SECTION 2: DATA AND CALCULATIONS CHAPTER 6. L Hecht-Felella, M Kocolatos, S Kofman, J Kunicki Professor P Marcotullio, Hunter College

Transcription

1 SECTION 2: DATA AND CALCULATIONS CHAPTER 6 L Hecht-Felella, M Kocolatos, S Kofman, J Kunicki Professor P Marcotullio, Hunter College INTRODUCTION Whether shopping in a super market or dining at a fast food chain or a five star restaurant, beef, pork, and chicken are usually advertised and served in ounces and pounds. An average American eats 62 pounds of beef, 46.5 pounds of pork, and 60.5 pounds of chicken annually. Moreover, the New York City resident and commuter carnivorous population consumes, in total, approximately 550 million pounds of beef, 410 million pounds of pork, and 533 million pounds of chicken annually. However, the population of New York City is less than 1% of the total population of the United States! Imagine how many animals are needed to feed both the hungry, carnivorous population of New York City and the entire United States. Although meat consumption statistics appear astronomical, in the United States, over 12 million families have limited access to meat and in New York State alone approximately 750,000 families are food insecure (Nord 2007, 26). With every 10 percent increase in income, meat consumption rises by 0.72 percent (Blisard, 2003). Thus, a comprehensive look at meat consumption in New York City reveals that there are households that lack access to meat, but there are also households in which there is an overabundance of meat. On a national scale, the total meat supply includes domestically and internationally produced meat. In addition to income and other socioeconomic factors, imported and domestic meat affects the dynamics of meat distribution. How much meat is imported into the United States,? Where does it come from and 1

2 what is imported meat s share of the total amount of meat, based on carcass weights, circulating in the United States? This chapter focuses on quantifying meat consumption in New York City and the United States and the circulation of imported and domestic meat in the US. Additionally, the chapter maps meat distribution in New York City and analyzes the socioeconomic factors correlated with meat consumption. Specifically, four questions are assessed: (1) How do we calculate how much beef, pigmeat, and chicken is consumed in total in NYC and in the US?, (2) How do we calculate how many cows, pigs, and chickens are equal to the pounds of meat consumed per capita and in total in NYC and the US?, (3) How much of the meat in circulation in the US is imported and where is it imported from?, and (4) Where are the areas of high and low meat consumption in New York City and why do these disparities exist? Calculations were adapted and developed to analyze and understand raw data obtained primarily from the United States Department of Agriculture, the United States Census Bureau, and the United States Department of Commerce ( ). LITERATURE REVIEW How do we calculate how much beef, pigmeat, and chicken is consumed in total in NYC and in the US? Meat consumption indicates the amount of meat one person consumes in one year. With respect to the consumption of meat in New York City, meat consumption data have been calculated using average meat per capita and population statistics. The information was obtained primarily from the United States Census Bureau and the United States Department of Agriculture. Although these are the most accurate resources available, there are unfortunate gaps in the data that must be qualified. 2

3 The most accurate calculation of the amount of meat consumed in New York City must take the millions of tourists that visit New York City each into account. However, statistics provide only that there are 37.4 million tourists each year. The length of stay and the meat consumption of tourists are unknown. Data from the USDA provides only the total amount of meat that Americans typically consume in a year. Tourists cannot be added to the meat-eating population of New York City because tourists are typically not consuming meat for an entire year. A very significant amount of meat consumed in New York City each year thus goes unaccounted for in the results. Additionally, the inclusion of the non-meat-eating population in the data overestimates the amount of meat actually consumed. The number of vegetarians and vegans (as well as pescetarians, as we did not take seafood consumption into account) must be subtracted from the total New York City resident and commuter population. However, the total number of non-meateaters in New York City, as well as in the United States, is difficult to determine for two important reasons: there have been surprisingly few studies done as to the number of vegetarians and the results of the studies that have been conducted contrast significantly. In 2002, an online poll was conducted by Harris Interactive on behalf of TIME/CNN, in which approximately 10,000 adult Americans were asked if they considered themselves vegetarians. 96% answered No, while 4% answered Yes. However, of the 4% that identified as vegetarians, 57% described themselves as Semi-vegetarian, meaning that they do indeed consume meat, at least on occasion. (Harris Interactive 2002). In 2006, another survey was conducted by Harris Interactive, on behalf of The Vegetarian Resource Group, in which respondents were asked not which dietary label they subscribed to, but, rather, which foods they never ate. Based on their responses, The Vegetarian 3

4 Resource Group determined that 2.3% were vegetarian in that they never ate meat, poultry, or fish/seafood. 1.4% were determined to be vegetarians in that they never ate meat, poultry, fish/seafood, or dairy products/eggs. The poll was not clear as to the number of pescetarians. It reported 6.7% of respondents never ate meat and 6.3% never ate poultry, but it did not indicate the number of respondents who never ate poultry or meat. Although the poll represents a crosssection of 1,000 adults aged eighteen and older, it is likely that there is a higher concentration of vegetarians and vegans in a liberal, urban area like New York City than in many other areas of the country. An estimate of 2.3% may be conservative, but it is the estimate used nonetheless, as it employed a more accurate method of determining the true number of people who do not eat meat (Stahler 2006). How do we calculate how many cows, pigs, and chickens are equal to the pounds of meat consumed per capita and in total in NYC and the US? Cow The USDA yield grades for beef are measures of the quantity of meat that we expect from the carcass expressed as the yield of boneless, closely trimmed retail cuts (BCTRC) from the round, loin, rib, and chuck (Drake 2004). Yield grades, based on a numbered 1 through 5 decreasing yield scale, are established by considering four main factors (in order of importance): the amount of external fat, the size of the ribeye muscle, the percentage of fat in the kidney, pelvic and heart area, and the hot carcass weight (Wellman 1999). Carcass weight is recorded just before the carcass enters the chilling room and is often referred to as the hot carcass weight (Drake 2004). Yield grade is the most straightforward form of grading beef, as compared to a quality grade, which also analyzes two important, but highly variable factors marbling and maturity in order to determine the eating quality of meat from a carcass (Gimenez 2008). 4

