWOHG WR

PAGE 17

HTXDOLW\ ZLWK KXPDQV DQG SRVWXODWHV D WKHRU\ RI DQLPDO ULJKWV WR VXSSRUW WKLV EHOLHI LQ WKH VDPH ZD\ WKDW D WKHRU\ RI KXPDQ ULJKWV KDV EHHQ SRVWXODWHG WR VXSSRUW WKH PRUH FRQVLVWHQW HQGV RI KXPDQ SURWHFWLRQ IURP DUELWUDU\ DXWKRULW\ 5HJDQ S f /LEHUWDULDQ SROLWLFDO SKLORVRSKHU 5REHUW 1R]LFN KDV DUJXHG WKDW DQLPDOV PXVW KDYH HTXDO FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RQ WKH EDVLV RI D VLPLODU DQG VLPLODUO\ SUHVXSSRVHG PRUDO WKHRU\ DFFRUGLQJ WR ZKLFK KH ILQGV QR fPRUDOf EDVLV IRU GLIIHUHQWLDWLQJ PDQ IURP RWKHU VSHFLHV +H PDNHV DQ DQDORJ\ WR KXPDQ HQVODYHPHQW E\ fVXSHULRUf VSDFH DOLHQV LQ VXSSRUW RI KLV DUJXPHQW LI ZH ZRXOG FRQVLGHU VXFK DQ HQVODYHPHQW fLPPRUDOf ZH VKRXOG VR FRQVLGHU RXU HQVODYHPHQW RI DQLPDOV 7KLV DUJXPHQW KRZHYHU DSSHDOV WR RXU VHOILQWHUHVW ZH ZRXOG SHUFHLYH D YLRODWLRQ RI RXU ZHOOEHLQJ LQ DQ DOLHQ HQVODYHPHQW UDWKHU WKDQ DQ LPPRUDO DFW 7KLV FRQFHUQ IRU RXU RZQ ZHOOEHLQJ LQ IDFW PXVW EH DQ LPSRUWDQW FRQVLGHUDWLRQ LI QRW WKH RULJLQDO EDVLV IRU DQ\ PRUDO WKHRU\ MXVW DV LW SURYLGHV WKH EDVLV IRU HFRQRPLF VFLHQFH 3URIHVVRU 1R]LFN UHFRJQL]HV WKH JDS OHIW LQ KLV ZRUN DQG WKH ZRUN RI 'UV 6LQJHU DQG 5HJDQf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

PAGE 18

7UHDWLVH S f 1HYHUWKHOHVV OLNH 'UV 6LQJHU DQG 5HJDQ KH SXWV KLV SKLORVRSKLFDO FDUW EHIRUH WKH KRUVH DQG fSRVWXODWHVf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f DQG WKLV IDLOXUH PDNHV WKH SXUVXLW RI WKHLU HQGV LQFRQVLVWHQW DQG VR LQIHDVLEOH ,QGHHG ELRORJLFDO VFLHQFH KDV JHQHUDWHG D FRQVLVWHQW DQG IHDVLEOH SKLORVRSKLFDO RUGHULQJ JURXQGHG LQ HYROXWLRQ 0DQ\ DQLPDO DGYRFDWHV FLWH WKH ZRUN RI &KDUOHV 'DUZLQ DV NQRFNLQJ RXW WKH IRXQGDWLRQV RI fVSHFLHVLVPf 6LQJHU SSf 3URIHVVRU 'DUZLQ GLG LQGHHG UHGHILQH PDQfV VHOILPDJH E\ GHPRQVWUDWLQJ KLV FORVH QDWXUDO UHODWLRQ WR WKH RWKHU VSHFLHV EXW SHUKDSV PRUH UHOHYDQW WR RXU LQTXLU\ LV KLV WKHRU\ RI PDQfV PRUDO GHYHORSPHQW 7KH DFFHSWDQFH RI HYROXWLRQ KDV OHG WR WKH FROODSVH RI WKH fLQWULQVLF YDOXHf EDVLV RI PDQfV VHOIFHQWHUHG ZRUOGYLHZ EXW 3URIHVVRU 'DUZLQ KLPVHOI EHJDW D QHZ WKHRU\ RI PRUDOLW\ EDVHG XSRQ HYROXWLRQ WKDW GHILQHV HYHQ PRUH FOHDUO\ WKH IXQFWLRQDO VHSDUDWLRQ RI PDQ IURP RWKHU VSHFLHV ,Q 7KH 'HVFHQW RI 0DQ 3URIHVVRU 'DUZLQ SUHVHQWHG D WKHRU\ RI PDQfV PRUDOLW\ DV WKH SURGXFW RI HYROXWLRQ 0DQfV nPRUDO VHQVHf ZDV SURPRWHG WKURXJK -RKQ /RFNH GLG KRZHYHU KDYH WKH FRPIRUWDEOH VXSSRUW RI D %LEOLFDO PRUDO WKHRU\ WKDW IHZ LQ KLV WLPH GDUHG RSHQO\ TXHVWLRQ

PAGE 19

QDWXUDO VHOHFWLRQ IRU WKRVH FRPPXQLWLHV ZKLFK LQFOXGHG WKH JUHDWHVW QXPEHU RI WKH PRVW V\PSDWKHWLF PHPEHUV ZRXOG IORXULVK EHVW DQG UHDU WKH JUHDWHVW QXPEHU RI RIIVSULQJ Sf 7KH VHHGV RI D QHZ HWKLFDO SKLORVRSK\ ZHUH SODQWHG ZKHQ KH VXJJHVWV WKDW LW ZRXOG EH DGYLVDEOH LI IRXQG SUDFWLEOHWR WDNH DV WKH WHVW RI PRUDOLW\ WKH JHQHUDO JRRG RU ZHOIDUH RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ UDWKHU WKDQ WKH JHQHUDO KDSSLQHVV EXW WKLV GHILQLWLRQ ZRXOG SHUKDSV UHTXLUH VRPH OLPLWDWLRQ RQ DFFRXQW RI SROLWLFDO HWKLFV S f 7KXV KH UHFRJQL]HV WKDW JRRG DQG HYLO FDQ EH VHHQ VWULFWO\ DV ZKDW LV JRRG RU EDG IRU WKH SK\VLFDO VXUYLYDO RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ LQFOXGLQJ ERWK VHOILVK DQG VHOIOHVV DFWV 7KLV LV NH\ WR WKH 'DUZLQLDQ UHYROXWLRQ LQ PRUDO SKLORVRSK\ $ UHWKLQNLQJ RI EDVLF PRUDO WKHRU\ E\ VXFK SKLORVRSKHUV DV 7KRPDV +X[OH\ +HUEHUW 6SHQFHU )ULHGULFK 1LHW]VFKH DQG :LOOLDP *UDKDP 6XPQHU ZKR FRLQHG WKH WHUP fVRFLDO 'DUZLQLVWff GHQLHG WUDGLWLRQDO PRUDOLW\ IRU LWV ODFN RI D UDWLRQDO IRXQGDWLRQ DQG ZDV EDVHG LQVWHDG LQ PDQfV EUXWH RULJLQV 0HQFNHQ 6XPQHU 6SHQFHU +X[OH\ f +XPDQ PRUDOLW\ DFFRUGLQJ WR WKLV YLHZ LV RQO\ MXVWLILHG DQG FDQ RQO\ SHUVLVW LQVRIDU DV LW SURPRWHV VRPH EDVLF JHQHUDOO\ SK\VLFDO fJRRGf RI WKH KXPDQ VSHFLHV 0RGHP VRFLRELRORJ\ XVHV WKH WKHRU\ RI JHQHWLF VHOHFWLRQ EDVHG XSRQ WKH DVVHUWLRQ WKDW WKH IXQGDPHQWDO XQLW RI VHOHFWLRQ DQG WKHUHIRUH RI VHOILQWHUHVW LV QRW WKH VSHFLHV RU WKH JURXS QRU HYHQ VWULFWO\ WKH LQGLYLGXDO ,W LV WKH JHQH WKH XQLW RI KHUHGLW\ 'DZNLQV S f 5LFKDUG 'DZNLQV WKRXJK QRW DGYRFDWLQJ D PRUDOLW\ EDVHG RQ HYROXWLRQ GRHV D YHU\ JRRG MRE RI GHVFULELQJ VXFK D PRUDOLW\ S f 2QH 1HYHUWKHOHVV PDQfV PRUDOLW\ LV OLPLWHG DQG KLV DFWLRQV DUH ODUJHO\ GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH H[SUHVVHG ZLVKHV DQG MXGJHPHQW RI KLV IHOORZPDQ DQG XQIRUWXQDWHO\ VWLOO RIWHQHU E\ KLV RZQ VWURQJ VHOILVK GHVLUHV Sf

PAGE 20

LPSOLFDWLRQ RI RXU EHLQJ fEUHGf E\ WKH VXUYLYDO RI LQGLYLGXDO JHQHV LV WKDW ZH DUH PRUH DFFXUDWHO\ VHHQ DV fYHKLFOHVf IRU WKH VHOHFWLRQ RI JHQHV WKDQ WKH GLUHFW VXEMHFWV RI HYROXWLRQ $QRWKHU LPSOLFDWLRQ PRUH WR WKH SRLQW KHUH LV WKDW VXFK 'DUZLQLDQ FRQFHSWV DV fJURXS VHOHFWLRQf DQG EHKDYLRU EUHG IRU WKH JRRG RI WKH VSHFLHV DV D ZKROH DUH TXDOLILHG DQG LQGLYLGXDOVf EDOG VHOILQWHUHVW LV WHPSHUHG RQO\ E\ WUDLWV DQG EHKDYLRU EHQHILFLDO WR JHQHWLFDOO\ FORVH UHODWLYHV DQG VLJQLILFDQWO\ E\ PRUH VXEWOH VHOILQWHUHVW RI WKH NLQG ZKLFK W\SLILHV PXFK KXPDQ LQWHUDFWLRQ 'DZNLQV f 1DWXUDO ODZ WKHQ LI LW FDQ EH VDLG WR H[LVW DUH RQO\ WKRVH SRVLWLYH SK\VLFDO FLUFXPVWDQFHV ZKLFK GULYH PDQfV VWUXJJOH IRU H[LVWHQFH WKH fODZ RI WKH MXQJOHf 8QGHU WKLV ODZ WKHUH LV QR ULJKW DQG ZURQJ H[FHSW ZKDW LV JRRG DQG EDG IRU WKH VSHFLHV RU WKH UHOHYDQW JHQHf 6XFK KXPDQ LQVWLWXWLRQV DV JRYHUQPHQW PRUDOLW\ ODZ DQG PDUNHWV HYROYH DQG VXUYLYH LQ RUGHU WR VHUYH KXPDQ SXUSRVHV ,I WKH\ GR QRW WKH\ FDQQRW EH UHDVRQDEO\ GHIHQGHG DQG WKH\ FDQQRW VXUYLYH LQ HYROXWLRQDU\ FRPSHWLWLRQ ZLWK LQVWLWXWLRQV ZKLFK GR +HUH LV D FRQFUHWH HQG GHILQHG IXQFWLRQDOO\ DQG IXQFWLRQDOO\ VXVWDLQDEOH 0RUDOLW\ WRZDUG DQLPDOV DFFRUGLQJ WR 3URIHVVRU 'DUZLQ LV HVVHQWLDOO\ D VWRFKDVWLF E\SURGXFW RI D IXQFWLRQDO V\PSDWK\ WRZDUG D JURZLQJ FLUFOH RI KXPDQV 6\PSDWK\ EH\RQG WKH FRQILQHV RI PDQ WKDW LV KXPDQLW\ WR WKH ORZHU DQLPDOV VHHPV WR EH RQH RI WKH ODWHVW PRUDO DFTXLVLWLRQV 7KLV YLUWXH RQH RI WKH QREOHVW ZLWK ZKLFK PDQ LV HQGRZHG VHHPV WR DULVH LQFLGHQWDOO\ IURP RXU V\PSDWKLHV EHFRPLQJ PRUH DQG PRUH WHQGHU DQG PRUH ZLGHO\ GLIIXVHG XQWLO WKH\ DUH H[WHQGHG WR DOO VHQWLHQW EHLQJV S f 7KH UDWLRQDOLW\ RI WKLV V\PSDWK\ 3URIHVVRU 'DUZLQfV VHQWLPHQWV DERXW LWV QRELOLW\ DVLGH PD\ EH MXGJHG E\ WKH VWDQGDUG KH VXJJHVWHG HDUOLHU WKDW RI fWKH JHQHUDO JRRG RI WKH

PAGE 21

FRPPXQLW\f 6LQFH PRUDOLW\ LV EDVHG RQ PDQfV KLVWRULFDO FRPSHWLWLRQ ZLWK RWKHU VSHFLHV WKHUH H[LVWV QR UDWLRQDOO\ GHILQDEOH fQDWXUDOf EDVLV IRU WKH LQFOXVLRQ RI DQLPDOV D SULRUL DQG IRU WKHLU RZQ VDNH 5DWLRQDO PRUDOLW\ WR PHHW LWV KXPDQ HQGV PXVW EH FRQFHUQHG ZLWK IXQFWLRQDO QRW fLQWULQVLFf YDOXHV +XPDQ LQVWLWXWLRQV DUH YDOXHG IRU WKHLU IXQFWLRQV DQG GHSHQG XSRQ WKH UHFLSURFLW\ LPSOLFLW LQ WKH VRFLDO FRQWUDFW WKH LQFOXVLRQ RI DOO KXPDQV LQ WKLV FRQWUDFW JRYHUQPHQW RI WKH SHRSOH E\ WKH SHRSOH DQG IRU WKH SHRSOHf VHUYHV D IXQFWLRQDO KXPDQ SXUSRVH 7KH LQFOXVLRQ RI DQLPDOV RQ D FRPSDUDEOH EDVLV RQ WKH RWKHU KDQG ZLOO QRW VHUYH WKH VDPH SXUSRVH VLQFH DQLPDOV FDQQRW EH H[SHFWHG WR UHFLSURFDWH PRUDOO\ ,Q RUGHU WR EH IXQFWLRQDOO\ VXVWDLQDEOH HYROXWLRQDULO\ RU VRFLDOO\ WKH GHJUHH RI DQLPDOVf LQFOXVLRQ LQ KXPDQ VRFLHW\ PXVW EDVHG RQ VRPH KXPDQ SXUSRVH -DQ 1DUYHVRQ f DUJXHV RQ WKLV EDVLV IRU WKH H[FOXVLRQ RI DQLPDOV IURP WKH VRFLDO FRQWUDFW $W OHDVW DV LPSRUWDQW LV WKH RWKHU KDOI RI WKH DUJXPHQW WKDW DOO KXPDQV PXVW EH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH VRFLDO FRQWUDFW LQ RUGHU WR JXDUDQWHH DJDLQVW WKH DUELWUDU\ H[FOXVLRQ RI DQ\ ,W LV WKH FOHDU OLQH EHWZHHQ RXU RZQ VSHFLHV DQG WKH UHVW WKDW SURYLGHV WKH RQO\ FRQVLVWHQW IXQFWLRQDO GHILQLWLRQ RI IXOO PHPEHUV RI VRFLHW\ 7R XVH 'U 5HJDQfV ZRUG D V\VWHP RI ULJKWV PXVW EH SRVWXODWHG H[WHQGLQJ WR DOO KXPDQV DQG RQO\ KXPDQV LQ RUGHU WR SURYLGH D PRUDO WKHRU\ WKDW ZLOO IXQFWLRQDOO\ JXDUDQWHH KXPDQ LQWHUHVWV 7KH FOHDU DQG QDWXUDO ERXQGDU\ EHWZHHQ PDQ DQG DOO RWKHU VSHFLHV LV WKH RQO\ VROLG IRRWLQJ RQ WKH VOLSSHU\ VORSH RI H[FOXVLRQ ,W LV IXQFWLRQDOO\ QHFHVVDU\ WR PDNH WKDW GLVWLQFWLRQ IRU WKH JRRG RI WKH KXPDQ VSHFLHV DQG WKH JRRG RI WKH VSHFLHV DFFRUGLQJ WR 3URIHVVRU 'DUZLQ LV WKH PDQGDWH RI QDWXUH

PAGE 22

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fPDQDJHPHQW HWKLFf RIIHUV WKH PRVW UDWLRQDO SRVLWLYH DUJXPHQW IRU DQLPDO DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO SURWHFWLRQ EXW GRHV QRW MXVWLI\ ULJKWV RU HTXDO FRQVLGHUDWLRQ IRU DQLPDOV 6LQJHU f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fYDOXDEOHf DQLPDOV EHFRPHV D FRQVXPSWLRQ JRRG 7KH SULRULWLHV

PAGE 23

ZH SODFH RQ VXFK JRRGV DUH WKH SURGXFW RI XQVFLHQWLILF KXPDQ SUHIHUHQFHV DQG FDQ RQO\ EH PHDVXUHG E\ WKH ZD\V LQ ZKLFK ZH UHYHDO WKRVH SUHIHUHQFHV DV D VRFLHW\ 0RVW ZRXOG DUJXH WKDW D FHUWDLQ NLQGQHVV WR DQLPDOV LV QHFHVVDU\ DQG QHFHVVDULO\ HQIRUFHG LQ RUGHU WR SUHYHQW WKH PRUDO GHJUDGDWLRQ ZH IHHO LV DWWHQGDQW WR FUXHOW\ IRU LWV RZQ VDNH 7KLV LV DJDLQ D FRQVXPSWLRQ FKRLFH EDVHG RQ KXPDQ HQGV :H PLJKW HYHQ GHFLGH WKDW WKH JUDQWLQJ RI VXFK ULJKWV DV DUH DGYRFDWHG E\ 'UV 6LQJHU DQG 5HJDQ LV QHFHVVDU\ WR WKH PRUDO HYROXWLRQ RI PDQNLQG EXW LI ZH GR LW VKRXOG EH ZLWK WKH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKDW ZH GR LW LQ RXU RZQ SHUFHLYHG LQWHUHVW $QLPDO ZHOIDUH WKHQ PD\ EH DQ LQWHUPHGLDWH LQSXW WR KXPDQ ZHOIDUH ,W DOVR PD\ EH D GLUHFW KXPDQ FRQVXPSWLRQ JRRG OLNH PRXQWDLQ YLVWDV RU IORZHUV LQ WKH FLW\ SDUNV $V VXFK LW PXVW EH ZHLJKHG DJDLQVW RWKHU JRRGV LQFOXGLQJ PLON DQG HJJV ILVKLQJ DQG KXQWLQJ PHDW RU IXU 5HVWULFWLRQV RQ HDFK RI WKHVH JRRGV IRU WKH VDNH RI DQLPDO ZHOIDUH ZLOO KDYH D GLUHFW FRVW LQ KXPDQ VDWLVIDFWLRQ 7KLV LV WKH IXQGDPHQWDO WUDGHRII XSRQ ZKLFK SXEOLF SROLF\ UHJDUGLQJ DQLPDOV PXVW EH EDVHG 7KLV FKDSWHU LV QRW ZULWWHQ WR FRQGHPQ DQLPDOV LW LV PHUHO\ DQ DWWHPSW WR UHFRQVLGHU DQLPDOVf SODFH LQ KXPDQ VRFLHW\ LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI PDQfV QDWXUDO KLVWRU\ DQG VR WR FODULI\ WKH HQGV RI DQLPDO ZHOIDUH PHDVXUHV 7KH RQO\ UDWLRQDO LH SXUSRVLYH DQG FRQVLVWHQWf EDVLV IRU PDQfV SURWHFWLRQ RI DQLPDOV LV WKH GLUHFW DQG LQGLUHFW EHQHILWV KH GHULYHV +RPR VDSLHQV KDV WKULYHG WKURXJK LWV XVH RI DQLPDOV IRU IRRG SURWHFWLRQ FORWKLQJ WUDFWLRQ DQG WUDQVSRUW 7KH KHDOWK RI KLV SK\VLFDO HQYLURQPHQW GHSHQGV LQ ODUJH PHDVXUH XSRQ WKH VXUYLYDO RI PDQ\ RWKHU VSHFLHV LQ D EDODQFH VR FRPSOLFDWHG WKDW PDQfV SRRU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI LW VXJJHVWV FDXWLRQ LQ LWV FDUH &OHDUO\ WKHUH DUH PDQ\ DUJXPHQWV

PAGE 24

IRU DQLPDO SURWHFWLRQ IRU PDQfV RZQ VDNH EXW WKHVH PXVW EH YDOXHG IRU ZKDW WKH\ DUH WR PDQ DQG QRW IRU ZKDW WKH\ DUH WR RWKHU VSHFLHV ,Q WKLV FRQWH[W LW LV DSSURSULDWH WR FRQVLGHU WKH EHQHILWV ZH ZLVK WR EHVWRZ XSRQ DQLPDOV LQ OLJKW RI WKH FRVWV WR KXPDQ VRFLHW\ ,W LV DQ LQGLUHFW UHFRJQLWLRQ RI WKH SUDFWLFDO WUXWK RI WKLV WKDW PDQ\ DQLPDO ZHOIDUH DSSHDOV HPSKDVL]H WKH VOLJKWQHVV RI WKH VDFULILFH WKH\ FODLP LV QHFHVVDU\ WR SURYLGH DQLPDOV ZLWK ZHOIDUH 6LQJHU 5HJDQ 3(7$ f 6LQFH VXFK PDWHULDO IDFWRUV DUH XOWLPDWHO\ WKH FULWHULD XSRQ ZKLFK ZH ZLOO PDNH WKHVH GHFLVLRQV ZH VKRXOG EH PRUH IXOO\ LQIRUPHG UHJDUGLQJ WKHP

PAGE 25

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fV DQG WKH RSSRQHQWV RI JXQ FRQWURO LQ UHFHQW \HDUV

PAGE 26

JURZLQJ PDMRULW\ RI $PHULFDQV VHHP ZLOOLQJ WR DFFHSW JUHDWHU UHVWULFWLRQV RQ WKHLU RU PRUH SDUWLFXODUO\ RQ RWKHUVf XVH RI DQLPDOV 7KH 0RYHPHQW 7KH PRYHPHQW IRU LPSURYHG WUHDWPHQW RI DQLPDOV LV JHQHUDOO\ GLYLGHG EHWZHHQ WKH fZHOIDULVWVf DQG fULJKWLVWVf DORQJ OLQHV GHILQHG E\ 'UV 6LQJHU DQG 5HJDQ DQG LV PRUH RU OHVV UDGLFDO LQ LWV GHPDQGV WKDQ WKHVH SKLORVRSKHUV 7KH ODUJHVW JURXS RQ ZKDW PD\ EH FDOOHG WKH H[WUHPH HQG RI WKH DQLPDO DGYRFDF\ VSHFWUXP LV 3HRSOH IRU WKH (WKLFDO 7UHDWPHQW RI $QLPDOV 3(7$f ZKLFK DWWUDFWV QHDUO\ PLOOLRQ LQ DQQXDO VXSSRUW DQG VSHQGLQJ DV PXFK DV PLOOLRQ \HDUO\ IRU D SURJUDP ZKLFK UHOLHV KHDYLO\ RQ 'U 5HJDQfV ULJKWV DSSURDFK 3(7$ f 7KH RUJDQL]DWLRQ SURPRWHV YHJHWDULDQLVP DQG FRQGHPQV DOO DQLPDO IDUPLQJ 7KH\ DWWUDFW DWWHQWLRQ WR WKHLU SRVLWLRQ E\ VXFK PHDQV DV WKH VWUDWHJLF SODFHPHQW RI SHRSOH GUHVVHG DV DQLPDOV SURWHVWLQJ IRU WKHLU OLYHV 'XULQJ D UHFHQW $PHULFDQ WRXU E\ WKH 3RSH IRU H[DPSOH D SDLU RI 3(7$ VXSSRUWHUV GUHVVHG DV D FRZ DQG D QXQ PDGH WKH PRVW YLVLEOH SURWHVW LQ 1HZ
PAGE 27

