Ag Policy

DOJ, USDA Ramp Up Antitrust Investigation Into "Big 4" Beef Packers

Fri, 08 May 2026 18:34:38 GMT

The Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Agriculture are intensifying scrutiny of concentration and pricing practices across the meat industry, announcing this week that federal investigators are ramping up a criminal antitrust investigation into the nation’s four largest beef packers.

During a joint press conference Monday at DOJ headquarters, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche framed the effort as part of a broader push to address competition issues in agriculture and food pricing.

“Today we are here to talk about our progress here at the Justice Department to hold meat packers accountable,” Blanche says.

Federal officials allege price-fixing and collusion may have contributed to higher meat prices for consumers, while also limiting competition within the cattle industry.

“We prioritized investigating potential antitrust violations in U.S. cattle and beef markets,” Blanche says. “In the beef industry, the Big Four processors control over 85% of the beef processing market. Two of the Big Four are primarily foreign-owned.”

The “Big Four” — referenced during the press conference — are JBS, Cargill, Tyson and National Beef. The administration argues the current structure of the meat industry allows competitors to exchange competitively sensitive information across the protein sector — practices DOJ says it is now investigating.

DOJ Encourages Whistleblowers to Come Forward

Blanche also encourages whistleblowers within the meatpacking industry to provide information to federal investigators. DOJ says individuals who provide information leading to antitrust convictions or major enforcement actions could qualify for financial rewards.

“The idea of whistleblowers of people coming forward with information they have is one of the best and most efficient ways that we can solve antitrust violations criminally or otherwise,” he says. “And so we just want to make sure people realize that people in this industry realize that we’re putting money where our mouth is. We’re not asking you to come forward and then see what happens. We’re saying if you come forward and if your information results in a finding, in a conviction, and the amount of money is over a million dollars, which in this industry is not a very high bar, that you stand to recover up to 30%. And so we have to incentivize people to make a very difficult choice and come forward with information if they had it.”

R-CALF USA Applauds Investigation

R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard says the biggest takeaway from Monday’s announcement is that DOJ is actively seeking public assistance through its antitrust whistleblower program.

“The biggest takeaway was that the Department of Justice is reaching out to the public seeking help through DOJ’s antitrust whistleblower program, to find out what the public knows
about these anticompetitive practices,” Bullard says.

Bullard says R-CALF USA has spent years warning policymakers about growing concentration in the cattle industry.

“We’ve been calling attention and warning that this is a threat to our national security, our economy, and particularly to our food safety here and food security in the United States,” Bullard says.

Rollins Links Herd Decline to Regulatory Pressure

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins also focused heavily on the shrinking U.S. cattle herd and declining number of ranchers during Monday’s event.

“In the past decade alone, we’ve lost over 17% of our cattle ranchers,” Rollins says. “More than 100,000 ranches across this country are no more.”

“The low herd size inherited by the Trump administration can be attributed to a variety of factors,” she says. “The biggest one, at least from our perspective, is the radical left’s ongoing assault against ranching as a way of life.”

Today, just four companies — JBS, Cargill, Tyson Foods, and National Beef — control roughly 85% of the cattle processing market. That level of concentration has surged from just 25% in 1977 to 71% by 1992, and now to an astonishing 85%.

Together, these companies operate through… pic.twitter.com/s4naYFcjt7
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) May 4, 2026

Rollins argues drought alone is not responsible for cattle liquidation.

“For years, they used climate alarmism to wage a war on cattle in America,” Rollins says. “And when you pair that with droughts, wildfire, overregulation from previous administrations and volatile markets, this is how we have ended up here today.”

The administration also outlined several policy initiatives it says are designed to support cattle producers, including:

Opening more federal land for grazing
Implementing new “Product of USA” labeling rules
Supporting small processors through a grading pilot program
Updating dietary guidelines to emphasize the role of meat in the American diet

Rollins says additional announcements are expected later this week.

Agri Stats Settlement Targets Information Sharing

The DOJ’s broader push against anticompetitive behavior escalated Thursday when the department announced a proposed settlement with Agri Stats .

Federal officials accuse the company of helping major meat processors share confidential pricing and production data involving chicken, pork and turkey markets for decades.

Under the proposed settlement , Agri Stats would be prohibited from continuing several data-sharing practices DOJ alleges distorted competition and increased prices.

The agreement would also increase market transparency by making more information available to buyers and sellers throughout the supply chain.

Although the Agri Stats case does not involve beef, Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing Peter Navarro referenced the pending settlement during Monday’s press conference.

“This is like the mathematician’s worst nightmare in terms of monopoly behavior,” Navarro says. “Basically, what the companies in this concentrated industry were doing was individually sending in data on everything, consumers, production, everything in between. And what did that computer do? It spit back what the monopoly price should be.”

With the settlement he explains, “Justice Department said no more. That’s not going to happen on our watch and that case I believe is going to be settled well or at trial in a way which not only will take care of that problem but implicate some of the bad actions that we’ve seen by the two American companies Tyson and Cargill and JBS on the Brazilian side along with National Beef.”

1 – The Department of Justice continues to bring affordability to the American people. Today, we announced a historic settlement with Agri Stats, whose business model directly raised the price of chicken, turkey, and pork in local grocery stores across our nation. 🐔🐖⚖️
— Acting AG Todd Blanche (@DAGToddBlanche) May 7, 2026

On X, Blanche says the settlement will create a more level playing field by making Agri Stats reports available to all buyers and sellers and calls it part of the administration’s broader push to fight anticompetitive behavior in the food supply chain.

Rollins also confirms the DOJ antitrust investigation into meatpackers originally announced in November remains ongoing.

“As ranchers face fewer options for selling their animals, the Big Four grow stronger and stronger,” Rollins says. “These companies now have an unprecedented ability to wield market power and influence prices paid for cattle — definitely more so than if we had greater competition.”

Industry Analysts Push Back on Concentration Claims

Not everyone in the cattle industry agrees that concentration itself is evidence of anticompetitive conduct.

John Nalivka, president of Sterling Marketing, says consolidation largely reflects economics and efficiency within the packing sector.

“As a business, you have to continually look to lowering costs,” Nalivka says. “And you can manage costs and you can manage revenue both. But the cost, you can have a direct impact on your cost structure. And one way of doing this, consolidating and gaining greater capacity and economies of scale.”

Nalivka also disputes the administration’s market concentration figures.

(Sterling Marketing Inc.)

“Well, to begin with, it’s not 85% now, it’s something more close to 78%, or even maybe a little bit lower than that when the Greeley strike was on,” he says.
The timing of the investigation is notable as packer profitability remains under pressure.

Nalivka says Sterling Marketing’s profit tracker showed beef packers losing nearly $200 per head at the end of April.

“From 2011 to 2015, we had the same set of circumstances, significant herd liquidation and pulling the numbers down,” Nalivka says. “And with the packing plant, the capacity is driven by — and I generate the numbers based on slaughter capacity — so it’s all about cattle numbers.”

Nalivka says his data shows the market share of the four largest beef packers has declined in 2026, with Tyson Foods’ share decreasing.

(Sterling Marketing Inc.)

According to Nalivka, the four largest beef packers now account for approximately 73% of fed-cattle slaughter capacity, leaving nearly one-quarter of processing capacity outside what the administration refers to as the “Big Four.”

“I have told people who have made these comments about these big bad packers,” Nalivka says. “I’ve said, first of all, I’ll start out with a statement, what would you do if you didn’t have one, a packer? And secondly, if you think it’s easy and you think you know so much about it, go build one.”

Producers Need Packers

Justin Tupper, U.S. Cattlemen’s Association president, says the DOJ action is less a brand-new effort than a continuation of long-running scrutiny. Tupper was a guest on AgriTalk Thursday .

Tupper acknowledges the seriousness of DOJ’s work, saying, “I sure do” believe they’re ramping it up, and called the probe “long-awaited and long-needed.” But he repeatedly warns about unintended consequences for producers if the investigation disrupts slaughter capacity.

“We like to vilify the packers all the time, but there is one truth to it, we need them,” he says, adding that if a major plant closed, it, “would cause more disruption than any good that could come from it.”

His concern is when cattle numbers rebuild, predicting, “When we get back to cattle numbers that they can control us, then they’re going to use that and weaponize that against us.”

Tupper stresses producers are not trying to deny packers a profit. “All we want as cattle producers is a fair shake; we don’t want to be used and abused when the cattle numbers are high.”

He warns the administration must understand “how tight that supply is and how few of places that slaughter them” and avoid “big disruptions.” He calls for thoughtful, balanced solutions developed with “cool heads and a lot of the smart people in the room” so the investigation doesn’t “disrupt the chain.”

Calls for Structural Reform Continue

Bullard says R-CALF USA continues pushing for significant structural reforms in the cattle industry.

“We’re asking them to do one of two things,” Bullard says. “Either break up the packers to provide more competition within the industry, or regulate those packers to ensure that they don’t engage in the antitrust conduct and anti-competitive practices.”

Bullard says the group is also urging the Trump administration to investigate what it describes as a “formula pricing scheme,” where cattle are increasingly sold through contracts instead of negotiated cash markets.

Critics argue those arrangements give major meatpackers greater influence over cattle pricing.

When asked whether the administration is listening to cattle producers’ concerns, Bullard points to Monday’s press conference as evidence of a major shift in Washington.

“Well, clearly it is,” Bullard says. “The press conference that was held talking specifically about the problems associated with beef packer concentration was unprecedented for the past 100 years. We have not seen our policymakers stand up and take a stand against the concentration of the cattle market. And so we’re excited that this administration is focused on this issue, understands that it is a national security issue, understands that as a result of our failure to properly enforce our antitrust laws, we’ve hollowed out rural American communities all across this country.”

Whether the federal investigation ultimately leads to major reforms within the cattle industry remains uncertain. But the debate over market concentration, competition and who controls pricing power in the U.S. cattle market is now squarely at the center of Washington policymaking.

Your Next Reads:

Diesel Prices Are Breaking Records Across Multiple States, And Relief May Not Come in 2026

Wed, 06 May 2026 12:53:36 GMT

On Tuesday, President Trump stated that high gasoline prices are a “very small price to pay” for the ongoing war with Iran, arguing they are necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He predicted prices will “come crashing down” once the war ends. But for farmers and ranchers, diesel prices have risen more than gas, putting a further strain on already high input costs for 2026.

Trump on Oil Prices:

I looked today, it's like at 102 and that's a very small price to pay pic.twitter.com/2V8LC93wFj
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 5, 2026

To start the week, diesel prices went on another run with the national average diesel price is just 20 cents away from reaching a new all-time high. And across the country, a growing number of states aren’t waiting to get there. About six states are already seeing the national average price of diesel reach record highs.

From the Great Lakes to the West Coast, roughly a half dozen states have already smashed previous records, as a late-April dip in prices quickly faded and a fresh surge took hold.

“Diesel now averaging about $5.65 a gallon nationally. That is only about 20 cents away from a new all-time record high,” says Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy . “So even though we had that short-lived break, we’re right back knocking on the door of records again.”

That “break” didn’t last long. De Haan says even though diesel prices saw a bit of a respite for April, with even prices starting to trend down in mid-April, those prices re-accelerated in the last week.

