IMPORT OPPORTUNITIES AND PROBL;ESIS*

JOHN E. WARD Meat Importers Council of America, Inc.

The United S ta tes of America current ly imports about 1.35 b i l l i o n pounds (product weight) of frozen beef per annum. beef is boneless and trimmed t o a 15$ chemical f a t content, so the carcass weight equivalent of these imports would be s l i g h t l y i n excess of 1.80 b i l . pounds. qua l i ty meat, derived from feedlo t s t ee r s , s ince it is la rge ly blended with the f a t trimmings from domestic meat t o manufacture hamburgers, f rankfur te rs , e t c .

P rac t i ca l ly a l l t h i s

T h i s beef complements t he U .S . production of high

America a l s o imports considerable quant i t ies of frozen Lambs, canned

However, my remarks today w i l l be pr inc ipa l ly confined t o hams, canned corned beef, cooked frozen beef and other processed beef products. f r e sh frozen beef, as t h e American imports of t h i s commodity far out- s t r i p any other meat imports and they have g rea t ly influenced the pa t te rn of t h e in te rna t iona l meat t rade over t h e past 15 years . more, it is precisely t h i s type of beef--together with r e l a t i v e l y small quant i t ies of mutton and veal--which were subject t o quota r e s t r i c t i o n s i n the U.S.A. from 1964 u n t i l mid 1972. ex i s t s ; but happily the President suspended the operation of t h i s l a w i n i t i a l l y i n June of 1972, and then again i n December of 1972 and 1973 as required by s t a tu t e - - to cover continued suspension f o r t h e ensuing year.

Further-

Indeed an import quota l a w s t i l l

Un t i l 1957, the U.S. w a s not generally regarded as an importing country f o r beef . Why then the sudden change? Was it not remarkable that a country with a growing c a t t l e population, already i n excess of 100 mil l ion head, should require la rge imports of beef almost overnight? It i s t r u e that imports of cured beef from Argentina had recent ly been prohibited by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a precaution against Hoof and Mouth Disease, but such imprts were minimal compared t o w h a t was t o follow over the next f e w years--370 m i l . pounds i n 1958, l b i l . pounds i n 1963 and so on t o 1.35 b i l . pounds i n 1973.

The pr inc ipa l reasons f o r t h i s dramatic change were:

(1) A growing a f f luen t population demanding more beef - -par t icu lar ly lean beef .

(2) The rapid development of fast-food ou t l e t s accompanied by American youth’s i n sa t i ab le appet i te f o r hamburgers and the l i k e .

* Presented a t the 27th Annual Reciprocal Meat Conference of the American Meat Science Association, 1974.

( 3 ) The disappearance of lean range-fed c a t t l e and t h e i r replacement by high qua l i ty feedlot fa t tened animals.

(4) The incredible decline i n the donestic dairy cow population.

Dairy cows had t r a d i t i o n a l l y been the chief source of supply of lean beef f o r manufacturing purposes, i .e ., hamburgers, f rankfurters , sausages, e tc . , but improved animal husbandry r a i s ing milk production per cow, combined with a declining demand f o r da i ry prsducts p a r t l y on account of t he choles te ro l scare , caused dairy cow numbers t o drop from a postwar high of 28 mill ion in 1945 t o 21 mil l ion i n 1958 and they a r e now down t o about I 2 mill ion. i n the meantime, r i s e n sharply but with the growing demand f o r high qua l i ty beef causing a rapid expansion in feedlo t operations, the cu l l ing r a t e of beef cows w a s very low and the tendency s t i l l p e r s i s t s t o keep such cows as long as they can produce calves t o be sold prof i t a b l y .

The beef cow population had,

The lower grade carcasses from range fed c a t t l e had also contributed t o the nation’s supply of lean meat, but the a v a i l a b i l i t y of t h i s type of meat w a s a l s o f a s t disappearing in the l a t e f i f t i e s . Thus with per capi ta consumption increasing a t the r a t e of 2 or 3 l b s . per annum and the population growing a t 1 t o 2% yearly, it was not surpr is ing that the United S ta t e s suddenly became a b ig fac tor i n the import market.

“he a f f luen t American Cornunity w a s prepared t o outbid other countries f o r i t s requirements of manufacturing beef and consequently a t t r ac t ed supplies from a l l foot and mouth disease f r e e countries-- notably Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, I re land, Canada and Central America. I n f a c t the trade grew so rapidly t h a t Congress, pressured by domestic c a t t l e i n t e re s t s , inadvisedly passed l eg i s l a t ion i n 1964 l imi t ing fu tu re imports of beef .