IURP WKH PLVHU\ RI IDFWRU\ IDUPLQJ LV WR VWRS EX\LQJ DQG HDWLQJ PHDW PLON DQG HJJV 9HJHWDULDQLVP DQG YHJDQLVP PHDQ HDWLQJ IRU OLIH \RXUV DQG WKHLUV 3HRSOH IRU WKH (WKLFDO 7UHDWPHQW RI $QLPDOV 7KLV DSSHDO KDV DWWUDFWHG WKH VXSSRUW RI VXFK YLVLEOH FHOHEULWLHV DV WKH %fV PXVLFDO JURXS VLQJHUV &KULVVLH +\QGH DQG NG ODQJ DFWRUV (OOLRWW *RXOG DQG :LQRQD 5\GHU DQG FDUWRRQLVW %HUNH %UHDWKHG DPRQJ RWKHUV 7KRPDV f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f 7KH )DUP $QLPDO 5HIRUP 0RYHPHQW )$50f RULJLQDWRUV RI WKH *UHDW $PHULFDQ 0HDWRXW KDYH GHVLJQDWHG *KDQGLf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f

PAGE 28

)LQDOO\ 8QLWHG 3RXOWU\ &RQFHUQV GHGLFDWHG WR WKH HIIRUW WR HVWDEOLVK PRUH KXPDQH WUHDWPHQW RI SRXOWU\ DQG D KHDOWKLHU OLIHVW\OH FROOHFWHG RYHU LQ $PRQJ WKHLU DFWLYLWLHV ZHUH SURWHVWLQJ D )ORQGD DG GHSLFWLQJ D FKLFNHQ XQDEOH WR FURVV WKH URDG IDVW HQRXJK WR DYRLG D VSHHG\ 3UHOXGH SODFLQJ ODUJH SDLG DGYHUWLVHPHQWV LQ :DVKLQJWRQfV VXEZD\ V\VWHP GHFU\LQJ FKLFNHQVf H[FOXVLRQ IURP OHJDO DQLPDO ZHOIDUH SURWHFWLRQ KROGLQJ D YHJHWDULDQ 7KDQNVJLYLQJ GLQQHU LQ )UHGHULFN 0DU\ODQG WR SXEOLFL]H WKH DOWHUQDWLYH WR WXUNH\ SLFNHWLQJ WKH DQQXDO 0DU\ODQG *DPHIRZO %UHHGHUV $VVRFLDWLRQ &UDEIHDVW WR SURWHVW FRFNILJKWLQJ GLVWULEXWLQJ EURFKXUHV DJDLQVW WKH RVWULFK DQG HPX WUDGH FRQGXFWLQJ PRXUQLQJ YLJLOV IRU FKLFNHQV DQG SURYLGLQJ SRXOWU\IULHQGO\ WHDFKLQJ PDWHULDOV WR VFLHQFH WHDFKHUV 8QLWHG 3RXOWU\ &RQFHUQV f ,Q DGGLWLRQ PDQ\ JURXSV SURPRWLQJ D fVRIWf DQLPDO ZHOIDUH PHVVDJH LQ WKHLU IXQGn UDLVLQJ HPSKDVL]LQJ SURWHFWLRQV IRU GRJV DQG FDWV DQG FXUEV RQ XVH RI ODE DQLPDOV IRU FRVPHWLFV WHVWLQJ LQ IDFW SURPRWH YHJHWDULDQLVP fYHJDQLVPf DQG VHYHUH UHVWULFWLRQV RQ DQLPDO DJULFXOWXUH LQ WKHLU RWKHU DFWLYLWLHV )RU H[DPSOH WKH +XPDQH 6RFLHW\ RI WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV KDV VLQFH FRQGXFWHG D SXEOLFHGXFDWLRQ LQLWLDWLYH WR KHLJKWHQ DZDUHQHVV RI WKH LPSDFW RXU IRRG FKRLFHV KDYH RQ KXPDQV DQLPDOV DQG WKH (DUWK 7KH 6RFLHW\ GLVFRXUDJHV SHRSOH IURP EX\LQJ IRRG SURGXFHG E\ IDFWRU\ IDUPV ZKHUH DQLPDOV DUH UDLVHG LQ FRPSOHWHG FRQILQHPHQW 7KH FDPSDLJQ SURPRWHV WKH fWKUHH 5fVf UHILQLQJ WKH IRRG \RX HDW E\ SXUFKDVLQJ RQO\ RUJDQLF DQG KXPDQHO\ DQG VXVWDLQDEO\ REWDLQDEOH SURGXFWV UHGXFLQJ WKH FRQVXPSWLRQ RI DQLPDO SURGXFWV DQG UHSODFLQJ DQLPDO SURGXFWV ZLWK JUDLQV EHDQV YHJHWDEOHV DQG IUXLWV +686 f ,Q D DGGUHVV 3UHVLGHQW -RKQ $ +R\W RI WKH +686 H[SOLFLWO\

PAGE 29

VXSSRUWHG D FDPSDLJQ WDUJHWLQJ )UDQN 3HUGXH WKH V\PERO RI WKH SRXOWU\ LQGXVWU\ :H ZLOO UHOHQWOHVVO\ SUHVVXUH 3HUGXH WR GHYHORS SURPRWH DQG LPSOHPHQW V\VWHPV WKDW DUH UHVSRQVLYH WR WKH ELUGV EHKDYLRUDO DQG SK\VLFDO QHHGV :H KDYH QR GRXEW WKDW WKH 3HUGXH FDPSDLJQ ZLOO SODFH IDUP DQLPDO ZHOIDUH RQ WKH QDWLRQDO DJHQGD f +R\W f 7KH +686 KDV D VWDII RI LQ :DVKLQJWRQ DQG DURXQG WKH FRXQWU\ +R\W f 7KHLU UHYHQXHV ZHUH RYHU PLOOLRQ +686 f ,Q WKH 6RFLHW\ SXEOLVKHG D &ORVH8S 5HSRUW RQ FRQILQHPHQW DJULFXOWXUH 7KH UHSRUWfV FRQFOXVLRQ FDOOHG IRU KXPDQH VXVWDLQDEOH DJULFXOWXUH ZKLFK HVFKHZV LQWHQVLYHFRQILQHPHQW IDFWRU\ V\VWHPV UHMHFWV GHSHQGHQFH XSRQ DQWLELRWLFV KRUPRQHV JHQHWLFDOO\ HQJLQHHUHG DQLPDOV SHVWLFLGHV KHUELFLGHV DQG V\QWKHWLF IHUWLOL]HUV LQ RUGHU WR SURPRWH KHDOWKIXO DQG KXPDQH FRQGLWLRQV IRU IDUP DQLPDOV +686 f ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH 6RFLHW\ FRQGXFWV DQ DQQXDO 1DWLRQDO )DUP $QLPDO $ZDUHQHVV :HHN +686 f (YHQ WUDGLWLRQDO 6RFLHWLHV IRU WKH 3UHYHQWLRQ RI &UXHOW\ WR $QLPDOV VHHQ E\ PRVW $PHULFDQV DV PDLQVWUHDP DQG PRGHUDWH ZLOO DOPRVW LQHYLWDEO\ FRPH WR EH GRPLQDWHG DV KDV WKH +XPDQH 6RFLHW\ RI WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV E\ WKH SDVVLRQDWH DQG FRPPLWWHG SHRSOH ZKR KDYH SURYLGHG VXFK YLWDOLW\ WR WKH fUDGLFDOf DQLPDO ULJKWV JURXSV 3XEOLF 2SLQLRQ 7KHVH RUJDQL]HG JURXSV GHGLFDWHG WR DQLPDO ZHOIDUH UHSUHVHQW VHYHUDO UHJLRQV RQ RQH HQG RI D FRQFHSWXDO VSHFWUXP RI YLHZV WRZDUG DQLPDO ZHOIDUH 7KHLU ZRUN LQIOXHQFHV WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI WKH JHQHUDO SRSXODWLRQ RQ WKLV VSHFWUXP DQG WKLV GLVWULEXWLRQ GHILQHV WKH SXEOLF FKRLFH UHJDUGLQJ WKH VWDWXV RI DQLPDOV LQ RXU GHPRFUDWLF VRFLHW\

PAGE 30

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f ZHOOEHLQJ $Q $VVRFLDWHG 3UHVV SROO FRQGXFWHG 1RYHPEHU WKURXJK PD\ DGHTXDWHO\ UHIOHFW $PHULFDQ RSLQLRQ RI DQLPDO ZHOIDUH DQG ULJKWV RQ PRUH WKDQ RQH OHYHO 7KH UHVXOWV DUH JLYHQ EHORZ 6RPH SHRSOH VD\ DQ DQLPDOfV ULJKW WR OLYH IUHH RI VXIIHULQJ VKRXOG EH MXVW DV LPSRUWDQW DV D SHUVRQfV ULJKW WR OLYH IUHH RI VXIIHULQJ :RXOG \RX VD\ \RX b $JUHH VWURQJO\ b $JUHH VRPHZKDW b 'LVDJUHH VRPHZKDW $WWULEXWHG WR $VVRFLDWHG 3UHVV 6RXUFH $3 QDWLRQDO WHOHSKRQH SROO RI DGXOWV WDNHQ 1RY E\ ,&5 6XUYH\ 5HVHDUFK *URXS RI 0HGLD 3D SDUW RI $86 &RQVXOWDQW 5HVXOWV KDYH D PDUJLQ RI VDPSOLQJ HUURU RI SHUFHQWDJH SRLQWV SOXV RU PLQXV 6XP PD\ QRW WRWDO SHUFHQW EHFDXVH RI URXQGLQJ 'RQfW NQRZf RPLWWHG

PAGE 31

b 'LVDJUHH VWURQJO\ 'R \RX WKLQN WKHUH DUH FLUFXPVWDQFHV ZKHUH LWfV SHUIHFWO\ 2. WR NLOO DQ DQLPDO IRU LWV IXU RU GR \RX WKLQN LWfV b DOZD\V ZURQJ b 2. LQ VRPH FLUFXPVWDQFHV 'R \RX WKLQN WKHUH DUH FLUFXPVWDQFHV ZKHUH LWfV SHUIHFWO\ 2. WR KXQW DQ DQLPDO IRU VSRUW RU GR \RX WKLQN LWfV b DOZD\V ZURQJ b 2. LQ VRPH FLUFXPVWDQFHV 'R \RX WKLQN WKH XVH RI DQLPDOV WR WHVW FRVPHWLFV LV b QHYHU ULJKW b VHOGRP ULJKW b ULJKW XQGHU VRPH FLUFXPVWDQFHV b DOZD\V ULJKW 'R \RX WKLQN WKH XVH RI DQLPDOV WR WHVW PHGLFDO WUHDWPHQWV LV b QHYHU ULJKW b VHOGRP ULJKW b ULJKW XQGHU VRPH FLUFXPVWDQFHV b DOZD\V ULJKW +RZ RIWHQ GR \RX HDW PHDW SRXOWU\ RU ILVK" b 1HYHU b 5DUHO\ b 2FFDVLRQDOO\ b )UHTXHQWO\ )RVWHU f 7KH HFRQRPLVW DQG WKH SKLORVRSKHUf PLJKW QRWH ZLWK SDUWLFXODU LQWHUHVW WKH DQVZHUV WR WKH ILUVW DQG ODVW LQTXLULHV DV DQ H[DPSOH RI WKH FRQWUDVW EHWZHHQ VWDWHG DQG H[SUHVVHG LQWHQWLRQV 7KH DEVWUDFW UHVSRQVH GLIIHUV JUHDWO\ IURP WKH FRQFUHWH 6LPLODUO\ WKH H[SUHVVLRQ RI D SXEOLF LVVXH DV D TXHVWLRQ RI DEVWUDFW SULQFLSOH RQ WKH RQH KDQG RU DV D VSHFLILF EDODQFLQJ EHWZHHQ FRVWV DQG EHQHILWV RQ WKH RWKHU ZLOO JUHDWO\ DIIHFW WKH LVVXHfV RXWFRPH 2WKHU SROOV KDYH EHHQ FRPPLVVLRQHG E\ VXFK JURXSV DV WKH $PHULFDQ )DUP %XUHDX )HGHUDWLRQ WKH $PHULFDQ 9HWHULQDU\ $VVRFLDWLRQ DQG WKH $QLPDO ,QGXVWULHV )RXQGDWLRQ $Q DWWHPSW ZDV PDGH WR DFTXLUH DQG H[DPLQH WKH UHVXOWV RI WKHVH SROOV IRU WKH ILQDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ EXW FRPPXQLFDWLRQ ZLWK HDFK RI WKHVH JURXSV UHYHDOHG DQ LQDELOLW\ RU

PAGE 32

$VVXPLQJ WKH UHVSRQGHQWV WR WKH $VVRFLDWHG 3UHVV SROO FLWHG DERYH WR EH ERWK WUXWKIXO DQG UHSUHVHQWDWLYH RI WKH $PHULFDQ HOHFWRUDWH WKH PHGLDQ YRWHU HDWV PHDW SRXOWU\ RU ILVK IUHTXHQWO\ WKLQNV WKDW LW LV DOZD\V ZURQJ WR NLOO DQ DQLPDO IRU LWV IXU WKLQNV WKDW DQLPDO WHVWLQJ RI PHGLFDO WUHDWPHQWV DUH ULJKW XQGHU VRPH FLUFXPVWDQFHV EXW WKDW DQLPDO WHVWLQJ RI FRVPHWLFV LV VHOGRP ULJKW EHOLHYHV WKDW KXQWLQJ LV DOZD\V ZURQJ DQG DJUHHV VRPHZKDW ZLWK WKH SURSRVLWLRQ WKDW DQ DQLPDOfV ULJKW WR OLYH IUHH RI VXIIHULQJ VKRXOG EH MXVW DV LPSRUWDQW DV D SHUVRQfV ULJKW WR OLYH IUHH RI VXIIHULQJ )RVWHU f 7KHVH UHVXOWV DUH FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK D FRQFHUQ IRU DQLPDOV FRQGLWLRQHG E\ VHOI LQWHUHVW 7KH PHGLDQ SROO UHVSRQGHQW GHSLFWHG RIIHUV DQLPDOV RQH DEVROXWH SURWHFWLRQ IURP KXQWLQJ KRZHYHU LQ RQO\ b RI $PHULFDQV ERXJKW KXQWLQJ OLFHQVHV LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW WKH PHGLDQ UHVSRQGHQW KHOG QR SHUVRQDO LQWHUHVW LQ KXQWLQJ 86 )LVK DQG :LOGOLIH 6HUYLFH VWDWLVWLF FLWHG LQ )RVWHU f :KDWHYHU DUJXPHQWV PD\ EH EURXJKW WR EHDU IRU RU DJDLQVW DQLPDO ZHOIDUH RU ULJKWV FRQVLGHUDWLRQV LQ RXU GHPRFUDWLF VRFLHW\ LW KDV DOUHDG\ EHFRPH DQ LVVXH E\ WKH YRLFH RI D YRFDO PLQRULW\ DQG DQ DSSDUHQWO\ DFFHSWLQJ PDMRULW\ DQG ZLOO EHFRPH PRUH LPSRUWDQW %\ LWV QDWXUH WKH SROLW\ RI D GHPRFUDWLF VRFLHW\ FDQ LPSRVH DQ\ UHVWULFWLRQ RU EHVWRZ DQ\ ULJKW RQ DQ\ SHUVRQ SODFH RU WKLQJ ZKLFK WKH SROLWLFDO SURFHVV FKRRVHV DQG XQZLOOLQJQHVV WR SURYLGH WKHVH UHVXOWV 6HH IRRWQRWH QXPEHU

PAGE 33

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fV XVH $QLPDO :HOIDUH ,QVWLWXWH S f 0DQ\ PRGHP DQWLFUXHOW\ ODZV PD\ EH UHDG DV IRUELGGLQJ PDQ\ RI WKH VWDQGDUG SUDFWLFHV WR ZKLFK DQLPDO DFWLYLVWV REMHFW 7KH ODZ LQ WKH VWDWH RI 0DU\ODQG ZLWK ZKLFK WKH FDVH VWXG\ IRU WKLV UHVHDUFK LV FRQFHUQHG UHDGV DV IROORZV &UXHOW\ WR DQLPDOV D PLVGHPHDQRU 7KH )ORULGD VWDWXWH ZKLFK LV W\SLFDO RI VWDWH DQWLFUXHOW\ ODZV UHDGV DV IROORZV &UXHOW\ WR $QLPDOV :KRHYHU XQQHFHVVDULO\ RYHUORDGV RYHUGULYHV WRUWXUHV WRUPHQWV GHSULYHV RI QHFHVVDU\ VXVWHQDQFH RU VKHOWHU RU XQQHFHVVDULO\ RU FUXHOO\ EHDWV PXWLODWHV RU NLOOV DQ\ DQLPDO RU FDXVHV WKH VDPH WR EH GRQH RU FDUULHV LQ RU XSRQ DQ\ YHKLFOH RU RWKHUZLVH DQ\ DQLPDO LQ D FUXHO RU LQKXPDQ PDQQHU LV JXLOW\ RI D PLVGHPHDQRU RI WKH ILUVW GHJUHH SXQLVKDEOHE\ D ILQH RI QRW PRUH WKDQ >LPSULVRQPHQW QRW H[FHHGLQJ \HDU RU ERWK )ORULGD 6WDWXWH f@ S $QLPDO :HOIDUH ,QVWLWXWHf

PAGE 34

$Q\ SHUVRQ ZKR f RYHUGULYHV RYHUORDGV GHSULYHV RI QHFHVVDU\ VXVWHQDQFH WRUWXUHV WRUPHQWV FUXHOO\ EHDWV PXWLODWHV RU FUXHOO\ NLOOV RU f FDXVHV SURFXUHV RU DXWKRUL]HV WKHVH DFWV RU f KDYLQJ WKH FKDUJH RU FXVWRG\ RI DQ DQLPDO HLWKHU DV RZQHU RU RWKHUZLVH LQIOLFWV XQQHFHVVDU\ VXIIHULQJ RU SDLQ XSRQ WKH DQLPDO RU XQQHFHVVDULO\ IDLOV WR SURYLGH WKH DQLPDO ZLWK QXWULWLRXV IRRG LQ VXIILFLHQW TXDQWLW\ QHFHVVDU\ YHWHULQDU\ FDUH SURSHU GULQN DLU VSDFH VKHOWHU RU SURWHFWLRQ IURP WKH ZHDWKHU RU f XVHV RU SHUPLWV WR EH XVHG DQ\ ELUG IRZO RU FRFN IRU WKH SXUSRVH RI ILJKWLQJ ZLWK DQ\ RWKHU DQLPDO ZKLFK LV FRPPRQO\ NQRZQ DV FRFNILJKWLQJ LV JXLOW\ RI D PLVGHPHDQRU SXQLVKDEOH E\ D ILQH QRW H[FHHGLQJ RU E\ LPSULVRQPHQW QRW WR H[FHHG GD\V RU ERWK 'HILQLWLRQV 7KH ZRUGV fWRUWXUH f fWRUPHQW f DQG nFUXHOW\n PHDQ HYHU\ DFW RPLVVLRQ RU QHJOHFW ZKHUHE\ XQQHFHVVDU\ RU XQMXVWLILDEOH SK\VLFDO SDLQ RU VXIIHULQJ LV FDXVHG RU SHUPLWWHG DQG WKH ZRUG fDQLPDOf PHDQV HYHU\ OLYLQJ FUHDWXUH H[FHSW PDQ 0DU\ODQG 6WDWXWHV FLWHG LQ $QLPDOV DQG 7KHLU /HJDO 5LJKWV Sf 7KLV LV UHSUHVHQWDWLYH RI WKH YDJXHQHVV RI VWDWH DQWLFUXHOW\ ODZV ZKLFK JHQHUDOO\ OHDYH WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI FUXHOW\ VR RSHQ WR LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ WKDW DQ\ MXGJH RI D FHUWDLQ PLQG FRXOG ILQG DJDLQVW DQ\ IDUPHU WKDW KH IHOW ZDV FDXVLQJ fXQQHFHVVDU\ RU XQMXVWLILDEOH SK\VLFDO SDLQ RU VXIIHULQJf $ 0DU\ODQG EURLOHU SURGXFHU ZLWK VD\ ELUGV FRXOG LQ WKHRU\ IDFH RYHU \HDUV RI GD\ VHQWHQFHV RU LQ ILQHV IRU RQH RIIHQGLQJ PDQDJHPHQW SUDFWLFH 1HLWKHU VKRXOG WKH LQWHQW RI WKH OHJLVODWRUV DW WKH WLPH WKHVH ODZV ZHUH RULJLQDOO\ SDVVHG EH FRXQWHG XSRQ WR SURWHFW WUDGLWLRQDO SUDFWLFHV PRGHP MXGLFLDO LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ PDNHV JUHDW DOORZDQFHV IRU FKDQJLQJ FRPPXQLW\ VWDQGDUGV LQ WKH OLWHUDO LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI ROG VWDWXWHV f8QQHFHVVDU\ RU XQMXVWLILDEOH SK\VLFDO SDLQf PLJKW EH LQWHUSUHWHG LQ OLJKW RI VXFK SXEOLF YLHZV DV ZHUH H[SUHVVHG LQ WKH SROO UHIHUUHG WR LQ WKH LQWURGXFWLRQ RI WKLV ZRUN DQG QHZ FRPPXQLW\ VWDQGDUGV PD\ GHILQH DV fXQQHFHVVDULO\ SDLQIXOf DQ\ SUDFWLFH KRZHYHU HVVHQWLDO WR PRGHP SURGXFWLRQ RU URRWHG LQ DJHZRP WUDGLWLRQ ZKLFK FDXVHV DQ\ SDLQ RU HYHQ GLVFRPIRUW WR WKH DQLPDOV LQYROYHG

PAGE 35

)XUWKHU WKH SURYLVLRQV IRU fSURSHU GULQN DLU VSDFHf HWF OHDYH WKRVH SURGXFWLRQ SDUDPHWHUV SDUWLFXODUO\ VXEMHFW WR VWDWH MXULVSUXGHQFH ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI DQLPDOV WR LQFOXGH DOO OLYLQJ FUHDWXUHV LV EURDGHU WKDQ WKDW LQ WKH GLFWLRQDU\ ZKLFK ZRXOG LWVHOI GHILQH UDWV FRFNURDFKHV DQG DPRHEDV DV DQLPDOVf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

PAGE 36

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fV IDLU DQG FRQFLVH VXPPDU\ ZHUH GLUHFWLYHV WR WKH &RPPLVVLRQHU WR fHfQVXUH VXIILFLHQW DQG DSSURSULDWH YHQWLODWLRQ IORRULQJ EHGGLQJ VSDFH DQG WHPSHUDWXUH FRQWURO WR PDLQWDLQ WKH KHDOWK DQG FRPIRUW RI HDFK IDUP DQLPDO HPSKDVLV DGGHGf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f 7KDW QHDUO\ b RI YRWHUV VXSSRUWHG WKLV ELOO DIWHU D GHIHDW LQ WKH 0DVVDFKXVHWWV +RXVH RI 5HSUHVHQWDWLYHV DQG D GHIHDW LQ WKH VWDWH 6HQDWH DQG DIWHU D ZHOOILQDQFHG FDPSDLJQ E\ WKH 0DVVDFKXVHWWV )DUP %XUHDX VXJJHVWV DJDLQ WKDW DQLPDO