New records for diesel in:
Michigan, $6.01
Illinois, $6.01
Wisconsin $5.67
(Indiana 0.2c/gal away), $6.03
(Ohio ~19c/gal away), $5.93 https://t.co/DV0387vvMR
— Patrick De Haan (@GasBuddyGuy) May 5, 2026

Now, the rally is showing up in state-by-state records, especially in the Midwest.

“Looking at it state by state, Great Lakes states have seen some tremendous refining issues that have really caused prices to rise dramatically,” he says. “Michigan has now set a new all-time record high for diesel over $6. Indiana is just a few tenths of a penny away from setting a new all-time record. Illinois has set a new all-time record. Wisconsin has set a new all-time record.”

And it’s not just a regional story. States in the West were some of the first to not just see the highest prices, but now also hit record levels.

“Out on the West Coast, Arizona set a record a couple of weeks ago, and Washington state is at an all-time record,” he adds. “So there are probably about a half dozen or so states that have set new all-time records, and again, the national average itself is just 20 cents away.”

Perhaps the most telling shift, though, is there’s no longer a low-price refuge.

“No states any longer have diesel averaging below $5 a gallon,” De Haan says. “Texas was the last holdout, and it now is above $5 per gallon. So across the board, $5 diesel is now essentially the floor, and in some areas, that’s actually the cheaper end of the spectrum.”

At the high end, prices are reaching extremes with California’s average diesel price now surpassing $8 per gallon.

Global Tensions Cloud Relief Outlook

With prices continuing to climb, farmers are looking for relief. What would it take to reverse course? That answer remains tied to global uncertainty.

“Relief may be a little bit elusive,” De Haan admits. “It really just depends on the daily developments in the situation between the U.S. and Iran—whether the Strait is open or not, or whether we’re in phases of escalation.”

The Strait of Hormuz remains a critical chokepoint for global energy supply, moving roughly 20 million barrels of oil per day.

“Nothing else matters to the oil market more than this waterway,” he emphasizes. “We’ve seen attacks that have pushed oil prices higher, which in turn pushes diesel wholesale prices up. You may get a little bit of day-to-day relief, but there really is no ‘coast is clear’ until there’s some sort of definitive resolution.”

And even then, he says a turnaround won’t happen overnight.

“If there is a definitive signal to the market, if the Strait reopens and both sides are aligned, prices could start falling within 48 hours,” De Haan explained. “But the rate of decline is likely to slow after that initial drop.”

Prices Likely to Remain Elevated Through 2026

Not only is the rate of decline projected to be slow, but De Haan says diesel prices aren’t likely to drop back to pre-war levels by the end of the year.

“Roughly half of the increase we’ve seen over the last couple of months could come down within the first few months of positive news,” he said. “But the other half could take many more months. We may not get back to pre-conflict diesel prices until late this year—or even into 2027.”

For agriculture, that prolonged stretch of elevated prices carries real consequences.

“When you look at what comes out of a barrel of oil, diesel only makes up about 25%,” De Haan explained. “Gasoline is a larger portion, so it’s been less impacted. Jet fuel, which is an even smaller share, has been hit the hardest. So it’s almost inverse to how much is produced.”

Why Diesel Is Climbing Faster Than Gasoline

If it feels like diesel prices are rising faster and hitting harder than gasoline, there’s a reason rooted in how a barrel of oil gets used.

“Diesel has seen more of the sticker shock compared to gasoline,” says De Haan. “And a lot of that comes down to what comes out of a barrel of oil.”

Not all fuels are created equally in supply. Gasoline makes up the largest share of a refined barrel, while diesel represents a smaller slice, making it more vulnerable when supply is disrupted.

“Gasoline is the top product flowing out of a barrel of oil, so it’s been the least impacted,” De Haan explains. “Diesel, on the other hand, only accounts for about 25% of a barrel, so it’s been more impacted when there are supply issues.”

That imbalance becomes even clearer when looking across the full spectrum of refined fuels.

“The most significant impact has actually been to jet fuel, which is only about 9% of a barrel,” he adds. “So if you look at it inversely—the smaller the share of the barrel, the bigger the impact we’re seeing right now.”

For agriculture, that dynamic matters more than most sectors.

Diesel isn’t optional on the farm. It’s essential. From planting to harvest, it powers tractors, trucks and the supply chain that moves commodities across the country.

“Diesel is the fuel that drives agriculture,” De Haan say. “And that’s why these price increases are so impactful, not just at the pump, but all the way through the economy.”

And while prices are already elevated, the full effect is still working its way downstream.

“Consumers really haven’t even seen the full onset of some of these higher prices yet,” he adds. “That’s going to continue to trickle through in the weeks ahead.”

Demand Holding...for Now

Even with these high prices, so far, demand hasn’t shown many signs of slowing.

“We have not seen much meaningful decrease in demand yet,” De Haan says. “We’ve seen very little, if any, diesel demand destruction so far, which tells you the economy is essentially preparing to pay these prices because it still needs the fuel.”

But there are warning signs ahead.

“If diesel nationally hits $6 a gallon, that’s likely when we start to see consumption slow,” he says. “For gasoline, that number is about $5 a gallon. We’re getting very close to those thresholds.”

Until then, the pressure continues to mount. And for farmers heading deeper into the growing season, that pressure is becoming harder to ignore.

Not Done Yet: Despite Packer Investigation Price Shock, Cattle Prices Could Keep Climbing Through 2030

Tue, 05 May 2026 16:12:15 GMT

Fresh policy headlines injected new uncertainty into cattle markets this week, but they haven’t changed the bigger picture driving beef prices higher.

On Monday, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced an intensified antitrust investigation into the so-called “Big Four” packers — JBS, Cargill, Tyson Foods and National Beef — which together process the vast majority of U.S. cattle. The probe, which the Trump administration says includes millions of documents and a push for whistleblower testimony, underscores growing concern in Washington over market concentration, pricing behavior and the impact on both producers and consumers.

That news sent cattle prices sharply lower.

While policy developments like Monday’s news can dominate the markets on any given day, they don’t necessarily alter the deeper supply-and-demand forces shaping the cattle market. And right now, those forces remain firmly intact: Record-high beef demand and historically low cattle supplies mean these strong cattle prices aren’t just here, but they may be here to stay through the end of the decade.

Cattle Prices Not Done Climbing Yet

Oklahoma State Extension livestock economist Derrell Peel says he’s never been this bullish for this long. And the reason is such strong fundamentals at play. The market’s direction is still being driven far more by biology and consumer behavior than by policy headlines. And while the investigation may shape the industry over time, it does not immediately create more cattle or reduce beef demand, which are two factors that remain at the core of today’s price strength.

The result is a market where short-term volatility — whether sparked by policy, disease concerns or geopolitical events — continues to play out against a longer-term bullish trend. And as long as supplies stay tight and consumers keep buying beef, the broader trajectory points toward the same conclusion: Cattle prices may not be done climbing yet.

What makes the current environment so unusual is not just the volatility in cattle prices, but how long demand has held together despite those increases. Consumers have continued to buy beef even as retail prices climb and supplies tighten, resisting the typical shift toward lower-cost proteins like pork or chicken. That resilience has been a cornerstone of the market’s strength, helping sustain the rally even as production constraints persist.

The Supply Side of the Story

Even with that looming concern, the supply side of the equation continues to dominate the broader market narrative. In fact, one of the most striking aspects of the current cycle is how little progress has been made toward rebuilding the U.S. cattle herd, despite strong price incentives that would typically encourage expansion.

“This is the longest in my entire career that I’ve basically had the same outlook,” Peel says. “This thing really started in the fall of 2022, as far as the current price run that we’re on. It continues. And the story hasn’t changed, and we really haven’t changed anything yet that sets up the idea that it’s going to change anytime soon.”

That consistency reflects a deeper theme within the industry. While high prices might suggest an imminent increase in production, the biological and economic realities of cattle production make rapid expansion difficult, especially when producers remain cautious.

“Very, very limited at this point — so essentially no,” Peel says when asked if there are signs the U.S. cattle herd is starting to rebuild. “I mean, we just have very limited indications of a little bit of interest in heifer retention, but not a lot happening yet. We’re watching the weather at springtime. There’s a lot of concern about drought conditions that could derail anything we might want to do anyway.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by U.S. Farm Report (@usfarmreport)

Without meaningful heifer retention, Peel explains the process of herd rebuilding cannot truly begin. And until that process starts, he thinks the market remains locked in a pattern of tight supplies and upward price pressure.

“The bottom line is we really haven’t started the clock yet on the things that would eventually lead to a top in this market,” Peel says.

That delay has pushed expectations further into the future, extending the timeline for when increased production might finally ease the market. Each passing season without expansion reinforces the same dynamic: limited supply supporting prices.

“Oh, yeah, we keep pushing it out,” Peel says. “You know, I’ve already extended it probably two years. We’re still waiting again for that clock to start at this point. So until we see some definitive signs of substantial amount of heifer retention, you know, the path continues as it is.”

Even if producers were to begin retaining heifers immediately, the lag time between that decision and its impact on beef production would stretch for years. That built-in delay is a defining feature of the cattle cycle and one reason why price trends tend to persist once they are established.

“And it’ll be some months after that,” Peel says. “Typically, a year to a year and a half after we start heifer retention would be when we would expect these markets to peak out. So we’re on a timeline now where, if we start saving heifers right now, it’s going to be the end of the decade before we really change overall beef production significantly.”

The Bullish Run in Cattle: How Long Can It Last?

That long runway helps explain why Peel remains firmly bullish — even at today’s record price levels. In his view, the market simply hasn’t reached the point where supply can begin to catch up with demand.

“Still predicting higher highs, as scary as that is for me to say,” Peel says. “We’re at record-high prices, and I expect that we’re going to go higher. I don’t think the peak in prices happens in 2026. I think it’s somewhere after that.”

Those supply constraints and demand dynamics point toward a market that could remain elevated well into the latter part of the decade.

“It’s really hard to say right now until we sort of know how it’s playing out,” Peel says, referring to how the eventual peak might unfold. “It’s all really kind of ahead of us as far as that goes. I don’t see it happening. We’re on such a slow build that I think it’s going to be more of a measured approach rather than a sharp peak.”

Still Some Uncertainty Ahead

Still, while the long-term outlook remains bullish, the short-term environment is anything but stable. Day-to-day market action continues to be shaped by uncertainty, with external shocks triggering rapid price swings that can complicate marketing decisions for producers.

“In the meantime, we’re dealing with a lot of risk and uncertainty in this market,” Peel says. “So we’re in this unusual situation where we have a bullish outlook and yet a really strong need for producers to be doing risk management just because the market is so volatile on a short-term basis.”

One Risk: High Gas Prices

One of those risks is the fact outside economic pressures are beginning to build. Gas prices recently jumped 33¢ in a single week, reaching their highest level since July 2022. While that may seem disconnected from cattle markets at first glance, fuel costs play a direct role in shaping consumer purchasing power, especially when increases persist over time.

“Economists define demand as willingness and ability to purchase products,” Peel says. “The willingness is there. But the ability, high gas prices is probably the biggest threat out there.”

That distinction between willingness and ability is critical to understanding where the beef market could be headed next. So far, consumers have shown little hesitation in purchasing beef, even at elevated price levels. However, sustained increases in everyday expenses like fuel can gradually erode disposable income, forcing households to make tougher decisions at the meat counter.