So much f o r t he pas t . What of t he future? If I had been making t h i s t a l k two years ago I would have been prepared t o make predictions about production, consumption, import f igures and pr ices w i t h reasonable confidence. business functions, I f e l t I could forecas t p r ice trends with a faFr degree of accuracy. Unfortunately, a l l t h a t has changed and the pas t 18 months has been the most turbulent period we have ever experienced i n the In te rna t iona l Meat Market. people throughout t he world and so many other new fac to r s a f fec t ing in t e rna t iona l commerce have caused highly respected Economists in a l l countries t o re-assess t h e i r thinking, s ince many establ ished s k i l l e d techniques no longer produce the correct answers.

Even u n t i l ea r ly 1973, in the course of my ordinary

The need t o feed 3 1/2 b i l l i o n

Today i n our business we a r e faced with hazards h i t h e r t o unknown, except perhaps i n wartime. Iast year a revaluation of currencies i n Austral ia , Japan and New Zealand accompanied by a devaluation of t h e do l l a r i n the United S ta tes ; t h i s year almost t he reverse--serious f ac to r s which can d i s t o r t pr ices overnight and a f f e c t t he flow of meat around t h e world. The ent ry of I re land and the U.K. i n t o the E.E.C.,

with i t s var iable import du t ies , r e s t i t u t i o n a l payments and monetary compensatory amounts, has introduced another s e t of cFrcumstances pa r t i cu la r ly puzzling t o us on t h i s s ide of t h e Atlant ic , who a re not close t o t h e every day t rading i n Europe. Here a t home the cumulative impact of controls introduced i n 1971, followed by t h e imposition of ce i l i ng pr ices and a pr ice f reeze last year, had a profound e f f e c t on t h e whole beef marketing s t ruc tu re from which we a re s t i l l suf fer ing . Add t o t h i s t he e f f ec t s of beef import and export quotas o r taxes imposed or removed a t the whim of a gmernment, stevedore and trucking s t r ikes , combined with soaring i n t e r e s t r a t e s and unprecedented in f l a t ion , then you w i l l appreciate the d i f f i c u l t i e s with which the importing meat industry has been confronted.

L e t us look even fu r the r i n t o world events, which a r e l i k e l y t o continue t o a f f e c t t h e marketing of beef in te rna t iona l ly . recent ly became a major Fmporter of beef - - i t s import quota f o r f i s c a l 1973/74 was o r ig ina l ly increased t o something l i k e 400 m i l . pounds compared with 225 m i l . pounds the previous year. However, economic fac tors , not e n t i r e l y unrelated t o the f u e l c r i s i s , a r e now persuading the Japanese Government t o r o l l back imports t o about 200 mil. pounds, complicating the forecas t of meat trends even fu r the r . Nevertheless, per capi ta consumption of beef i n that country i s s t i l l only 7 pounds per annum so the u l t i m t e scope f o r fu r the r growth is enormous. Similar ly demand i s expanding dramatically i n Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union; the Eastern bloc w i l l continue t o exer t a s ign i f i can t influence on the world meat trade whether ac tua l ly importing meat or buying grain i n large volume from North America as feed input f o r t h e i r own l ivestock.

Japan

A s we a l l bow, world demand f o r grain and feeds tuf fs , combined with speculation i n commodity t rad ing caused--in some instances--prices t o t r i p l e last year, which i n t u rn had ser ious inf la t ionary e f f ec t s on l ives tock production cos ts and ul t imately the pr ice of meat. Last year an ecological phenomenon i n the Humboldt Current reduced the average annual Peruvian anchovy catch from some 9 mill ion metric tons t o about 600,000 tons, thus depriving poul t ry and p ig producers of high protein feeds tuf fs . i n the supply of f e r t i l i z e r , obtained--until recently--from the droppings of 45 mil l ion guano bi rds which fed on t h e anchovies. We now have d i f f i c u l t i e s of supply and a dramatic Fncrease i n t he p r i ce of bunkering o i l t o compound our problems i n t ransport ing thousands of tons of meat across thousands of miles of oceans.