PAGE 37

ZHOIDUH DQG DQLPDO ULJKWV PXVW EH DGGUHVVHG E\ WKH DJULFXOWXUDO HVWDEOLVKPHQW LQ D VHULRXV PDQQHU 'HSDUWPHQW RI )RRG DQG $JULFXOWXUHf ,Q (XURSH 8QLRQ UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV DQG LQGLYLGXDO FRXQWU\ ODZV FDOO IRU LQFUHDVLQJO\ UHVWULFWLYH PHDVXUHV RQ EHKDOI RI DQLPDO ZHOIDUH 6HH $QLPDO :HOIDUH ,QVWLWXWH f $QLPDO :HOIDUH $ 3XEOLF &KRLFH ,W PD\ EH LQIHUUHG IURP WKH FRPSDULVRQ RI OHJLVODWRUfV DQLPDO ZHOIDUH YRWHV ZLWK WKRVH RI WKH SXEOLF WKDW WKH EDOORW LQLWLDWLYH KROGV RXW WKH JUHDWHVW KRSH IRU WKH DQLPDO ZHOIDUH PRYHPHQW 7KLV LV ERUQH RXW E\ SXEOLF FKRLFH DQDO\VLV 9RWLQJ LQ OHJLVODWXUHV LV GHILQHG E\ YRWH WUDGLQJ HVVHQWLDOO\ D PDUNHW IRU YRWHV LQ ZKLFK YRWHV DUH H[FKDQJHG DPRQJ OHJLVODWRUV VR WKDW WKH LVVXHV PRVW LPSRUWDQW WR WKHLU RZQ FRQVWLWXHQWV WXUQ LQ WKHLU IDYRU 7KRXJK FRPPRQO\ VHHQ DV XQHWKLFDO YRWH WUDGLQJ HIIHFWV D WKHRUHWLFDO 3DUHWR LPSURYHPHQW ZKHUHE\ HDFK OHJLVODWRUfV FRQVWLWXHQF\ WDNHQ DV D ZKROH JDLQV VXSSRUW IRU WKDW LVVXH ZKLFK PDWWHUV PRVW WR LW 0XHOOHU f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f 0XHOOHU S f ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV WKH SROLWLFDO DJHQW LV SXUSRVLYH DQG FRQVLVWHQW

PAGE 38

GHSHQGHQW XSRQ IDUP FRQVWLWXHQFLHV ZKLFK DUH PRUH JHRJUDSKLFDOO\ VSHFLILF WKDQ WKH GLVSHUVHG VXSSRUWHUV RI DQLPDO ZHOIDUH PHDVXUHV ,Q FRQWUDVW LVRODWHG VLQJOH LVVXH YRWHV E\ WKH JHQHUDO SXEOLF IDYRU WKH PDMRULW\ DERYH DOO UHJDUGOHVV RI UHODWLYH LQWHUHVW LQ WKH LVVXHfV RXWFRPH $FFRUGLQJ WR DQ LPSRUWDQW WKHRUHP RI SXEOLF FKRLFH WKHRU\ ,I [ LV D VLQJOHGLPHQVLRQDO LVVXH DQG DOO YRWHUV KDYH VLQJOHSHDNHG SUHIHUHQFHV GHILQHG RYHU [ WKHQ [P WKH PHGLDQ SRVLWLRQ FDQQRW ORVH XQGHU PDMRULW\ UXOH f 0XHOOHU S f 7KLV WKHRUHP LV GHPRQVWUDWHG LQ )LJXUH DOVR IURP 0XHOOHU f (DFK nnKLOO UHSUHVHQWV WKH SUHIHUHQFH RI RQH YRWHU IRU D SURYLGHG TXDQWLW\ RI VRPH SXEOLF JRRG [f PHDVXUHG DORQJ WKH KRUL]RQWDO D[LV 7KH DVVXPSWLRQ RI VLQJOHSHDNHG SUHIHUHQFHV PHDQV RQO\ WKDW HDFK YRWHU KDV D VLQJOH PD[LPXP SUHIHUHQFH IRU [ RU IRU WKH [ UHODWLYH WR LWV GLUHFW FRVWV RU RSSRUWXQLW\ FRVWV LQ RWKHU SXEOLF JRRGV IRUJRQHf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

PAGE 39

9RWHU SUHIHUHQFH J 9RWHU SUHIHUHQFH )LJXUH 9RWHU SUHIHUHQFHV RQ D VLQJOHGLPHQVLRQDO LVVXH 0XHOOHU f )LJXUH 9RWHU SUHIHUHQFHV RQ DQLPDO ZHOIDUH (TXDO ULJKWV

PAGE 40

WHUPV DV ZHOO WKH PHGLDQ YRWHU DORQJ WKH DQLPDO ULJKWVZHOIDUHXVH VSHFWUXP ZLOO GHILQH WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH ZHOIDUH RU ULJKWV RI DQLPDOV ZLOO EH SURWHFWHG 7KH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI YRWHUV DORQJ WKH DQLPDO ZHOIDUH VSHFWUXP UHSUHVHQWHG LQ )LJXUH LV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH SROOV GLVFXVVHG DERYH 7KH PHGLDQ YRWHU KDV EHHQ GHILQHG DERYH DV FRQFHUQHG DERXW DQLPDOVf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

PAGE 41

&+$37(5 :(/)$5( 5,*+76 $1' 7+( %52,/(5 ,1'8675< ,W WDNHV D WRXJK PDQ WR PDNH D WHQGHU FKLFNHQ )UDQN 3HUGXH &RQFHUQV IRU WKH ZHOIDUH RI FRPPHUFLDO SRXOWU\ SDUWLFXODUO\ EURLOHUV DUH OHVV FRQIRXQGHG ZLWK VXFK LVVXHV DV DHVWKHWLFV RU KXPDQ KHDOWK DQG VDIHW\ WKDQ DUH FRQFHUQV IRU RWKHU FRPPHUFLDO IDUP DQLPDOV &KLFNHQV DUH QRW FXWH 7KH\ GR QRW JUD]H WKHUHE\ DGGLQJ FKDUP WR UXUDO YLHZV ,W LV JHQHUDOO\ GLIILFXOW WR LGHQWLI\ ZLWK FKLFNHQV H[FHSW LQ D UHODWLYHO\ DEVWUDFW DQG SKLORVRSKLFDO ZD\ +XPDQ VDIHW\ FRQFHUQV DUH UHODWHG PXFK PRUH WR SURFHVVLQJ SUDFWLFHV WKDQ WR WKH FRQGLWLRQV LQ ZKLFK WKH ELUGV OLYHG 7KH KHDOWK FRQFHUQV DWWHQGDQW WR PHDWHDWLQJ FRPPRQO\ UDLVHG E\ DQLPDO DGYRFDWHV DUH OHDVW IRU FKLFNHQ DPRQJ IDUP DQLPDOV ,W LV IRU WKHVH UHDVRQV DPRQJ RWKHUV WKDW WKH EURLOHU LQGXVWU\ LV FKRVHQ IRU WKH FDVH VWXG\ LQ WKLV UHVHDUFK 7KH HVWLPDWHG FRVWV RI UHJXODWLRQ RQ EHKDOI RI DQLPDOV PD\ EH FRXQWHG GLUHFWO\ DV WKH KXPDQ FRVW RI DQLPDO ZHOIDUH 7R D ODUJH H[WHQW ZH DUH QRW LQGLUHFWO\ SURPRWLQJ RXU RZQ SK\VLFDO ZHOOEHLQJ E\ SXUVXLQJ EHWWHU FRQGLWLRQV RU KLJKHU VWDQGLQJ IRU EURLOHU FKLFNHQV VR WKDW ZH PD\ GLUHFWO\ UHODWH WKH SXUVXLW RI DQLPDO ZHOIDUH DV DQ HQG WR KXPDQ HFRQRPLF JRRGV IRUJRQH DV D PHDQV WR WKDW HQG

PAGE 42

7KH 0DU\ODQG %URLOHU ,QGXVWU\ 7KH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI PRGHP PDVV SURGXFWLRQ WHFKQLTXHV WR WKH EURLOHU LQGXVWU\ VLQFH WKH fV DQG f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f 7KLV KDV WKH SRWHQWLDO WR SXW DQLPDO IDUPV ZLWKLQ WKH MXULVGLFWLRQ RI DQLPDOFRQFHUQHG FRQVWLWXHQFLHV +RZHYHU WKH QDWXUDO HFRQRPLF HIILFLHQFLHV RI WKLV PRYHPHQW DUH RIWHQ RXWZHLJKHG E\ WKH SRRU LPDJH VXFK PRGHP IDFLOLWLHV VHHP WR KDYH LQ WKH H\HV RI XUEDQ DQG VXEXUEDQ SRSXODWLRQV ZLWK UHVSHFW WR RWKHU DVSHFWV RI WKH IDFWRU\ IDUP 7KHVH GLIILFXOWLHV DUH JHQHUDOO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK RGRU XQVLJKWOLQHVV LQ FRQWUDVW WR WKH SLFWXUH ERRN IDUPV RI ROG RU RI LPDJLQDWLRQf DQG WKH ULVNV RI VXUIDFH DQG JURXQGZDWHU SROOXWLRQ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH ODUJH YROXPHV RI DQLPDO ZDVWH QHFHVVDULO\ SURFHVVHG LQ ODUJH DQLPDO RSHUDWLRQV 2I FRXUVH DQLPDO ZHOIDUH LV DQRWKHU RI WKHVH FRQFHUQV $V VXFK SXEOLF SHUFHSWLRQV OHDG WR WKH UHGHILQLWLRQ RI SURSHUW\ ULJKWV EURLOHU DQG RWKHU OLYHVWRFN LQGXVWULHV ZLOO IDFH LQFUHDVLQJ VFUXWLQ\ 3UR[LPLW\ WR FLWLHV DQG VXEXUEV

PAGE 43

DQG VLWHV LQ XUEDQ VWDWHV ZLOO EHFRPH D SROLWLFDO DQG VR HFRQRPLF OLDELOLW\ $EGDOOD DQG 6KDIIHU f 7DEOH %URLOHUV 3URGXFWLRQ DQG SULFH n 3URGXFWLRQ 7KRXVDQGV 3ULFH SHU 3RXQG
PAGE 44

EHQHILWV RI ORFDWLRQ DQG SXEOLF SHUFHSWLRQV DERXW WKH IDFWRU\ IDUP SHUFHSWLRQV ZKLFK ZLOO GHILQH FROOHFWLYH SXEOLF DFWLRQ ,Q WKH EURLOHUV SURGXFHG b RI SURGXFHU UHYHQXHV LQ WKH ELOOLRQ 86 SRXOWU\ VHFWRU LQFOXGLQJ HJJV WXUNH\ DQG RWKHU PHDWW\SH FKLFNHQV 1$66 f $V FDQ EH VHHQ LQ 7DEOH WKHUH KDV EHHQ HQRUPRXV JURZWK LQ WKH EURLOHU LQGXVWU\ VLQFH LWV PRGHVW EHJLQQLQJV /DUJH UHGXFWLRQV LQ FRVW RI SURGXFWLRQ DQG VR LQ SULFH KDYH IHG WKH GHPDQG ZKLFK KDV PDGH VXFK JURZWK SRVVLEOH 7DEOH 7RS EURLOHU ILUPV PDUNHW VKDUH DQG QXPEHU RI SODQWV VHOHFWHG \HDUV 3HUFHQWDJH RI WRWDO 86 VODXJKWHU 1XPEHU RI VODXJKWHU SODQWV RSHUDWHG
PAGE 45

7KHUH KDV EHHQ D VWHDG\ WUHQG VLQFH WRZDUG LQGXVWULDO FRQFHQWUDWLRQ LQ WKH VHFWRU ZLWK D IHZ ODUJH LQWHJUDWHG FRPSDQLHV FRQWUROOLQJ ODUJHU DQG ODUJHU VKDUHV RI SURGXFWLRQ LQ RUGHU WR WDNH DGYDQWDJH RI HFRQRPLHV RI VFDOH LQ SURFHVVLQJ DQG PDUNHWLQJ 6HH 7DEOH f 7KHVH FRPSDQLHV FRQWURO DOO DVSHFWV RI SURGXFWLRQ DQG SURFHVVLQJ GLUHFWO\ RU LQGLUHFWO\ ,QGLUHFW FRQWURO RI WKH fJURZLQJ RXWf RI EURLOHUV LV PDLQWDLQHG E\ WKH FRQWUDFW XQGHU ZKLFK LQGHSHQGHQW RSHUDWRUV SURGXFH WKH JURZQ ELUG 7KHVH ODUJH LQWHJUDWRUV W\SLFDOO\ KDWFK HJJV IURP SXUFKDVHG EUHHGLQJ VWRFN DQG KDUYHVW SURFHVV DQG PDUNHW WKH JURZQ ELUGV 7KH LQWHJUDWRUV SURYLGH WKH JURZHUV ZLWK QHDUO\ DOO LQSXWV WR SURGXFWLRQ LQFOXGLQJ IHHG FKLFNV YHWHULQDU\ VHUYLFHV DQG SURGXFWLRQ DGYLFH 7KH JURZHUV RZQ RQO\ WKH EURLOHU KRXVHV RIWHQ EXLOW WR LQWHJUDWRU VSHFLILFDWLRQf DQG HTXLSPHQW DQG SURYLGH WKH ODERU PDQDJHPHQW DQG FDSLWDOUHODWHG H[SHQVHV .QRHEHU DQG 7KXUPDQ /DVOH\ HW DO f 7KHVH ODUJH LQWHJUDWHG SURFHVVRUV KDYH UHWXUQV WR VFDOH DQG VL]H VR JUHDW WKDW WKHUH LV QR HIIHFWLYH PDUNHW IRU OLYH EURLOHUV 'XH WR LQWHJUDWLRQ LQ WKH LQGXVWU\ WKHUH LV QR IDUPOHYHO EURLOHU SULFH VR WKH 86'$ FRQVWUXFWV D IDUPOHYHO HTXLYDOHQW SULFH E\ VXEWUDFWLQJ HVWLPDWHG SURFHVVLQJ DQG PDUNHWLQJ FRVWV IURP REVHUYHG UHWDLO SULFHV .QRHEHU DQG 7KXUPDQ Sf 7KH IRXU ODUJHVW LQWHJUDWRUV LQ FRQWUROOHG b RI SURGXFWLRQ QDWLRQDOO\ .QRHEHU DQG 7KXUPDQ f 7KH JURZHU RSHUDWLRQ LV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH JURZWK RI WKH ELUGV IURP WKH VHWWLQJ RI D IORFN RI LQWHJUDWRU SURYLGHG FKLFNV WR WKHLU FDWFKLQJ DIWHU VHYHQ ZHHNV RI JURZWK RI IRXUSRXQG ELUGV UHDG\ IRU VODXJKWHU DQG SURFHVVLQJ

PAGE 46

7KH FORVHG LQWHQVLYH QDWXUH RI EURLOHU SURGXFWLRQ DQG WKH FDUHIXO FRQWURO RI WKH ELUGV WKHPVHOYHV OHDG WR OHVV GLUHFW DQG OHVV H[WHQVLYH FRQIOLFW EHWZHHQ SURGXFWLRQ DQG KXPDQ KDELWDW VR WKDW WKH LVVXH RI EURLOHU ZHOIDUH ZKHQ LW LV UDLVHG LV OHVV WR EH FRQIRXQGHG ZLWK WKH fQRW LQ P\ EDFN\DUGf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fV EDOORW LQLWLDWLYH SURFHVV ZRXOG DOORZ D VPDOO FRPPLWWHG JURXS WR SODFH DQ DQLPDO ZHOIDUH ELOO RQ WKH EDOORW $ ODUJH XUEDQ SRSXODWLRQ LQ ERWK %DOWLPRUH DQG WKH fHGJH FLWLHVf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fV UXUDO HFRQRP\ HVSHFLDOO\ LQ WKRVH HLJKW FRXQWLHV

PAGE 47

ZKHUH SURGXFWLRQ LV FRQFHQWUDWHG D ODUJH LPSDFW XSRQ SURGXFWLRQ ZRXOG KDYH D ODUJH JHQHUDO LPSDFW XSRQ WKRVH FRXQWLHV 7DEOH %URLOHUV 3URGXFWLRQ 3ULFH DQG 9DOXH E\ 6WDWH DQG 7RWDO 6WDWH %LUGV 3RXQGV 3ULFH/E 9DOXH RI 3URGXFWLRQ f $/ $5 &$ '( *$ 0' 06 1& 7; 9$ )/ 86f n'HFHPEHU WKURXJK 1RYHPEHU %URLOHU SURGXFWLRQ LQFOXGLQJ RWKHU GRPHVWLF PHDWW\SH EUHHGV f/LYHZHLJKW HTXLYDOHQW SULFHV GHULYHG IURP UHDG\WRFRRN 57&f SULFHV XVLQJ WKH IROORZLQJ IRUPXODV 57& SULFH PLQXV SURFHVVLQJ FRVWf ; GUHVVLQJ SHUFHQWDJHf OLYHZHLJKW HTXLYDOHQW SULFH f([FOXGHV 6WDWHV SURGXFLQJ OHVV WKDQ ELUGV 6RXUFH 3RXOWU\ 3URGXFWLRQ DQG 9DOXH 6XPPDU\ 5HOHDVHG 0D\ E\ WKH 1DWLRQDO $JULFXOWXUDO 6WDWLVWLFV 6HUYLFH 1$66f $JULFXOWXUDO 6WDWLVWLFV %RDUG 86 'HSDUWPHQW RI $JULFXOWXUH

PAGE 48

,Q 0DU\ODQGfV WRQV RI EURLOHU SURGXFWLRQ UDQNHG VHYHQWK DPRQJ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 6HH 7DEOH f 7KLV PLOOLRQ LQGXVWU\ KDV DQ HQRUPRXV LPSDFW RQ 0DU\ODQGfV HLJKW (DVWHUQ 6KRUH FRXQWLHV ZKLFK IRUP KHU SDUW RI WKH ODUJHU 'HOPDUYD 'HODZDUH0DU\ODQG9LUJLQLDf SHQLQVXOD 7KLV YDOXH RI SURGXFWLRQ LV HTXDO WR PRUH WKDQ b RI SHUVRQDO LQFRPH LQ WKHVH FRXQWLHV ZKLFK LQ SURGXFHG b RI WKH VWDWHfV EURLOHUV DQG RWKHU PHDWW\SH FKLFNHQV DQG FRQWDLQHG DOO EXW VL[ RI WKH VWDWHfV IDUPV VHOOLQJ RYHU ELUGV 7KH RWKHU 'HOPDUYD VWDWHV 'HODZDUH DQG 9LUJLQLD SURGXFH DQRWKHU PLOOLRQ WRQV RI EURLOHUV DQG FRQWDLQ WKH RWKHU WZR WKLUGV RI D ELOOLRQ UHJLRQDO LQGXVWU\ 86 'HSW RI &RPPHUFH 6HH 7DEOH f 7KH PHDQ DQQXDO VDOHV SHU (DVWHUQ 6KRUH IDUP LV DERXW ELUGV 86 'HSW RI &RPPHUFHf 7KH PHGLDQ ELUG LV SURGXFHG RQ D IDUP SURGXFLQJ WR DQQXDOO\ DQG WKH PHGLDQ IDUP SURGXFHV MXVW RYHU ELUGV 3RXOWU\ DQG SRXOWU\ SURGXFWV DFFRXQWHG IRU b RI VDOHV RI OLYHVWRFN DQG SRXOWU\ SURGXFWV DQG b RI DOO DJULFXOWXUDO VDOHV LQ 0DU\ODQG S 86 'HSW RI &RPPHUFHf 3RWHQWLDO 5HVWULFWLRQV 7KH PRVW H[WUHPH DQG PRVW XQOLNHO\ UHVWULFWLRQ XSRQ WKH EURLOHU LQGXVWU\ LQ WKH VWDWH RI 0DU\ODQG ZRXOG EH D EDQ RQ DOO DQLPDO DJULFXOWXUH 7KLV FRXOG EH VLPSO\ HYDOXDWHG DV WKH ORVV RI DQLPDOEDVHG DJULFXOWXUDO HFRQRPLF DFWLYLW\ DQG WKH FRPSOHWH GHSUHFLDWLRQ RI DOO XQPRYDEOH DQG XQDGDSWDEOH FDSLWDO LQ WKH VHFWRU %H\RQG VXFK D EDQ WKHUH LV D ODUJH UDQJH RI UHVWULFWLRQV XSRQ SURGXFWLRQ SUDFWLFHV GHVLUHG E\ PRUH RU OHVV RI WKH DQLPDO ZHOIDUH FRPPXQLW\

PAGE 49

,W KDV DOUHDG\ EHHQ VKRZQ WKDW WKH 0DU\ODQG DQLPDO FUXHOW\ VWDWXWH LV VR EURDGO\ ZULWWHQ DV WR DOORZ VHYHUH UHVWULFWLRQV RQ DOO DQLPDO DJULFXOWXUH LI D VPDOO PLQRULW\ RI MXGJHV DQG EXUHDXFUDWV ZHUH WR VR LQWHUSUHW LW $V DQLPDO ZHOIDUH EHFRPHV PRUH ZLGHO\ GHEDWHG WKH VWDWHf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

PAGE 50

7DEOH 0DU\ODQG %URLOHU 3URGXFWLRQ DQG )DUPV E\ 6L]H &RXQWY $OO )DUPV %LUGV 6ROG RU PRUH 3HUV ,QF f 3RSXODWLRQ &DUROLQH LL 'RUFKHVWHU  .HQW 4XHHQ $QQHnV ? 6RPHUVHW 7DOERW R :LFRPLFR :RUFHVWHU (DVWHUQ 6KRUH $OO RWKHU FRV 0DU\ODQG 6RXUFH 86 'HSDUWPHQW RI &RPPHUFH Sr Sr

PAGE 51

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

PAGE 52

VWHUHRW\SLF EHKDYLRU SHUVLVWHQW KLJKO\ UHSHWLWLYH EHKDYLRUV ZLWKRXW REYLRXV SXUSRVHf DQG YDFXXPf EHKDYLRU EHKDYLRU LQDSSURSULDWH WR WKH UHODWLYHO\ EDUUHQ HQYLURQPHQW RI D SURGXFWLRQ IDFLOLW\ VXFK DV ELUGV GXVWEDWKLQJ RQ D FRQFUHWH IORRUf DUH DOO VHHQ DV LQGLFDWLQJ PHQWDO VXIIHULQJ RQ WKH SDUW RI WKH DQLPDO 'XQFDQ DQG 3HWKHULFN KDYH EHHQ FLWHG DV VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW DQLPDO ZHOIDUH LV GHSHQGHQW VROHO\ RQ WKH PHQWDO SV\FKRORJLFDO DQG FRJQLWLYH QHHGV RI WKH DQLPDOV FRQFHUQHG&UDLJ DQG 6ZDQVRQ Sf 7KLV PD\ KDYH LQWXLWLYH DSSHDO WR WKH HFRQRPLVW ZKR GHILQHV KXPDQ ZHOIDUH DV WKH IXOILOOPHQW RI SXUSRVLYH DQG FRQVLVWHQW SUHIHUHQFHV $W ILUVW VLJKW WKH HFRQRPLVW PD\ DOVR EH DWWUDFWHG WR WKH SUHIHUHQFH RUGHULQJ DSSURDFK WR DQLPDO ZHOIDUH ZKLFK LV QRZ JDLQLQJ VXSSRUW LQ WKH DQLPDO VFLHQFHV 7KH FKRLFHV DQLPDOV PDNH DPRQJ IUHHO\ fRIIHUHGf PXOWLSOH DOWHUQDWLYHV DUH UHFRUGHG DV D UHYHDOHG SUHIHUHQFH RUGHULQJ 7KH WHFKQLTXH LV IXUWKHU DGYDQFHG E\ WKURZLQJ XS REVWDFOHV WR WKH DQLPDOVf FKRLFH RI RQH RSWLRQ RYHU DQRWKHU WKLV LV VXSSRVHG WR VXJJHVW D fSULFHf RU ZLOOLQJQHVV WR SD\ RQ WKH SDUW RI WKH DQLPDO 'XQFDQ f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fV SUHIHUUHG DOWHUQDWLYH