“If the current geopolitical situation persists and keeps gas prices high for another few months, at some point in time it may impact consumer incomes enough that it forces them to make more adjustments,” Peel adds. “And that would be the biggest threat to beef demand at this point.”

That potential shift has not yet materialized, but it represents one of the few risks to an otherwise bullish outlook. For now, demand remains strong, helping support prices even as supplies remain historically tight. But the longer external cost pressures linger, the more likely it becomes that consumer behavior could begin to change.

New World Screwworm Risk

Animal health concerns have been one of the more visible drivers of that volatility, particularly when it comes to New World screwworm . Even unconfirmed reports or isolated cases have proven capable of moving markets, highlighting just how sensitive current conditions are to uncertainty.

“These animal health issues are certainly one of them,” Peel says. “We’ve got a lot of things going on right now that are kind of like that. We get news, and markets don’t like uncertainty. And so that’s what we’re dealing with here.”

Peel says in some cases, the uncertainty is worse than the reality, which means the market is even more sensitive to any type of news.

“But the market is also very resilient. So when we do see these impacts, whether it’s from New World screwworm or concerns about infrastructure or geopolitical events, whatever it is, the market tends to react, but then it bounces back pretty quickly,” he points out.

But for producers, Peel says volatility is a major risk.

“And the challenge for producers is to not get caught where you have to be marketing something in the middle of one of these short-term shocks in the market,” he says. “And so that’s the challenge for them to try to manage around that volatility.”

Is the U.S. Prepared?

From a policy and preparedness standpoint, Amy Hagerman, Extension specialist for agriculture and food policy at Oklahoma State University, emphasizes risks like New World screwworm extend beyond cattle imports alone. The pathways for introduction are broader, requiring a more comprehensive approach to monitoring and response.

“This is a pest that likes anything that’s warm-blooded,” Hagerman says. “And so it’s going to catch a ride with anybody that it can catch a ride with.”

Yet, there’s a general assumption that even though the Southern border remains closed to live cattle imports, that if NWS enters the U.S., it won’t be because of cattle. Instead, it could enter the U.S. via wildlife or something else.

“I think a higher level of awareness, education and vigilance is really important, whether we’re talking about pets for somebody who has vacationed in Mexico, or even individuals, or whether we’re talking about wildlife,” Hagerman says. “We’ve seen a real effort, publicly and privately, to kind of enhance that awareness.”

The latest NWS case, according to Hagerman, is less than 70 miles from the U.S. border and points to the urgency of ongoing monitoring efforts in the region.

“As somebody who does a lot of emergency preparedness, I can tell you that all plans never survive interaction with reality,” she says. “But I do think we’ve put a lot of effort, a lot of time into preparing for this — setting up the infrastructure and educating producers because this is going to be a producer-management issue by and large.”

Possible Permanent Changes of Flow of Cattle From Mexico to the U.S.

Peel adds that while such issues may be costly and complex at the individual level, their broader market impact may be limited compared to supply fundamentals.

“I think the risk here for the impact of New World screwworm is not so much a broader market one, because it’s going to be a very costly issue for producers individually to manage, for regional efforts to control it,” Peel says. “It’s probably not going to impact the overall market all that much.”

Beyond animal health, trade policy remains another uncertain variable. The continued closure of the southern border to live cattle imports has already reshaped supply flows, and prolonged disruption could lead to more permanent structural changes.

“I think we could,” Peel says when asked whether trade patterns might shift for good. “I mean, arguably the biggest impacts of all of this in terms of the economic impact of the border being closed, we’ve already felt up to this point.”

“You know, we probably didn’t get 700,000 or 800,000 head of Mexican cattle last year that we would have gotten,” Peel adds. “And so, you know, we’re past that now, but the thing is, those cattle have been dealt with. They’re using them in Mexico. They have infrastructure to utilize those cattle in their domestic market.”

Peel says the longer this goes on, the more supply chains and production systems need to adjust to the fact the normal or historic trade flows have changed.

“The risk is that maybe we lose it permanently. It changes things on a permanent basis,” Peel says.

No matter the day-to-day noise, the market remains defined by a rare combination of strong demand, constrained supply and mounting external pressures. While higher fuel costs could eventually test consumers’ ability to keep paying record prices, the lack of herd expansion continues to underpin a bullish outlook, one that may keep cattle prices elevated through the end of the decade.

House Passes 2026 Farm Bill: The Impact on U.S. Farmers

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 16:51:21 GMT

With a bipartisan vote of 224-200, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 7567 , the bipartisan Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, on April 30. In addition to extensive updates to food and agriculture programs in a budget-neutral package, this vote marks the farthest a farm bill has made it in Congress since the most recent reauthorization was signed into law in 2018.

After a series of floor debates and last-minute amendments, the bill now moves to the Senate with some notable changes, including:

Year-round E15 sales removed from bill to be voted on in two weeks
Late amendment includes language to strengthen the domestic supply of fertilizer
Pesticide liability protections were stripped from the bill

My amendment passed! Pesticide liability protections have been stripped from the farm bill. 🔥⚔️🔥
— Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (@RepLuna) April 30, 2026

“Working in Congress on behalf of our nation’s farmers, ranchers, and rural communities is an honor — even when the work requires debating the farm bill through the night,” says House Committee on Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (PA-15). “I can think of no more important work than championing the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, and I am extremely pleased to see this bill pass out of the House of Representatives with a strong bipartisan vote.”

With a vote of 14 Democrats in favor, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 obtained the highest number of votes from the minority party on a House farm bill since 2008. Similarly, with over 96% of the GOP Conference voting in favor, this is the highest level of Republican support for a House farm bill in history, affirming the commitment of House Republicans to rural America.

“I especially want to thank all parties who were involved in the negotiations that allowed the farm bill to proceed to the floor and secure a future vote on year-round E15,” Thompson says. “Members of the Biofuels Caucus are tireless champions for rural America, and I look forward to joining them May 13 in advancing that important legislation.”

Swift Senate Action Needed

As the bill heads to the Senate for debate, Thompson reinforces that “farm country needs updated policy” that reflects current challenges in U.S. agriculture.

“The 2026 farm bill fills that gap,” Thompson says. “I look forward to seeing Chairman Boozman and the Senate make progress on this important legislation so we can get the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 sent to President Trump’s desk as soon as possible.”

U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, along with all of the Democrats on the committee, says the committee looks forward to working with Senate Republicans on a bipartisan Farm Bill that can be successful on the Senate floor.

“We have been clear that the Farm Bill must address the needs of American farmers and families,” Klobuchar says. “With a five-year high in small farm bankruptcies, the Farm Bill must address rising input costs, provide new opportunities for domestic markets, and fight for a trade agenda that works for everyone. Senate Democrats are committed to ensuring all states are treated equally by delaying the new SNAP cost shifts and addressing the needs of farm country.”

Pesticide Amendment Passes

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s (R-Fla.) highly debated bill passed the House, stripping the farm bill of pesticide liability provisions. Before the amendment, the bill’s original language reaffirmed EPA as the sole agency capable of determining the information listed on a pesticide label. Critics, including Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) advocates, worried the language would shield pesticide manufacturers from liability claims.

D.C. consultant Callie Eideberg, with the Vogel Group, saysthe provision’s controversy means the bill will likely have an uncertain future moving forward.

“This means that pesticide companies, the chemical companies, are now still going to be dealing with the status quo, dealing with different requirements from different states,” Eideberg says.

In a post on X, Rep. Luna reaffirmed her disapproval of glyphosate and other pesticides.

“I do not support giving blanket immunity to corporations at the expense of American families. Pesticides are linked to a 30% increase in childhood cancer and over 170 studies corroborate the evidence,” Luna says.

In a press release following the bill’s approval in the lower chamber, the Modern Ag Alliance, a group backed by chemical company Bayer and over 100 agriculture companies wrote, “Today, the House turned its back on the farmers who feed, fuel and clothe this country. By gutting common-sense crop protection provisions from the farm bill, lawmakers caved to anti-science MAHA activists instead of standing with those who grow our food.”

Iowa farmer Mark Jackson says it is “unfortunate” Congress could not give farmers support for chemical weed control products. Jackson said farmers should be allowed the “freedom to farm” and said glyphosate’s scientific approval process, and the product’s 50-year registration history make it a credible product for farmers to use.

“I think we need to rally around science, follow the science,” he adds.

Eideberg says as the bill moves to the Senate, the MAHA movement could continue to influence debates. She believes the smaller body of the Senate will bring a different dynamic to the issue.

“I think we’re going to see those MAHA influencers feeling very emboldened by this win today and pushing even harder in the Senate to get more of what they’re looking for,” she says.

Farmers Praise Passage of Farm Bill
Ohio farmer and National Corn Growers Association President Jed Bower says USDA programs are important to the success of corn farmers and rural communities, particularly as growers face their fourth year of net losses and struggle with high input costs.

“We look forward to working with our allies in Congress over the next two weeks to secure passage of the E15 legislation,” Bower says. “Thanks to continued efforts on this issue from our biofuel champions, Speaker Johnson promised a vote on E15, and we refuse to allow a handful of multi-million and multi-billion-dollar energy companies to derail our efforts. Allowing the year-round sale of E15 would help our growers by expanding ethanol sales while also saving consumers money at the pump at a time when fuel prices are on the rise.”

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) is looking forward to the Senate taking up the farm bill without delay as farmers face unprecedented challenges.

“The House-passed 2026 Farm Bill supports the farm safety net, preserves existing conservation programs that include opportunities for dairy and livestock producers, bolsters trade promotion programs while protecting common food names, recognizes the important role of dairy in nutrition, and supports animal health programs,” said NMPF President & CEO Gregg Doud. “All of these are important priorities to dairy farmers and the broader industry, and we appreciate the leadership shown by House Agriculture Committee Chairman GT Thompson and other dairy champions to get this legislation through the House.”

U.S. pork producers are praising a very significant section that provides “much-needed relief from the misguided California Proposition 12 ” in addition to expanding the Animal Health Protection Act to include improving animal disease traceability and requiring thorough documentation on USDA’s ability to protect producers from significant economic losses due to a foreign animal disease outbreak.

Prop. 12 is creating uncertainty for pork producers and raising costs across the supply chain. Congress has a role to restore regulatory clarity.

It’s time for a fix. #FixProp12

🎥 Video credit: @HouseAgGOP pic.twitter.com/lkAmG1bmAw
— NPPC (@NPPC) April 30, 2026

“Today’s House farm bill passage is a testament to the power of rural America when we stand up for our farms and future generations with a unified voice,” said Rob Brenneman, National Pork Producers Council president and pork producer from Washington County, Iowa. “We wholeheartedly thank our champions—House Agriculture Committee Chairman GT Thompson, Rep. Ashley Hinson, and others—for not backing down from the fight for what is right for rural America. He and congressional supporters on both sides of the aisle heard our plea to help America’s pork producers.”

Eideburg points out that opposition to the farm bill pork provisions in the House are coming from several fronts.

“First, it’s coming from animal welfare groups that want to see those requirements in place,” she says. “We want to see minimum standard requirements for gestation rates. This other opposition is coming from companies and farmers who have already complied with Prop 12 and they don’t want that requirement removed because then they are going to be a) at a competitive disadvantage and b) out a ton of capital investment that they made on their to comply.”

The bill reflects many of wheat farmers’ top priorities from modernizing farm credit and safeguarding international food aid programs to enhancing export competitiveness, says National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) President Jamie Kres.