5 However, yield grades also present some variations and sources of error. A yield grade of 1.0 may have over a 10% meat yield difference than a yield grade of 5.0. Additionally, yield grades pertain differently to various forms of cattle in the meat market including (in order of decreasing percentage in total cattle population) steers, heifers, all cows, dairy cows, other cows, and bulls, as classified by the Food Inspectors, Inspection Operations, FSIS (2009b). All calculations consider average, standardized numbers provided by the USDA since it is impossible to evaluate all the various factors affecting meat yields. Cattle values provided by the USDA, which include the average beef animals and steers, are used since the beef is the most common in consumer diets. Yield grade is the most uniform grading system over the cattle population. In a large case study, Carcass data from five ranches in northern California show that, based on averages, most of the cattle were within suggested standards. In the same study, the number of steers that satisfied all the factors, however, was highly variable. Yet, the Table 1. Relative Yield of % BCTRC USDA Yield Grade % BCTRC author qualifies that averages are [still] useful for describing these carcasses (Drake 2004). Averages will help describe a uniform overall cattle population in the average American s diet. The Alabama Cattlemen s Association (ACA) describes that in order to get a handle on the true value of the animal at market since we sell meat as dollars per pounds a good understanding of where weight is lost in the process is paramount (Gimenez 2008). The process the ACA describes begins with animal transport and ends on the plate. First 1-5% of the cow is lost in transport, commonly known as drift. At harvest, 35-40% of the live weight is lost during dressing. When the carcass is hung in the cooler, it shrinks another 1-10%. During fabrication, 5

6 the USDA yield grade is determined. The weight decreases another 46-54% (Table 1) after the bones and fat is trimmed (BCTRC). This is the raw meat that enters our supermarkets and restaurants, and is equivalent to meat consumption statistics. For an average 1200-pound beef animal, the ACA estimates a yield of pounds. Lastly, when we cook a steak, roast, or ground beef, we lose another 25% (Gimenez 2008). This last figure provides us with an edible meat yield. This statistic is not needed for this section s calculations since statistics are based on raw meat weight. Dr. Duane M. Wulf, from the Department of Animal and Range Sciences of South Dakota University, determines the amount of meat extracted from a market animal using a simplified formula that is applicable to cattle: Pounds of Meat = (Dressing Percent X Carcass Cutting Yield) X Live Weight. Dressing percentage is the percentage of the live animal that ends up as carcass and is based on gut-fill, muscling, fatness, and the mud present on cow hide (Wulf 1999). In this report, the average dressing percentage is calculated to be 62% for beef cattle and 59% for dairy steers. This number corresponds with the ACA s dressing value about 35-40% of the live weight is lost, or in Wulf s estimate, about 38% is lost. Carcass cutting yield is defined as the percentage of the carcass that ends up as meat based on two main factors: (1) fatness versus leanness (2) bone-in versus boneless. The calculations in this section will use a standard value of percent yield of boneless, closely trimmed, retail cuts based on USDA values and an average cut of beef yield grading. The average carcass cutting yield is 61% for an average beef animal and 58-59% for an average steer. This number corresponds to the USDA yield grade; however, Wulf assessing that there is a greater yield during carcass cutting. Her carcass cutting yield percentages are not supported by any strong evidence and the factors considered, including leanness versus fatness 6

7 when cutting, are highly variable. Wulf calculates that a 1200-pound beef animal will yield 456 pounds of meat and an average steer will yield of 356 pounds, a significantly higher range than the ACA calculations. Because USDA carcass yield values are more readily available, the approach taken by Alabama s Cattle Association will be used in order to receive more standardized values. The ACA also considers important and measurable factors not considered in the yield grade such as transport and cold carcass weight. For example, hot carcass weight, the weight measured in USDA yield grades, will result in a higher yield than the cold carcass weight. Yet, the meat we consume is weighed when chilled. Therefore, six values will be considered to calculate the conversion from meat consumption to number of cattle: (1) weight of average live beef animal (2) percent loss in transfer of carcass (3) average dressing percentage (4) cooling (5) average yield grade and (6) consumption statistics nationally and in New York City. (1) Reported by the USDA, the average live weight of cattle in 2008 and 2009 is estimated to be 1,277 lbs and 1,293 lbs (under federal inspection), 1275 lbs and 1290 lbs (under commercial inspection), and 1143 lbs and 1138 lbs pounds (under other inspection) (2009b). The average weight of cattle, considering all inspections, is 1236 lbs. (2) Transportation of carcass can results in bruising and lesions. These areas must be trimmed and consequently, there is a decrease in carcass yield. The primary concern of packers in the 1999 audit was the high incidence of bruising. Only 11.8 percent of cow carcasses did not have a bruise [m]inor, medium, major and extreme bruises results in 0.69, 1.42, 4.78 and 15 pounds of trim loss, respectively. Using these estimates, more than 14 million pounds of product were lost due to bruising (Wallace 2009). Approximately, 1-5% of the carcass weight is lost during travel (Gimenez 7

