Copy of AFF Sentinel V21 #40-A Further Look Into the Proposed Slaughter Ban
- Steve Dittmer
- Jul 22
- 4 min read
Such An Opinion By a Few Shouldn’t Be Put in a Constitution
Steve Dittmer | AFF Sentinel
Colorado Springs, CO
Originally sent to subscribers 10/20/24
We’ve written recently about a ballot initiative in Denver that would ban existence of any slaughter plant in the city. The only one left in Denver now is a lamb slaughter plant just west of the National Western Stock Show complex.
We addressed the basic considerations last time. But there has been a comprehensive study of this particular situation by economists and animal scientists at Colorado State University.*
It is worth digging into Denver’s issue because many of the same considerations on their level are just as relevant to our industry in general, in evaluating the impacts on the surrounding community and the nation. In addition, success for this sliver of activists, in harnessing the emotions of voters, would encourage more campaigns in other towns and cities to further curtail processing plants for livestock.
In fact, in a recent discussion of the campaign by cattlemen, it was concluded that just defeating this ban wasn’t enough. The margin of victory must be large, so as to discourage a repeat campaign again not only in Denver but in other locations activists might deem vulnerable.
“Supply chain dynamics”
Colorado is number three in sheep and lamb inventory, behind Texas and Wyoming and has the second highest fed-lamb numbers. But neither Texas nor Wyoming have major lamb harvesting plants.
It’s hardly news that consumers like including some local and regional foods in their diet. Outlawing a processing plant in a city or region certainly goes against that trend.
“Supply chain dynamics”
The CSU scientists pulled together figures on the impacts of even a relatively small harvesting plant and added some data on their state in general.
Economic data indicates lamb processing has a 2.41 output multiplying effect throughout the economy, while meat processing has its own multiplier of 2.21 and rendering and meat by-product processing another 1.92.
For a lamb plant processing 300,000/yr., total output from the entire processing chain comes to over $382 million, with the payroll portion alone amounting to over $44 million.
Looking at the state of Colorado for all livestock, those three animal processing sectors account for over $6.3 billion in total output, plus the output multiplier effects. Imagine the impact all through the American economy of curtailing or eliminating animal processing plants.
The report points out that the U.S. is already experiencing issues with food security (USDA ERS, 2022) due to inflation. A policy action that unintentionally elevates the price of food should be carefully considered. If a processor is removed from the market, and all producers must transport their animals further to be slaughtered, then all else being equal, the average cost for meat will increase. The price increase will be most detrimental to those at the lowest levels of income, and this change is likely to disproportionately fall on the most food-insecure groups during a period of already high prices.
We would add that it’s even worse when an activist group intentionally sets out to make meat more expensive in order to damage producers and discourage consumer consumption, just to further their own, minority personal opinions.
“The federal government has invested more than $1 billion to systematically support and incentivize small and mid-sized meat processors (White House, 2022; USDA, 2021-2023). This investment has notably changed the landscape of meat processing—and in Colorado has resulted in a 20% increase in custom-exempt and federal inspected meat processing facilities (Colorado Department of Agriculture, 2024),” the report said.
Further, location does matter, especially to smaller plants.
“Locating small and medium-sized processors near retail markets matters. Recent data and analyses indicate that small and medium-sized meat processors who operate a retail meat market are more likely to survive (23-48% more likely) in metro areas relative to their counterparts located in non-metro areas—largely due to increased market access (Isley & Low, 2023).”
Animal activists who say they are concerned about animal welfare evidently either don’t think through the effects of their activities or they are putting the cart before the horse. By trying to eliminate a harvest plant in one area, they are forcing animals to travel longer distances and are stressing animals more. That’s not improving the welfare of animals at all.
Or the activists are evidently operating under the obviously mistaken assumption that the abolition of meat eating is near. Unless they will soon be able to stop the overwhelming majority of the population to stop eating meat, they should not be forcing more stress on animals.
There is something else to ponder. On the retail and foodservice side, the big packers can supply beef just about anywhere in the country
But on the fed cattle side, the Big Four cannot easily be everywhere procuring cattle. The big plants that provide the scale to make beef competitive at retail and foodservice have to be near the major sources of fed cattle. As mentioned above, hauling live animals long distances is stressful. It also sometimes affects quality, costs ever more in freight, makes it harder for feeders to get the attention of packer buyers and makes it difficult for either the packer or the feeder to make money. Geography is a stubborn fact.
Keeping voters in local communities informed about the economic importance to a cascading chain of companies and workers is important, regardless of the size of a plant.
One further thought, relative to a free market capitalist economy. The American economy is a very complex system. While it is the most free market system in the world, it is not totally so. The activists in this case are attempting to counter consumer wants and trying to negate the effect of millions of government-funneled taxpayer dollars put toward pumping up or creating small and medium size processors. But those dollars are really subsidies awarded by government fiat, to compete with existing, established packers built with private and stockholder money.
That is not strict free market action.
*”The Proposed Denver Ordinance Banning Animal Slaughter: Implications for the Animal Sector and Economy,” April, 2024. Report link below.
Our address: Agribusiness Freedom Foundation, P.O. Box 88179, Colorado Springs, CO. 80908.
To support the work of AFF, you can contribute with any major credit cards here:
Or,
If you wish to use your Paypal acct. click below: