Impact on Competition
[7]
We agree with the Commission that there is no horizontal overlap in the parties’ activities but some degree of vertical integration arises due to the fact the KAP’s subsidiary, Bull Brand Foods (Pty) Ltd (“Bull Brand”) purchases large quantities of “chop” (a by-product of the maize milling process) and also various quantities of different animal feed.
[8]
The Bull Brand business consists of a canning division, fresh meat division and two feedlots situated in Hurland and Taaiboschbult. According to
the parties, at any one time, KAP has some [CONFIDENTIAL] heads of cattle (and other animals) in its feedlots in preparation for slaughter. This, the parties submit, constitutes a national market share of 8%. The animal feed which it uses contains various ingredients such as vitamins, chop,
bone meal and other animal feed. In 2006, KAP purchased approximately [CONFIDENTIAL] tonnes of chop from various suppliers. For a list of KAP’s chop suppliers please see page 25 of the Commission’s record.
[9]
As a by-product of its maize milling operations, Brenner Mills produces chop at its Machado, Maluti, Bela-Bela, Hammanskraal and Kwa-Kwa
operations. Brenner produces approximately [CONFIDENTIAL] tons of chop annually. No market shares are provided for the market for chop but according to the parties, Brenner accounts for approx.
12% of the maize meal production market with Tiger Brands, Pioneer Foods and Premier Foods collectively constituting 50% of the market.
[10]
The parties submit that the location of Brenner’s Mills in Machado, Kwa-Kwa and Maluti in relation to Bull Brand’s feedlots does not enable KAP to purchase chop from Brenner on an economically sustainable basis. However, the chop produced in Bela-Bela and Hammanskraal could be used to supply KAP cost effectively.
[11]
In 2006, Brenner Mills’ operations in Bela-Bela and Hammanskraal collectively produced approximately [CONFIDENTIAL] tonnes of chop. If one considers Bull Brand’s chop purchases for 2006, this accounts for less than half of Bull Brand’s requirements. We agree with the Commission and the parties that even if Bull Brands were to purchase its entire chop requirement from Brenner Mills, there are a number of suppliers of chop to which other customers could turn viz. Delmas, Tiger Milling, Allem Brothers, Sasko, Keystone Milling, Senwes Grain and others. Similarly these suppliers have alternative customers who would buy their product viz. Beefcor, Beefmaster, EAC Group, Kanhym, Karan Beef and others.
CONCLUSION
[12]
In light of the above, we endorse the Commission’s view that this merger is unlikely to substantially prevent or lessen competition in any of the markets which the merging parties are active in. There are no public interest issues which would alter our view and we accordingly approve this transaction without conditions.
____________________
N Manoim
M Moerane and L Reyburn concurring.
Tribunal Researcher:
M Murugan-Modise
For the merging parties:
C Fouch
(Jan S. de Villiers Attorneys)
For the Commission:
E Ramohlola (Mergers and Acquisitions)
SAFLII:
|
Terms of Use
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACT/2007/27.html