8 2008). (3) The average cattle dressed weight for 2008 and 2009 is 775 lbs and 783 lbs. The average dressed weight is 779lbs (2009b). The (live weight minus the dressing weight) divided by (the live weight) times 100 equals the percent loss from live weight to dressing weight. This equals approximately 37% loss (dressing percentage = 63%), a median in the estimate of 35-40% loss provided by the ACA. (4) Cold carcass weight is 1-10% less than the hot carcass weight depending on the water loss during cooling. Statistics show that only 1-2% of the yield is usually lost, on average (Gimenez 2008). Although a smaller range cannot be calculated based on average amounts of water loss, the statistics in this section would not be accurate without considering the vital process of cooling, even to a small degree. (5) Average yield grade can be used to estimate the additional percent loss. The range for percent loss after the bones and fat is trimmed and the beef animal is fabricated is 46-54% (grades 1-5). The average yield grade for a lot of cattle is about 2.7 (Drake 2004). Therefore, the average percent loss is 50%. (6) In New York City, approximately 550 million pounds of beef is consumed annually. In the United States, an average of 27.8 billion pounds of beef is consumed annually from statistics (2009d). The average per capita consumption of beef is 62.4 pounds for the US and NYC. Pig The USDA statistics for pork consumption uses a broad group of pork/ swing animals classified under the hog. The hog is a mature pig group weighing about pounds and includes five main classes: barrows, gilts, sows, boars, and stags. These types of swine differ in 8

9 sex and castration, and therefore, in anatomy and composition of fat and muscle (1969). Additionally, feeder pig is synonymous to young hog. (2009a). Therefore, all calculations in this section use hog averages. Like cattle, hogs and feeder pigs are sorted by USDA yield grades. Hogs are graded on a 1-4 decreasing scale. Hogs that do not meet quality are graded utility. Grades are based on (1) the quality and (2) the yield of the four lean cuts (shoulder, ham, belly or side, and loin). Similarly, feeder pigs are graded on a 1-4 scale, Utility and Cull. Unthrifty pigs are graded either utility and cull, and thrifty pigs are graded on the expected slaughter grade at a market weight of 220 lbs. Thriftiness is defined as the apparent ability to gain weight rapidly and efficiently (Wellman 1999). Unlike cattle, yield grades for hogs and feeder pigs do not provide clear information on weight loss from live animal to retail cut since the grade combines the quality and quantity yield of the pig. It is difficult to assess USDA yield grades of pork; therefore, carcass cutting yields in boneless, retail cuts are used instead of USDA yield grades. However, most calculations from secondary sources used USDA yield grades to assess carcass yields. Calculations will be based on Wulf s equation previously mentioned, Pounds of Meat = (Dressing Percent X Carcass Cutting Yield) X Live Weight, as it applies to the average pig as well as cattle. The loss of water weight and shrinkage when chilling the pig carcass is unkown. As a percentage of the entire body weight, the loss of water weight is most likely insignificant compared to a cow, which yield more pounds of meat per animal. In order to receive the best estimate of meat yield for the average pork animal, four main factors are considered (1) Average weight of a pork animal (hog) (2) dressing percentage and (3) carcass cutting yield and (4) consumption statistics nationally and in New York City. (1) Reported by the USDA, the average live weight of hogs in 2008 and 2009 is estimated 9

10 to be 268 lbs and 271 lbs (under federal inspection), 239 lbs and 237 lbs (under commercial inspection), and 267 lbs and 270 lbs pounds (under other inspection) (2009b). The average weight of hogs, considering all inspections, is 259 lbs. (2) According to statistics compiled by the Food Safety Division, Meat Inspection Services of the Oklahoma Deptartment of Agriculture & Forestry, an average of 57% of a hog make it from the pen to the pan (2008). This yield includes 28% loss after dressing and removing internal organs, hair, blood, and other inedible products. Wulf s estimates support the dressing loss data. The average dressing percentage of a hog is 74% and 26% of the weight is lost (Wulf 1999). Additionally the average dressed weight of a hog (an average of 2008 and 2009 weights) is 202 lbs. Since the average weight of a live hog is 259 lbs, 28% of the weight is lost during dressing (2009b). The loss in weight, calculated using USDA average numbers, is equal to the loss calculated by the Food and Safety Division in Oklahoma. Therefore, the average loss after dressing is 28%. (3) Once the carcass is chilled and cut into boneless, retail cuts, another 20% of the weight is removed due to bone dust, fat trimming, boning, grinding, and moisture loss (2008). Because yield grades vary greatly due to variable factors such as leanness and fatness and muscle weight, the cutting carcass cutting yield is estimated over a large range of 18%-45% in other sources (Wulf 1999). Wulf calculates an average of 35% loss for an average market hog of boneless chops and roasts, closely trimmed, lean ground pork/sausage. For a Heavily muscled market hog, producing regular ground pork/sausage, there is an 18% loss of closely trimmed meat. These statistics do not evaluate whether the average market hog meat or heavily muscled market hog meat is 10