PAGE 53

WKHVH VXSSRUWHUV RI WKH SUHIHUHQFH DSSURDFK ZLOO GHILQH WKH LQFRQVLVWHQF\ DV DQ H[FHSWLRQ WR WKHLU JHQHUDO UXOH DQG DFNQRZOHGJH WKDW WKH KHDOWK SURPRWLQJ DOWHUQDWLYH UHSUHVHQWV D KLJKHU OHYHO RI ZHOIDUH 'XQFDQ f 6LQFH WKH fV PDQ\ UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH DWWHPSWHG WR GHILQH WKH RYHUDOO ZHOOEHLQJ RI DQLPDOV E\ WKH SUHVHQFH RU DEVHQFH RI SK\VLRORJLFDO fVWUHVVf DV PHDVXUHG E\ D VSHFLILF ELRFKHPLFDO UHVSRQVH 7KH ORQJKHOG DVVXPSWLRQ WKDW DOO VWUHVVRUV SURGXFH LGHQWLFDO SK\VLRORJLFDO UHVSRQVHV LQ WKH KLJKHU DQLPDOV LH VWLPXODWLRQ RI WKH SLWXLWDU\ DQG DGUHQDO FRUWH[f KDV QRZ EHHQ DEDQGRQHG 7KHUH DUH LQ IDFW QR SK\VLRORJLFDO UHVSRQVHV WKDW DUH FRQVLVWHQWO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK DOO VWUHVVRUV VR WKDW VWUHVVRUV PXVW XOWLPDWHO\ EH GHILQHG DV WKRVH IDFWRUV ZKLFK SURGXFH ORQJWHUP QHJDWLYH LPSDFWV RQ SK\VLFDO ZHOOEHLQJ +LOO f ,Q DGGLWLRQ VLJQLILFDQW REVHUYDWLRQ HIIHFWV UHODWHG WR WKH KDQGOLQJ RI DQLPDOV IRU PHDVXUHPHQW SXUSRVHV FDQ VHULRXVO\ FRQIRXQG UHVXOWV &UDLJ DQG $GDPV f $V ZLWK EHKDYLRU DQG SUHIHUHQFHV WKRVH VXSSRUWLQJ WKH XVH RI SK\VLRORJLFDO LQGLFDWRUV RI VWUHVV WR PHDVXUH RYHUDOO ZHOOEHLQJ GHILQH DV H[FHSWLRQV WR WKHLU JHQHUDO UXOH WKRVH FDVHV LQ ZKLFK SK\VLFDO ZHOOEHLQJ LV QRW FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH PHDVXUHG OHYHO RI WKHLU LQGLFDWRUV +LOO f ,Q DGGLWLRQ VRPH VWUHVV HVSHFLDOO\ HDUO\ LQ OLIH KDV EHHQ VKRZQ WR DGYDQFH ORQJWHUP ZHOIDUH E\ SURPRWLQJ DGDSWDWLRQV ZKLFK DOORZ WKH DQLPDO WR EHWWHU FRSH ZLWK RWKHU ODWHU VWUHVVRUV &UDLJ DQG 6ZDQVRQ f ,Q WKH DEVHQFH RI D FRQVLVWHQW SK\VLRORJLFDO UHVSRQVH WKH FRQFHSW RI VWUHVV DV D PHDVXUH RI ZHOOEHLQJ LV WDXWRORJLFDO DV ZHOOEHLQJ VLPSO\ EHFRPHV WKH DEVHQFH RI VWUHVV 7KH PRVW FRQVLVWHQW PHDVXUDEOH DQG VFLHQWLILFDOO\ OHJLWLPDWH LQGLFDWRU RI DQLPDO ZHOOEHLQJ LV WKH SURGXFWLYLW\ RI WKH DQLPDO 6LQFH SURGXFWLYLW\ PHDVXUHG E\ PRUWDOLW\

PAGE 54

UHSURGXFWLRQ DQG ZHLJKW JDLQ LQGLFDWHV PXFK DERXW WKH KHDOWK RI WKH DQLPDO DQG VLQFH SK\VLFDO ZHOOEHLQJ LV FRQVLVWHQWO\ GHILQHG DV D QHFHVVDU\ EDVLV IRU RYHUDOO ZHOOEHLQJ D VFLHQWLILF DSSURDFK WR DQLPDO ZHOIDUH PD\ EH HIIHFWLYHO\ EDVHG XSRQ LGHQWLI\LQJ SURGXFWLYLW\ ZLWK ZHOIDUH 0DFLQGRH f 6HYHUDO FULWLFLVPV DUH PDGH DJDLQVW SURGXFWLYLW\ DV D PHDVXUH RI ZHOIDUH )LUVW DUH WKH REMHFWLRQV WR DYHUDJH SURGXFWLYLW\ ZKLFK IDLOV WR DFFRXQW IRU ZHOIDUH GLIIHUHQFHV DPRQJ DQLPDOV ZLWKLQ D JURXS +LOO f +RZHYHU DPRQJ DQLPDOV RI KRPRJHQHRXV DJH EUHHGLQJ DQG SK\VLFDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV VXFK DV W\SLILHV SURGXFWLRQ DJULFXOWXUH WKHVH GLIIHUHQFHV VKRXOG EH PLQLPDO &UDLJ DQG $GDPV f ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH ODFN RI D GHILQLWLYH ZHLJKWLQJ RI UHSURGXFWLRQ PRUWDOLW\ DQG ZHLJKW JDLQ DQG PLON SURGXFWLRQ IRU PLONLQJ DQLPDOVf OHDGV FULWLFV WR UHSUHVHQW SURGXFWLYLW\ PHDVXUHPHQWV DV SRWHQWLDOO\ FRQWUDGLFWRU\ +LOO f 7KLV LV WUXH WR VRPH GHJUHH EXW PD\ EH FRXQWHUHG E\ SRLQWLQJ RXW WKH FRUUHODWLRQV DPRQJ UDWHV RI UHSURGXFWLRQ ORQJHYLW\ DQG JURZWK ZLWKLQ PRVW VSHFLHV :KHUH VXFK FRUUHODWLRQV GR QRW H[LVW WKLV FULWLFLVP ZDUUDQWV FRQVLGHUDWLRQ LI RQO\ LQ D FRQWH[W RI ZHDNHU DOWHUQDWLYH PHDVXUHV n 3URGXFWLYLW\ PD\ EH DQ HYHQ PRUH DSSURSULDWH LQGH[ RI DQLPDO ZHOOEHLQJ LQ OLJKW RI WKH VRFLDO 'DUZLQLVWf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

PAGE 55

7KH ILHOG RI HFRQRPLF KLVWRU\ LQ IDFW KDV DGRSWHG SK\VLFDO KHLJKW DV WKH EHVW LQGH[ RI WKH IRUPHU ZHOOEHLQJ RI WKH PXWH GHDG *UDYHV DUH QRZ UREEHG LQ WKH QDPH RI HFRQRPLF VFLHQFH ERQHV DUH PHDVXUHG DQG WKH GHFHDVHG DUH UHWXUQHG FRQILGHQW WKDW WKHLU IHHW DQG LQFKHV KDYH UHYHDOHG ZKDW WKHLU PRXWKV QHYHU ZLOO QDPHO\ WKHLU ZHOIDUH UHODWLYH WR WKHLU VKRUWHU DQFHVWRU RU WDOOHU GHVFHQGHQW 6WHFNHO f ,I WKHVH HFRQRPLVWV FDQ HYDOXDWH ZHOIDUH IURP WKH ERQHV RI WKH GHDG DQG PDNH FRPSDULVRQV DFURVV YDVW JHQHWLF JHRJUDSKLF DQG FKURQRORJLFDO GLYHUVLW\ WKHQ ZH FDQ FHUWDLQO\ ILQG YDOXH LQ VXFK DQ LQGH[ DPRQJ JHQHWLFDOO\ KRPRJHQRXV EURLOHUV LQ WKH VDPH EXLOGLQJ DW WKH VDPH WLPH ZLWK WKH RQO\ GLIIHUHQFH WKH FRQGLWLRQV RI WKHLU FDSWLYLW\ $QRWKHU PRUH FRPPRQ FULWLFLVP RI SURGXFWLYLW\ DV D PHDVXUH RI DQLPDO ZHOIDUH FRPHV IURP FULWLFVf FRQIXVLRQ RI DQLPDO SURGXFWLYLW\ ZLWK SURILWDELOLW\ &UDLJ DQG $GDPV &XUWLV f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

PAGE 56

&RQVLGHU D VWULFWO\ FRQFDYH SURGXFWLRQ IXQFWLRQ f \ I[W[W[W[f ZKHUH f I f If f IIM I IRU LM EKIO DQG ZKHUH \ LV OLYHZHLJKW EURLOHU SURGXFWLRQ [E LV WKH QXPEHU RI FKLFNV VHW LQ WKH IORFN DQG WKH [f [f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f 0D[ \[rf I[E[O[>[f[E IRU ZKLFK ILUVW RUGHU FRQGLWLRQV f \[ff[E [EIfIf[f f \[Ef[E IE[E f \[ff£[I II[E

PAGE 57

f \[ff[ I[f VROYH WR f IE I;E ,' I I 7KDW LV WKH PDUJLQDO SURGXFW RI DGGLWLRQDO ELUGV LV HTXDO WR WKH DYHUDJH SURGXFW SHU ELUG DQG WKH KRXVLQJ IHHG DQG ODERU LQSXWV DUH XVHG XQWLO WKHLU PDUJLQDO SURGXFW LV QXOO 7KLV RSWLPXP FDQ EH DFKLHYHG LI LW LV DVVXPHG WKDW WKH SHUELUG SURGXFWLYLW\ UHWXUQV WR WKH QRQn ELUG LQSXWV GLPLQLVK WR ]HUR RU PRUH SUDFWLFDOO\ EHFRPH VWDWLVWLFDOO\ LQGLVWLQJXLVKDEOH IURP ]HURf 7KH FRVW RI SURGXFWLRQ ZLOO EH [EUf [nfUE [fIUI [rUf ZKHUH [f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

PAGE 58

f 3URILW IL[A;W;M[AS [EUf [KUf [IU [Uf 3URILW PD[LPL]DWLRQ LV GHILQHG E\ WKH ILUVW RUGHU FRQGLWLRQV f 3URILWf[ IS Uc ZKLFK VROYH WR f  US IRU DOO L EKIO )DUPOHYHO SURILW PD[LPL]DWLRQ WKHQ DSSURDFKHV ZHOIDUH PD[LPL]DWLRQ DV GHILQHG E\ HTXDWLRQV f DQG f DV WKH FRVW RI FKLFNV VHW DSSURDFKHV RQH KXQGUHG SHUFHQW RI WRWDO FRVW RI SURGXFWLRQ ZKLFK LV DJDLQ GHILQHG E\ [9Uf [9Q [nUI [fUf ZKHUH [n LV QRZ WKH ILUP SURILWPD[LPL]LQJ OHYHO RI LQSXW L DQG Uc UHPDLQV WKH JLYHQ SULFH RI LQSXW L 7KLV FRQGLWLRQ REYLRXVO\ GLIIHUV JUHDWO\ IURP WKH FXUUHQW FRVW VWUXFWXUH RI EURLOHU SURGXFWLRQ VHH &KDSWHU 7DEOH f EXW WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH SURILW PD[LPL]LQJ ZHOIDUH RXWFRPH GLIIHUV IURP WKDW RI ZHOIDUH PD[LPL]DWLRQ GHSHQGV XSRQ WKH FXUYDWXUH RI WKH SURGXFWLRQ IXQFWLRQ 2QH VLJQLILFDQW LPSOLFDWLRQ RI WKLV LV WKDW WKH DVVHVVPHQW RI D KHDG WD[ RQ IDUP DQLPDOV LQ SODFH RI WD[HV RQ RWKHU LQSXWV WR DQLPDO DJULFXOWXUH ZRXOG DOWHU SURILW PD[LPL]DWLRQ DQG FRVW PLQLPL]DWLRQ EDVHG RQ UHVXOWV SUHVHQWHG EHORZf RXWFRPHV LQ IDYRU RI DQLPDO ZHOIDUH &RQVWUDLQHG )LUP 3URILW 0D[LPL]DWLRQ &RQVLGHU WKH FRQVWUDLQW RI VXFK D ILUP E\ D IORRU VSDFH UHTXLUHPHQW DV KDV EHHQ GLVFXVVHG DERYH DPRQJ SRWHQWLDO UHVWULFWLRQV ZKLFK IL[HV D PLQLPXP UDWLR Nf RI KRXVLQJ LQSXWV [M WR FKLFNV VHW [Ef

PAGE 59

f ;M[ RU N $VVXPLQJ WKH FRQVWUDLQW WR EH ELQGLQJ ZH PD\ GHVFULEH LW DV DQ HTXDOLW\ LQ WKH SURGXFHUfV RSWLPL]DWLRQ f 3URILW I;K[K[)[fS [fUE [KUK [IUI [U VW ;M ORT DQ RSWLPL]DWLRQ ZKRVH /DJUDQJLDQ LV f / I[E[OO[U[OfS [M [WUK [IU [U P[W N[ff 7KH ILUVW RUGHU FRQGLWLRQV IRU WKLV /DJUDQJLDQ VROYH WR f If Uf PNfS f If Uf PfS f I US f I US 7KLV FRQVWUDLQW WKHQ KDV WKH VDPH SRVLWLYH LPSDFW XSRQ ZHOIDUH DV WKH FRPELQDWLRQ RI DQ DGGLWLRQ WR WKH LQSXW SULFH RI FKLFNV Uff HTXDO WR WKH VKDGRZ SULFH RI WKH FRQVWUDLQW Pf WLPHV WKH FRQVWUDLQHG ELUG SHU KRXVLQJ XQLW UDWLR Nf DQG D UHGXFWLRQ RI P IURP WKH LQSXW SULFH IRU KRXVLQJ Uff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

PAGE 60

&RQWUDFW %URLOHU 2SWLPL]DWLRQ ,Q FRQWUDVW WR WKH FODVVLFDO SURILWPD[LPL]LQJ IDUP WKH W\SLFDO EURLOHU JURZRXW RSHUDWLRQ LV GHILQHG E\ WKH WHUPV RI WKH JURZHUf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f GHFLVLRQV DUH RULHQWHG WR FRVW PLQLPL]DWLRQ DQG WKDW PDQGDWH LV LPSRVHG XSRQ WKH JURZHU E\ WKH WHUPV RI KLV FRQWUDFW DQG E\ WKH ODFN RI D PDUNHW IRU LQGHSHQGHQW EURLOHU SURGXFWLRQ 6R PXFK LQ IDFW LV SURGXFWLRQ LQWHJUDWHG ZLWK SURFHVVLQJ WKDW WKHUH QR ORQJHU H[LVWV D PHDQLQJIXO PDUNHW SULFH IRU OLYH EURLOHUV 86'$ SULFH HVWLPDWHV DUH EDVHG XSRQ WKH 7HDG\WRFRRNf SULFH OHVV HVWLPDWHV RI SURFHVVLQJ FRVWV )RRWQRWH &KDSWHU 7DEOH .QRHEHU DQG 7KXUPDQ f 7KH LQWHJUDWRUfV REMHFWLYH PD\ EH VWDWHG DV WKH PLQLPL]DWLRQ RI WKH SULFH RI WKH OLYH EURLOHU LQSXW WR WKH SURFHVVLQJ RSHUDWLRQ 7KH XQFRQVWUDLQHG GXDO RI SHUXQLW FRVW PLQLPL]DWLRQ LV SHUXQLW SURILW PD[LPL]DWLRQ LH f 0D[ 3URI\ S U[\ 0LQ S U[\f

PAGE 61

S 0LQ U[\ ZKHUH S LV D H[RJHQRXV 7KLV ODVW WHUP ZLOO EH D PRUH FRQYHQLHQW H[SUHVVLRQ RI WKH RSWLPL]DWLRQ XQGHU GLVFXVVLRQ &RQVLGHU WKH SHU XQLW FRVW PLQLPL]DWLRQ SURILW PD[LPL]DWLRQ REMHFWLYH VXEMHFW WR JLYHQ SULFHV SAUAUf f 0D[ 3URI\ ^SI[E[E[f[f [fUf [EU [U [AU-II[A[A;I[f ZKRVH ILUVW RUGHU FRQGLWLRQV VROYH WR f If UE>[nEUf [r [! [rUfIM f If UK>[nEUW [MUW [fIU [MUMIM f I UW>[nEU [nEUK [rIU [MUfI@ f I U>[nfUE [nEUK [nU [MUfI@ 6LPLODUO\ WR SURILW PD[LPL]DWLRQ FRVW PLQLPL]DWLRQ DSSURDFKHV DQ DQLPDO ZHOIDUH PD[LPL]LQJ RXWFRPH LH HTXDWLRQV f DSSURDFK WKH FRQGLWLRQV H[SUHVVHG LQ HTXDWLRQV f DQG ff DV [9E DSSURDFKHV RQH KXQGUHG SHUFHQW RI WKH FRVW RI SURGXFWLRQ $OWHUQDWLYHO\ f PD\ EH H[SUHVVHG DV f [MUf [MUf [fUI [MUfI UfIf UWIf W UI 7KH ODVW IRXU WHUPV RI WKLV HTXDWLRQ DUH RI FRXUVH D VWDQGDUG UHVXOW IRU FRVW PLQLPL]DWLRQ DQG SURILW PD[LPL]DWLRQ ZLWK WKH ILUVW WHUP WKH HTXDWLRQ DOVR SURGXFHV D VFDOH VROXWLRQ LI RQH H[LVWVf IRU XQLWFRVW PLQLPL]DWLRQSHU XQLW SURILW PD[LPL]DWLRQ DW WKH EURLOHU KRXVH OHYHO

PAGE 62

7KH JURZHU FRQWUDFW LV WKH YHKLFOH IRU WKH WUDQVODWLRQ RI LQWHJUDWRU XQLWFRVW PLQLPL]DWLRQ LQWR JURZHU SURILW PD[LPL]DWLRQ 7KHVH FRQWUDFWV W\SLFDOO\ VHW WKH JURZHUfV SULFH SVf SUHVXPDEO\ DW VRPHWKLQJ HVWLPDWHG E\ WKH LQWHJUDWRU DW RU QHDU WKH PLQLPXP FRVW RI SURGXFWLRQ 7KH EURLOHU KRXVHV DUH EXLOW WR FRQWUDFW VSHFLILFDWLRQV HIIHFWLYHO\ HVWDEOLVKLQJ D GXSOLFDEOH EXW QRW FRQWLQXRXVO\ YDULDEOH [f IRU WKH JURZHU RSHUDWLRQ 7KH QXPEHU DQG TXDOLW\ RI FKLFNV VHW IRU HDFK JURZRXW [f LV GHWHUPLQHG DQG SURYLGHG E\ WKH LQWHJUDWRU ,Q DGGLWLRQ JURZHUV REWDLQ IHHG H[FOXVLYHO\ IURP WKH LQWHJUDWRUV ZKR WKHUHE\ HVWDEOLVK LWV TXDOLW\ DQG LWV HIIHFWLYH SULFH Uf ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH YHWHULQDU\ VHUYLFHV DQG WHFKQLFDO DVVLVWDQFH PXVW GLUHFW WR VRPH GHJUHH WKH JURZHUfV SURGXFWLRQ SUDFWLFHV 7KH KLJK GHJUHH RI PDUNHW FRQFHQWUDWLRQ LQ WKH EURLOHU SURFHVVLQJ LQGXVWU\ PXVW DOVR EH VLJQLILFDQW LQ GHILQLQJ D FRQGLWLRQ RI PRQRSVRQLVWLF FRPSHWLWLRQ DPRQJ LQWHJUDWRUV OLPLWLQJ WKH DOWHUQDWLYHV RI JURZHUV XQKDSS\ ZLWK WKH WHUPV RI WKHLU FRQWUDFW DOPRVW FHUWDLQO\ WR DQ H[WHQW WKDW DOORZV LQWHJUDWRUV WR VHW D EDUH EUHDNHYHQ FRVWPLQLPL]LQJf SULFH IRU OLYH EURLOHUV DFFRXQWLQJ IRU QR SURILWV EH\RQG WKH PDUNHW YDOXH RI WKH JURZHUfV ODERU DQG WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ FRVW RI FDSLWDO %URLOHU FRQWUDFWV DUH JHQHUDOO\ EDVHG RQ WRXUQDPHQW SULFLQJf XQGHU ZKLFK JURZHUV DUH SDLG PRUH SHU XQLW DV WKHLU FRVWV SHU XQLW DUH ORZHU WKDQ RWKHU FRPSHWLQJ JURZHUV LQ D JLYHQ SHULRG RI WLPH 7KH GRPLQDQFH RI WKLV SULFLQJ VFKHPH LQ EURLOHUV SDUWLFXODUO\ KDV EHHQ DWWULEXWHG WR WKH KLJK PDUNHW FRQFHQWUDWLRQ LQ WKH SURFHVVLQJ VHFWRU WKLV RIIHUV WKH ODUJH QXPEHUV RI JURZHUV UHODWLYH WR SURFHVVRUV ZKLFK LV IDYRUDEOH WR HIIHFWLYH WRXUQDPHQW SULFLQJ %DUU\ HW DO f

PAGE 63

7KH FRQWUDFW SHUIRUPDQFH RI JURZHUV LV PHDVXUHG E\ D fVHWWOHPHQW FRVWf EDVHG XSRQ D IRUPXOD f VF [EUf [Uf\ ZKHUH VF LV WKH LQGLYLGXDO JURZHUfV VHWWOHPHQW FRVW .QRHEHU DQG 7KXUPDQ f 8QGHU WKHVH WHUPV Uf DQG UU DUH HVWDEOLVKHG E\ WKH LQWHJUDWRUV 7KH SULFH SDLG WKH JURZHU Sf LV D EDVH SULFH Sf SOXV RU PLQXVf WKH DPRXQW ZKLFK WKH JURZHUfV VHWWOHPHQW FRVW LV OHVV WKDQ RU JUHDWHU WKDQf WKH DYHUDJH VHWWOHPHQW FRVW VFf DPRQJ FRQWUDFWHG JURZHUV GXULQJ D OLPLWHG WLPH SHULRG f 3 3R VF [EUf [Uf\ff 7KLV GHWHUPLQHV WKH JURZHUfV SURILW IXQFWLRQ f 3URILW IL[A[A;I[.SR VF [fUf [IUIfI[E[K[f[fff [IU [U 7KLV UHGXFHV WR DQ DSSDUHQWO\ VWDQGDUG SURILW PD[LPL]DWLRQ f 0D[ 3URILW I[E[N[![OfS! VFf [EUE [UW [U [Uf H[FHSW WKDW [E [f UE UI DQG Sf DUH H[SOLFLWO\ GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH LQWHJUDWRU :LWK [E DQG [E IL[HG WKH ILUVW RUGHU FRQGLWLRQV VROYH WR f ILI[K[A[W[f USf VFf f IL;K$;U[f USR VFf 0RUH LPSRUWDQWO\ WKH LQWHJUDWRU GHILQHV RQ DYHUDJH Sf VFf ZKLFK LV HIIHFWLYHO\ WKH JURZHUfV RXWSXW SULFH LI WKH LQWHJUDWRU KDV DGHTXDWH FRVW LQIRUPDWLRQ WKLV SULFH PD\ EH VHW HTXDO WR DQ DYHUDJH PLQLPXP XQLW FRVW OHDYLQJ WKH JURZHU QR HFRQRPLF FKRLFH IRU SURILW PD[LPL]DWLRQ EXW DQ DSSUR[LPDWLRQ WR XQLWFRVW PLQLPL]DWLRQ 6XFK FRQWUDFWV VKLIW EURLOHU SULFH ULVN RQWR WKH LQWHJUDWRU EXW LPSRVH D ODUJH GHJUHH RI FRVW