The same depletion of t he ardaovy stocks a l so took i ts t o l l

I n s p i t e of a l l these d i f f i c u l t i e s can we s t i l l pred ic t general t rends and demand f o r beef i n the foreseeable future? The answer I th ink is yes, ce r t a in ly as far as the United S ta tes is concerned, but we must recognize t h a t worldwide economic conditions i n 1974 w i l l cause beef producers both a t home and overseas t o suf fer severe hardships. I am reasonably opt imist ic about recovery i n 1975 when I bel ieve we can look forward t o a gradual resurgence i n consumer spending on meat; much w i l l a l s o depend on the supply, and thus the pr ice , of feeds tuf fs and grains , but happily the forecas ts for t h i s year 's harvest are good i n

most countries. I am confident t h a t there w i l l be an increasing demand f o r beef during the remainder of t h i s decade, but a growing volume of imports w i l l be required t o help us meet that demand.

I n reviewing U .S. beef requirements we must consider population growth, domestic production and consumption; f o r comparative purposes I would, therefore, l i k e t o i l l u s t r a t e t o you approximate round f igures over two growth periods:

Production Per Capita Year U .S. Population and Imports Consumption

~~ -~

1956 16 5,000, ooo

1971 204,000,000

190 230,000,000

14 h i l . lbs . 85 l b s .

22 b i l . l b s . 112 lbs .

30 b i l . lbs . 130 l b s .

The Energy Crisis, and economic conditions generally, may slow down growth and, thus, reduce U.S. requirements fo r 190, but I th ink it t r u e t o say t h a t t h i s long-term forecast f o r t h a t year has been generally accepted by the U .S. Department of Agriculture and the American Meat I n s t i t u t e . a n 8 o r 9 year period compared with an iden t i ca l increase over a 16 year period p r io r t o 1972--certainly a t a l l order when one considers the ecological problems confronting U.S. feedlot operators, not t o mention the on-again off-again prohibit ion in the use of d i e t h y l s t i l - bes t ro l , an t ib io t ics and other fa t tening techniques. Present c a t t l e slaughter r a t e s i n America a r e about 35 mill ion head per annum and they would have t o r i s e t o approximately 47 million head by 190 t o provide us with our requirements--perhaps too much t o expect.

It c a l l s f o r an 8 b i l l i o n pound increase of beef over

It is, therefore, I think f a i r l y obvious tha t t he United States w i l l continue t o represent a growing market f o r foreign beef i n the predictable future, and although I am re luctant t o mention a f igure I would estimate t h a t by 1980 imports w i l l have t o r i s e by another 450/ 550 mil. pounds per year. Obviously current economic conditions a re going t o slow down progress i n most countries i n 1974 and t h i s w i l l cause some reassessment of long term growth but I believe that the world is bent on progress and improved l i v ing standards so global demand f o r beef i s l i k e l y t o continue increasing.

From where then can we i n the U.S. expect t o import the lean meat t o supplement our supplies of high qua l i ty meat derived from feedlot ca t t l e? a f e w words of explanation a re necessary. imports i s 85$ chemically lean meat, which is blended with 50$ C.L.

You w i l l observe that I emphasize lean meat so I th ink perhaps The grea t bulk of our beef

domestic f a t trimmings t o make hamburgers and sausages. limits the f a t content of sausages t o 3076, and it i s generally accepted t h a t top qual i ty hamburgers should contain no more than 18-2@ f a t . It i s in te res t ing therefore, t o review typ ica l formulae i l l u s t r a t i n g the quant i t ies of imported meat needed t o "lean down" domestic beef. For every 100 pounds of be l ly cuts , it takes 132 pounds of 85% C .L. beef t o produce hamburgers which do not exceed 30$ f a t . t o reduce the hamburger fat content t o 2@, it takes 610 pounds of 85% C.L. lean beef f o r every 100 pounds of domestic be l ly cuts .

Federal k w

Amazing as it may seem,

To revert t o our sources of supply--my or ig ina l estimates of beef imports from supplying countries t o the United S ta tes were about 1.48 b i l . pounds f o r t h i s year which was slightly below the U.S.D.A. estimate of approximately 1.57 b i l . pounds. Both those f igures appeared r e a l i s t i c u n t i l the middle of February since when serious declines have occurred i n domestic and imported meat prices, accanpanied by severe consumer resis tance t o purchase beef. There is a strong poss ib i l i t y t h a t many more beef and dairy cows than normal w i l l be culled i n the States t h i s year; this could throw a l o t more lean meat on t o the American market, making it very d i f f i c u l t t o predict import requirements. hand, reduced prices could cause considerable increase i n consumption but on the other, too d ras t i c a drop i n c a t t l e prices would be catastrophic f o r American and overseas producers. Excessive U.S. cow slaughter now would have serious long-term e f fec t s and impede the necessary expansion of the nat ional herd, however, i f producers a c t wisely without panic we should be able t o overcome o w current problems and resume our normal pat te rn of expansion i n 1975, but a t this stage of the year I am re luctant t o forecast import f igures f o r the remainder of 1974.