11 more heavily produced or consumed. According to the Animal Science Department in the University of Florida, an additional 30 lbs of fat for lard, bones and waste further reduces this 150 lb carcass to only 120 lbs of salable retail cuts -- chops, hams, bacon, ribs and sausage -- that the retailer packages and puts on display in the meat case (Reddish 2003). As a result, there is a 20% loss after carcass cutting. Although it is important to consider variations of fatness, leanness, and muscle as Wulf assesses, extreme variations may exist on a smaller scale of the total pork consumed. There is a greater consensus that the average market hog has an 80% carcass-cutting yield and a 20% loss. (4) In New York City, approximately 410 million pounds of pork is consumed annually. In the United States, an average of 15.3 billion pounds of pork is consumed annually (U.S. Census Bureau). The average per capita consumption of pork is 51 pounds for the US and NYC (Davis 2005). Chicken Chicken, ready for marketing, is sold in Ready-To-Cook (RTC) pounds. At this stage, the feathers, head, feet, and viscera (internal organs) have been removed from the chicken (2009d). RTC poultry consumption statistics considers both processed meats and uncooked poultry. Therefore, in order to convert the amount of chicken consumed, the RTC weight, which represents pounds consumed, must be converted back to the live weight of the chicken. Yet, in the USDA statistics for animal dressing weights, poultry is the only class of animal meat that is unreported. In order to calculate the percent loss, the post mortem percent of weight condemned statistic will be used. The Agricultural Statistics Board defines post-mortem condemnations as carcasses or parts condemned by the inspector because of disease or mishandling and removed 11

12 from the slaughter line and destroyed (2009c). Post-mortem condemnations are measured as a percent of the total live weight inspected in a given slaughter line. Therefore, although there is no distinction of parts removed from a live chicken and chickens completely destroyed, this statistics is important to consider in the calculation and acts as an average loss per chicken from live weight to dressed weight. Chickens, both mature and young, will be considered in this calculation. According the USDA, live weight of chickens in 2008 was 5.58 pounds and in 2009, 5.57 pounds (2009c). Condemnations were 0.26 percent of the live weight inspected, as compared with 0.34 percent a year earlier. How much of the meat in circulation in the US is imported and where is it imported from? Documents from the Economic Research Center of the United States Department of Agriculture, entitled U.S. Food Import Patterns, , details the growth in meat imports over the past decade and lists the sources of international meat for the United States. According to the report, Most meat came from Canada [and] Oceania in fiscal years (Brooks, Regmi, and Jerardo 2009). There was also a marked spike in meat imports in the current top five international sources of meat Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Uruguay and Denmark in the past decade as the total amount spent on meat from these countries escaladed from $2.3 billion to $4.7 billion (Brooks, Regmi, and Jerardo 2009). The statistics detailed the meat imports in terms of their cost, not in terms of weight, which is the metric by which the volume of meat imports to the United States is being evaluated in this section. A 2009 report entitled, Meat and livestock annual cumulative year-to-date U.S. trade from the Economic Research Service, uses data from the United States Commerce Department to 12

13 detail import and export totals from 2004 to July 2009 of cow, pig, and chicken. The numbers are presented per 1000 pounds of meat and give the totals from each of the top exporters of meat to the United in fiscal year The report gives totals for 2004 to 2008 and then provides data from the first half of 2008 and the first half of 2009, so as to provide a basis for pattern comparison and perhaps projection for the end of the current year. However, this document does not provide statistics regarding the importing of chicken products. Monthly meat imports from July 2008 through July 2009 in a report entitled Meat and livestock monthly U.S. trade, from the Economic Research Service, provides a short-term picture of the changes occurring in meat importation. Additionally, the report outlines the means by which to extrapolate what future trends might be and how 2009 imports will change from those of The final piece of the puzzle needed in order to understand meat importation was found in the report Chickens, turkeys, and eggs: Annual and cumulative year-to-date U.S. trade, conducted by the Economic Research Service. The report provides all of the information on chicken products that was not included in the other year-by-year import breakdowns. In order to determine what share of imported meat occupies of the total amount circulating in the United States, statistics on how much meat was produced domestically on a yearly basis is also necessary. Where are the areas of high and low meat consumption in New York City and why do these disparities exist? Meat Consumption for High and Low Income Americans Economic status refers to the yearly household income of a family of four. In accordance with the United States Census, economic status will be broken down into three categories: poor, 13

14 families at or below the poverty line of $17,000; middle class, families making between the poverty line and New York City s median household income of $54,000; and wealthy, families that make over $60,000 (Kohli, 2007). The terms hunger and food poverty are used to describe situations in which families lack access to food either because of location or poverty. Food insecure households are classified as households with low food intake in which eating habits are disrupted because of insufficient money or resources. These disruptions can range from skipping meals to buying less at the supermarket. In food secure households there is enough nutritional food, obtained without the assistance of emergency food providers or federal assistance programs, to feed all members of the household (Andrews 2002). Yearly food budgets per person for wealthy and poor Americans range between $3,300 and $1,900 respectively (Blisard, 2000). For the wealthy, this food budget is 7 percent of their total yearly income and for the poor it is 21 percent. On average, United States households spend approximately 55 percent of their food budget on at home food, food that is prepared in the home, and of this 15 percent is spent on meat (Blisard, 2003). Thus, nationally the wealthy spend $297 or more on meat per year and the poor spend approximately $171. However, in New York City food prices are 8 percent higher than the national average and therefore, food budgets will not stretch as far (Leibtag, 2007). At local New York City supermarkets, beef is approximately $5.00 per pound, chicken is roughly $1.30 per pound and pork is around $2.50 per pound (Morton Williams, 2009). The average American consumes a pound of meat a day, but New Yorkers with high incomes often consume much more than this (Blisard, 2000). In food secure and food wealthy households, which comprise of approximately 90 percent of households in New York City, food staples such as meat, fresh fruit and vegetables are in abundance. A typical food secure household will spend a 31% more on food than a food 14