“These provisions will help ensure America’s wheat farmers can remain resilient and globally competitive,” Kres says.

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Ethan Lane appreciates how Thompson and House leadership took the time to listen to real farmers and ranchers.

“Instead of caving to attacks on the livestock industry from shell activist groups that impersonate real producers, a bipartisan group of lawmakers advanced a bill that will provide certainty and important policy fixes for cattle country,” Lane says. “We look forward to engaging with the Senate to advance this farm bill to the president’s desk.”

Industry Says This Farm Bill is Needed Now

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) CEO Ted McKinney says this legislation supports farmers, ranchers and consumers while providing economic growth opportunities for rural communities. H.R. 7567 prioritizes provisions that strengthen local food purchasing programs, enhance international market opportunities, reauthorize the three-legged stool for foreign animal disease prevention and preserve the viability of the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program.

The American Veterinary Medical Association says the inclusion of the Healthy Dog Importation Act is just one of the many key veterinary provisions they applaud in the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026. This would improve importation standards to ensure a dog is healthy when imported into the U.S., which is especially important considering New World screwworm in Mexico continues to move closer to the U.S. border.

“The AVMA applauds the House for advancing a Farm Bill that will strengthen dog importation standards, fund and assess federal programs vital to veterinary medicine, and protect the country’s animal and public health,” says Dr. Michael Q. Bailey, AVMA president. “Enacting the Farm Bill is essential to advancing research into effective recruitment and retention strategies for veterinarians serving in rural and underserved communities. With the legislation now moving to the Senate for consideration, we look forward to working further with Congress and will continue to underscore the importance of including veterinary priorities in the final version of the Farm Bill.”

Now, Not Tomorrow

After voting in support of the bill, Congressman Rick W. Allen (GA-12) says, “Rural America needs a new Farm Bill now, not tomorrow. With today’s passage of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act, House Republicans have once again reaffirmed our commitment to American agriculture and delivered for hardworking growers and producers.”

Eideburg says funding for SNAP program will likely be a major fight in the Senate. The “One Big Beautiful Bill” shifted some costs within the program to state governments. She says the funding restructure and the combined potential vote to ban soda from SNAP could cause tension in the upper chamber.

She also says year-round E15 provisions, which were taken from the farm bill and punted for a vote in the House next week, could see as much opposition in the Senate.

“This really is a big hurdle to get E15, year-round E15 over the line.”

Trump Admin to Roll Out Major Fertilizer Plan This Week, Accelerate U.S. Production Push

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 16:36:30 GMT

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins says the Trump administration will unveil a sweeping set of fertilizer initiatives this week, warning that surging input costs are putting intense pressure on American farmers. Speaking at a Missouri farm on Friday, Rollins told those in attendance that fertilizer has become an issue of national security, which is why she says this week’s announcement will be broader than just USDA, also including EPA, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce and Department of the Interior.

While at GR Farms in Higginsville, Mo., on Friday to roll out an announcement on the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP) top-up payments, Rollins described the Trump administration’s upcoming announcement on fertilizer as a large-scale investment initiative. She says while she hoped to roll out the plan while in Missouri, the administration is still finalizing the size of the funding package.

Rollins says the plan will address both immediate actions to stabilize fertilizer prices and a longer-term roadmap aimed at ensuring affordable, domestically produced supply for U.S. farmers.

Washington analyst Jim Wiesemeyer says the plan will likely need to include a mix of financial and policy tools, such as grants, tax incentives, loan guarantees outside of existing USDA programs and greater consistency in U.S. trade policy, while noting imports will still play a role, particularly for key nutrients like potash sourced from Canada.

Short-Term Fertilizer Price Pain

During her comments Friday, Rollins highlighted how quickly fertilizer prices have increased since the conflict started in Iran, outlining the additional strain it is placing on producers.

“We know that urea prices have gone up 50% over the last month. Ammonia is up 30% or more,” she said, adding that “our farmers are feeling that pinch.”

Rollins also told the crowd fertilizer has been a longer-term challenge, even before the situation in Iran caused the latest price spike.

“To be clear, this has been a problem for years. The actual numbers are lower, believe it or not, than they were even in 2022,” she says. “But nevertheless, that jump in prices overnight, we have to address.”

Framing the issue as more than just an economic challenge and one that is a matter of national security after decades of offshoring fertilizer production, Rollins says the administration views the issue as part of a broader structural problem within the fertilizer industry.

“The loss of competition in the fertilizer industry has obviously led to higher fertilizer costs over time,” she says. “When combined with what’s happening overseas with the current geopolitical issues facing our world, certainly we have come to a crossroads that requires immediate action. This is indeed a matter of national security, and we are working to tackle it head on.”

Focus on Domestic Fertilizer Production

While Rollins didn’t give details, she hinted the centerpiece of this week’s announcement will be a major push to reshore fertilizer production, backed by federal investment to accomplish that. Working with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, she says the administration is preparing to direct significant funding toward building new fertilizer plants across the country, while also supporting existing projects.

“I have asked Howard to do, and his team to do, and what we’re doing in partnership is to identify a significant number ... that we can deploy into building out fertilizer plants in America,” she says.

Rollins emphasizes cutting regulatory delays will be critical to making that plan work. She says projects are already being identified nationwide, but permitting delays remain a major obstacle — with the goal of getting that process down to months versus the current years it takes.

“We’ve already begun to identify all over the country. Some are under production. How do we move them along more quickly? Some are in the permitting bureaucracy, which sometimes takes years to get through permitting,” she says. “Our goal is to, instead of years, to get to permitting in a matter of weeks, or perhaps months, so that even in one year, two years and three years, we will have facilities up and running that we will never have had that opportunity or option before.”

United States’ Energy Advantage for Nitrogen Fertilizer

Rollins also points to domestic energy resources as a key factor in expanding fertilizer output, particularly for nitrogen production.

“We became, in a matter of just a short period of time, a net exporter of LNG versus importer, meaning we were producing our own energy in America, so much so that we no longer had to rely on other countries,” she says. “The reason that is important is, as our farmers are facing these exponential nitrogen fertilizer costs, we now have the resources in America. We just have to build the facilities, the manufacturing facilities, to turn that LNG into nitrogen. So this is going to happen quicker than you would normally expect, I think because of the pieces of the puzzle that have already been put into place.”

In the meantime, Rollins says the administration is continuing short-term efforts to improve supply availability and reduce costs.

While the longer-term strategy ramps up, she says the administration is continuing short-term interventions to ease pressure on farmers. These include:

Extending a waiver of the Jones Act
Opening new import channels
Working and meeting with industry/fertilizer companies

Highlighting cooperation with domestic producers, she pointed to CF Industries as an example.

“They have said, in order to protect our farmers, we are going to stop maintenance. We are going look at holding our prices steady,” she says.

She also points to ongoing coordination with the Department of Justice.

“Last year, we signed a joint agreement, USDA did, with the Department of Justice, ensuring that farmers have access to competitive and affordable inputs,” she says. “Looking into the activities of our fertilizer companies and what has happened over the last few years, but with a new eye on potential price gouging right now.”

Long-Term Goal: Reduce Foreign Dependence

Looking longer term, Rollins says the administration is focused on reversing decades of reliance on foreign suppliers.

“America has offshored for far too long, far too much of our fertilizer production, leaving us dangerously reliant on Russia and China,” she says. “Changing that long-standing industry that is reliant on global markets won’t happen overnight,” she says. “But working with our farmers and across industry and government, we will find ways to make fertilizer that we can do here in America and make sure it is a price that our great farmers can afford.”

At the same time, the administration is increasing scrutiny of fertilizer markets. Rollins noted ongoing coordination with the Department of Justice, saying officials are taking “a new eye on potential price gouging right now.”

Ultimately, she framed this week’s announcement as the beginning of a broader shift away from foreign dependence.

Rollins says additional details, including funding levels and project specifics, will be included in next week’s announcement.

“We’re at a crossroads that requires immediate action,” she says.

Watch Rollins’ full press conference here:

USDA Expands Farmer Surveys to Improve Data Accuracy, Relocates Staff Closer to the Farm

Fri, 24 Apr 2026 13:00:55 GMT

USDA is moving to adjust how it collects and communicates agricultural data following an April 22 meeting with stakeholders in Kansas City, pairing expanded farmer surveys, increased transparency efforts and new performance tracking with a sweeping reorganization that will relocate staff closer to agricultural regions.

Leading into the USDA Data Users meeting on Wednesday, Farm Journal spoke one-on-one with USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden. While he wasn’t in the room physically on Wednesday, instead joining virtually, Vaden made clear he intended to play an active role in the discussion.

“I’m excited about that because one of the things that both the Secretary and I are committed to is better transparency, especially when it comes to our data,” he says. “USDA data needs to be the gold standard, and we need to be brave enough to take feedback. Everyone can always improve.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by U.S. Farm Report (@usfarmreport)

That theme, being “brave enough” to hear criticism, carried through both the meeting and the department’s broader outreach effort. As USDA, ERS, NASS, World Board and others participated in a panel on stage followed by Q&A, they had unified message that they’ll do whatever it takes to rebuild farmer trust and restore confidence in USDA data and reporting.

Earlier this month, USDA closed a public comment period inviting anyone who interacts with its data to weigh in on how it could improve.

“What we have done is we had a public comment process which just closed on the 9th of April, where we asked everyone who has any interaction with our data, tell us what you think,” Vaden says. “Are there ways that we can collect data better? Are there ways that we can report data better?”

Data Users Meeting Highlights Concerns Over Participation, Accuracy

At the Kansas City meeting, one issue stood out: falling farmer participation in USDA surveys and what that means for the reliability of widely watched reports.

Officials from USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) acknowledged that response rates have dropped to historically low levels. The March 31 planting intentions report drew responses from just 37.6% of surveyed producers, down from 44.3% a year earlier and the lowest on record. But they also talked about plans to improve those numbers.

That decline has raised concerns across the agriculture sector, particularly after USDA made sizable revisions to 2025 corn acreage estimates earlier this year. Because markets rely heavily on USDA data for price discovery, risk management, and policy decisions, even small questions about accuracy can ripple widely.

In response, NASS plans to significantly expand its farmer survey efforts in an attempt to rebuild participation and improve data quality.

USDA Plans Expanded Farmer Surveys to Improve Data Reliability

According to NASS Administrator Joseph Parsons, the agency intends to increase the number of farmers surveyed for major acreage reports, pending approval from the Office of Management and Budget.

The most immediate change would come with the June 30 acreage report, where USDA plans to boost its sample size by roughly 35%. Additional increases of about 10% are planned for the September, December, and March reports.

The goal is straightforward: generate more usable responses and improve the precision of crop estimates.

Beyond simply expanding outreach, USDA is also working to improve how it communicates uncertainty in its reports. Parsons says the agency will incorporate more “plain language” explanations to help producers, traders, and policymakers better understand confidence levels and potential variability in the data.

Reorganization Announcement Follows Immediately After Data Meeting

Just one day after the Data Users meeting, USDA underscored how quickly change is unfolding across the department by announcing a sweeping reorganization that will relocate major divisions, including positions tied to data and research, out of Washington, D.C.

