Bill Overview
Title: A–PLUS Act
Description: A-PLUS Act This bill directs the Department of Agriculture to revise federal regulations related to market agencies owning, financing, or participating in the operation of a meat packing entity. Specifically, this bill allows market agencies to have an ownership interest in, finance, or participate in the management or operation of a packing entity if such packing entity has a cumulative slaughter capacity of less than 2,000 animals per day or 700,000 animals per year.
Sponsors: Rep. Hartzler, Vicky [R-MO-4]
Target Audience
Population: people involved in or dependent upon US livestock and meat processing industries
Estimated Size: 4500000
- The bill affects market agencies, which are entities that facilitate the buying and selling of livestock for meat processing.
- Meat packing entities with a small to medium scale of operation (slaughter capacity of less than 2,000 animals per day or 700,000 animals per year) will be directly impacted as they can gain financing or investment from market agencies.
- Farmers and livestock producers could be indirectly affected as the changes might influence the competitive dynamics of the meat processing industry.
- Consumers may eventually feel the effects through changes in meat prices or availability, depending on how market dynamics shift due to the bill.
- The agricultural sector, especially parts related to livestock and meat processing, will be broadly impacted.
Reasoning
- The A-PLUS Act affects a specific segment within the livestock and meat processing industries, particularly market agencies and smaller meat packing entities.
- Given the budget constraints and the target population of 4.5 million, the policy is aimed at facilitating growth in smaller meat processing operations, which may influence market dynamics and competition.
- The simulation includes a variety of individuals, including those directly involved in the industry and others who might experience indirect impacts such as price changes.
- The Cantril Wellbeing scores take into account both direct financial and operational impacts, as well as broader market effects that influence individuals' perceptions of economic stability and community welfare.
Simulated Interviews
Livestock broker (Kansas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will provide more opportunities for small packers, which means more flexible options for my business.
- I expect some increase in my earnings due to better market integration.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Farmer (Iowa)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If more small packers can operate, it might mean better prices for my cattle.
- I am cautiously optimistic about this policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Veterinarian (Texas)
Age: 59 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see much change for my work, but any improvement in the livestock industry is positive.
- New opportunities for clients could result in new services for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Environmental researcher (California)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could challenge sustainability goals if it leads to increased meat production without improved practices.
- Close monitoring of environmental impacts is needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Meat processing plant manager (Nebraska)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could allow us to expand and become more competitive.
- I am concerned about maintaining quality standards amid increased production.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Grocery store manager (New York)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the policy improves supply chains, prices could stabilize.
- I'm watching to see if there are new regional suppliers we can partner with.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired farmer (Montana)
Age: 66 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to see policies fostering smaller operations, giving farmers more market choices.
- I worry about the long-term impact on traditional farming methods.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
University student (Illinois)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a student, this policy offers a case study in market economics and small business impacts.
- It provides potential research data for my thesis.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Meat distributor (Ohio)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law could mean more suppliers, which is good for competition.
- It will also require adjusting supply chains, which presents challenges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Restaurant owner (Virginia)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could help with local sourcing by increasing the number of small suppliers.
- I hope to negotiate better prices and sustain quality offerings.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $7500000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $7500000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $7500000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $7500000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $7500000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $7500000)
Key Considerations
- The regulatory changes could lead to restructuring within the meat packing industry, impacting traditional business models.
- Implementation costs for federal agencies might need to account for increased regulatory and compliance checks.
- The bill could indirectly influence market prices for meat products, affecting consumer welfare.
- The impact on livestock producers could vary based on how changes in processing capacity influence supply chain dynamics.
- Potential large-scale shifts in market dynamics might necessitate further government intervention if outcomes diverge significantly from projections.