PAGE 64

PLQLPL]DWLRQ SHU XQLW RI SURGXFWLRQ XSRQ WKH JURZHU WKURXJK LQWHJUDWRUGHWHUPLQHG LQSXWV DQG SULFHV ,W LV FOHDU WKHQ WKDW WKH LQWHJUDWRU LV WKH GHILQLQJ GHFLVLRQ PDNHU LQ WKH SURGXFWLRQ SURFHVV DQG WKDW LW ZLOO EH PRUH XVHIXO WR WUHDW EURLOHU SURGXFWLRQ DV VXEMHFW WR XQLWFRVW PLQLPL]DWLRQ &RQVWUDLQHG &RQWUDFW %URLOHU 2SWLPL]DWLRQ &RQVLGHU WKHQ WKH HIIHFWLYH LPSRVLWLRQ RI WKH VDPH SHUELUG KRXVLQJ UHTXLUHPHQW XSRQ SHU XQLW FRVW PLQLPL]DWLRQ IL[LQJ D PLQLPXP UDWLR Nf RI KRXVLQJ LQSXWV WR ELUGV [f[Ef 7KH LQWHJUDWRUfV FRQVWUDLQHG RSWLPL]DWLRQ DJDLQ DVVXPLQJ WKH FRQVWUDLQW LV ELQGLQJ LV f 0D[3URI\f ^SI[E[K[I[f [fUE [EUf [IUI [OUcI[E[f[I[f VW [V N[ 7KH /DJUDQJLDQ IXQFWLRQ IRU WKLV RSWLPL]DWLRQ LV f / ^SI [fUE [EUE [WUI [U`I P[E N[ff ZKHUH P LV WKH /DJUDQJLDQ PXOWLSOLHU )LUVW RUGHU FRQGLWLRQV VROYH WR f If UfPNIf>[nEUE [nEUf [rUI [fUfI@ f IK Uf PIf>[nUW! [nEUN [nU [nUfI@ f IW UI>[nEUE [nEUE [nIU [nUfI@ f I U>[fEUE [nfUE [fIU [nUfI@ 7KLV DOVR PD\ EH H[SUHVVHG DV f [A[$[A[A\I UEPNIfIE UEPIfIf UUII UI

PAGE 65

,I P LV SRVLWLYH WKH FRQVWUDLQW LV HIIHFWLYH ,I LW LV QHJDWLYH LW LV QRW DQG WKH SURGXFHU RSWLPL]DWLRQ LV HIIHFWLYHO\ XQFRQVWUDLQHG &RPSDUH WKLV ZLWK WKH XQFRQVWUDLQHG SURGXFHU RSWLPL]DWLRQ f [U [WUW [UI [UfI UVIE UfIK [MI UI *LYHQ D ZHOOEHKDYHG SURGXFWLRQ IXQFWLRQ DQG DVVXPLQJ QR VFDOH HIIHFW DQ HIIHFWLYH UHVWULFWLRQ RQH IRU ZKLFK P LV SRVLWLYHf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

PAGE 66

&+$37(5 (9$/8$7,1* 0($16 0$5
PAGE 67

'DWD $ ILUP EXGJHW IRU D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH 0DU\ODQG EURLOHU RSHUDWLRQ ZDV FRPSLOHG XVLQJ GDWD IURP SXEOLVKHG VRXUFHV HVSHFLDOO\ D EURLOHU FRVW DQG UHWXUQV EXGJHW IRU E\ WKH 86'$fV (FRQRPLF 5HVHDUFK 6HUYLFH DQG 'HOPDUYD EURLOHU EXGJHWV HVWLPDWHG DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 'HODZDUH (56 *HPSHVDZ HW DO *HPSHVDZ HW DO *HPSHVDZ DQG %KDUJDYD *HPSHVDZ HW DO f 7DEOH (IIHFWV RI EURLOHU GHQVLW\ RQ ERG\ ZHLJKW DQG IHHG FRQYHUVLRQ 'HQVLW\ %RG\ ZHLJKW Jf )HHG &RQYHUVLRQ 6WG GHYf 6WG GHYf f f f f f f f f 6RXUFH &UDYHQHU 7/ HW DO %URLOHU 3URGXFWLRQ 8QGHU 9DU\LQJ 3RSXODWLRQ 'HQVLWLHV LQ 3RXOWU\ 6FLHQFH 'DWD IURP SRXOWU\ VFLHQFH UHVHDUFK ZHUH XVHG WR UHSUHVHQW WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ KRXVLQJ GHQVLW\ RQ WKH RQH KDQG DQG ERG\ ZHLJKW DQG IHHG HIILFLHQF\ RQ WKH RWKHU KDQG &UDYHQHU HW DO f 7KH H[SHULPHQWDO UHVXOWV DIWHU VHYHQ ZHHNV RI IRXU GLIIHUHQW SRSXODWLRQ GHQVLWLHV DUH LQFRUSRUDWHG LQWR WKH PRGHO 7KH IHHG HIILFLHQF\ UHVXOWV DUH

PAGE 68

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

PAGE 69

7KH JURZHUfV YDULDEOH H[SHQVHV LQFOXGH FRVWV ZKLFK YDU\ LQ SURSRUWLRQ WR WKH QXPEHU RI IORFNV VHW DQG FRVWV ZKLFK YDU\ LQ SURSRUWLRQ WR WKH QXPEHU RI ELUGV VHW &RVWV IRU IXHO DQG HOHFWULFLW\ DQG OLWWHU DUH DVVXPHG WR YDU\ ZLWK WKH QXPEHU RI IORFNV VHW ZKLFK ZH IXUWKHU DVVXPH WR EH SHU KRXVH SHU \HDU ([SHQVHV IRU KLUHG ODERU RSHUDWLQJ ORDQ LQWHUHVW DQG DQ RWKHU SURGXFWLRQ FRVWVf FDWHJRU\ LQFOXGLQJ LQVHFWLFLGHV GLVLQIHFWDQWV URGHQW FRQWURO OLJKW EXOEV DQG RWKHU XWLOLWLHV DUH WDNHQ WR EH YDULDEOH ZLWK WKH QXPEHU RI ELUGV VHW 7KH JURZHUfV IL[HG H[SHQVHV DUH FRQVWDQW SHU KRXVH 7KHVH DUH WKH LQWHUHVW SD\PHQWV RQ WKH IL[HG LQYHVWPHQW LQ WKH KRXVH DQG HTXLSPHQW WKH SD\PHQW WR ODQG UHSDLUV DQG PDLQWHQDQFH DQG WD[HV 7KH LQWHJUDWRUf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fV IHHG FRVW YDULHV ZLWK ERWK WKH QXPEHU RI ELUGV VHW DQG WKH DYHUDJH DPRXQW RI IHHG FRQVXPHG E\ HDFK ELUG 7KLV DYHUDJH FRQVXPSWLRQ LV D IXQFWLRQ LQ WXUQ RI WKH IHHG FRQYHUVLRQ UDWLR DQG WKH DYHUDJH ZHLJKW 7KH IHHG FRVW WKHQ DW HDFK GHQVLW\ ZDV FDOFXODWHG DV IHHG HIILFLHQF\ WLPHV ERG\ ZHLJKW WLPHV WKH SULFH JLYHQ E\ WKH 86'$ VWXG\ FHQWV SHU SRXQGf (DFK RI WKH RWKHU UHODWLRQVKLSV LV PDGH H[SOLFLW

PAGE 70

LQ WKH WDEOHV EHORZ VKRZLQJ WKH PRGHOfV UHVXOWV 7KLV LV WKH QRQOLQHDU HOHPHQW RI WKH FRVW DQDO\VLV $QDO\VLV LV EDVHG XSRQ XQLW FRVW PLQLPL]DWLRQ 7KH RULJLQDO LQWHQWLRQ IRU WKLV ZRUN ZDV WR PRGHO WKH SURILWDELOLW\ RI WKH FRQWUDFW JURZHU RYHU WLPH EXW WKLV SUHVHQWHG VHYHUDO SUREOHPV HVSHFLDOO\ D WKHRUHWLFDO LQFRQVLVWHQF\n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fV PDUNHW FRPSOLFDWHV WKLV DSSOLFDWLRQ /RRNHG DW IURP WKH IDUP OHYHO LJQRULQJ IRU WKH PRPHQW LQFRQVLVWHQFLHV ZLWK RXU WKHRUHWLFDO FRQFOXVLRQVf WKH JURZHU FRQWUDFW HOLPLQDWHV PXFK RI WKH JURZHUfV ULVN DQG )RU VXFK DQLPDO LQGXVWULHV DV FRQWLQXH WR FRQVLVW RI WUDGLWLRQDO ILUP SURILW PD[LPL]HUV VXFK DV EHHI GDLU\ RU XQWLO UHFHQW \HDUV SRUN D SURILW PD[LPL]DWLRQ DSSURDFK ZRXOG EH DSSURSULDWH

PAGE 71

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f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

PAGE 72

LQFRQVLVWHQF\ LV WR EH H[SHFWHG VLQFH WKH DFWXDO SURGXFWLRQ EDVHOLQH UHVXOWV ZHUH QRW REVHUYHG XQGHU WKH VDPH H[SHULPHQWDO FRQGLWLRQV DV WKH IRXU H[SHULPHQWDO GHQVLWLHV 7KLV QRUPDOL]DWLRQ WR WKH EDVHOLQH VFHQDULR LV QHFHVVDU\ WR HVWLPDWH FKDQJHV LQ FRPPHUFLDO SURGXFWLRQ FRVWV WR EH H[SHFWHG IURP WKH LPSRVLWLRQ RI WKH H[SHULPHQWDO GHQVLWLHV 7$%/( &RVW RI 3URGXFWLRQ 6LPXODWLRQ 3URGXFWLRQ 3DUDPHWHUV P P &XUUHQW 'HQVLW\ P P 'HQVLW\ P9ELUG +RXVH DUHD P )L[HG LQYHVWPHQW P %LUGVKRXVH f +RXVHV /DQG DFUHV )ORFNV\HDU $YJ PRUWDOLW\ b )HHG HIILFLHQF\ UDWLR QRUPDOL]HGf $YJ ELUG ZHLJKW J f J QRUPDOL]HGf /RQJWHUP LQW UDWH b 2SHUDWLQJ ORDQ UDWH b 3URGfQKRXVH\HDU NJ 7DEOH FRQWDLQV HVWLPDWHG WRWDO SURGXFWLRQ FRVWV SHU KRXVH SHU \HDU )L[HG FRVWV DUH RI FRXUVH XQFKDQJHG )XHO DQG HOHFWULFLW\ DQG OLWWHU DUH XQFKDQJHG DV WKH\ YDU\ E\ RQO\ ZLWK WKH QXPEHU RI IORFNV VHW DQG WKDW LV DVVXPHG IL[HG DW VL[

PAGE 73

7$%/( &RVW RI 3URGXFWLRQ 6LPXODWLRQ 7RWDO $QQXDO &RVWV SHU +RXVH P P &XUUHQW 'HQVLW\ P P *52:(5 9$5,$%/( &2676 3(5 +286( 3(5 <($5 )XHO t (OHFWULFLW\ /LWWHU +LUHG /DERU OFELUGf 2SHUDWLQJ ORDQ LQWHUHVW 2WKHU SURGXFWLRQ FRVWV 727$/ *52:(5 ),;(' &2676 3(5 +286( 3(5 <($5 /DQG SD\PHQWV ,QWHUHVW RQ IDFLOLW\ 5HSDLUVPDLQWHQDQFH 7D[HV 727$/ ,17(*5$725 &2676 3(5 +286( 3(5 <($5 )HHG NJf &KLFNV ELUGf 0HGLFLQH 9DFFLQDWLRQ ELUGf &DWFK t +DXO ELUGf &RQGHPQDWLRQV ELUGf )LHOG 6HUYLFHV ELUGf 727$/ 727$/ &2676 &+$1*( ,1 727$/ f f

PAGE 74

+LUHG ODERU RSHUDWLQJ ORDQ LQWHUHVW DQG RWKHU JURZHU SURGXFWLRQ H[SHQVHV YDU\ GLUHFWO\ ZLWK WKH QXPEHU RI ELUGV GHILQHG E\ HDFK GHQVLW\ &RVWV RI FKLFNV PHGLFLQH DQG YDFFLQDWLRQ FDWFK DQG KDXO FRQGHPQDWLRQV DQG ILHOG VHUYLFHV DPRQJ LQWHJUDWRU FRVWV DOVR YDU\ GLUHFWO\ ZLWK WKH QXPEHU RI ELUGV GHILQHG E\ HDFK GHQVLW\ (DFK RI WKHVH FRVWV LV D OLQHDU IXQFWLRQ RI WKH QXPEHU RI ELUGV ZKLFK LV LQ WXUQ DQ LQYHUVH IXQFWLRQ RI WKH VSHFLILHG GHQVLWLHV 7KH LQWHJUDWRUfV IHHG FRVW LQ FRQWUDVW LV HTXDO WR WKH QXPEHU RI ELUGV VHW WLPHV WKH VXUYLYDO UDWH WLPHV WKH DYHUDJH ILQLVKHG ELUG ZHLJKW WLPHV WKH DYHUDJH IHHG FRQYHUVLRQ UDWLR WLPHV WKH JLYHQf SULFH RI IHHG SHU NLORJUDP ,W LV WKLV FRVW LQWR ZKLFK WKH H[SHULPHQWDO GDWD RI 'U &UDYHQHU DQG FROOHDJXHV HQWHUV 7DEOH VKRZV WKH VDPH FRVWV SHU NLORJUDP RI ILQLVKHG OLYHZHLJKW EURLOHU 6HH 7DEOH f 7RWDO SURGXFWLRQ LQ NLORJUDPV LV WKH QXPEHU RI ELUGV VHW WLPHV WKH VXUYLYDO UDWH WLPHV WKH DYHUDJH ILQLVKHG ERG\ ZHLJKW 7KLV LV WKH GHQRPLQDWRU IRU WKH XQLW FRVWV SUHVHQWHG LQ WKLV WDEOH DQG WKH RWKHU ZD\ LQ ZKLFK WKH &UDYHQHU GDWD HQWHUV WKH DQDO\VLV 'HQVLW\ KDV WZR HIIHFWV RQ XQLW FRVWV 8QLW FRVWV DUH LQFUHDVHG DV ORZHU GHQVLW\ FDXVHV IL[HG DQG TXDVLIL[HG LQSXW FRVWV WR EH VSUHDG RYHU IHZHU ELUGV XQLW FRVWV DUH ILUVW GHFUHDVHG WKHQ LQFUHDVHG DJDLQ DV ORZHU GHQVLW\ KDV ILUVW D SRVLWLYH WKHQ D QHJDWLYH HIIHFW RQ ERWK IHHG HIILFLHQF\ ZKLFK IDOOV DJDLQ DIWHU VTXDUH PHWHUVf DQG DYHUDJH ERG\ ZHLJKW ZKLFK IDOOV DIWHU VTXDUH PHWHUVf 7KH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWH WKDW XQLW FRVW LV ORZHVW DW VTXDUH PHWHUV SHU ELUG DPRQJ WKH IRXU H[SHULPHQWDO GHQVLWLHV $JDLQ WKDW WKLV LV FORVH WR WKH REVHUYHG GHQVLW\ RI KHOSV WR YDOLGDWH ERWK WKH H[SHULPHQWDO UHVXOWV DQG WKH PRGHO DV D ZKROH

PAGE 75

7$%/( &RVW RI 3URGXFWLRQ 6LPXODWLRQ &RVWV SHU .LORJUDP P P &XUUHQW 'HQVLW\ P P 9$5,$%/( *52:(5 &2676 )XHO t (OHFWULFLW\ /LWWHU +LUHG /DERU 2SHUDWLQJ ORDQ LQWHUHVW 2WKHU SURGXFWLRQ FRVWV 727$/ ),;(' *52:(5 &2676 /DQG SD\PHQWV ,QWHUHVW RQ IDFLOLW\ 5HSDLUVPDLQWHQDQFH 7D[HV 727$/ ,17(*5$725 &2676 )HHG &KLFNV 0HGLFLQH DQG 9DFFLQDWLRQV &DWFK DQG +DXO &RQGHPQDWLRQV )LHOG 6HUYLFHV 727$/ 727$/ 81,7 &267 &+$1*( ,1 81,7 &267

PAGE 76

*URZHU ,PSDFWV 7KH 'HODZDUH UHVHDUFKHUV FLWHG DERYH WUHDW SURGXFWLRQ DFURVV WKH 'HOPDUYD SHQLQVXOD DV LGHQWLFDO SUHVXPDEO\ EHFDXVH LW LV D UHODWLYHO\ VPDOO DUHD ZLWK VLPLODU UHVRXUFH HQGRZPHQWV DFURVV HDFK RI WKH WKUHH VWDWHVf SRUWLRQV *LYHQ WKLV DVVXPSWLRQ QHZ LQYHVWPHQW LQ 0DU\ODQG EURLOHU KRXVHV ZLOO FHDVH LI PLQLPXP KRXVLQJ GHQVLWLHV LQ WKDW VWDWH ZHUH WR EH IL[HG DW RU VTXDUH PHWHUV SHU ELUG RU DQ\ RWKHU OHYHO VLJQLILFDQWO\ DERYH WKH FRVW PLQLPL]LQJ GHQVLW\ ZKLFK LV SUHVXPHGO\ WKH FXUUHQW GHQVLW\ RI 7KLV LV D WULYLDO UHVXOW DVVXPLQJ DOVR WKDW WKH ODQG RFFXSLHG E\ WKH JURZHU RSHUDWLRQ LV YDOXHG E\ WKH PDUNHW IRU LWV YDOXH WR VRPH RWKHU OHVV SURGXFWLYH XVHf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

PAGE 77

,I DV ZH KDYH DVVXPHG WKH EURLOHU KRXVH IDFLOLW\ LV GXSOLFDEOH WKHQ OLNH DQ\ LQWHUPHGLDWH LQSXW LQ D FRPSHWLWLYH PDUNHW LWV FRVW RI UHSODFHPHQW ZKLFK LV HTXDO WR LWV XVH YDOXH RYHU WLPH RU WKH SUHVHQW YDOXH RI LWV VWUHDP RI PDUJLQDO SURGXFWV ZKLFK ZH PD\ DSSUR[LPDWH DV f 9 903W U RU SXW DQRWKHU ZD\ f 903f N r U ZKHUH 903f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f WR WKH SURGXFWLRQ SURFHVV DQG VR OLPLWLQJ WKH YROXPH RI SURGXFWLRQ 7KH UHGXFHG SUHVHQW YDOXH RI DQQXDO SURGXFW SOXV WKH SUHVHQW YDOXH RI WKH UHGXFWLRQ RI DQQXDO SURGXFW LV HPEHGGHG LQ WKH HFRQRPLF YDOXH RI WKH IDFLOLW\ DVVXPLQJ QR RWKHU XVH YDOXHf DQG FDQ EH H[SUHVVHG DV f F}FfF\f\fffU ZKHUH LV GHSUHFLDWLRQ &R LV WKH EDVHOLQH ORQJUXQ FRVW RI SURGXFWLRQ ZKLFK DOVR VHUYHV HIIHFWLYHO\ DV WKH YDOXH RI SURGXFWLRQ JLYHQ WKH ]HUR SURILWV ZH PD\ DVVXPH RI WKH

PAGE 78

JURZHUf FZ LV ZHOIDUHFRQVWUDLQHG FRVW RI SURGXFWLRQ LQFOXGLQJ WKH RULJLQDO VXQN FRVW RI WKH IDFLOLW\f \ LV EDVHOLQH SURGXFWLRQ \} LV WKH ZHOIDUH FRQVWUDLQHG SURGXFWLRQ DQG U LV WKH IXWXUH GLVFRXQW UDWH 7KH GHSUHFLDWLRQ RI D IDFLOLW\ XQGHU HDFK GHQVLW\ UHTXLUHPHQW LV SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH $W WKH b ORQJWHUP LQWHUHVW UDWH DVVXPHG LQ WKH PRGHO WKLV IDFLOLW\ ZLOO ORVH b RI LWV YDOXH XQGHU D VTXDUH PHWHUV SHU ELUG UHVWULFWLRQ $W D WRWDO ORVV RI HFRQRPLF YDOXH LV VXIIHUHG 7$%/( 'HSUHFLDWLRQ RI )L[HG ,QYHVWPHQW E\ GHQVLW\ P P &XUUHQW 'HQVLW\ P P ,QFUHDVH LQ YDULDEOH FRVWV f f 2ULJLQDO FRVWNJ &KDQJH LQ DQQXDO SURG NJ f f 'HSUHFLDWLRQ IL[HG LQYHVWPHQW $W b $W b b b b b b b $W b $W b b b b b b b $W b $W b b b b b b b 7KH LPSDFW RI VXFK GHSUHFLDWLRQ RQ WKH IDFLOLW\fV HFRQRPLF OLIH GHSHQGV XSRQ LWV QDWXUDO HFRQRPLF GHSUHFLDWLRQ :KHQHYHU DJH DQG WHFKQLFDO REVROHVFHQFH SXVKHG WKH KRXVHfV YDOXH RI PDUJLQDO SURGXFW EHORZ ]HUR SURGXFWLRQ ZRXOG FHDVH

PAGE 79

7KH LPSDFWV XSRQ 0DU\ODQGfV EURLOHU VHFWRU LQ WKH DJJUHJDWH FRXOG EH VXEVWDQWLDO $VVXPLQJ WKH PRGHO WR EH UHSUHVHQWDWLYH RI 0DU\ODQG EURLOHU SURGXFWLRQ WKH IL[HG LQYHVWPHQW IRU WKH VWDWHfV WRQV RI SURGXFWLRQ LQ ZDV DERXW 7KH GHSUHFLDWLRQ FDOFXODWHG IURP WKH PRGHOfV UHVXOWV ZRXOG WUDQVODWH LQWR GHSUHFLDWLRQ RI PLOOLRQ DW VTXDUH PHWHUV SHU ELUG PLOOLRQ DW DQG PLOOLRQ RU b RI LQYHVWPHQWf DW 7KLV PHDQV WKDW D UHVWULFWLRQ RI VTXDUH PHWHUV SHU ELUG ZRXOG PDNH SURGXFWLRQ XQHFRQRPLF HYHQ FRQVLGHULQJ IL[HG LQYHVWPHQW DV VXQN FRVW $ VTXDUH PHWHU UHVWULFWLRQ ZRXOG FDXVH SURGXFWLRQ WR FHDVH DV HDFK IDFLOLW\fV HFRQRPLF GHSUHFLDWLRQ UHDFKHG b RI RULJLQDO LQYHVWPHQW WKDW LV ZKHQ WKH YDOXH RI LWV PDUJLQDO SURGXFW IDOOV EHORZ b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fV 5HJLRQDO ,QSXW 2XWSXW 0RGHOLQJ 6\VWHP RU 5,06 ,, 7KH\ DUH EDVHG RQ WKH %HQFKPDUN 1DWLRQDO ,QSXW2XWSXW 7DEOH DQG UHJLRQDO GDWD 7KLV PHDQV WKDW WKH EDVLF IUDPHZRUN DQDO\VLV IRU WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI LQGXVWULHV LV EDVHG RQ QXPEHUV DQG WKDW WKH QXPEHUV LQSXW IRU 0DU\ODQGfV (DVWHUQ 6KRUH ZHUH IRU 'HSDUWPHQW RI &RPPHUFH f

PAGE 80

7KH LQLWLDO YDOXH RI WRQV RI OLYHZHLJKW EURLOHUV DW RXU HVWLPDWHG EDVHOLQH FRVW RI SURGXFWLRQ RI LV 7KLV LV WKH YDOXH E\ ZKLFK GHOLYHU\ WR ILQDO GHPDQG LV UHGXFHG XQGHU D VTXDUH PHWHUV FRQVWUDLQW 7KH HVWLPDWHG VKRUWUXQ SURGXFWLRQ RI WRQV DW VTXDUH PHWHUV YDOXHG DW WKH VDPH FRVW RI SURGXFWLRQ VLQFH WKH QDWLRQDO VXSSO\ LV DVVXPHG WR EH LQILQLWHO\ HODVWLF DW WKDW SULFHf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f E\ WKH SRXOWU\ DQG HJJV VHFWRU LQ 0DU\ODQGfV (DVWHUQ 6KRUH 7KH HDUQLQJV PXOWLSOLHU LV WKH WRWDO GROODU FKDQJH LQ HDUQLQJV RI KRXVHKROGV HPSOR\HG E\ DOO LQGXVWULHV IRU HDFK DGGLWLRQDO GROODU RI RXWSXW GHOLYHUHG WR ILQDO GHPDQG E\ WKH VHFWRU 7KH HPSOR\PHQW PXOWLSOLHU LV WKH