15 insecure household of the same size and composition (Nord, 2007). This means a third more meat is consumed in food secure households than food insecure households. On the other end of the spectrum, poor New Yorker with a meat budget of $171 a year for can buy less than one-tenth of a pound of beef per day, a little more than one-third a pound of chicken or approximately one-fifteenth pounds of pork per day (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 2002). But, for the more than 10 percent of New Yorkers live in households with income below the poverty line, even these amounts of meat are unobtainable. Their food budget is much smaller (Food Bank for NYC, 2007). As result, more than 44 percent of households with incomes below the poverty line, 1.3 million New Yorkers, are food insecure (New York City Coalition Against Hunger, 2007). Food Assistance Programs Assisting food insecure households are a variety of government and non-profit organizations. These include government-funded programs that provide assistance through food stamps and Women, Infants, Children centers as well as privately funded, non-profit emergency food providers. Through a combination of these programs, millions of New Yorkers are fed every year. The Federal Food Stamp Program, now officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), is a federally funded food supplement program that helps lowincome New Yorkers meet dietary requirements by providing money for food. There are 22 food stamp offices in New York City. The highest numbers of offices are located in Brooklyn and the Bronx, where there food poverty is most prevalent. Food stamps can only be used for three months every three years and unless the recipient is the sole caretaker of their child, the recipient must work 20 hours a week (Food Stamp Outreach Program, 2009). 15

16 Nationally, only 66 percent of those eligible for food stamps receive them because of a complicated bureaucracy and miscommunication about eligibility requirements (New York City Coalition Against Hunger, 2007). The average person receives $44 dollars in food stamps a month. The maximum amount one can receive is $200 a month (AARP, 2009). Food stamp money is put onto an Electronic Benefits Transfer card. The money can be spent on any food in the supermarket that will be consumed at home. Technically, all food stamp money received can be spent on meat (Food Stamp Outreach Program, 2009). Woman, Infants, Children (WIC) is a federal grant program that provides money to states to supplement the food, health care, and nutrition education of impoverished mothers and their children. Assistance through the program can continue until the child reaches the age of 5. Nationally in 2008, a little less than 9,000 women participated in the WIC program. On average, these women received a food stipend of $43 a month (Food and Nutrition Service, 2009). Emergency food providers (EFPs) are organizations such as soup kitchens or food pantries that provide free food to hungry New Yorkers. Over 80 percent of EFPs are religious organizations. Almost all are composed solely of volunteers (Food For Survival Inc., 2000). In New York State, the two largest coalitions of EFPs are the New York City Coalition Against Hunger and the Food Bank of New York City. Combined, they serve more than 1 million pounds of meat to New Yorkers every year (Food Bank for New York City, 2009). RESEARCH DESIGN National meat available per capita statistics are based on the total U.S. population and the total New York City population. National statistics regarding the amount of meat actually consumed per capita is applied to the total New York City population in order to determine how 16

17 much meat New Yorkers actually consume. Commuters consumption of meat is factored into the total, although tourists consumption cannot be accounted for. A percentage of the total is subtracted to account for the non-meat-eating population in New York. In July 2005, the population of the United States was approximately million people. The amount of meat thus available per capita was approximately 93.8 pounds of beef, 63.8 pounds of pork, and pounds of poultry in ready-to-cook weight. These numbers include processed meats and poultry on a fresh basis and amount to a total of pounds of meat (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2007a). The estimate for the number of residents living in the five boroughs of New York City is 8,246,310 (Bureau 2008). The population was thus multiplied by the total amount of meat available per capita (275.8 pounds) to yield an estimate of the amount meat available for New Yorkers consumption. Out of the meat available in 2005, the average American consumes pounds of 62.8 pounds of beef, 46.5 pounds of pork and 60.5 pounds of chicken (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2007b). The multiplication of average consumption of meat by the population of New York City yields the amount of meat consumed by New Yorkers in one year. The daily commuters that visit and dine in New York City each day must also be taken into account. In 2000, approximately 775,000 people commuted into New York City each day (McKay 2005). The commuter population is added to the resident population to yield the total number of people dining New York City each other. Approximately, 2.3% (approximately 200,000 in New York City) is subtracted from the total resident and commuter population to account for the vegetarian population in New York City. The result yields the total number of meat-eaters in New York City, which is multiplied by the amount of meat consumed by the 17

18 average American in 2005 to yield the total amount of meat consumed in New York City annually. The amount of cattle, pigs, and chickens annually consumed per capita and in total in the United States and in New York City will be calculated using the average per capita meat consumption statistics calculated. By converting the number of pounds of meat consumed to the quantity of animal consumed, environmental, health, social, and economic costs and contributions can be better evaluated. The conversion will serve as a crucial statistic in order to correlate variables of animal production and meat consumption with various factors to be discussed in this book including air and atmosphere quality, energy costs, land use and numerous health issues. The number of pounds consumed does not reflect the total weight of the live animal, but the percent yield of market meat in each animal. The percent yield or the carcass cutting yield is defined as the percentage of the carcass that ends up as meat (Wulf 1999). Pounds consumed can be converted to carcass cutting yield, to carcass weight, and then to live animal. Three important questions are always asked: 1. What are the average pounds of meat consumed per capita and in total in New York City and in the United States? 2. What is the average total weight of the animal ready for slaughter? 3. What is the average total carcass weight of the animal? 4. What standard and measurable factors contribute to the average percent of the animal carcass processed for human consumption? The following flow charts outline the calculation design for each animal. 18