The agency announced the broad reorganization and relocation of staff, saying it will modernize operations. But some stakeholders warn the changes could strain staffing levels and institutional expertise at data-focused offices, including NASS and the World Agricultural Outlook Board, following recent departures tied to the Deferred Resignation Program.

According to USDA’s Thursday announcement, the overhaul will shift key components of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area closer to agricultural regions, in what officials describe as an effort to modernize operations and better align staff with the producers they serve.

At the center of the changes is the creation of a new National Food Safety Center in Urbandale, Iowa, which will serve as the primary hub for FSIS administrative, technical, and support functions. The facility is expected to house roughly 200 employees and become the agency’s largest office. A separate science center in Athens, Georgia, will expand capabilities in microbiology, chemistry, and epidemiology.

USDA officials emphasize that frontline inspection operations, which account for roughly 85% of FSIS personnel, will not be affected, and no reductions in force are planned. Additional staff tied to international operations will be located in Fort Collins, Colorado, while about 100 positions will remain in Washington for policy and congressional work.

The restructuring also reaches into the department’s data and research arms.

The Economic Research Service (ERS) and National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) will relocate additional positions to Kansas City, reinforcing a move first initiated during the previous Trump administration. NASS will also shift certain Washington-based roles to St. Louis and other regional offices while maintaining its nationwide data collection network.

Meanwhile, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) will begin decommissioning the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Maryland, redistributing research programs across the country to better align with regional agricultural needs and modernize aging infrastructure.

USDA leaders frame the reorganization as a move to reduce duplication, improve accountability, and strengthen connections between federal agencies and the agricultural sector. Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden says the changes are intended to better align staff with mission needs, while agency leaders emphasize improved workforce support, training, and recruitment.

Greater Transparency and Accountability Ahead

The timing of the reorganization, coming immediately after a meeting focused on data credibility, highlights the broader scope of USDA’s efforts to rebuild trust and improve performance.

Alongside expanded surveys and structural changes, the department is also taking steps to more directly evaluate its forecasting accuracy.

Vaden says USDA is planning to launch an annual report, potentially beginning this fall, that will compare its crop forecasts against final production totals after the marketing year concludes. The effort is designed to give stakeholders a clearer picture of how USDA estimates stack up over time.

“This is not something that will be solved in a day,” Vaden says. “But we have to be brave enough to take feedback and issue public reports on how we did and how our numbers ended up stacking up against the final facts, so that we can begin the process of ensuring that there is continuous improvement with regard to the quality of USDA data.”

Behind the scenes, that process is already underway. Vaden says he is receiving internal briefings on the feedback submitted through the Request for Information and is meeting directly with trade groups and farmer representatives.

“I, as a matter of fact, am receiving a briefing later today on what the comments that came in as part of our request for information show, and how we can have further areas of improvement,” he says. “And I am meeting with some of the commenters… to hear from them personally about how we could do our job better.”

Is USDA’s Reorganization Impacting Data Accuracy?

Even before the formal announcement, questions had already been circulating about whether internal restructuring could affect USDA reporting.

Vaden dismisses that idea.

“Well, first, with regard to your question about whether there’s a link to the data, the answer is no,” he says. “Our WASDE professionals are professionals in the Office of the Chief Economist. They are unbothered by the reorganization. It doesn’t affect their day-to-day work at all.”

In practical terms, he suggests the impact on those teams is minimal.

“The only thing they’re going to have to do is leave the South Building and come over here to the Witten Building for lockup,” he says.

Still, the scale of the changes is significant. USDA is looking to shrink its Washington footprint, where the South Building is more than 70% vacant and carries over $1.6 billion in deferred maintenance, while relocating employees closer to rural communities.

“No private sector company in the world would pay for real estate that is more than 70% vacant,” Vaden says.

Q&A Underscores Concerns Over Trust, Participation, and Transparency

The question-and-answer session at the close of the Data Users meeting made clear that concerns about USDA data go beyond methodology.

Several attendees pressed officials on how the agency plans to reverse declining farmer response rates, with some noting that lower participation could introduce bias into key reports. NASS officials acknowledged the concern and pointed to expanded survey efforts as a primary solution, while also emphasizing outreach to better explain why farmer participation matters.

Officials say they are exploring additional ways to engage producers directly, including clearer communication about how survey data is used and stronger assurances around confidentiality.

Questions also focused on large revisions to recent crop estimates, with market participants asking whether those changes signal deeper issues in data collection or modeling. USDA representatives stressed that revisions are a normal part of the statistical process but acknowledged the need to better communicate why those adjustments occur and what they mean for users.

Another recurring theme was transparency, specifically, how USDA conveys uncertainty in its reports. Attendees urged the department to provide clearer indicators of confidence levels and potential variability, particularly during periods of market volatility. NASS officials pointed to planned “plain language” additions as one step toward making reports more accessible and easier to interpret.

Some participants also raised concerns about whether internal changes, including the department’s broader reorganization, could disrupt data quality or continuity. USDA officials reiterated that statistical staff and processes remain intact and said efforts are being made to ensure consistency regardless of organizational shifts.

Finally, several questions centered on accountability, and how USDA evaluates its own performance over time. Officials confirmed that the department is working toward publishing a regular assessment comparing forecasts to final outcomes, a move widely viewed by attendees as a meaningful step toward rebuilding confidence.

USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden Says High-Level Washington Meeting Puts Fertilizer Industry on the Spot

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 20:09:59 GMT

The fertilizer market has been a growing point of tension in agriculture for years, but USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden says recent meetings in Washington marked a more direct and wide-ranging confrontation between federal officials and the companies that dominate input supply. Those discussions, he says, were not limited to USDA alone but included a broader slice of the administration’s economic leadership, signaling how central fertilizer costs have become to the national conversation on food production and inflation.

Vaden says cabinet-level officials from the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative were present, alongside USDA leadership and state agriculture commissioners from Iowa and Georgia. Fertilizer executives were also in the room, making the meeting a rare setting where policy makers, regulators and industry leaders sat together to address pricing, supply constraints and long-term market structure.

He says the purpose was not simply informational, but confrontational in the sense of putting real-world farm impacts directly in front of industry decision-makers.

“It was an opportunity for those other cabinet officials to hear from the fertilizer company executives,” Vaden says, “and for those fertilizer company executives to hear from the secretary and me, as well as our two state counterparts who joined, about the real harm that farmers are facing from uncertainty in the market and, equally as importantly, years of elevated prices.”

Vaden says what often gets lost outside agriculture is that the current fertilizer environment is not a short-term disruption, but the continuation of a multi-year pricing trend that has reshaped farm budgets.

“For people who don’t pay attention to ag every day like your listeners do, they may think this fertilizer thing came out of nowhere,” Vaden says. “But American farmers know that we’re on year five or more of elevated prices for fertilizer, and questions about adequate supply of all fertilizer types.”

He adds that the timing of the discussions is critical, as global geopolitical tensions are only adding pressure to already strained markets.

“So I see this as an opportunity now that the attention of everyone is focused on fertilizer, not just agriculture, to begin to solve the problem that has taken years to develop and that has been exacerbated by the current situation in the Middle East,” Vaden says. “So that we don’t find ourselves in another long-term question about fertilizer supply going forward.”

USDA Pushes Industry: Bring Projects Forward or Explain the Bottlenecks

As discussions continue with fertilizer companies, Vaden says USDA is shifting the conversation from general concern to specific accountability. Rather than broad discussions about market conditions, he says officials are now asking companies to identify concrete projects that could increase supply and to explain why those investments have not yet materialized.

This approach, he says, reflects a broader strategy inside the department to move beyond analysis and toward action, particularly in areas where supply constraints have persisted for years without meaningful change.

In meetings held both jointly and separately with industry leaders, Vaden says USDA has been consistent in its message to fertilizer companies.

“We are saying the same thing to everyone who comes before the department,” Vaden says. “Be a part of the solution, don’t be a part of the problem.”

He says that includes detailed questions about whether expansion projects are already in development but stalled due to permitting delays, regulatory barriers or capital constraints. In some cases, he says, USDA is asking companies to identify where federal or state action could realistically speed up timelines.

“We are asking them what projects they have in the pipeline that they can bring on board to create new fertilizer supplies, hopefully here domestically, but if necessary, near-shoring overseas,” Vaden says. “And are there steps that we can take to make those projects move faster? Are there permits that are held up? Are there states or localities that are holding up their expansions? Are there investments that they are looking for with regard to needing capital to be able to expand their production capacity?”

He adds the department is not approaching the issue passively, but actively pressing for answers.

“We’re asking as many questions as we are making declarative statements, and we’re trying to see what levers we can pull to get more supply on the market,” Vaden says.

Market Concentration at Center of USDA Concerns

Beyond supply timelines and permitting issues, Vaden says one of the core structural concerns in fertilizer markets is the level of consolidation, particularly in phosphate production where a small number of companies control a dominant share of supply.

He says that level of concentration raises fundamental questions about how prices are formed and whether farmers are receiving signals that reflect true market conditions.

With that in mind, Vaden says USDA is focusing heavily on competition and price discovery as part of its broader review of input markets.

“With one of our fertilizer markets, there are two companies that control 90% market share,” Vaden says. “Anybody, I don’t care whether it’s fertilizer or what any other commodity you want to talk about, if there are only two major players, how can anyone be sure that the price you are paying reflects actual market conditions?”

He says the issue is not simply about individual price spikes, but about whether enough competition exists to keep pricing behavior transparent and responsive.

“In order to have adequate price discovery in a market, you need multiple players,” Vaden says.

That concern, he adds, is one of the reasons fertilizer investigations already underway by federal agencies predate recent geopolitical disruptions and continue to expand.

Vaden Details Heated Meeting With Mosaic: “A Different Tune in My Conference Room”

Among the most pointed parts of Vaden’s interview are his comments about a recent face-to-face meeting with Mosaic, one of the most influential players in the phosphate fertilizer market. He says the discussion, held in his conference room just this week, was direct and, at times, uncomfortable, focusing heavily on production decisions, capacity investment and the company’s role in a highly concentrated global market.

Vaden says he challenged Mosaic on why additional production capacity has not been brought online in the United States over a long period of time, and what barriers the company believes are preventing expansion.

He says he left the meeting with clear expectations for follow-up information from the company, describing it as an assignment rather than a casual discussion.

“I gave them a homework assignment,” Vaden says. “I told them what I expected to see, and I hope that they will get back to me as soon as possible.”

But what stood out most to him, he says, was not just what was said in the room, but how it contrasted with the company’s public messaging.

So disappointed in this response, @MosaicCompany, especially as you decide to idle two fertilizer production facilities, removing 1 MMT of supply from the world market. 🚨

Our Great President and this Administration have our farmers' backs. 💪🌾

Any sleight of hand will not be… https://t.co/GTCxcBQNgi
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) April 13, 2026

In his view, there was a noticeable difference between internal discussions and external communications, particularly on social media, where fertilizer policy debates have increasingly played out in public.

“And I will say, without being able to go into details, when they were in my office, they were singing a slightly different tune than they were signing on Twitter responding to the president’s Truth Social message that you noted,” Vaden says.

He uses that contrast to underscore what he sees as a broader disconnect between industry messaging and the realities USDA believes farmers are facing.

“We need more supply, we need answers, your company hasn’t provided either of those two things,” Vaden says. “It’s about time that you did.”