On the one

Ireland consis tent ly supplied the U .S . with about 60/70 mil. pounds annually but closer t i e s have developed with Europe since 1972 and I would regard America pr incipal ly as an opportunist 's market f o r I re land i n the foreseeable future and exports w i l l probably be i n the 30 t o 35 m i l . pound range annually. s l i g h t l y higher quant i t ies of beef t o the U.S. w i l l tend t o r e s t r i c t imports over the next few years t o protect domestic consumers from high prices, nevertheless I would s t i l l look f o r 55 t o 60 m i l . pounds annually. Canada w i l l a l s o require most of her lean meat f o r domestic consumption fo r similar reasons and I doubt i f t o t a l imports w i l l average more t h a n 50 t o 60 m i l . pounds over the next three years. Beef production i n the Central h r i c a n countries of Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua is increasing a t t he rate of 4 o r 5% per annum while Dominica, E l Salvador, Ha i t i and Panama are a l so expanding production. However, I suspect t h a t a l l these countries w i l l place some form of l imitat ions on exports t o ensure that t h e i r l oca l inhabitants have su f f i c i en t beef a t reasonable cost; it would accordingly be my estimate t h a t Central America haports as a whole, w i l l hover around 220 m i l . pounds annually over the next few years, with the prospects of a 3 or 4$ growth r a t e per annum.

Likewise, Mexico, which h i the r to sent

Beyond 1974, f o r la rger imports I th ink we shall look subs tan t ia l ly t o Australia, where production has been increasing a t about 7$ per annum, and New Zealand. It is reasonable t o assume t h a t New Zeahnd

w i l l continue t o aim f o r an expansion r a t e c lose t o 5% per annum s o sources of supply should not change dramatically. I see no prospects of South American countries such as Argentina o r B r a z i l exporting f r e sh frozen beef t o t h e States; hoof and mouth disease continues t o be endemic i n bDth countries and the U.S. Authorit ies are unlikely t o re lax any of t h e i r standards as far as hygiene or heal th controls a r e concerned.

Having e a r l i e r expressed t o you my reluctance t o make long term forecas ts I seem t o have stuck my neck out ra ther a long way, but I do not intend t o be so bold when ta lk ing of p r ice s t ruc tu res . In f l a t ion w i l l , of course, oontinue, but it seems that the growth r a t e of most countries w i l l a t l e a s t be temporarily ha l ted and I see no prospects whatsoever i n 1974 of the high pr ices which prevailed for beef--both imported and domestic--in America last summer. It is , however, e n t i r e l y possible tha t the consumers' purchasing habi t s i n the S ta tes w i l l change--food has been a bargain f o r t h e Americans i n the past decade and l e s s than 16% of our disposable income has gone toward the weekly market basket. 25$. luxuries , large cars, overseas holidays, e tc . , and more on the e s sen t i a l s of l i f e and I hope that beef w i l l continue t o be regarded as an e s sen t i a l ra ther than a luxury. Nevertheless, I must confess t o some nervousness about consumer demand f o r beef i n the United S ta t e s a t the present time; I th ink t h a t t h e sudden very high increases i n the pr ice of meat last year have persuaded some housewives t o look f o r a l t e rna t ive foods and it may take some time t o woo them back t o ea t ing beef; t h i s i s , of course, disquiet ing f o r us i n t he industry but it is probably too ea r ly t o judge any permanent t rend . The spending power of the average American family today has dropped about 5$ compared with a year ago; t he housewife cannot, therefore , pay the high r e t a i l p r ices necessary t o enable l i v e c a t t l e t o be sold a t $50 per cwt. If the farmer does not ge t that p r i ce he loses money--over $100 per head on current levels ; a year ago he would have been happy with $40 per cwt. but s ince t h a t time grain pr ices have t r i p l e d and other increased cos ts have caused the feedlo t industry t o lose $1 b i l l i o n do l l a r s i n t h e las t six months. Fortunately, t he prospects f o r a bumper harvest i n the U.S. t h i s year a r e good, and with t h e anchovies s w i m m i n g again, we should see a reduction i n feedstuff pr ices next year.