19 Cattle Weight of average beef animal in pounds 1236 lbs STEP 1: Percent loss in transport minus 1 5% STEP 2: Percent loss during dressing (Average Dressing Percentage) minus 37% STEP 3: Percent loss during chilling (Cold Weight) minus 2% STEP 4: Percent loss during cutting (Average Yield Grade) minus 50% STEP 5: Average weight of meat in pounds (BCTRC) X Number of average beef animals consumed cconsumption of meat (lbs) divided by meat from one animal (lbs) Pig Weight of average pork animal in pounds 259 lbs STEP 1: Percent loss during dressing (Average Dressing Percentage) minus 28% STEP 2: Percent loss during cutting (Average Yield Grade) minus 20% STEP 3: Average weight of meat in pounds X Number of average pork animals consumed consumption of meat (lbs) divided by meat from one animal (lbs) 19

20 Chicken Weight of Average Chicken (lbs) 5.5lbs STEP 1: Post Mortem Condemnations minus 30% Ready to Cook Weight of Chicken X STEP 2: Number of average chickens consumed consumption of meat (lbs) divided by meat from one animal (lbs) Calculations of Animals Consumed Cattle Step 1: 1236 lbs X 99% = 1224 lbs 1236 lbs X 95% = 1174 lbs Step 2: 1224 lbs X 63% = 711 lbs 1174 X 63% = 740 lbs Step 3: 711 lbs X 98 = 697 lbs 740 lbs X 98% = 726 lbs Step 4: 697 lbs X 50% = 349 lbs 726 lbs X 50% = 363 lbs Average Meat Yield: (349 lbs lbs) / 2 = 356 lbs/cattle Step 5: Cattle Consumed Per capita = (62.4 lbs) / (356 lbs) = = 7/40 or ~1/5 th of an average beef animal Annual Total US = (27.8 X 10 9 lbs) / (356 lbs/cattle) = ~ 78,089,888 cattle Annual Total NYC = (550 X 10 6 lbs) / (356 lbs/cattle) = ~1,544,944 cattle Pig Step 1: Step 2: 259 lbs X 72% = 186 lbs 186 lbs X 80% = 149 lbs Average Meat Yield: = 149 lbs/pig Step 3: Pigs Consumed Per capita = (51 lbs) / (149 lbs) = = 17/50 or ~2/5 th of an average pork animal Annual Total US = (15.3 X 10 9 lbs / (149 lbs/pig) = ~ 102,684,564 pigs Annual Total NYC = (410 X 10 6 lbs) / (149 lbs/pig) = ~2,751,678 pigs Chicken Step 1: 5.5 lbs X 70% = 3.85 lbs Average Meat Yield = 3.85 lbs/chicken Step 2: Chickens Consumed Per Capita = (60.5 lbs) / (3.85 lbs/chickens) = ~15.7 chickens Annual Total US = (1.84 X lbs) / (3.85 lbs/chicken) = ~ 4,774,387,200 chickens Annual Total NYC = (533 X 10 6 lbs) / (3.85 lbs/chicken) = ~138,441,558 chickens 20

21 Measuring the share that imported meat occupies in the total amount of meat in circulation in the United States could be done in two ways. The first is by the cost of procuring meat from international sources; the second is by the weight of the imported carcasses. For the purposes of this chapter, the second means of measurement will be employed, but in discussing the changes in food importation patterns over the past decade the first metric will also be addressed. On the matter of whether the share occupied by imported meat will be measured in terms of the total meat circulating or in terms of the total meat consumed in the United States, the first metric will be utilized. To determine the share of the total meat in circulation that imported meat occupies, the totals for a particular type of meat imported are added to the total amount of that type of meat produced domestically in a given year to obtain a figure that represents the total amount of meat circulating in the United States. In order to calculate a percentage that imported meat would represent of the total share, the total meat imported is divided by the total meat circulating and multiplied by 100. This process was completed for five years worth of data (2004 to 2008) and for each meat group within each year (beef, pork, and chicken). The different levels of meat consumption in New York City cannot be determined solely through statistical data or through numerical calculations. Instead, a mixed approach is needed that involves both social statistics on the consumption behavior of households with different incomes and quantitative data on the number of food providers, their locations and the price of meat. In order to determine statistics and background information on food security and food assistance programs, information was gathered from reports by organizations such as the United States Department of Agriculture, the Food Bank for New York City, and the New York City 21

22 Coalition Against Hunger. These reports detail the role of food assistance programs and their effectiveness. Included are broad profiles of the economic status and household make-up of New York families who make use of the programs. Information on the price of meat, both in the United States and in New York City, was assembled through the Livestock Information Marketing Center and local supermarket websites. In 2006 the New York City Coalition Against Hunger compiled lists of food providers in New York City. Included were the number of Women, Infant, Children grant offices, emergency food providers, farmers markets, community gardens, restaurants, and food retailers in New York City. The lists also provided the size and location of each food provider. Seventy-six percent of all clients receive emergency food in the neighborhood in which they live. Thus, by mapping data on the locations of food assistance programs and food retailers, it is possible to determine which areas in New York City have the highest access to food and which have the lowest, thereby documenting the uneven distribution of meat in New York City. In addition, because more than two-thirds of families reporting food insecurity cite poverty as the main cause, it was helpful to supplement this information on food providers with data gathered by the United States Census on poverty levels in New York City (Food For Survival Inc., 2000). The correlation of maps of food providers and of poverty demographics creates a more complete picture of food access. 22