Industry Responses, Trade Policy Pressure and the Mosaic Question

While Vaden applies pressure to Mosaic, he notes that not all fertilizer companies are taking the same stance on trade policy and tariffs. He points specifically to Nutrien, which he says has indicated support for removing certain trade enforcement measures.

“I was very happy after I met with the Nutrien CEO that they came out and announced we don’t need this CVD order anymore,” Vaden says.

By contrast, he says Mosaic’s position on countervailing duties and phosphate trade enforcement remains unresolved, and that broader policy decisions are now effectively waiting on the company’s response.

He characterizes the situation as fluid but heavily dependent on industry input.

“Right now the question is in Mosaic’s court, if you will,” Vaden says. “And we’re waiting for an answer from them.”

He adds that regulatory or executive action is unlikely to be taken in a vacuum while negotiations and responses are still unfolding.

“One thing that I know as a lawyer is that there’s a whole lot more possible if you have consent of the parties than if you don’t,” Vaden says. “With consent, nearly all things are possible.”

Investigations Expand as USDA Seeks Farmer-Reported Data

Alongside industry meetings, Vaden says USDA is working with the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission on ongoing fertilizer market investigations, with a particular focus on pricing behavior and market transparency.

He says one challenge is the nature of pricing information itself, which often reaches farmers through informal channels and can change quickly.

“We’re asking questions and waiting for answers, and we need farmers’ help as part of our question asking,” Vaden says.

He describes a pattern many farmers have reported directly to USDA, where fertilizer prices are quoted in a way that encourages immediate purchase rather than delayed buying.

“I know in my own family’s operation that you get phone calls, and those phone calls tell you ‘Here’s what the price is now, and if you wait, here’s what the price will be later,’” Vaden says. “And that later price is never lower than the price that it is now.”

To address that, he says USDA is working on a confidential reporting system designed to protect farmer identity while improving data quality for investigators.

“If they trust us with their information, if they trust us with the facts that they have, they’ll be able to remain anonymous,” Vaden says. “And the companies under investigation will not know who shared what data with us.”

“This Has Been Going On for Too Long”

Vaden closes by emphasizing that fertilizer prices and supply constraints are not a new challenge for agriculture, but an entrenched issue that has persisted through multiple years and market cycles.

He says the administration is trying to shift both short-term supply conditions and long-term structural dynamics at the same time, adding that USDA’s goal is not temporary relief, but sustained changes in supply, competition and pricing stability.

“We are focused on getting new supplies here now, and not just now, but next year and the year after that and the years after that,” Vaden says. “So that we can have guaranteed new supplies over the long term.”

Vaden’s Message to Farmers: “We’re Saying the Same Thing in Public and in Private”

At the end of the conversation, Vaden returned to what he described as the central audience for everything USDA is doing on fertilizer: farmers themselves. He acknowledged frustration is not just growing, but it has become a defining sentiment across much of farm country as input costs remain elevated and supply questions persist year after year.

He emphasized USDA’s posture is not different depending on the room or the audience, whether speaking with industry executives, other federal agencies, or producers themselves.

“I want farmers to know that when I am sitting with representatives of other cabinet departments or when I am sitting with big fertilizer CEOs, I am saying the same thing in private that you hear me saying in public,” Vaden says. “I do not change my tune. I may be slightly more polite, but I am equally as direct in terms of telling them what I think the situation is.”

Vaden says that directness is rooted in what he believes farmers are already experiencing on the ground, particularly when it comes to fertilizer pricing volatility and uncertainty in purchasing decisions. He says producers are not misreading the situation — they are responding to real, long-running pressures.

He also acknowledges the emotional toll on producers is part of the reality USDA is hearing more frequently.

“I especially communicate to them that farmers have gone from exasperation to anger with the situation that we have now,” Vaden says. “They are not wrong to be feeling those emotions because they understand that this is not a new situation.”

Looking ahead, Vaden says USDA’s goal is not just to address short-term pricing spikes, but to change the underlying conditions that have kept fertilizer costs elevated for years. That includes expanding supply, increasing competition and improving long-term stability in input markets.

“This is an issue that has bedeviled American agriculture for at least five years, and it is time that it stopped,” Vaden says.

Cattle Industry Policy Risks 2026: Screwworm Response & Trade Uncertainty

Wed, 15 Apr 2026 19:58:03 GMT

Whether it’s a 20-year lawsuit over poultry litter in Oklahoma, the looming threat of New World screwworm (NWS) or renewed debate over origin labeling, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association’s Ethan Lane sees the same pattern: The burden eventually falls on cattle producers.

Lane, NCBA senior vice president of government affairs, was a guest Wednesday on “ AgriTalk ,” pointing out how regulatory shifts and legal settlements can quickly erode the certainty ranchers rely on, especially when border policies and labeling rules are decided without a clear plan for how they’ll play out in the countryside.

Here are the key takeaways from Lane’s discussion with Chip Flory.

1. Oklahoma Poultry Litter Lawsuit Has Wider Implications for Cattle Producers

Both NCBA and the Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association made statements following the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma’s rejection of the state of Oklahoma’s negotiated settlement with four poultry companies in the decades-old State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., lawsuit regarding the application of chicken litter in the Illinois River Watershed .

Lane says though the case has to do with chicken litter, it has direct implications for cattle producers because it involves Nutrient Management Plans (NMPs), a core tool many livestock operations rely on for regulatory certainty.

He explains that if a state can settle in a way that undermines NMPs, it sends a message that even when producers “check all the boxes,” they can still “have the rug pulled out from underneath” them in federal court. If NMPs are invalidated in court, producers lose their safe-harbor status.

His warning is that settlements that go beyond established expectations should concern every cattle producer, because compliance burdens and liability ultimately roll downhill to producers.

2. NWS Response Playbook Is Critical Preparation

Lane says the New World Screwworm (NWS) Response Playbook is the product of months of collaboration between USDA, impacted states and state animal health officials.

“We know screwworm is coming, right? We know that despite the best efforts of the federal government, we are most likely going to have to deal with screwworm on U.S. soil,” he summarizes.

He explains the playbook is meant to:

Define how cattle will move, go to slaughter or move to the next production phase if NWS is present.
Integrate state and federal responses so the industry does not repeat the confusion seen early in the high-path disease issues in dairy cattle.
Provide clarity and predictability for producers and the supply chain when NWS cases occur.

Read more about the playbook and how surveillance, targeted treatment and movement controls will help protect cattle operations while preserving business stability when NWS invades:

Ready for the Risk: USDA Releases Updated New World Screwworm Response Playbook

How Will U.S. Producers Maintain Business when New World Screwworm Invades?

3. Border Reopening With Mexico Must Be Deliberate and Predictable

Lane emphasizes that deciding when to reopen the border for cattle commerce will be “more art than science.”

“The secretary has a really important job in determining whether or not our Mexican friends are meeting all the obligations that they have here and that they are being collaborative partners,” he says. “We continue to believe that what’s most important here is making sure that the reopening of the border is planned, it’s announced, it’s very predictable.”

NCBA’s priority is a planned, announced and predictable border reopening so supply chains can plan around it and speculation is minimized.

“We’ve seen what happens with speculation in the markets surrounding this, and it’s not good for producers,” he says.

Wednesday a report from a state official in Mexico incorrectly claimed that USDA has set a date to resume livestock imports from Mexico. According to a USDA APHIS social media post this is not accurate.

“USDA has not set a date for resuming livestock imports. USDA will resume livestock imports only when we determine that the risk of New World Screwworm introduction into the United States can be adequately mitigated.”

Read more about the impact of the U.S.-Mexico Border Closure:

The 1.1 Million Head Gap: Analyzing the Impact of the U.S.-Mexico Border Closure

Should Beef Producers Be Concerned About Potential Phased Reopening of U.S.-Mexico Border?

4. Skepticism Toward Mandatory Country-of-Origin Labeling (MCOOL)

Lane acknowledges MCOOL’s political popularity with some stakeholders. He notes NCBA once supported it and later reversed policy because producers didn’t get the promised premiums and instead faced significant compliance costs.

“MCOOL doesn’t generate premiums for producers,” he says. “Giving the packer an extra 10 cents a pound on those cattle doesn’t help my members across the country make more money.”

He argues that consumers say they’ll pay more for “born, raised, harvested in the USA,” but in practice they buy on price and quality.

“We’ve been very supportive of closing the Product of the USA labeling loophole and putting some promotion behind it to educate folks about what’s possible,” Lane says. “That’s where we think we’ll find real premiums. MCOOL is a road to just higher consumer prices, and that’s the last thing the White House wants right now.”

He adds local and regional labels, like born, raised and harvested in Nebraska, are more effective at creating real producer premiums than a broad, mandatory origin label.

As the beef industry continues to navigate a volatile 2026, the intersection of legal precedents, biosecurity threats and trade policy continues to redefine the rancher’s risk profile. For Lane, the goal remains clear: ensuring that federal regulations and court rulings provide a predictable roadmap rather than an unexpected burden.

In a landscape where the “rug can be pulled” at any moment, maintaining a seat at the policy table is the only way to ensure that the burden of uncertainty doesn’t stop at the farm gate.

Trump Warns Fertilizer Giants Against "Price Gouging" as Costs Soar 40%

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 15:46:54 GMT

Fertilizer market volatility is once again taking center stage as geopolitical tensions disrupt global supply lines and push input costs sharply higher. New analysis shows the increase in fertilizer prices may not be over, even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens soon.

Even with the situation in Iran pushing prices even higher, the sharp increase in fertilizer prices from 2020 to now is catching attention in Washington. Not only did President Donald Trump take to social media to warn of ‘price gouging,’ but Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins also posted on X Monday, specifically expressing frustration over Mosaic’s response to farmers.

While Rollins and USDA Under Secretary Stephen Vaden have raised concerns over fertilizer prices this year, the president posted on Truth Social over the weekend that he is closely monitoring fertilizer prices and pledged support for American farmers.

Trump said Saturday on his Truth Social platform he is “watching fertilizer prices CLOSELY” during what he described as the US “FIGHT FOR FREEDOM in Iran”, adding that the administration “will not accept PRICE GOUGING from the fertilizer monopoly”.

On Monday, Rollins posted on X, saying she was “So disappointed in this response” from Mosaic, “especially as you decide to idle two fertilizer production facilities, removing 1 MMT of supply from the world market.”

So disappointed in this response, @MosaicCompany, especially as you decide to idle two fertilizer production facilities, removing 1 MMT of supply from the world market. 🚨

Our Great President and this Administration have our farmers' backs. 💪🌾

Any sleight of hand will not be… https://t.co/GTCxcBQNgi
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) April 13, 2026

Mosaic announced last week the decision to shut down major phosphate operations in Brazil, a move the that will cut production, reduce jobs, and signal a *strategic shift in how the fertilizer giant deploys its capital.

Mosaic Company announced Thursday it will idle two phosphate facilities in Brazil as part of a broader effort to cut costs and shift capital. Mosaic expects idling of the facilities to reduce annual phosphate production by approximately 1 million tonnes. CEO Bruce Bodine says the decision reflects what he calls a disciplined focus on long-term returns.

.@MosaicCompany, you’re right that U.S. farmers are facing a difficult economic situation, only made worse by the extra $6.9 BILLION they have had to spend on fertilizer since you petitioned the government to place duties on imported phosphorus. This has played a major role in… https://t.co/UuOqjE0jBu
— National Corn (NCGA) (@NationalCorn) April 13, 2026

Mosaic and Simplot have also been in the cross hairs of the push to remove countervailing duties on Moroccan phosphate . Groups like the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) claim the CVDs are costing U.S. agriculture $1 billion each year.