PAGE 81

QXPEHU RI MREV LQ WKH UHJLRQ GLUHFWO\ DQG LQGLUHFWO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK HDFK PLOOLRQ GROODUV RI DGGLWLRQDO RXWSXW GHOLYHUHG WR ILQDO GHPDQG E\ WKDW VHFWRU $FFRUGLQJ WR WKHVH HVWLPDWHV KRXVHKROG HDUQLQJV GLUHFWO\ DQG LQGLUHFWO\ GHSHQGHQW RQ WKH EURLOHU LQGXVWU\ DUH HTXDO WR b RI SHUVRQDO LQFRPH LQ WKH HLJKW FRXQWLHV RI &DUROLQH 'RUFKHVWHU .HQW 4XHHQ $QQHnV 6RPHUVHW 7DOERW :LFRPLFR DQG :RUFHVWHU 'HSDUWPHQW RI &RPPHUFH VHH 7DEOH f (YHQ WKH ORVV RI KRXVHKROG HDUQLQJV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH VTXDUH PHWHU FRQVWUDLQW LV HTXDO WR b RI WKH UHJLRQfV KRXVHKROG HDUQLQJV 7KHVH DUH WKH KXPDQ FRVWV RI DQLPDO ZHOIDUH RQ WKH (DVWHUQ 6KRUH ,W LV WR EH H[SHFWHG WKDW WKH LPSDFW RI D VLQJOH VWDWHf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f ,Q D ROLJRSVRQLVWLF PDUNHW VXFK DV FRQWUDFW EURLOHU SURGXFWLRQ WKH LQWHJUDWRU FDQ LPSRVH DOPRVW DOO RI WKH FRVWV RI IDFLOLW\ GHSUHFLDWLRQ UHODWHG WR DQLPDO ZHOIDUH XSRQ WKH JURZHU $VLGH IURP FRVWV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH VKRUWUXQ GHFOLQH LQ SURGXFWLRQ FDSDFLW\ WKHUH VKRXOG EH QR FRQVXPHU LPSDFW

PAGE 82

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f &KLFNHQ %RG\ ZHLJKW RUGHUf f f f f f f f f +RZHYHU DV 0DU\ODQGf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

PAGE 83

SURGXFWLRQ XQHFRQRPLF 7KLV PHDQV WKHQ WKDW D VTXDUH PHWHU UHVWULFWLRQ ZRXOG KDYH QR LPSDFW RQ WKH ZHOIDUH RI EURLOHU FKLFNHQV VLQFH ELUGV JURZQ LQ RWKHU VWDWHV LQVWHDG RI 0DU\ODQG ZRXOG EH UDLVHG DW WKH EDVHOLQH GHQVLW\ $GGLWLRQDO &RQVLGHUDWLRQV 7KH LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ VWDWHVf DQLPDO ZHOIDUH UHVWULFWLRQV RQ FRPSHWLQJ VWDWH LQGXVWULHV RSHQV XS DQ QHZ VHW RI FRQVLGHUDWLRQV WR EH DGGUHVVHG DV D SUREOHP LQ JDPH WKHRU\ (DFK VWDWHfV FKRLFH RI RXWFRPHV ZRXOG EH FRQGLWLRQHG E\ HDFK FRPSHWLQJ VWDWHfV GHFLVLRQ )RU H[DPSOH WKH VHYHUH UHVWULFWLRQ RI EURLOHU SURGXFWLRQ E\ ERWK 0DU\ODQG DQG 9LUJLQLD ZRXOG E\ VKLIWLQJ SURGXFWLRQ WR 'HODZDUH JUHDWO\ LQFUHDVH 'HODZDUHfV HFRQRPLF VWDNH LQ WKH LQGXVWU\ 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG 'HODZDUHfV GHFLVLRQ ZRXOG DOVR KDYH D PXFK JUHDWHU SRWHQWLDO LPSDFW RQ ZHOIDUH RQFH WKH RWKHU VWDWHV KDG FORVHG WKH GRRU WR H[LVWLQJ SURGXFWLRQ PHWKRGV 8QOLNH PRVW RWKHU FRQIOLFWV EHWZHHQ DQLPDO DJULFXOWXUH DQG WKH JHQHUDO SRSXODWLRQ VXFK DV RYHU RGRU QRLVH RU HVSHFLDOO\ ZDWHU TXDOLW\ DQLPDO ZHOIDUH LVVXHV DUH QRW LQ SULQFLSOH D QRW LQ P\ EDFN \DUGf FRQFHUQ 2QH VKRXOG QRW H[SHFW DQ DQLPDO ZHOIDULVW WR EH VDWLVILHG LI DOO WKH IDFWRU\ IDUPV PRYH RXW RI VWDWH 7KHUHIRUH LI WKH VXSSRUWHUV RI VXFK D ORFDO PHDVXUH DV D VWDWH EURLOHU VSDFH UHTXLUHPHQW ZLVKHG WR PD[LPL]H WKH ZHOIDUHf RI D ODUJH QXPEHU RI ELUGV WKH\ ZRXOG PRVW UDWLRQDOO\ SURPRWH D UHVWULFWLRQ WKDW DFKLHYHG VRPH EDODQFH EHWZHHQ LQGLYLGXDO ELUG ZHOIDUH DQG SURGXFWLRQ SURILWDELOLW\ VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW D ORFDO VFDOH IRU FROOHFWLYH DQLPDO ZHOIDUH DFWLRQ LV FRQGXFLYH WR D EDODQFHG SHUKDSV QHJRWLDWHG FRPSURPLVH %\ FRQWUDVW

PAGE 84

QDWLRQDO UHJXODWLRQ FRXOG DGRSW WKH H[WHQVLYH FRPPDQG DQG FRQWURO DSSURDFK VR SRSXODU ZLWK WKH SURPRWHUV RI HYHU PRUH FROOHFWLYH DFWLRQ 7KHUH ZRXOG EH QR FKHFN RQ VXFK UHJXODWLRQ H[FHSW WKH YHU\ GLOXWHG FKHFN RI YRWHU DQG FRQWULEXWRUf GLVVDWLVIDFWLRQ 6XSSRUW IRU WKDW DOWHUQDWLYH )HGHUDO UHJXODWLRQ PXVW RYHUFRPH WKH FRQVLGHUDEOH UHVLVWDQFH RI DJULFXOWXUHfV GLVSURSRUWLRQDWH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ LQ WKH 86 6HQDWH D ERG\ ZKRVH WUDGLWLRQDO UROH LV DIWHU DOO WR JLYH D SODFH WR FDXWLRQ LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI JRYHUQPHQW 2QO\ )HGHUDO UHJXODWLRQ ZLWK HIIHFWLYH SURWHFWLRQ IRU DQLPDOIULHQGO\ SURGXFWLRQ ZRXOG HOLPLQDWH WKH VWDWH YHUVXV VWDWH JDPH DVSHFW RI WKH SROLF\ GHFLVLRQ OHDGLQJ KRZHYHU WR LQWHUQDWLRQDO JDPHV RI FKLFNHQ LI \RX ZLOO

PAGE 85

&+$37(5 &21&/86,216 $ PDQ PD\ ZHOO EULQJ D KRUVH WR WKH ZDWHU %XW KH FDQQRW PDNH KLP GULQNH ZLWKRXW KH ZLOO -RKQ +H\ ZRRG f %DUWOHWW f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f SODFH LQ KXPDQ VRFLHW\ ,QWULQVLFf GHILQLWLRQV PXVW EH VXEMHFWLYH 7KH\ LQYLWH VXFK DEXVHV DV WKH 6RYLHW XVH RI PHQWDO DV\OXPV WR GHQ\ WKH ULJKWV RI SROLWLFDO RSSRQHQWV RU DOWHUQDWLYHO\ WKH DUELWUDU\ LQFOXVLRQ RI WKH ORZHVW DQLPDOV ZKLFK FDQ EH VXEMHFWLYHO\f MXGJHG DV WKH LQWULQVLF HTXDO RI WKH PRVW GHELOLWDWHG KXPDQ

PAGE 86

5LJKWV DQG DOO PRUDOLW\ PXVW EH GHILQHG LQ IXQFWLRQDO WHUPV 7KH FOHDU DQG XQGHQLDEO\ REMHFWLYH GHILQLWLRQ RI WKH KXPDQ VSHFLHV IURP RWKHU VSHFLHV FDQ IXQFWLRQDOO\ GHILQH ULJKWVKROGHUV VR WKDW RQ WKH RQH KDQG DOO KXPDQV PD\ EH FRQILGHQW RI WKHLU SODFH DQG RQ WKH RWKHU WKH VRFLDO FRQWUDFW LV QRW H[WHQGHG WR RWKHU VSHFLHV ZKR FDQQRW EH UHDVRQDEO\ H[SHFWHG WR FRQWULEXWH E\ WKHLU YROXQWDU\ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ 1R V\VWHP RI ULJKWV LV VXVWDLQDEOH ZKLFK GRHV QRW ZRUN VR ZRUNDELOLW\ PXVW EH D SULRULW\ LQ GLVFXVVLQJ V\VWHPV RI ULJKWV ,W VKRXOG EH XQGHUVWRRG WKHUHIRUH WKDW WKH VXVWDLQDELOLW\ RI DQ\ V\VWHP RI SURWHFWLRQV IRU DQLPDOV PXVW EH JURXQGHG LQ ZKDWHYHU KXPDQ HQGV DUH VHUYHG E\ WKRVH SURWHFWLRQV ,I ZH SURWHFW DQLPDOV LW LV TXLWH UHDVRQDEO\ EHFDXVH ZH GHULYH VKRUW DQG ORQJWHUP EHQHILWV IURP GRLQJ VR LI ZH GR QRW LW LV MXVW DV UHDVRQDEO\ EHFDXVH ZH ILQG WKDW WKH FRVWV RXWZHLJKW WKRVH EHQHILWV )RU WKLV UHDVRQ HFRQRPLF DQDO\VHV RI WKH KXPDQ FRVWV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK DQLPDO SURWHFWLRQV DUH QRW RQO\ MXVWLILHG EXW PXVW EH WKH EDVLV IRU DQ\ LQIRUPHG GHFLVLRQ RQ DQLPDO ZHOIDUH 6RFLDO DQG 3ROLWLFDO 3URFHVVHV 3XEOLF FKRLFH WKHRU\ E\ DSSO\LQJ HFRQRPLF PHWKRGV WR SROLWLFDO SURFHVVHV RIIHUV XVHIXO DQDO\VHV RI WKRVH SURFHVVHV $ EULHI FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI GHPRJUDSKLF DQG FRQVWLWXWLRQDO LVVXHV LQ WKLV ZRUN OHDGV WR D FRQFOXVLRQ DERXW WKH W\SH RI MXULVGLFWLRQ ZKLFK LV PRVW OLNHO\ WR LPSOHPHQW SLRQHHULQJ DQLPDO ZHOIDUH PHDVXUHV 6XFK D MXULVGLFWLRQ FRQWDLQV D FRPPLWWHG DQLPDO ZHOIDUH PRYHPHQW GHSHQGLQJ XSRQ D FRQVWLWXWLRQDO DUUDQJHPHQW ZKLFK DOORZV WKH ZHDN SUHIHUHQFH RI DQ XUEDQ DQG VXEXUEDQ PDMRULW\ WR

PAGE 87

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fV RU HDFK SHUVRQfVf ZHOIDUH 7R WKH H[WHQW WKDW ZH FKRRVH WR DJJUHJDWH ZHOIDUH DFURVV DQLPDOV ZH DUH DVVXPLQJ WKHP WR EH LGHQWLFDO 7KLV LV QRW DQ XQUHDVRQDEOH DVVXPSWLRQ LQ PDQ\ DQLPDO SURGXFWLRQ FRQWH[WV

PAGE 88

3HU DQLPDO SURGXFWLYLW\ LV RQO\ RQH DPRQJ VHYHUDO URXJK LQGLFHV RI DQLPDOVf SK\VLFDO ZHOOEHLQJ ,W LV DW OHDVW DV JRRG DV WKH UHVW DQG KDV WKH DQDO\WLFDO EHQHILW WKDW LW PD\ EH LQWHJUDWHG LQWR WKH IUDPHZRUN RI HFRQRPLF SURGXFWLRQ DQDO\VLV ,Q WKLV IUDPHZRUN ZH FDQ PDNH GLUHFW FRPSDULVRQV RI SURGXFWLRQ V\VWHPV LQ WHUPV RI ERWK WKH SHUDQLPDO SURGXFWLYLW\ DQG WKH XQLW FRVW RI DQLPDO RXWSXW 5HVXOWV DQG 6XJJHVWLRQV IRU )XUWKHU 5HVHDUFK 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH TXDQWLWDWLYH DQDO\VLV LQ WKLV ZRUN EHDU RXW WKH WKHRUHWLFDO FRQFOXVLRQV 7KHUH LV VRPH WUDGHRII EHWZHHQ DQLPDO ZHOIDUH DQG KXPDQ FRVWV DOWKRXJK WKHLU RSWLPD PD\ EH FORVHU WRJHWKHU WKDQ LV EHOLHYHG 7KH PHWKRGV RI WKLV TXDQWLWDWLYH DQDO\VLV FDQ ZLWK OLWWOH GLIILFXOW\ EH DGDSWHG WR DQDO\VLV RI DQ\ DQLPDO ZHOIDUH PHDVXUH ZKRVH LPSDFW RQ WKH SURGXFWLRQ IXQFWLRQ LV XQGHUVWRRG $SSOLFDWLRQ WR D SURILW PD[LPL]LQJ ILUP LQ RWKHU PHDW SURGXFWLRQ LQGXVWULHV LV PRUH FRPSOLFDWHG EXW LV VWDQGDUG WR SURGXFWLRQ HFRQRPLFV ZLWK RQO\ WKH LQQRYDWLRQ RI REVHUYLQJ SHU DQLPDO SURGXFWLYLW\ DV DQ LQGH[ RI ZHOIDUH $GGLWLRQDO WKRXJKW PXVW EH JLYHQ WR WKH FKDQJHV LQ DQLPDO JHQHWLFV $V EUHHGLQJ DQG QHZ JHQHWLF WHFKQRORJLHV WDNH HDFK DQLPDO IDUWKHU IURP WKH JHQHWLF FRPSRVLWLRQ GHILQHG E\ HYROXWLRQ ERG\ ZHLJKW DQG UHSURGXFWLYH VXFFHVV UHTXLUH FORVHU H[DPLQDWLRQ DV PHDVXUHV RI ZHOIDUH LQ DQ HYROXWLRQDU\ FRQWH[W 7KH UHVKDSLQJ RI DQLPDOV E\ PDQ GRHV DIWHU DOO FRPSOLFDWH WKLV DQDO\VLV

PAGE 89

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

PAGE 90

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

PAGE 91

5()(5(1&(6 $EGDOOD &KDUOHV : /HV ( /DQ\RQ DQG 0LOWRQ & +DOOEHUJ :KDW :H .QRZ $ERXW +LVWRULFDO 7UHQGV LQ )LUP /RFDWLRQ 'HFLVLRQV DQG 5HJLRQDO 6KLIWV 3ROLF\ ,VVXHV IRU DQ ,QGXVWULDOL]LQJ $QLPDO 6HFWRU LQ $PHULFDQ -RXUQDO RI $JULFXOWXUDO (FRQRPLFV 'HFHPEHU f SS $EGDOOD &KDUOHV : DQG -DPHV 6KDIIHU 3ROLWLFV DQG 0DUNHWV LQ WKH $UWLFXODWLRQ RI 3UHIHUHQFHV IRU $WWULEXWHV RI WKH 5DSLGO\ &KDQJLQJ )RRG DQG $JULFXOWXUDO 6HFWRUV )UDPLQJ WKH ,VVXHV LQ -RXUQDO RI $JULFXOWXUDO DQG $SSOLHG (FRQRPLFV -XO\ f SS $QLPDO :HOIDUH ,QVWLWXWH $QLPDOV DQG WKHLU /HJDO 5LJKWV WK (GLWLRQ :DVKLQJWRQ %DFRQ -5 &0 *HPSHVDZ ,, 6XSLWDQLQJVLK +DQNLQV 7KH (FRQRPLFV RI %URLOHU *UDLQ DQG 7URXW 3URGXFWLRQ DV D 5LVN 'LYHUVLILFDWLRQ 6WUDWHJ\ LQ $TXDFXOWXUH f SS %DUU\ 3HWHU 6WHYHQ 7 6RQND DQG .DRXWKDU /DMLOL 9HUWLFDO &RRUGLQDWLRQ )LQDQFLDO 6WUXFWXUH DQG WKH &KDQJLQJ 7KHRU\ RI WKH )LUP LQ $PHULFDQ -RXUQDO RI $JULFXOWXUDO (FRQRPLFV 'HFHPEHU f SS %DUWOHWW -RKQ HG )DPLOLDU 4XRWDWLRQV WK HGLWLRQ %RVWRQ ff&RZf f1XQf 3URWHVW 3DSDO 9LVLW &LW\ 3DSHU RI %DOWLPRUH 2FWREHU S &UDLJ -9 DQG $: $GDPV %HKDYLRU DQG :HOOEHLQJ RI +HQV LQ $OWHUQDWLYH +RXVLQJ (QYLURQPHQWV &RQWULEXWLRQ 1R 'HSDUWPHQW RI $QLPDO 6FLHQFHV DQG ,QGXVWU\ .DQVDV $JULFXOWXUDO ([SHULPHQW 6WDWLRQ 0DQKDWWDQ .DQVDV &UDLJ -9 DQG -& 6ZDQVRQ 5HYLHZ :HOIDUH 3HUVSHFWLYHV RQ +HQV .HSW IRU (JJ 3URGXFWLRQ 3RXOWU\ 6FLHQFH f SS &UDYHQHU 7/ :% 5RXVK DQG 00 0DVKDO\ %URLOHU 3URGXFWLRQ XQGHU 9DU\LQJ 3RSXODWLRQ 'HQVLWLHV LQ 3RXOWU\ 6FLHQFH f SS

PAGE 92

&XUWLV 6WDQOH\ ( $QLPDO ZHOIDUH DQG LWV LPSDFW RQ DQLPDO DJULFXOWXUH LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHVf D SDSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH &RQIHUHQFH RQ (PHUJLQJ ,VVXHV LQ $QLPDO $JULFXOWXUH $SULO 'DUZLQ &KDUOHV 7KH 'HVFHQW RI 0DQ 'DZNLQV 5LFKDUG 7KH 6HOILVK *HQH QG HG 2[IRUG 'HSDUWPHQW RI )RRG DQG $JULFXOWXUH &RPPRQZHDOWK RI 0DVVDFKXVHWWV 0LVFHOODQHRXV ILOHV DQG FRQYHUVDWLRQV ZLWK RIILFLDOV 'XQFDQ ,DQ -+ 0HDVXULQJ 3UHIHUHQFHV DQG WKH 6WUHQJWK RI 3UHIHUHQFHVf 3RXOWU\ 6FLHQFH f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f SS *HPSHVDZ &RQUDGR 0 DQG 6ZDWL %KDUJDYD ,QWHUUHJLRQDO 3URILWDELOLW\ $QDO\VLV RI &RQWUDFW %URLOHU *URZHU ,QYHVWPHQW 'HFLVLRQV LQ 3RXOWU\ 6FLHQFH f SS *HPSHVDZ & ) $OED\ DQG %DFRQ )UHH 7UDGH DQG %URLOHU *URZRXW 5HWXUQV LQ 3RXOWU\ 6FLHQFH f SS *XLWKLHU +DUROG DQG 9DQ %XHU 0LFKHOOH 7KH (FRQRPLFV DQG 3ROLWLFV RI $QLPDO :HOIDUH DQG $QLPDO 5LJKWV 7KH ,PSOLFDWLRQV IRU )DUP 0DQDJHPHQW DQG 0DUNHWLQJ (FRQRPLVWV SUHVHQWHG DW )DUP 0DQDJHPHQW DQG 0DUNHWLQJ ([WHQVLRQ :RUNVKRS 6W /RXLV 0D\

PAGE 93

+LFNV -RKQ 9DOXH DQG &DSLWDO QG (G 2[IRUG +LOO -$ ,QGLFDWRUV RI 6WUHVV LQ 3RXOWU\ :RUOGfV 3RXOWU\ 6FLHQFH -RXUQDO )HEUXDU\ f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
PAGE 94

1DUYHVRQ -DQ $ 'HIHQVH RI 0HDW (DWLQJf LQ 6LQJHU DQG 5HJDQ HG 1R]LFN 5REHUW $QDUFK\ 6WDWH DQG 8WRSLD 3HRSOH IRU WKH (WKLFDO 7UHDWPHQW RI $QLPDOV )DFWVKHHWV REWDLQHG IURP WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQfV :RUOG :LGH :HE VLWH KWWSZZZHQYLUROLQNRUJDUUVSHWDIVYHJKWP WKURXJK IVYHJOKWP 3HRSOH IRU WKH (WKLFDO 7UHDWPHQW RI $QLPDOV 1RUIRON 9LUJLQLD 3(7$f $QQXDO )LQDQFLDO 6WDWHPHQWV IRU DQG 1DWLRQDO $JULFXOWXUDO 6WDWLVWLFV 6HUYLFH 1$66f 3RXOWU\ 3URGXFWLRQ DQG 9DOXH 6XPPDU\ 5HOHDVHG 0D\ $JULFXOWXUDO 6WDWLVWLFV %RDUG 86 'HSDUWPHQW RI $JULFXOWXUH 5DFKHOV -DPHV 'DUZLQ 6SHFLHV DQG 0RUDOLW\ LQ 5HJDQ DQG 6LQJHU 5HJDQ 7RP $OO 7KDW 'ZHOO 7KHUHLQ $QLPDO 5LJKWV DQG (QYLURQPHQWDO (WKLFV %HUNHOH\ 5HJDQ 7RP DQG 3HWHU 6LQJHU HG $QLPDO 5LJKWV DQG +XPDQ 2EOLJDWLRQV QG HG (QJOHZRRG &OLIIV 15REELQV /LRQHO $Q (VVD\ RQ WKH 1DWXUH t 6LJQLILFDQFH RI (FRQRPLF 6FLHQFH QG HG /RQGRQ > VW HG @ 6LPSVRQ -DPHV 5 DQG %HUQDUG ( 5ROOLQ (FRQRPLF &RQVHTXHQFHV RI $QLPDO 5LJKWV 3URJUDPV -RXUQDO RI %XVLQHVV (WKLFV f SS 6LQJHU 3HWHU $OO $QLPDOV DUH (TXDO LQ 5HJDQ DQG 6LQJHU HGV 6LQJHU 3HWHU $QLPDO /LEHUDWLRQ QG (G 1HZ
PAGE 95

7KRPSVRQ 3DXO % DQG 6WDQOH\ &XUWV )DUP $QLPDO :HOIDUH DQG $QLPDO 5LJKWVf LQ (WKLFV 3XEOLF 3ROLF\ DQG $JULFXOWXUH HG 3DXO % 7KRPSVRQ HW DO 1HZ
PAGE 96

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

PAGE 97

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f§f§A F L / &OWAXAVU 6 ‘ 4-FMIFUf§Drf§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

PAGE 98

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n'H£ &ROOHJH RI $JULFXOWXUH 'HDQ *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO

PAGE 99

/' & A 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$


58
minimization per unit of production upon the grower through integrator-determined inputs
and prices.
It is clear, then, that the integrator is the defining decision maker in the
production process, and that it will be more useful to treat broiler production as subject
to unit-cost minimization.
Constrained Contract Broiler Optimization
Consider, then, the effective imposition of the same per-bird housing requirement
upon per unit cost minimization, fixing a minimum ratio (k) of housing inputs to birds
(x/xb). The integrators constrained optimization, again assuming the constraint is
binding, is
(34) Max(Prof/y) = {p(f(xb,xh,xf,x.) xrb xbr xfrf xlr1¡/f(xb,x,xf,x,),
s.t. xs kx,, = 0.
The Lagrangian function for this optimization is
(35)
L = {pf xrb xbrb xtrf x,r,}/f m(xb kx),
where m is the Lagrangian multiplier. First order conditions solve to
(36)
f = (r-mkf)/[(x'brb + x'br + x*,rf + xr,)/f]
(37)
fh = (r + mf)/[(x'6rt> + x'brk + x'(r, + x',r,)/f]
(38)
ft = rf/[(x'brb + x'brb + x'fr, + x'r,)/f]
(39)
f, = r,/[(xbrb + x'rb + xfr, + x'r,)/f].
This also may be expressed as
(40) (x^+xA+x^+x^yf = (rb-mkf)/fb = (rb+mf)/f = rr/ff = r,/f,.