23 RESULTS Meat Consumption Figure. 1 Meat Consumption Statistics Animal CATTLE PIG CHICKEN Average Weight of Animal 1236 lbs 259lbs 5.5lbs (lbs) Average Yield of Animal 356 lbs 149 lbs 3.8 lbs (lbs) available for Consumption Annual Consumption in USA (lbs) 27.8 billion lbs 15.3 billion lbs 18 billion lbs Annual Consumption in NYC (lbs) Annual Consumption Per Capita (lbs) Annual Consumption in USA (animal) Annual Consumption in NYC (animal) Annual Consumption Per Capita (animal) 550 million lbs 410 million lbs 533 million lbs 62.4 lbs 51.0 lbs 60.5 lbs 78 million 103 million 4.8 billion 1.5 million 2.7 million 138 million 1/5 th 2/5 th 16 Figure 2. Percentages of Cow, Pig, and Chicken of Total Meat Consumed in New York City 36% 37% Cow Consumed (lbs) Pig Consumed (lbs) Chicken Consumed (lbs) 27% 23

24 Figure 3. Number of Animals Consumed in NYC and the US 5000 Number of Animals (in millions) NYC Cows Pigs Chickens US NYC US 24

25 Meat Imports and Circulation For the year 2008, the cumulative weight of beef imports was approximately 2.54 billion pounds; the cumulative weight of pork imports was nearly 832 million pounds; the cumulative weight of chicken imports was approximately 47.3 million pounds (U.S. Department of Commerce 2009). (see Figure 4.) Figure 4: Beef, Pork & Chicken Import Totals, 2008* Meat Type Total Total Weight Beef (carcass weight 1,000 lbs.) 2,538,146 2,538,146 1,000 = 2,538,146,000 Pork (carcass weight 1,000 lbs.) 831, ,884 1,000 = 831,884,000 Chicken (per 1,000 lbs.) 47,285 47,285 1,000 = 47,285,000 *U.S. Department of Commerce 2009 The top exporter of beef to the United States in 2008 was Canada, which accounted for more than 841 million pounds of total beef imported. However since 2004, Canada has occupied the top spot only twice, in 2005 and Australia has been the most voluminous provider in 2004, 2006 and 2007 and looks on pace to eclipse Canada in As of July, Australia has accounted for nearly 527 million pounds of imported beef, with Canada coming in second with nearly 471 million pounds (U.S. Department of Commerce 2009). (see Figure 5.) Figure 5: Beef Imports by Country, (Totals per 1,000 lbs.)* Country Canada 1,062,420 1,092, , , ,241 Australia 1,118, , , , ,009 New Zealand 645, , , , ,332 Uruguay 402, , , ,224 65,549 Brazil 219, , , , ,907 Argentina 116, ,356 85,798 69,264 56,052 Nicaragua 65,397 63,402 62,590 88,357 99,326 Mexico 19,495 26,720 40,760 49,788 43,783 Costa Rica 23,632 25,719 19,377 17,950 19,239 Honduras 4,962 4,696 1, ,603 Other ,529 3,105 Total 3,679,232 3,598,509 3,084,666 3,052,164 2,538,146 *U.S. Department of Commerce 2009 The top exporter of pork to the United States in 2008 was Canada, which accounted for 644 million pounds of pork imported or 77.4 percent of the total. Canada has demonstrated 25

26 preponderance in this sector, occupying the top spot in pork exports to the United States every year since 2004 by at least 500 thousand pounds. Denmark has come in second to Canada in each of the past five years (U.S. Department of Commerce 2009). (see Figure 6.) Figure 6: Pork Imports by Country, (Totals per 1,000 lbs.)* Country Canada 885, , , , ,276 Denmark 138,564 99, ,988 98,871 84,499 Mexico 9,455 19,605 33,232 42,783 34,197 Poland 24,264 25,633 24,266 28,024 28,186 Italy 8,115 9,071 9,388 10,832 10,437 Other 33,314 33,314 26,746 23,156 30,290 Total 1,099,464 1,023, , , ,884 *U.S. Department of Commerce 2009 As has already been mentioned, in order to find these numbers, it was necessary to locate a new document. The report ( Meat and livestock annual cumulative year-to-date U.S. trade ) only provided numbers for the export of chicken products. Another document courtesy of the Economic Research Service provided me with all of the remaining information relevant to the research. The report is entitled, Chickens, turkeys, and eggs: Annual and cumulative year-todate U.S. trade. The top exporter of chicken to United States in 2008 was Canada with approximately 47.3 billion pounds of chicken imported. Chicken is not a major import commodity for the United States, as evidenced by the low import totals and the existence of only two foreign sources of chicken (Canada and Israel) in the years 2005, 2007 and However, import levels have increased by approximately 47.8 percent over the past five years (U.S. Department of Commerce 2009). (see Figure 7.) Figure 7: Chicken Imports by Country, (Totals per 1,000 lbs.)* Country Canada 30,612 34,033 42,977 48,003 47,250 Israel 1,366 1, Other Total 31,982 35,220 43,374 48,888 47,285 *U.S. Department of Commerce