The CVDs on Moroccan phosphate were put into place by the International Trade Commission (ITC) in 2021. As the sunset review begins, more than 50 state grower groups including the Texas Corn Producers Association, sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce and the ITC to revoke the countervailing duties on imported phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia.

In separate filings by Mosaic and Simplot to the ITC and the Department of Commerce, both companies said the continuation is necessary to maintain a “level playing field.”

In a written response to Farm Journal, Mosaic said:

“American farmers depend on a strong domestic fertilizer industry, which in turn depends on strong enforcement of U.S. trade laws that ensure a level playing field. Mosaic is proud to support U.S. agriculture with high-quality, reliable products produced here at home.”

Iran War’s Current Impact on Fertilizer Prices

The message from the Trump adminstration comes as tensions escalate in the Strait of Hormuz, where the United States is weighing a potential full naval blockade. Ship traffic through the critical waterway has already dropped from roughly 135 vessels per day to the single digits. A complete shutdown could halt flows entirely, further increasing fertilizer prices.

The stakes are high as roughly one-third of global fertilizer shipments move through the strait, and the disruption is already sending prices higher, up more than 40% compared to a year ago.

It is the 6-week anniversary of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Fert price comparisons:

NOLA urea - +$230 or 49%
NOLA UAN - +$145 or 38%
Midwest NH3 - +$245 or 32%
NOLA DAP - +$130 or 21%
NOLA potash - +$10 or 3%

...corn - 2-cents or 0.5% higher#sickeningforfarmers
— Josh Linville (@JLinvilleFert) April 10, 2026

Market data shows the impact Iran is having on already high fertilizer prices. According to StoneX analyst Josh Linville says in the six weeks since the war started:

Urea prices have surged by $230 per ton, a 49% increase
UAN is up $145 per ton, or 38%
Anhydrous ammonia has climbed $245 per ton, a 32% jump.
In contrast, corn prices have barely responded, rising just two cents, or about half a percent. The divergence is putting additional pressure on farm margins.

DOJ Probe Into Fertilizer Costs Seeks Input From Farmers

The Trump administration is asking farmers to help provide information as part of an ongoing U.S. Department of Justice investigation into elevated costs for fertilizer, machinery and other key agricultural inputs, according to reporting from Bloomberg.

Bloomberg reported the effort is aimed at gathering more on-the-ground data as regulators examine whether fertilizer producers may have coordinated to raise prices. The DOJ investigation was first reported in early March, when Bloomberg said federal officials had begun looking into whether fertilizer companies engaged in price coordination.

According to the Bloomberg report, Vaden said he has already met with officials at both the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to discuss potential lines of inquiry. He also noted that farmers could play a key role in the process.

Vaden said farmers “have a lot of information that might be relevant to these investigations.”

Bloomberg previously reported in early March that the Department of Justice is investigating whether fertilizer producers colluded to increase prices.

Speaking at the North American Agricultural Journalists’ annual conference in Washington on Monday, Vaden encouraged farmer participation in the probe, emphasizing confidentiality protections.

“We need farmers to help provide us with that information on a confidential basis, so that that can help inform the investigations that are ongoing,” Vaden said, according to Bloomberg. “I think we will have a mechanism in order to help encourage that exchange of information.”

NCGA Surveys Show Not All Farmers Have Fertilizer Secured for 2026

Against that backdrop, along with fertilizer prices climbing even higher in the six weeks after the conflict started with Iran, new surveys results from NCGA highlight how those market pressures are translating to on-farm realities.

Krista Swanson, chief economist for NCGA, says the organization conducted the survey to better understand fertilizer availability from the farmer perspective. Ag Secretary Rollins has told mainstream media that 80% of farmers have fertilizer locked in for 2026, but NCGA data contradicts that figure.

“We’re hearing that number being thrown around too, which is why we really wanted to find out directly from farmers what the status is for them,” Swanson says.

NCGA Grower Survey

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

A Significant Gap in Fertilizer Readiness

The surveys show that only 60% of farmers report having their nitrogen fully purchased or secured for the 2026 growing season, while 64% say the same for phosphate. That leaves a sizable portion of producers still working to lock in supplies.

“When you think about over 500,000 corn farmers in the U.S., this isn’t a small number,” Swanson says. “Our survey results indicate that over 200,000 farmers still need at least some fertilizer for this year.”

Nitrogen remains a critical input for corn production and is closely tied to yield potential. Any shortfall, whether driven by availability or cost, can directly affect productivity and profitability.

NCGA Grower Surveys

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

Younger Farmers Feeling the Pressure Most

The survey also points to uneven impacts across the farm sector, with younger farmers facing greater challenges in securing fertilizer.

Swanson says younger producers reported having more nitrogen left to purchase compared to older farmers.

“You think about younger farmers that have less capital already built up in their business, maybe tighter cash flow needs because of their equity position,” she says. “This does seem to have a disproportional impact on younger farmers.”

That dynamic raises concerns about financial strain among newer operations in a high-cost environment.

Corn Acres Likely Stable, But With Reduced Inputs

Despite the challenges, most farmers are not planning to reduce corn acreage. The survey found that 80% of respondents expect to maintain their planned acres.

NCGA Grower Survey

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

At the same time, fertilizer application rates may fall short. Half of the farmers surveyed say they do not expect to apply their full amount of fertilizer.

“Pairing these two together, it seems to me like we are still going to see a lot of corn acres get planted,” Swanson says. “But those corn acres will have less fertilizer than maybe what they would have otherwise had.”

That combination could limit yield potential if input reductions become widespread.

Growing Concern Shifts to 2027

While fertilizer availability remains a concern for 2026, attention is already turning to the next crop year. Fertilizer purchasing follows a rolling cycle, and planning for 2027 will begin soon.

Survey responses show that for every one farmer more concerned about fertilizer price and availability for 2026, nearly two are more concerned about 2027.

NCGA Grower Survey

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

“So farmers are concerned as we look ahead to next year,” Swanson says.

The shift reflects uncertainty about how long supply disruptions and elevated prices will persist.

Supply Chain Recovery May Take Time

Even if geopolitical tensions ease, relief may not come quickly. Swanson notes that the fertilizer market is still dealing with production disruptions and supply chain backlogs.

“A short-term ceasefire has limited immediate impact on this ongoing fertilizer crisis for farmers,” she says. “Even when a permanent end to the situation is reached, we’re still looking at recovery from supply chain backlogs and halted production that could take a long time to recover from.”

Damage to key inputs such as liquid natural gas and sulfur production could take years to repair, keeping pressure on supply.

A Tightening Outlook

The NCGA survey underscores a challenging environment for corn producers. Most acres are expected to be planted this year, but not all will receive optimal fertilizer applications. At the same time, concern is building for 2027 as farmers look ahead to the next purchasing cycle.

For many producers, the issue is no longer just securing fertilizer for this season. It is navigating a period of sustained uncertainty that could shape production decisions, costs, and risk management strategies across the U.S. corn sector.

Longstanding Concerns Over Market Concentration

In September 2025, USDA and the U.S. Department of Justice signed a Memorandum of Understanding, committing both agencies to jointly examine high and volatile input costs, which included fertilizer, by scrutinizing competitive conditions in agricultural markets and enforcing antitrust laws, particularly around price setting and market concentration.

While geopolitical tensions are the latest driver of volatility, many farm groups argue the root of the problem runs deeper. Matt Perdue, president of the North Dakota Farmers Union, says ongoing federal investigations into fertilizer pricing must lead to meaningful action.

“We appreciate the administration’s investigations into input costs,” Perdue says. “But investigations don’t do anything if they’re not followed by enforcement, and they don’t do anything if we don’t learn what came out of those investigations.”

Groups like the Texas Corn Producers Association have been raising concerns about fertilizer market concentration for years. Texas farmer Dee Vaughan says the organization began studying the issue in 2020, working with the Agricultural and Food Policy Center at Texas A&M to examine pricing trends.

“We’ve been very concerned about all of our input costs, but specifically fertilizer, because it’s the one that just keeps going up almost exponentially,” Vaughan says.

He adds those studies found a shift in how fertilizer prices are determined . Historically tied closely to natural gas costs, the study found nitrogen fertilizer pricing began tracking corn prices more closely after 2010, a change Vaughan says reflects deeper structural issues.

According to Vaughan, the small number of firms controlling the market have the data and market awareness to price inputs based on farmers’ revenue potential, rather than production costs.

“They all have economists on staff,” Vaughan says. “They know exactly what our costs are, what our income is, and they’re able to extract value based on what they see as the gross income of a farmer. It’s not based on cost of production any longer.”

The 1.1 Million Head Gap: Analyzing the Impact of the U.S.-Mexico Border Closure

Tue, 07 Apr 2026 03:01:13 GMT

For more than 35 years, Mexican cattle have been a critical component of the American beef supply chain.

The U.S.-Mexico border has been closed since July 9 . A temporary phased reopening that began July 7 with the Douglas, Ariz., port was short-lived with a case reported July 8, 370 miles from the border, which was 160 miles northward of the sterile fly dispersal grid at that time.

Derrell Peel, Oklahoma State University Extension livestock marketing specialist, says, “Prior to the border closing in November 2024, U.S. imports of Mexican cattle had averaged 1.18 million head annually in the previous decade (Figure 1) and 1.12 million head per year in the previous 35 years.”

(Oklahoma State University)

Mexican cattle imports equaled 3.4% of the total U.S. calf crop from 2015 to 2024 and 3.1% since 1990. The brief border opening in 2025 allowed about 230,000 head to cross, 0.7% of the 2025 calf crop.

(Oklahoma State University)

Figure 2 shows the average seasonal pattern of Mexican cattle imports from 2019 to 2023.

“The typical pattern is bimodal with peaks in March and again in November/December,” Peel says. “Calves carried over from the previous year are typically exported in the first half of the year with relatively few exported in the heat of the summer. New-crop calves start to be exported in the final months of the year, carrying over into the next year.”

(Oklahoma State University)

Figure 3 shows the distribution Mexican cattle imports by port in 2023, the last year with a fully open border. The largest port is Santa Teresa, N.M., which accounted for nearly 43% of cattle crossing.

Peel reports, along with the Columbus port, New Mexico accounted for more than 53% of total cattle imports. The ports at Nogales and Douglas in Arizona represented another 27.5% of cattle crossings. The six ports in Texas accounted for a total of 19.2% of total Mexican cattle imports. The largest Texas port is Presidio/Ojinaga with 7.7% of the total.

Potential Phased Reopening: How Much and How Fast Can Cattle Imports Recover?

Peel says rumors are currently swirling that the border could open soon , probably with the phased plan to open ports from west to east over time. He says, if the border would reopen, the recovery will not be very fast.

“It will take several weeks for border facilities to restaff and have USDA-APHIS personnel in place to inspect and clear paperwork for crossing cattle,” he stresses. “It takes time (and cost) for Mexican producers to prepare cattle and the paperwork needed for crossing. It’s not clear how aggressive Mexican producers will be initially until they have a sense of how stable the border situation might be.”