65
otherwise complicates analysis. Considered at the level of the integrator, stochasticity in
the individual broiler house becomes negligible as the number of integrator-contracted
houses grows very large; unit cost minimization is the aim, over many grower contracts
and in the long run.
Constraints
Space per bird was established in Chapter 4 as the restriction to be considered.
This is expressed in the model by holding the size of the houses constant and varying the
number of birds. This is reasonable for an analysis of impacts upon existing operations.
Based on the cost relationships and the experimental production data described
above, total and per kilogram costs are calculated for a number of birds per house
corresponding to the experimental densities, demonstrating the potential effect of each
density on unit cost and, by implication from per bird productivity, on welfare.
Results
The model and the models results are presented in Tables 6, 7, and 8.
Table 6 shows in more detail the parameters of the model. As noted above, these
are a composite of the numbers presented in several studies, as are the cost of production
numbers. The current, or baseline, density of 0.0744 square meters per bird is based on
this composite baseline and is presented for comparison. Its production parameters are
not directly comparable to the experimental results, so the experimental body weights and
feed efficiency results were normalized for consistency with the baseline; this


70
Grower Impacts
The Delaware researchers cited above treat production across the Delmarva
peninsula as identical, presumably because it is a relatively small area with similar
resource endowments across each of the three states portions. Given this assumption,
new investment in Maryland broiler houses will cease if minimum housing densities in
that state were to be fixed at .09 or .11 square meters per bird, or any other level
significantly above the cost minimizing density which is, presumedly, the current density
of .074. This is a trivial result (assuming, also, that the land occupied by the grower
operation is valued by the market for its value to some other, less productive, use.)
The model estimates the increase in total and per unit production costs to be
expected from a space constraint upon production. Obviously, those densities so high as
to raise unit costs will not be applied, as they serve the purpose of neither the grower nor
the animal welfarist.
Depreciation or abandonment of existing facilities, on the other hand, will depend
upon the specific costs associated with each density. Again given competition from
unconstrained and otherwise identical producers in neighboring states, all increases in the
unit cost of production will be capitalized into the value of existing facilities. Facilities
will be abandoned when their value in broiler production becomes negative.
Within the present cost minimization analysis and given the existence of the
opportunity to duplicate the baseline scenario in Delaware or Virginia, depreciation of a
Maryland facility may be calculated from these cost of production numbers.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
ABSTRACT vii
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Problem Statement 2
Research Objectives 4
2 PHILOSOPHICAL CONTEXT: DEFINING ENDS 6
The Academic Mainstream 6
Animal Welfare and Human Ends 16
3 POLITICAL CONTEXT: DEFINING THE MARKET 19
The Movement 20
Public Opinion 23
Democratic Processes 26
Animal Welfare: A Public Choice 31
4 WELFARE, RIGHTS, AND THE BROILER INDUSTRY 35
The Maryland Broiler Industry 36
Potential Restrictions 42
5 AN ECONOMIC THEORY OF ANIMAL WELFARE:
DEFINING MEANS 45
Defining Welfare 45
Welfare and Production 49
Welfare Maximization 50
Firm Profit Maximization 51
Constrained Firm Profit Maximization 52
Contract Broiler Optimization 54
Constrained Contract Broiler Optimization 58
6 EVALUATING MEANS: MARYLAND BROILERS 60
Data 61
IV


11
equality with humans, and "postulates" a theory of animal rights to support this belief,
in the same way that a theory of human rights has been postulated to support the more
consistent ends of human protection from arbitrary authority. (Regan 1982, p. 90)
Libertarian political philosopher Robert Nozick has argued that animals must have
equal consideration on the basis of a similar and similarly presupposed moral theory,
according to which he finds no moral basis for differentiating man from other species.
He makes an analogy to human enslavement by superior space aliens in support of his
argument: if we would consider such an enslavement immoral, we should so consider
our enslavement of animals. This argument, however, appeals to our self-interest; we
would perceive a violation of our well-being in an alien enslavement rather than an
immoral act. This concern for our own well-being, in fact, must be an important
consideration, if not the original basis for any moral theory, just as it provides the basis
for economic science.
Professor Nozick recognizes the gap left in his work (and the work of Drs. Singer
and Regan) by the absence of an explanation for his moral theory. "The completely
accurate statement of the moral background, including the precise statement of the moral
theory and its underlying basis, would require a full-scale presentation and is a task for
another time.... That task is so crucial, the gap left without its accomplishment so
yawning, that it is only a minor comfort to note that we here are following the
respectable tradition of Locke, who does not provide anything remotely resembling a
satisfactory explanation of the status and basis of the law of nature in his Second


LD
1780
1997
. C 9^7
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08556 5991


47
these supporters of the preference approach will define the inconsistency as an exception
to their general rule, and acknowledge that the health promoting alternative represents a
higher level of welfare. (Duncan 1992)
Since the 1960s, many researchers have attempted to define the overall well-being
of animals by the presence or absence of physiological stress, as measured by a specific
bio-chemical response. The long-held assumption that all stressors produce identical
physiological responses in the higher animals (i.e. stimulation of the pituitary and adrenal
cortex) has now been abandoned. There are, in fact, no physiological responses that are
consistently correlated with all stressors, so that stressors must ultimately be defined as
those factors which produce long-term negative impacts on physical well-being. (Hill
1983) In addition, significant observation effects related to the handling of animals for
measurement purposes can seriously confound results. (Craig and Adams 1983) As with
behavior and preferences, those supporting the use of physiological indicators of stress
to measure overall well-being define as exceptions to their general rule those cases in
which physical well-being is not consistent with the measured level of their indicators.
(Hill 1983) In addition, some stress, especially early in life, has been shown to advance
long-term welfare by promoting adaptations which allow the animal to better cope with
other, later stressors. (Craig and Swanson 1994) In the absence of a consistent
physiological response, the concept of stress as a measure of well-being is tautological,
as well-being simply becomes the absence of stress.
The most consistent, measurable, and scientifically legitimate indicator of animal
well-being is the productivity of the animal. Since productivity, measured by mortality,


ANIMAL WELFARE: ENDS AND MEANS
By
ROGER CRYAN
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
1997


22
Finally, United Poultry Concerns, dedicated to the "effort to establish more
humane treatment of poultry and a healthier lifestyle," collected over $80,000 in 1995.
Among their activities were protesting a Flonda ad depicting a chicken unable to cross the
road fast enough to avoid a speedy Prelude; placing 25 large paid advertisements in
Washingtons subway system decrying chickens exclusion from legal animal welfare
protection; holding a vegetarian Thanksgiving dinner in Frederick, Maryland, to publicize
the alternative to turkey; picketing the annual Maryland Gamefowl Breeders Association
Crabfeast to protest cockfighting; distributing 10,000 brochures against the ostrich and
emu trade; conducting mourning vigils for chickens; and providing poultry-friendly
teaching materials to science teachers. (United Poultry Concerns 1996)
In addition, many groups promoting a soft animal welfare message in their fund
raising, emphasizing protections for dogs and cats and curbs on use of lab animals for
cosmetics testing, in fact promote vegetarianism, veganism and severe restrictions on
animal agriculture in their other activities.
For example, the Humane Society of the United States has, since 1993, conducted
a "public-education initiative to heighten awareness of the impact our food choices have
on humans, animals, and the Earth." The Society "discourages people from buying food
produced by factory farms where animals are raised in completed confinement.... The
campaign promotes the three Rs: refining the food you eat by purchasing only organic,
and humanely and sustainably obtainable products; reducing the consumption of animal
products; and replacing animal products with grains, beans, vegetables, and fruits."
(H.S.U.S. 1997) In a 1990 address, President John A. Hoyt of the H.S.U.S. explicitly


77
production uneconomic. This means, then, that a. 11 square meter restriction would have
no impact on the welfare of broiler chickens, since birds grown in other states instead of
Maryland would be raised at the baseline density.
Additional Considerations
The interaction between states animal welfare restrictions on competing state
industries opens up an new set of considerations to be addressed as a problem in game
theory. Each states choice of outcomes would be conditioned by each competing states
decision. For example, the severe restriction of broiler production by both Maryland and
Virginia would, by shifting production to Delaware, greatly increase Delawares
economic stake in the industry. On the other hand, Delawares decision would also have
a much greater potential impact on welfare once the other states had closed the door to
existing production methods.
Unlike most other conflicts between animal agriculture and the general population,
such as over odor, noise, or, especially, water quality, animal welfare issues are not, in
principle, a "not in my back yard concern. One should not expect an animal welfarist
to be satisfied if all the "factory farms" move out of state.
Therefore, if the supporters of such a local measure as a state broiler space
requirement wished to maximize the "welfare of a large number of birds, they would
most rationally promote a restriction that achieved some balance between individual bird
"welfare" and production profitability, suggesting that a local scale for collective animal
welfare action is conducive to a balanced, perhaps negotiated, compromise. By contrast,


39
There has been a steady trend since 1959 toward industrial concentration in the
sector, with a few large integrated companies controlling larger and larger shares of
production, in order to take advantage of economies of scale in processing and marketing.
(See Table 2.) These companies control all aspects of production and processing directly
or indirectly. Indirect control of the growing out of broilers is maintained by the
contract under which independent operators produce the grown bird. These large
integrators typically hatch eggs from purchased breeding stock, and harvest, process, and
market the grown birds. The integrators provide the growers with nearly all inputs to
production, including feed, chicks, veterinary services, and production advice. The
growers own only the broiler houses (often built to integrator specification) and
equipment, and provide the labor, management, and capital-related expenses. (Knoeber
and Thurman 1995, Lasley et al. 1988)
These large integrated processors have returns to scale and size so great that there
is no effective market for live broilers. "Due to integration in the industry, there is no
farm-level broiler price, so the USDA constructs a farm-level equivalent price by
subtracting estimated processing and marketing costs from observed retail prices."
(Knoeber and Thurman 1995, p.492.) The four largest integrators in 1990 controlled
41.2% of production nationally. (Knoeber and Thurman 1995)
The grower operation is concerned with the growth of the birds from the setting
of a flock of integrator provided chicks to their catching, after seven weeks of growth,
of four-pound birds, ready for slaughter and processing.


15
community. Since morality is based on mans historical competition with other species,
there exists no rationally definable natural basis for the inclusion of animals a priori and
for their own sake.
Rational morality, to meet its human ends, must be concerned with functional, not
intrinsic values. Human institutions are valued for their functions and depend upon the
reciprocity implicit in the social contract; the inclusion of all humans in this contract
("government of the people, by the people, and for the people") serves a functional
human purpose.
The inclusion of animals on a comparable basis, on the other hand, will not serve
the same purpose, since animals cannot be expected to reciprocate morally. In order to
be functionally sustainable, evolutionarily or socially, the degree of animals inclusion
in human society must based on some human purpose. Jan Narveson (1989) argues on
this basis for the exclusion of animals from the social contract. At least as important is
the other half of the argument, that all humans must be included in the social contract in
order to guarantee against the arbitrary exclusion of any. It is the clear line between our
own species and the rest that provides the only consistent functional definition of full
members of society. To use Dr. Regans word, a system of rights must be postulated
extending to all humans and only humans in order to provide a moral theory that will
functionally guarantee human interests. The clear and natural boundary between man and
all other species is the only solid footing on the slippery slope of exclusion. It is
functionally necessary to make that distinction, for the good of the human species; and
the good of the species, according to Professor Darwin, is the mandate of nature.


7
welfare and animal rights start from a weakly defined position with an under-developed
foundation.
The Academic Mainstream
More importantly for this research, defining the philosophies driving the demands of the
animal welfare and rights movement is vital to framing the economic question; without
understanding the ends pursued, one cannot adequately evaluate the means necessary to
those ends.
The most influential writers on the topic have been Peter Singer, who demands
improved conditions for farm and other animals on the basis of equal consideration in
an utilitarian system, and Tom Regan, who argues that animals are entitled to rights
which are comparable or identical to those of humans. These two writers have largely
set the philosophical terms of the broader debate about animals moral status in human
society; this can be seen in the extensive critical literature devoted to the slight difference
between the routes each takes to reach the same practical conclusions. (Thompson and
Curtis 1994)
Peter Singer argues that animals are entitled to equal consideration with humans
on the basis of their physical capacity to suffer and the lack of an intrinsic distinction
between humans and animals. This argument for our equal consideration of animals rests
upon three premises. First, suffering is intrinsically evil; second, animal suffering is
morally indistinguishable from our own; and third, because suffering is evil, human
tiresome repetition of such phrases as man and woman or human beings.


51
(9)
5(y/x)/<5x, = f,/x = 0
solve to
(10)
fb = f/Xb
(ID
4 = f, = f, = 0.
That is, the marginal product of additional birds is equal to the average product per bird,
and the housing, feed, and labor inputs are used until their marginal product is null. This
optimum can be achieved if it is assumed that the per-bird productivity returns to the non
bird inputs diminish to zero (or, more practically, become statistically indistinguishable
from zero)3. The cost of production will be x"br + x'rb + xfrf + x*r where x, is the
welfare-maximizing level of input i, and r, is the given price of input i.
Such an optimization, of course, is both theoretically and practically inconsistent
with profitable farming, as has been confusedly pointed out by most critics of animal
productivity as a index of animal welfare. It does, however, offer a useful starting point
for considering the relationship between welfare and profitability.
Firm Profit Maximization
The production firm described in standard economic theory faces a production
technology, such as that stated above, and a set of market input and output prices, and
maximizes firm profits;
3 It should be further understood that the productivity of animal welfare can only
reasonably be seen as indicative of ordinal utility, and that attempts to compare different
increments of utility/growth along the production function or to compare the welfare of
two significantly different chickens would be unscientific and irrelevant to economic
analysis.


72
grower), cw is welfare-constrained cost of production (including the original, sunk cost
of the facility), y0 is baseline production, y is the welfare constrained production, and
r is the future discount rate.
The depreciation of a $138,089 facility under each density requirement is
presented in Table 9. At the 6% long-term interest rate assumed in the model, this
facility will lose 45.3% of its value under a .09 square meters per bird restriction. At
.11a total loss of economic value is suffered.
TABLE 9. Depreciation of $139,089 Fixed Investment, by density
.05 m2
.07 m2
Current
Density
.09 m2
.11m2
Increase in variable
costs:
$73,286
$10,075
$0
($23,906)
($44,790)
Original cost/kg
$0.563
$0.563
$0.563
$0.563
$0.563
Change in annual
prod., kg
124,764
16,552
0
(49,117)
(98,511)
Depreciation, fixed investment:
At 8%, $
$37,765
$9,413
$0
$46,946
$133,620
At 8%, %
27.3%
6.8%
0.0%
34.0%
96.8%
At 6%, $
$50,354
$12,550
$0
$62,594
$178,160
At 6%, %
36.5%
9.1%
0.0%
45.3%
129.0%
At 4%, $
$75,531
$18,825
$0
$93,891
$267,240
At 4%, %
54.7%
13.6%
0.0%
68.0%
193.5%
The impact of such depreciation on the facilitys economic life depends upon its
natural economic depreciation. Whenever age and technical obsolescence pushed the
houses value of marginal product below zero, production would cease.


63
The growers variable expenses include costs which vary in proportion to the
number of flocks set, and costs which vary in proportion to the number of birds set.
Costs for fuel and electricity and litter are assumed to vary with the number of flocks set,
which we further assume to be 6 per house per year. Expenses for hired labor, operating
loan interest, and an "other production costs category including insecticides,
disinfectants, rodent control, light bulbs, and other utilities, are taken to be variable with
the number of birds set.
The growers fixed expenses are constant per house. These are the interest
payments on the fixed investment in the house and equipment, the payment to land,
repairs and maintenance, and taxes.
The integrators costs are all variable. The cost of chicks, medication and
vaccination, catch and haul, condemnations, and field services are all taken as variable
with the number of birds set. This consistency of cost per bird from setting to hauling
is based upon the experimental evidence that the effect on the rate of mortality from the
variations in density that we consider here is not statistically significant; this means that
the number of birds caught and hauled will be in constant proportion to the number of
birds set.
The integrators feed cost varies with both the number of birds set and the average
amount of feed consumed by each bird. This average consumption is a function in turn
of the feed conversion ratio and the average weight. The feed cost, then, at each density
was calculated as feed efficiency times body weight times the price given by the 1992
USDA study (16.28 cents per pound). Each of the other relationships is made explicit


9
the greatest happiness for non-human animals, man is denied the opportunity to pursue
his own interest. Utilitarianism cannot provide an objective basis for social order among
men; and it certainly cannot among species.
Dr. Singers second premise links mans interest to that of animals by denying any
fundamental intrinsic difference between men and animals that could provide any moral
basis for disregarding the interests of animals. (Singer 1990, p.237)2 In effect, he adopts
the position of eighteenth century utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham that the basis
for utilitarian consideration "is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they
suffer?"(p.7) That is, he identifies all suffering and decides on that basis that animals are
entitled to equal consideration with humans. Human unwillingness to grant that
consideration is therefore a form of bigotry Dr. Singer calls, after Richard Ryder,
speciesism. (Singer 1989; Ryder 1972)
Like Dr. Singer, Tom Regan (1982) denies mans right to make a moral
distinction between humans and animals based on the absence of an intrinsic difference
between humans and animals, further arguing that animals are entitled to whatever legal
and human rights that they are capable of enjoying. Dr. Regan asserts each animals
right to pursue its own interests as the subject of a life on the basis of its ability to value
those interests, an assertion for which he draws explicitly from Dr. Singers arguments
for animals capacity to suffer. This leads to his claim for animals equal consideration
and independent legal standing in human society.
2 In this, Dr. Singer is lifting himself by his boot straps, since his rejection of
traditional moral theory relies upon that theory for its foundation.


49
The field of economic history, in fact, has adopted physical height as the best
index of the former well-being of the mute dead. Graves are now robbed in the name
of economic science, bones are measured, and the deceased are returned, confident that
their feet and inches have revealed what their mouths never will, namely their welfare
relative to their shorter ancestor or taller descendent. (Steckel 1995) If these economists
can evaluate welfare from the bones of the dead and make comparisons across vast
genetic, geographic, and chronological diversity, then we can certainly find value in such
an index among genetically homogenous broilers in the same building at the same time,
with the only difference the conditions of their captivity.
Another, more common, criticism of productivity as a measure of animal welfare
comes from critics confusion of animal productivity with profitability. (Craig and Adams
1983; Curtis 1988) The relationship between profitability and productivity, and their
different implications for animal well-being, is our next consideration.
Welfare and Production
For those animals for which the identity of measurable welfare with measurable
health, and so with per animal productivity, has been established, an economic evaluation
of welfare can easily be conceived in the context of microeconomic production theory.
The theory of the firm provides a framework for considering animal welfare in
relation to human costs. The relationship between cost and welfare can be established
theoretically under both welfare and profit maximization.


41
where production is concentrated; a large impact upon production would have a large
general impact upon those counties.
Table 3. Broilers: Production, Price, and Value by State and Total, 19951,2
State
1,000
Birds
1,000
Pounds
Price/Lb.3
Value of
Production
($1,000)
AL
900,000
4,230,000
.340
1,438,200
AR
1,107,300
4,982,900
.355
1,768,930
CA
235,800
1,179,000
.325
383,175
DE
263,100
1,394,400
.340
474,096
GA
1,070,000
5,136,000
.345
1,771,920
MD
295,700
1,360,200
.340
462,468
MS
644,000
2,962,400
.335
992,404
NC
670,100
3,417,500
.340
1,161,950
TX
395,200
1,746,800
.370
646,316
VA
260,100
1,196,500
.335
400,828
FL
139,800
615,100
.355
218,361
US
7,325,670
34,222,000
.344
11,762,222
'December 1, 1994, through November 30, 1995.
2Broiler production including other domestic meat-type breeds.
Liveweight equivalent prices, derived from ready-to-cook (RTC) prices using the
following formulas: (RTC price minus processing cost) X (dressing percentage) =
liveweight equivalent price.
Excludes States producing less than 500,000 birds.
Source: "Poultry Production and Value Summary", Released May 2, 1996, by the
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.