27 Having secured the figures from the importation of beef, pork and chicken, the production totals for each of these three product types in the United States were then sought out. Obtaining these numbers is necessary in order to determine what share of the total meat in circulation meat products occupy. An article from the Economic Research Service by Kathryn Quanbeck and Rachel J. Patton, entitled Livestock, Pork, and Poultry Outlook, provided a table of total meat production in each sector dating back to The numbers for the meat groups relevant to this section beef, pork and chicken are outlined in Figure 8 (Quanbeck and Patton 2009). Figure 8: U.S. Meat Production (Totals per 1,000,000 lbs.)* Meat Type Beef 24,548 24,683 26,153 26,421 26,561 Pork 20,511 20,685 21,055 21,943 23,347 Chicken 34,063 35,365 35,500 36,126 36,906 *Quanbeck and Patton 2009 Having all of the figures, the share of total meat circulating in the United States that imported meat occupies over the past five years was calculated. (The arithmetic processes employed to generate these results are explained in the Research Design section.) In 2008, imported beef occupied an 8.72 percent share of total, imported pork occupied a 3.44 percent of total, imported chicken occupied a percent share of total, and imported meat cumulatively occupied a 3.79 percent share of the total meat circulating in the United States (U.S. Department of Commerce 2009). (see Figure 9.) 27

28 Figure 9: Imported Meat s Share of Total Meat Circulating in the U.S. from * 2004 Meat Type Total Imported Total Produced Total Circulating Share of Total Beef 3,679,232,000 24,548,000,000 28,227,232, % Pork 1,099,464,000 20,511,000,000 21,610,464, % Chicken 31,982,000 34,063,000,000 34,094,982, % Totals 4,810,678,000 79,122,000,000 83,932,678, % 2005 Meat Type Total Imported Total Produced Total Circulating Share of Total Beef 3,598,509,000 24,683,000,000 28,281,509, % Pork 1,023,847,000 20,685,000,000 21,708,847, % Chicken 35,220,000 35,365,000,000 35,400,220, % Totals 4,657,576,000 80,733,000,000 85,390,576, % 2006 Meat Type Total Imported Total Produced Total Circulating Share of Total Beef 3,084,666,000 26,153,000,000 29,237,666, % Pork 989,679,000 21,055,000,000 22,044,679, % Chicken 43,374,000 35,500,000,000 35,543,374, % Totals 4,117,719,000 82,708,000,000 86,825,719, % 2007 Meat Type Total Imported Total Produced Total Circulating Share of Total Beef 3,052,164,000 26,421,000,000 29,473,164, % Pork 968,438,000 21,943,000,000 22,911,438, % Chicken 48,888,000 36,126,000,000 36,174,888, % Totals 4,069,490,000 84,490,000,000 88,559,490, % 2008 Meat Type Total Imported Total Produced Total Circulating Share of Total Beef 2,538,146,000 26,561,000,000 29,099,146, % Pork 831,884,000 23,347,000,000 24,178,884, % Chicken 47,285,000 36,906,000,000 36,953,285, % Totals 3,417,315,000 86,814,000,000 90,231,315, % *U.S. Department of Commerce 2009 Areas of High and Low Meat Concentration in NYC The three maps in this section were created as part of an Interactive Map exhibit presented by the New York City Coalition Against Hunger. The points plotted represent data collected by the coalition on the number, location and size of EFPs, WICs, Food Stamp office, food retailers, and restaurants throughout New York City. The more concentrated the area, the more food, and therefore meat, is available in that area. Superimposed upon the maps, which are divided by community district and borough, are poverty statistics collected by the U.S. Census. As indicated by the legend, the darker the area, the more poverty is present. 28

29 Figure 10: EFPs, WICs, and Food Stamp Offices in New York City LEGEND 29

30 Figure 11: Restaurants in New York City LEGEND 30

31 Figure 12: Food Retailers in New York City LEGEND 31

32 DISCUSSION Meat Consumption and Import Trends The percentages of cow, chicken and pig meat consumed in pounds of the total meat consumed in the United States and New York City is the following from high to low: Cow (37%), Chicken (36%), and Pig (27%). Cow and chicken consumption are almost equal in amount consumed. However, we cannot generalize that beef and poultry are the most highly consumed meats because this chapter does not analyze other forms of beef such as lamb and other poultry, such as turkey. However, these estimates do mirror the meat distribution in an American s diet and can be correlated with socioeconomic and health factors. Additionally, the amount of meat consumed converted to live animal allows for a better evaluation of energy cost associated with producing the mass of animals needed to feed America. The number of live animals consumed from highest to lowest is chicken, pig, and cow. This number only reflects the number of animals and follows a trend from lightest to heaviest animal. The number of live animals produced is calculated to understand energy cost and the overall impact of meat consumption on the environment. There has been a precipitous decline in imported meat over the past five years. Imported meat s share of total has decreased by 1.94 percent from 2004 to 2008 and the only area in which there has been an increase is in imported chicken, which, in comparison to the overall numbers for both beef and pork, is a negligible portion of imported meat. In fact in 2007, beef and pork comprised 87 percent of imported meat (Brooks, Regmi, and Jerardo 2009). This decline has corresponded to a sharp uptick in domestic meat production, which has increased by 7.50 percent over the past five years. 32