I bel ieve the average outlay i n Europe i s about I ant ic ipa te t h a t many of us w i l l spend l e s s of our income on

We must consider t he impact of synthetics--generally of soy protein or ig in and popularly ca l led T.V.P.--on the demand for red meats as a whole. T.V.P. a c t s as an excel lent subs t i t u t e or f i l l e r i n the production of hamburgers and sausages, and i t s usage increased enormously i n t h e U.S.A. last year. A t one time we tended t o regard T.V.P. as a t h r e a t t o the beef industry, now I th ink we look on it more as an a l l y t o counter i n f l a t ion , which otherwise might place hamburgers beyond the f i n a n c i a l reach of t h e average col lege student. T .V .P . costs about 40-45$ per pound, but i ts weight can be increased by a r a t i o of 3.5 with the absorption of water. estimated a t 4 b i l l i o n pounds (1,785,OOO tons) ; 20$ of these hamburgers or 800 mil l ion pounds contained T.V.P. with an average asage of 25% of

U .S hamburger production i n 1973 w a s

18 0

t he end weight which means t h a t approximately 200 mil l ion pounds (90,000 tons ) of beef was replaced by T.V.P. increases i t s weight by 3.5 with the absorption of water, t h i s means that only 60 mil l ion pounds of a c t u a l soy protein w a s used. The cost? Let us say 60 mill ion x 45 cents per pound equals $27 million compared with $230 million i f more beef had been used a t an average cost of 909 per pound; a separate U.S.D.A. study indicates t h a t a 75% meat 25% soy m i x would reduce the s e l l i n g p r i ce of hamburgers by 15-209 per pound.

Bearing in mind t h a t T.V.P.

When reviewing the U.S. Imported beef market, it is necessary t o take in to account domestic pork production--and t o a l e s s e r extent boneless mutton imports --which can subs t an t i a l ly a f f e c t t he demand and pr ice f o r foreign beef . Both pork trimmings and mutton can be quickly subs t i tu ted f o r beef i n sausage products depending upon pr ice re la t ion- ships . With high pr ices of corn and lower supplies of pork last year, the cost of t h i s commodity w a s prohibi t ive for the sausage manufacturer but during the Januq/May period of t h i s year l i v e hog pr ices dropped from $40 t o $25 per cwt. remarkably low pr ice of 459 per pound therefore became more a t t r a c t i v e t o the processor than imported beef, the pr ice of which dropped from Cj@g! t o 689 per pound i n the same January/May period. mutton--most of which used t o come from Austral ia-- is in shor t supply s ince depleted sheep f locks a r e being replenished; furthermore, other countries i n t h e Middle E a s t , Greece and Japan a r e prepared t o out-bid the U.S.A. f o r t h e l imited supplies avai lable , so there is no grea t t h r e a t t o beef pr ices from t h i s product a t t he present time. it t o say that when considering the long term pricing s t ruc ture f o r manufacturing beef i n t h e U .S .A. one must take i n t o account American pork, Australian and New Zealand mutton and last but not least --T .V .P .

8@ C.L. pork trirmnings s e l l i n g a t the

Manufacturing

Suff ice

Since 180, New Zealand lamb has been imported on a regular basis and in gradually increasing quant i t ies t o America. temperate climate and year round rainfall. provtding excellent pastures f o r sheep production; the r e su l t an t lambs--mostly crossbreds--are amng the highest qua l i t y i n t h e world. The lambs a r e slaughtered a t 4/5 months of age dress- out a t carcass weights of 28/36 pounds and, thus, ensuring tender and succulent eat ing. After slaughtering, the lamb carcasses a re aged under controlled temperatures and humidity conditions and then frozen; t he rea f t e r lamb cuts a r e especial ly prepared t o s t r i c t spec i f ica t ion f o r t h e American market. These cuts--legs, shoulders, racks, loins and shanks a r e polyethelene wrapped, boxed i n cardboard cartons and shipped frozen t o the U.S.A. t o 27 mill ion pounds.

New Zealand has a

Total imports i n 1973 amounted

My f i n a l t op ic deals with t h e other main meat imports--all processed items--which a r e canned corned beef and cooked frozen beef from South America, and canned hams from Europe. The p r inc ipa l beef exporting countries on t h e South American Continent a r e Argentina, Brazi l , Paraguay and Uraguay; regre t tab ly hoof and mouth disease is endemic i n a l l these countries so i m p o r t s of beef i n t o the U S . are only permitted i n a cooked or canned form. Corned Beef i n 72 oz . cans i s the main consumer item, while t he same product i n 6 lb . cans is imported i n large quant i t ies

181

f o r manufacturing purposes being used as the basic r a w mater ia l i n corned beef hash manufactured i n t h i s country. ProductTon in South America has f luctuated enormously over t he past f e w years and cont inui ty of supply has been an inh ib i t ing f ac to r i n t h e expansion of this industry.