Table 4. Maryland Broiler Production and Farms by Size
Countv
All
Farms
Birds
Sold
1 -
1,999
2,000-
59,999
60,000-
99,999
100,000-
199,999
200,000
499,999
500,000
or more
1993Pers. Inc.
($1,000)
1995
Population
Caroline
152
35,549,391
0
10
17
51
63
ii
425,678
29,072
Dorchester
79
19,672,412
0
3
9
11
51
5
518,868
30,170
Kent
9
2,156,824
0
0
1
3
4
1
381,664
18,736
Queen Anne's
30
8,599,198
0
0
1
1\
21
1
776,523
36,992
Somerset
187
48,523,355
0
22
17
53
75
20
327,719
24,431
Talbot
28
8,014,902
o1
1
0
7
15
5
881380
32,405
Wicomico
322
76,497,668
1
27
57
901
119
29
1,413,816
79,256
Worcester
258
57,407,806
1
15
46
81
98
17
816,561
39,946
Eastern Shore
1,065
256,421,556
1
78
148
303
446
89
5,542,209
291,008
All other cos.
44
788,107
38
2
1
2
1
0
112,995,479
4,751,430
Maryland
1,109
257,209,663
39
80
149
305
447
89
118,537,688
5,042,438
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1994.
-p*
-p*


I certify that I have ready this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Thomas Spreen, Chair
Professor of Food and Resource Economics
I certify that I have ready this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
R. Jeffrey Burkhardt
Professor of Food and Resource Economics
I certify that I have ready this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
octor o;
a
cSo^ c
i L. Clt^u^sr
S"3- QJcjfcra*-
Rodney
Professor of Food and Resource Economics
I certify that I have ready this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Johiyjblt
Professor of Food and Resource Economics
I certify that I have ready this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of (
f (Doctor of Philosophy.
\WuSW
David Mulkey
Professor of Food and Resource Economics


36
The Maryland Broiler Industry
The application of modem mass production techniques to the broiler industry since
the 1950s and 1960s makes that industry a particularly useful case study in the
consideration of animal welfare. Almost inevitably, this industrialization represents the
future of commercial livestock production in the United States, as may be suggested by
more recent changes in hog and beef production. Other animal sectors are still in a
transition to what will more closely resemble the broiler industry.
According to one argument, the capital intensity of modem meat production, by
reducing the need for land, along with improvements in transportation of feedstuffs,
should lead increasingly to the efficient location of pork, beef, and other animal
production facilities nearer to urban centers. (Abdalla 1995) This has the potential to put
animal farms within the jurisdiction of animal-concerned constituencies.
However, the natural economic efficiencies of this movement are often outweighed
by the poor image such modem facilities seem to have in the eyes of urban and suburban
populations with respect to other aspects of the "factory farm." These difficulties are
generally associated with odor, unsightliness (in contrast to the "picture book" farms of
old or of imagination), and the risks of surface and groundwater pollution associated with
the large volumes of animal waste necessarily processed in large animal operations. Of
course, animal welfare is another of these concerns.
As such public perceptions lead to the redefinition of property rights, broiler and
other livestock industries will face increasing scrutiny. Proximity to cities and suburbs


61
Data
A firm budget for a representative Maryland broiler operation was compiled using
data from published sources, especially a broiler cost and returns budget for 1992 by the
U.S.D.A.s Economic Research Service and Delmarva broiler budgets estimated at the
University of Delaware (ERS 1993; Gempesaw et al. 1994; Gempesaw et al. 1992;
Gempesaw and Bhargava 1990; Gempesaw et al. 1989.)
Table 5. Effects of broiler density on body weight and feed conversion
Density
Body weight (g.)
Feed Conversion
(Std. dev.)
(Std. dev.)
0.05
1895
2.25
(226.7)
(0.085)
0.07
2001
2.20
(261.9)
(0.065)
0.09
2064
2.22
(230.6)
(0.060)
0.11
2055
2.33
(293.5)
(0.139)
Source: Cravener, T.L., et al. "Broiler Production Under Varying Population
Densities," in Poultry Science 1992, 71:427-433.
Data from poultry science research were used to represent the relationship between
housing density, on the one hand, and body weight and feed efficiency, on the other hand
(Cravener et al. 1992). The experimental results after seven weeks of four different
population densities are incorporated into the model. The feed efficiency results are


CHAPTER 2
PHILOSOPHICAL CONTEXT: DEFINING ENDS
Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and
increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall
upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every
creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea;
they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be
food for you. Just as 1 have given you the green plants, I now give you
everything. Genesis 9:1-3
Animal agriculture traditionally has been based upon an acceptance of the priority
of human interests within the natural world, including the belief that human interests
should rule human actions. Another, increasingly common, view of the role of animals
in human society would place the intrinsic interests of animals, and even plants and
natural systems, on a comparable footing with human interests, leading its advocates to
an ethical conclusion that man must yield some part of his interest to the rest of the
natural world. Effecting such an ethic would have considerable human costs, and begs
innumerable questions about methods and results.
From a philosophical standpoint, the animal welfare issue is both fascinating and
useful, since it demands a fundamental consideration of the ends of morality. Mans
moral relationship to animal can only be clarified in the context of mans moral
relationship to man.' The current conventional philosophical arguments for animal
' The author begs that the reader excuse the politically incorrect but traditional use
of man when referring generally to the human race as a preferable alternative to the
6


8
society is obliged to minimize it in all forms. If one accepts these premises as defining
necessary human ends, it is indeed a trivial conclusion that human society must give
consideration to the pain and pleasure of animals equal with that given to the pain and
pleasure of humans. (Singer 1989, 1990) Because they are taken as given by Dr. Singer,
each of these three premises must be questioned.
The first and third are the bases for utilitarian philosophies generally. Utilitarians
hold that society should maximize the sum of happiness across individuals. This requires
the feasibility of interpersonal comparisons of utility and denies the individuals unique
qualifications to pursue his own ends. That such comparisons have no scientific
legitimacy is a tenet of economic science. (Robbins 1935; Hicks 1946; Gardner 1995,
p. 19) The valuations necessary for a utilitarian balancing of ends would therefore be so
arbitrary as to deny the efficiency of liberty without effecting a scientifically justifiable
utility maximization. This is rather more a conclusion of economic science than an
argument of philosophy, but serves both purposes.
This standard criticism of utilitarianism as an economic philosophy becomes
clearer when applied to Dr. Singers formulation of measurable comparability of utility
among species. In fact, he believes that society can determine the amount of pain or
pleasure a particular practice causes a farm animal, directly compare that to the pain or
pleasure which thereby accrues to humans, and dictate whether that practice shall
continue. (Singer 1989) The pursuit of such a weighted utility objective by an utilitarian
state depends upon the arbitrary criteria by which that state measures the individual
happiness of each man and each beast. On the basis of what others claim will produce


64
in the tables below showing the models results. This is the non-linear element of the
cost analysis.
Analysis is based upon unit cost minimization. The original intention for this
work was to model the profitability of the contract grower over time, but this presented
several problems, especially a theoretical inconsistency.' First and as discussed earlier,
the grower does not face a given set of prices; regulatory constraints on his production
are likely to result in new contract terms, dictated by the integrator and aimed at unit cost
minimization under the new conditions. Second, the contractual nature of broiler
production, by eliminating the discovery of an effective farm level market price, makes
the necessarily dependent estimation of profits speculative at best and meaningless at
worst. Third, the broiler house is a duplicable unit of production which, in many senses,
eliminates economies of scale at the levels of both the contract grower and the integrator.
Analysis of unit cost neatly answered both the theoretical and the practical needs
of this study. It is consistent with the present theoretical framework, it is a simpler and,
consequently, more flexible analytical approach, and it does not depend upon an unknown
or non-existent farm-level market price for finished broilers.
The model, as presented, is static. The addition of a stochastic element was
considered but, again, the contractual nature of the growers "market" complicates this
application. Looked at from the farm level (ignoring for the moment inconsistencies with
our theoretical conclusions), the grower contract eliminates much of the growers risk and
1 For such animal industries as continue to consist of traditional firm profit
maximizers, such as beef, dairy, or, until recent years, pork, a profit maximization
approach would be appropriate.


80
Rights, and all morality, must be defined in functional terms. The clear and
undeniably objective definition of the human species from other species can functionally
define rights-holders so that, on the one hand, all humans may be confident of their place
and, on the other, the social contract is not extended to other species who cannot be
reasonably expected to contribute by their voluntary participation. No system of rights
is sustainable which does not work, so workability must be a priority in discussing
systems of rights.
It should be understood, therefore, that the sustainability of any system of
protections for animals must be grounded in whatever human ends are served by those
protections. If we protect animals, it is, quite reasonably, because we derive short and
long-term benefits from doing so; if we do not, it is, just as reasonably, because we find
that the costs outweight those benefits. For this reason economic analyses of the human
costs associated with animal protections are not only justified, but must be the basis for
any informed decision on animal welfare.
Social and Political Processes
Public choice theory, by applying economic methods to political processes, offers
useful analyses of those processes. A brief consideration of demographic and
constitutional issues in this work leads to a conclusion about the type of jurisdiction which
is most likely to implement pioneering animal welfare measures. Such a jurisdiction
contains a committed animal welfare movement depending upon a constitutional
arrangement which allows the weak preference of an urban and suburban majority to


82
Per animal productivity is only one among several rough indices of animals
physical well-being. It is at least as good as the rest, and has the analytical benefit that
it may be integrated into the framework of economic production analysis. In this
framework we can make direct comparisons of production systems in terms of both the
per-animal productivity and the unit cost of animal output.
Results and Suggestions for Further Research
The results of the quantitative analysis in this work bear out the theoretical
conclusions. There is some trade-off between animal welfare and human costs, although
their optima may be closer together than is believed. The methods of this quantitative
analysis can, with little difficulty be adapted to analysis of any animal welfare measure
whose impact on the production function is understood. Application to a profit-
maximizing firm in other meat production industries is more complicated, but is standard
to production economics, with only the innovation of observing per animal productivity
as an index of welfare.
Additional thought must be given to the changes in animal genetics. As breeding
and new genetic technologies take each animal farther from the genetic composition
defined by evolution, body weight and reproductive success require closer examination
as measures of welfare in an evolutionary context. The reshaping of animals by man
does, after all, complicate this analysis.


Model 62
Constraints 65
Results 65
Grower Impacts 70
Regional Economic Impacts 70
Animal Welfare Impacts 75
Additional Considerations 77
7 CONCLUSIONS 79
Philosophy 79
Social and Political Processes 80
Economic Theory 81
Results and Suggestions for Further Research 82
Conclusions 83
REFERENCES 85
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 90
v


18
for animal protection for mans own sake; but these must be valued for what they are to
man, and not for what they are to other species.
In this context, it is appropriate to consider the benefits we wish to bestow upon
animals in light of the costs to human society. It is an indirect recognition of the
practical truth of this that many animal welfare appeals emphasize the slightness of the
sacrifice they claim is necessary to provide animals with welfare. (Singer 1990; Regan
1982; PETA 1995) Since such material factors are, ultimately, the criteria upon which
we will make these decisions, we should be more fully informed regarding them.


73
The impacts upon Marylands broiler sector in the aggregate could be substantial.
Assuming the model to be representative of Maryland broiler production, the fixed
investment for the states 690,000 tons of production in 1995 was about $278,000,000.
The depreciation calculated from the models results would translate into depreciation of
$101.5 million at .05 square meters per bird, $125.9 million at .09, and $278 million (or
100% of investment) at .11.
This means that a restriction of. 11 square meters per bird would make production
uneconomic, even considering fixed investment as sunk cost. A .09 square meter
restriction would cause production to cease as each facilitys economic depreciation
reached 54.7% of original investment; that is, when the value of its marginal product
falls below 45.3% of its initial value. In the short term, production would be directly
reduced from 690,000 to 582,600 tons at .09 square meters per bird due specifically to
the reduced capacity of the facilities; and, of course, at. 11 production would fall to zero.
Regional Economic Impacts
Assuming the baseline unit cost of production as a unit value, a loss in the value
of output delivered to final demand can be calculated and used to estimate impacts on the
Eastern Shore economy, using final-demand multipliers calculated by the Bureau of
Economic Analysis. These multipliers are the output of the Bureaus Regional Input-
Output Modeling System, or RIMS II. They are based on the 1987 Benchmark National
Input-Output Table and 1992 regional data. This means that the basic framework analysis
for the interaction of industries is based on 1987 numbers, and that the numbers input for
Marylands Eastern Shore were for 1992. (Department of Commerce 1997)


I certify that I have ready this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctqp/df Pt^loscmhy. j
7LM--1
ay/A. Buckltn
Professor of Agricultural and Biological Engineering
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of
Agriculture and the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Phijosophy.
December 1997
^'"De, College of Agriculture
Dean, Graduate School


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank the members of my degree committee variously for their intellectual,
personal, and, not least importantly, financial support through the long journey from start
to finish. Additional thanks are due to Michael Olexa, Conrado Gempesaw, Richard D.
Reynnells, and numerous other parties for their interest in, and contributions to, my
research.
I also acknowledge the lack of cooperation from others whose vertebral fortitude
was inadequate to participation in such "daring" work.


32
dependent upon farm constituencies, which are more geographically specific than the
dispersed supporters of animal welfare measures.
In contrast, isolated single issue votes by the general public favor the majority
above all, regardless of relative interest in the issues outcome. According to an
important theorem of public choice theory,
If x is a single-dimensional issue, and all voters have single-peaked preferences
defined over x, then xm, the median position, cannot lose under majority rule.
(Mueller 1989, p. 66)
This theorem is demonstrated in Figure 2, also from Mueller (1989). Each ''hill"
represents the preference of one voter for a provided quantity of some public good (x)
measured along the horizontal axis. The assumption of single-peaked preferences means
only that each voter has a single maximum preference for x (or for the x relative to its
direct costs, or opportunity costs in other public goods forgone), and that his preference
ordering falls monotonically as x is further from that peak. The position of the median
voter, represented by xm, cannot lose under majority rule because half the other voters
will always favor it over a smaller x, half will always favor it over a larger x, and the
median voter will always favor it, giving xm a majority against any alternative.
Applied to the animal welfare issue, the framers of a ballot initiative would wish
to define the most extreme position which will win a bare majority, so that in practical


71
If, as we have assumed, the broiler house facility is duplicable, then like any
intermediate input in a competitive market, its cost of replacement which is equal to its
use value over time, or the present value of its stream of marginal products, which we
may approximate as
(41) V, = VMPt / r
or put another way,
(42) VMP = k r
where VMP is the annual value of marginal product of the broiler house, k is the
cost of replacement, and r is the future discount rate. In this case the long-term interest
rate is an appropriate future discount rate, since it represents the opportunity cost of the
capital sunk into the facility.
An effective animal welfare constraint on cost-minimizing production will have
a dual effect on the value of the facilities marginal product The first component is a unit
cost of production effect, which depreciates the facility by making its production process
less efficient; the second component is a production effect, which reduces the value of
the facility by limiting the number of inputs (birds set) to the production process and, so,
limiting the volume of production. The reduced present value of annual product plus the
present value of the reduction of annual product, is embedded in the economic value of
the facility (assuming no other use value) and can be expressed as
(43) D = ((c-c0)-(c0(y-y0)))/r
where D is depreciation, Co is the baseline long-run cost of production (which also serves
effectively as the value of production, given the zero profits we may assume of the


42
In 1995, Marylands 690,000 tons of broiler production ranked seventh among the
United States. (See Table 3.) This $462 million industry has an enormous impact on
Marylands eight Eastern Shore counties, which form her part of the larger Delmarva
(Delaware-Maryland-Virginia) peninsula. This value of production is equal to more than
8% of personal income in these counties, which in 1992 produced 99.7% of the states
257,209,663 broilers and other meat-type chickens, and contained all but six of the states
1070 farms selling over 2,000 birds. The other Delmarva states, Delaware and Virginia,
produce another 1.3 million tons of broilers, and contain the other two thirds of a $1.3
billion regional industry. (U.S. Dept, of Commerce; See Table 4.)
The mean annual sales per Eastern Shore farm is about 240,770 birds. (U.S.
Dept, of Commerce) The median bird is produced on a farm producing 200,000 to
500,000 annually, and the median farm produces just over 200,000 birds. Poultry and
poultry products accounted for 63% of 1992 sales of livestock and poultry products and
42% of all agricultural sales in Maryland, (p 10, U.S. Dept, of Commerce)
Potential Restrictions
The most extreme and most unlikely restriction upon the broiler industry in the
state of Maryland would be a ban on all animal agriculture. This could be simply
evaluated as the loss of animal-based agricultural economic activity and the complete
depreciation of all unmovable and unadaptable capital in the sector. Beyond such a ban,
there is a large range of restrictions upon production practices desired by more or less of
the animal welfare community.


CHAPTER 4
WELFARE, RIGHTS, AND THE BROILER INDUSTRY
"It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken." Frank Perdue
Concerns for the welfare of commercial poultry, particularly broilers, are less
confounded with such issues as aesthetics or human health and safety than are concerns
for other commercial farm animals. Chickens are not cute. They do not graze, thereby
adding charm to rural views. It is generally difficult to identify with chickens, except
in a relatively abstract and philosophical way. Human safety concerns are related much
more to processing practices than to the conditions in which the birds lived. The health
concerns attendant to meat-eating, commonly raised by animal advocates, are least for
chicken among farm animals.
It is for these reasons, among others, that the broiler industry is chosen for the
case study in this research. The estimated costs of regulation on behalf of animals may
be counted directly as the human cost of animal welfare. To a large extent we are not
indirectly promoting our own physical well-being by pursuing better conditions or higher
standing for broiler chickens, so that we may directly relate the pursuit of animal welfare,
as an end, to human economic goods forgone, as a means to that end.
35


20
growing majority of Americans seem willing to accept greater restrictions on their or,
more particularly, on others use of animals.2
The Movement
The "movement" for improved treatment of animals is generally divided between
the welfarists and rightists, along lines defined by Drs. Singer and Regan and is more
or less radical in its demands than these philosophers. The largest group on what may
be called the extreme end of the animal advocacy spectrum is People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA), which attracts nearly $11 million in annual support and
spending as much as $13 million yearly for a program which relies heavily on Dr.
Regans rights approach. (PETA 1996) The organization promotes vegetarianism and
condemns all animal farming. They attract attention to their position by such means as
the strategic placement of people dressed as animals protesting for their lives. During a
recent American tour by the Pope, for example, a pair of PETA supporters dressed as
a cow and a nun made the most visible protest in New York and Baltimore. (G'/y Paper,
Oct. 12, 1995) Their position on animal agriculture is made clear in their on-line
Factsheet,
...the factory farming system of modem agriculture strives to produce the most
meat, milk, and eggs as quickly and cheaply as possible, and in the smallest
amoum of space possible.... Factory fanning is an extremely cruel method of
raising animals, but because it is profitable, it will only increase. One way to stop
the abuses of factory farming is to support legislation that abolishes battery cages,
veal crates, and intensive-confinement systems. But the best way to save animals
2 This willingness to restrict the behavior of others is, of course, a hallmark of moral
legislation.


69
TABLE 8. Cost of Production Simulation Costs per Kilogram
.05 m2
.07 m2
Current
Density
.09 m2
.11m2
VARIABLE GROWER COSTS:
Fuel & Electricity
0.0096
0.128
0.0135
0.0159
0.0196
Litter
0.0020
0.0027
0.0029
0.0034
0.0041
Hired Labor
0.0049
0.0046
0.0046
0.0045
0.0045
Operating loan interest
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006
Other production costs
0.0054
0.0051
0.0051
0.0049
0.0050
TOTAL
0.0226
0.0258
0.0266
0.0293
0.0338
FIXED GROWER COSTS:
Land payments
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0.0005
0.0007
Interest on facility
0.0251
0.0333
0.0350
0.0415
0.0509
Repairs/maintenance
0.0016
0.0022
0.0023
0.0027
0.0033
Taxes
0.0007
0.0009
0.0009
0.0011
0.0013
TOTAL
0.0277
0.0367
0.0386
0.0458
0.0562
INTEGRATOR COSTS:
Feed
0.3707
0.3617
0.3582
0.3653
0.3850
Chicks
0.0880
0.0834
0.0826
0.0808
0.0812
Medicine and Vaccinations
0.0117
0.0111
0.0110
0.0108
0.0108
Catch and Haul
0.0293
0.0278
0.0275
0.0269
0.0271
Condemnations
0.0082
0.0078
0.0077
0.0075
0.0076
Field Services
0.0117
0.0111
0.0110
0.0108
0.0108
TOTAL
0.5197
0.5029
0.4980
0.5022
0.5225
TOTAL UNIT COST
0.5700
0.5654
0.5632
0.5773
0.6124
CHANGE IN UNIT COST
0.0069
0.0023
0.0000
0.0141
0.0493


81
decide the issue against the large stake of an agricultural minority. Maryland is such a
jurisdiction, so her Eastern Shore broiler industry could be a subject of such pioneering
measures. For this reason, and because the contract-oriented structure of the broiler
industry appears to represent the future of other animal industries, economic analysis of
the effects of such measures in this context can both meet a more or less immediate
purpose and demonstrate a methodology for considering animal welfare in other animal
industries.
Economic Theory
An economic theory of animal welfare has been lacking; this work proposes one
such theory. It is a tenet of economic theory that welfare cannot be directly compared
among individuals; this holds, presumably, for animals as well as humans. However, just
as economic historians have settled on the size of human remains as a proxy for human
welfare across time and place, so may we settle upon per animal productivity as a proxy
for the well-being of animals, certainly within a homogeneous genetic stock and under
similar conditions. High productivity is closely correlated with a general state of good
health, to which all definitions of animal welfare defer, but which is not itself easily
quantifiable. It is also important to recall that any such measure of welfare can only be
a relative index, and not an absolute measure, of each animals (or each persons)
welfare. To the extent that we choose to aggregate welfare across animals, we are
assuming them to be identical. This is not an unreasonable assumption in many animal
production contexts.


55
= -p + Min rx/y,
where p is a exogenous. This last term will be a more convenient expression of the
optimization under discussion.
Consider the per unit cost minimization/ profit maximization objective, subject to
given prices (p^r^r,),
(23) Max Prof/y = {p(f(xb,xb,xx,) xr xbr, x,r, x^rJ/ffx^x^Xf.x,),
whose first order conditions solve to
(24) f = rb/[(x'br + x* + x>, + x*r,)/fj
(25) f = rh/[(x'brt + xj,rt + xfr, + xjrj/fj
(26) f, = rt/[(x'br6 + x'brh + x*fr, + xjr,)/f]
(27) f, = r,/[(x'rb + x'brh + x',r, + xjr,)/f]
Similarly to profit maximization, cost minimization approaches an animal welfare
maximizing outcome, (i.e., equations (24-27) approach the conditions expressed in
equations (10) and (11),) as xVb approaches one hundred percent of the cost of
production.
Alternatively, (24-27) may be expressed as
(28) (xj,r + xj,r + x,rf + xjr,)/f = r/f = rt/f = t, = r,/f,.
The last four terms of this equation are, of course, a standard result for cost minimization
and profit maximization; with the first term, the equation also produces a scale solution
(if one exists) for unit-cost minimization/per unit profit maximization at the broiler house
level.


14
implication of our being bred by the survival of individual genes is that we are more
accurately seen as vehicles for the selection of genes than the direct subjects of
evolution. Another implication, more to the point here, is that such Darwinian concepts
as group selection and behavior bred for the good of the species as a whole are
qualified, and individuals bald self-interest is tempered only by traits and behavior
beneficial to genetically close relatives and, significantly, by more subtle self-interest of
the kind which typifies much human interaction. (Dawkins 1989)
Natural law, then, if it can be said to exist, are only those positive physical
circumstances which drive mans struggle for existence, the law of the jungle. Under
this law, there is no right and wrong, except what is good and bad for the species (or the
relevant gene). Such human institutions as government, morality, law, and markets
evolve and survive in order to serve human purposes. If they do not, they cannot be
reasonably defended and they cannot survive in evolutionary competition with institutions
which do. Here is a concrete end, defined functionally and functionally sustainable.
Morality toward animals, according to Professor Darwin, is essentially a stochastic
by-product of a functional sympathy toward a growing circle of humans. "Sympathy
beyond the confines of man, that is humanity to the lower animals, seems to be one of
the latest moral acquisitions.... This virtue, one of the noblest with which man is
endowed, seems to arise incidentally from our sympathies becoming more and more
tender and more widely diffused, until they are extended to all sentient beings, "(p. 101)
The rationality of this sympathy, Professor Darwins sentiments about its nobility aside,
may be judged by the standard he suggested earlier, that of the general good of the


34
terms as well, the median voter along the animal rights/welfare/use spectrum will define
the degree to which the welfare or rights of animals will be protected.
The representation of voters along the animal welfare spectrum represented in
Figure 3 is consistent with the polls discussed above. The median voter has been defined
above as concerned about animals welfare, but not at any cost. We can only assume
such a median voter to be a rational economic agent, whose choice will depend upon a
weighing of all its known costs and benefits. This voter will, presumably and
consistently with economic theory, be willing to bear some personal costs for the sake of
animals and the satisfaction received from their improved welfare; but for the trade-off
to be efficient, it must be understood. Therefore, analysis of costs and benefits associated
with projects for the welfare of animals is not only justified, but would seem to be
demanded.
Finally, the bounded rationality of such economic agents tends toward a fuzzy
perception of self-interest. Even if corrected over time, this could, in the case of
inadequately considered animal welfare measures, cause expensive disruptions to animal
agriculture, to the detriment of producers and consumers. Again, foreknowledge has a
value which must be recognized.


CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS
A man may well bring a horse to the water,
But he cannot make him drinke without he will.
- John Hey wood (1497-1580)
(Bartlett 1938)
This work was an attempt to trace the animal welfare debate from philosophical
premises, through social and political processes, to economic conclusions.
Philosophy
The desire to find an "intrinsic" basis for universal human rights led some
philosophers to observe that not all men are superior to all animals and that some
animals, therefore, are "intrinsically" entitled to the same rights and considerations as
man. Some argued further that if some animals are entitled to such rights, all must be.
It is this thinking which has largely framed the terms of the debate over animals place
in human society.
"Intrinsic definitions must be subjective. They invite such abuses as the Soviet
use of mental asylums to deny the rights of political opponents or, alternatively, the
arbitrary inclusion of the lowest animals which can be (subjectively) judged as the
"intrinsic" equal of the most debilitated human.
79