Cooked Frozen Beef i s produced i n Argentina and Braz i l f o r fu r the r processing i n the United S ta t e s . soups, meat p ies and i n s l i ced form f o r T.V. dinners. Total imports of C .C . beef and C .F. beef i n 1973 amunted t o about 140 mill ion pounds product weight and i n t h e f i r s t t h ree months of t h i s year reached 42 mil l ion pounds.

The main ou t l e t s here a r e f o r canned

The uniform production of hogs, fed on hard grains and a skimmed m i l k a s s i s t ed d i e t , i n Denmark, Holland and Poland produces very good qua l i ty pork with a high r a t i o of lean t o fa t . It i s not surpr is ing, therefore , that canned hams produced i n these countries f o r s l i c i n g purposes have found a wide degree of acceptance i n t h i s country, and generally command a premium of about 20$ per pound Over domestic production. These hams a re imported i n rectangular and oblong cans i n varying weights of 11 lbs ., 13 l b s ., 16 l b s ., and 21 lbs . and must be kept under r e f r ige ra t ion at approximately 34OF.; they a r e removed from the cans sho r t ly a f t e r a r r i v a l here, s l iced , and usual ly packaged in consumer s i z e vacuum packs with a l imited shelf l i f e . l a rges t exporter of hams t o America followed closely by Holland and Poland; Yugoslavia, Hungary and Rumania a l s o contribute t o t o t a l imports of about 325 million pounds per annum.

Denmark is the

That covers t h e grea t bulk of meats imported t o t h i s country; time does not permit me t o go i n t o grea te r d e t a i l , but I w o u l d be happy t o answer any questions t h a t you m i g h t have.

0. E . Kolari: Thank you, M r . Ward, f o r your expert and sage observations on the import market. We have time f o r a few questions before the coffee break, which s t a r t s a t lO:3O sharp.

Question: Are any economic obstacles used t o r e s t r i c t export of meat t o the Common Market?

Jim Hartman: Yes, there a r e . The Comon Market current duty ( t a r i f f ) i s 2@, plus a levy, which i s computed weekly, i s about 9-1w per pound. The Common Market r i g h t now has e f fec t ive ly closed off a l l imports by one method 3r another. countries who a re not Common Market countries have dut ies t h a t average

They have l icensing a l so . Other

12 -2@.

Question: What e f f e c t would reducing the carcass grade of meat produced i n t h i s country have upon the import market?

182

J i m Hartman: I always thought our market was f o r choice beef . When you ge t below t h i s grade you ge t i n t o competition from foreign suppl iers . should produce qua l i ty beef .

Since our market i s usual ly a higher pr ice market, we

Question: How much ch i l led carcass beef i s exported from Brazi l t o t h e United Kingdom?

John Ward: A s f a r as t h e United Kingdom is concerned, a f t e r the outbreak of hoof and mouth disease i n Argentina i n 1968 o r 1969, the import of such beef was prohibited. beef a re now confined t o boneless cuts i n vacumm packs.

Imports from Braz i l of ch i l led

Question: Could you please comment on the amount of meat imported from Austral ia and New Zealand?

John Ward: Last year imports from Australia were about 730 million This pounds and imports from N e w Zealand were about 290 mill ion pounds.

year imports from Australia w i l l probably be reduced t o about 520 mill ion pounds; from New Zealand, I estimate about 280 mil l ion pounds.

* * * 0. E . Kolari: Since everyone is back from our b r i e f "Norwegian

gasoline" break, we w i l l now s t a r t t he second port ion of our "Internat ional Meat Marketing" Session--"Other In te rna t iona l Aspects. "

Our first speaker is D r . H . M. Steinmetz, Director of the Foreign Programs S ta f f , F ie ld Operations, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. graduating from Kansas State, he practiced Veterinary Medicine a t Pine Island, Minnesota. a grea t deal of pleasure t o introduce D r . Steinmetz, who w i l l speak on "Impact of Regulations .It

D r . Steinmetz was born i n Boston, Massachusetts. After

It gives me D r . Steinmetz joined the USDA i n 1950.

D r . Steinmetz .