By the time cattle can begin crossing, it will be close to the heat of summer, which is likely to limit crossings. Peel predicts if cattle are allowed to cross relatively soon, numbers of cattle imports could begin to recover significantly by fall.

Exactly what that recovery looks like, and the numbers expected are uncertain.

“Mexico has continued to adapt since the border has been closed, utilizing previously exported cattle in domestic markets,” Peel explains. “Mexico has developed significant cattle feeding and packing infrastructure in the past 25 or so years. More infrastructure investment is underway.”

Read more about the potential border reopening:

Should Beef Producers Be Concerned About Potential Phased Reopening of U.S.-Mexico Border?

Mexico is the eighth largest beef-producing country and the seventh largest beef-consuming country. Mexico is the number 11 beef exporting country and beef exports have grown more than 10 times in the past 20 years.

“U.S. imports of Mexican cattle are part of an increasingly integrated cattle and beef trade relationship between Mexico and the U.S.,” Peel adds. “Mexican cattle imports have been important for many decades.”

(Oklahoma State University)

In the 1980s, Mexico became a significant beef export market for the U.S. and is currently the No. 3 beef export market. More recently, after 2010, Mexico has become a significant source of U.S. beef imports, currently the No. 4 source of beef imports, see Figure 4.

“Cattle and beef trade between the U.S. and Mexico are interrelated markets ,so the current disruption in cattle movement across the border may have a variety of impacts in the future,” Peel summarizes.

Your Next Read:

Tighter Supplies and Border Closures: A Snapshot of Today’s Cattle Feeding Industry

Rollins Promotes Product of USA Label, Announces Support of MCOOL

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:03:27 GMT

USDA is launching a national public awareness campaign to inform meat, poultry and egg producers of the “ Product of USA ” voluntary labeling standard, which went into effect on Jan. 1, 2026, and increases consumer understanding of what the label means.

In a press release , Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins says, “Our great patriot ranchers and producers grow, raise, and harvest the world’s safest, most affordable, and abundant food supply. American consumers want to support America by buying American and this label will strengthen our food supply chain through transparency, fairness, and trust. This new standard policy ensures producers who invest in a fully American supply chain can compete fairly, and it gives consumers the confidence they deserve about the food they bring home.”

The “Product of USA” label is reserved exclusively for meat, poultry and egg products from animals that were born, raised, harvested and processed in the U.S. The claim is voluntary, but companies using it must meet this transparent and verifiable requirement. This ends the prior practice that allowed imported products to carry the claim after minimal processing and strengthens consumer confidence by aligning with what Americans expect and demand.

Friday’s announcement on enforcement and promotion of the strengthened “Product of USA” label is a key deliverable under this initiative, advancing the Trump administration’s priorities of fairness, competition and consumer trust.

Rollins: “Big Supporter” of MCOOL

Rollins says she is a “big supporter” of mandatory country-of-origin labeling (MCOOL) for U.S. meat products.

According to Agri-Pulse’s April 1 Daybreak , Rollins shared her support with reporters prior to a grazing roundtable discussing the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to modernize federal grazing management on Tuesday.

Verifying her comments were intended for MCOOL and not in reference to the voluntary labeling rule, a USDA spokesperson says, “Yes, we can confirm the Secretary’s comments yesterday in support of MCOOL.”

Rollins says she considers the issue one of consumer transparency rather than market intervention.

“It’s just a transparency question,” she explains.

According to the USDA website , COOL is a consumer labeling law that requires retailers (most grocery stores and supermarkets) to identify the country of origin on certain foods referred to as “covered commodities.” The 2002 and 2008 farm bills and the 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require retailers to notify their customers of the country of origin of muscle cuts and ground lamb, chicken, goat, wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish, perishable agricultural commodities, peanuts, pecans, ginseng and macadamia nuts.

While in place for some products, MCOOL for beef and pork was repealed in 2015 following World Trade Organization (WTO) disputes. Efforts like the American Beef Labeling Act are actively trying to bring it back.

What is the New Grazing MOU?

Tue, 31 Mar 2026 17:45:09 GMT

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins and Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum have signed a historic Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to modernize federal grazing management and boost the domestic beef supply. This agreement bridges the gap between the U.S. Forest Service (FS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to cut bureaucratic red tape, streamline grazing permits and ensure “no net loss” of grazing capacity for the 20,000 American ranchers across 28 states who graze on federal lands.

FS and the BLM are responsible for a total of 240 million acres of federal rangelands. The two agencies together administer more than 23,000 permits and leases held by ranchers who graze their livestock on approximately 29,000 allotments. About 10% of grazing allotments, or roughly 24 million acres, are not under permit but are targeted as opportunities to allow more grazing on federal lands. The FS collects an average of $6 million annually in grazing fees.

Modernizing the Forest Service and BLM Partnership

According to a USDA press release , the agreement formalizes collaboration between the USDA and the Department of the Interior to ensure more efficient, transparent and responsive management across federal lands. By building on the recently released Grazing Action Plan , the agencies aim to eliminate costly bureaucracy and lower consumer prices.

“Today’s signing sends a clear message: the Trump administration is putting America’s farmers and ranchers first,” Rollins says. “Building on our action plan for American ranchers announced in the fall, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are already delivering.”

Burgum adds the partnership is dedicated to strengthening ranching operations while safeguarding public lands.

“By working closely with American ranchers, we are enhancing communication, investing in innovation and modernizing our approach to land management practices to deliver real results for the people who feed and sustain this country,” he says.

A “No Net Loss” Mandate for Animal Unit Months (AUMs)

A central pillar of the MOU is the commitment to maintaining grazing capacity wherever possible. The agreement affirms a goal of “no net loss” of animal unit months (AUMs) within allotments.

To support this, federal agencies will look to expand practical land management tools, including the reopening of vacant allotments. Currently, about 10% of grazing allotments — roughly 24 million acres — are not under permit and represent a significant opportunity to increase domestic beef production.

For generations, ranchers have played a vital role in feeding the nation, supporting rural economies and stewarding public lands. The MOU recognizes permittees as essential partners and directs federal agencies to engage directly with those who live and work on the land.

Bridging the Gap Between Agencies and Producers

To foster a deeper understanding of the industry, the MOU introduces “Ranch Immersion” programs for federal employees. These initiatives will place agency staff on working ranches to build firsthand knowledge of operational challenges. Additionally, the agreement focuses on:

Structured Engagement: Expanding collaboration through learning roundtables.
Data Access: Improving data systems to make allotment information more predictable for producers.
Streamlined Permitting: Reducing delays for infrastructure improvements and permit renewals.

Wildfire Response: New Liaisons for Grazing Permittees

Recognizing the constant threat of wildfire to Western rangelands, the MOU establishes grazing permittee wildfire liaisons. These liaisons will ensure ranchers have a direct point of contact and a voice during both wildfire response and recovery efforts. Furthermore, the agreement promotes the use of targeted grazing as a tool to reduce fuel loads and mitigate wildfire risk, alongside the adoption of innovative technologies like virtual fencing.

According to the USDA press release , the agreement supports not only producers, but also American families by strengthening the domestic food supply chain. By lowering costs and improving efficiency for ranchers, the initiative helps keep food affordable and reduces reliance on foreign imports.

“Today’s signing marks an important step forward in modernizing federal grazing management and reflects a broader commitment to rural prosperity by fortifying the American beef industry as directed by President Trump’s order Ensuring Affordable Beef for the American Consumer ,” the release says.

Ranchers Called, Agencies Answered

Public lands ranchers joined Secretaries Rollins and Burgum as they signed the MOU to launch their Grazing Action Plan.

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and Public Lands Council (PLC) leaders and members then participated in a roundtable discussing cooperative work to address longstanding challenges for federal lands grazing permittees. PLC President Tim Canterbury, PLC Past President Mark Roeber and Industry Issues Committee Chairman Nate Thomson were joined by NCBA President-elect Kim Brackett, American National CattleWomen (ANCW) Past President Nikki Weston, Washington ranchers Stephanie and Nick Martinez, Arizona permittee Dan Bell, and Colorado rancher Nancy Roberts in raising critical ranching issues to be addressed.

“Public lands ranchers are resilient by nature, but we still need significant relief from the burdensome federal regulations that make it harder to do our jobs every day. This MOU will make it easier to ranch on public lands and will help improve the health of western landscapes,” Canterbury says. “By speeding up the permitting process and expanding the use of targeted grazing, the federal government is ensuring that more ranchers will keep ranching and that rangelands will face less degradation and destruction from wildfires and mismanagement.”

This plan focuses on boosting rancher resiliency by assessing vacant allotments, unifying permitting frameworks between agencies, expanding the use of targeting grazing to prevent wildfires, and establishing a rancher liaison program for wildfire incident command centers.

“When you raise cattle on federal lands, it requires a great deal of work to sort through the government red tape. This plan will cut bureaucracy by streamlining the permitting process, expanding grazing access, and optimizing targeted grazing in areas that are the most vulnerable to wildfires,” Brackett explains. “This MOU will provide much needed regulatory relief to ranchers and make it easier for us to carry out the voluntary conservation essential to maintaining these working lands.”

Your Next Read:
Beef Producers React to USDA’s Plan to Fortify Industry and Trump’s Social Media Comments

What is Sen. Schumer's Family Grocery and Farmer Relief Act?

Thu, 05 Mar 2026 20:06:05 GMT

Senate Democrats are preparing legislation aimed at breaking up large meatpacking companies.

According to a March 3 article in The Wall Street Journal — “ Senate Democrats to Propose Meat Industry Breakup ” —Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) plans to introduce legislation to break up what he sees as a monopoly while increasing scrutiny of foreign-owned companies.

Senator Schumer’s legislation, the “ Family Grocery and Farmer Relief Act ,” will force meat companies with product lines from more than one species to divest and limit their production to one species.

WSJ reports the proposed bill follows the Trump administration’s efforts to probe competition within the meatpacking industry.

“Administration officials have said easing beef prices is a priority and have pursued measures aimed at lowering prices, including increasing imports,” the article says. “If passed, the legislation would effectively break up some of the country’s largest meat companies, including Arkansas-based Tyson Foods, which processes one in every 5 lb. of chicken, beef and pork consumed in the U.S., along with JBS, another top producer of beef, pork and chicken.”

The legislation would also impose caps on beef market concentration at both the regional and national levels, and give the Federal Trade Commission the power to order targeted divestitures, such as selling off plants or spinning off business units into new independent firms.

“Minority Leader Schumer’s bill would only raise the cost of beef in grocery stores and lower the price of cattle — simultaneously squeezing consumers and ruining record markets for producers,” says Ethan Lane, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) senior vice president of government affairs. “U.S. cattle producers need access to adequate processing capacity to keep their operations running, and this bill would immediately create a processing bottleneck rivaling COVID-19-era processing disruptions.

“NCBA strongly opposes this anti-consumer and anti-producer legislation. If the Minority Leader truly wants to help cattle producers, he can support swift consideration and passage of the Pet & Livestock Protection Act to allow ranchers to finally protect their herds from surging apex predators.”

John Nalivka, Sterling Marketing Inc. president, echoes his concern regarding the proposed legislation.

“Packers break carcasses — politicians break companies,” Nalivka summarizes. “It should not surprise anyone, but the politicians have produced an answer to lower food prices and that is to break up companies into smaller entities. Though he did not ask for my opinion, I would tell Senator Schumer, ‘That plan goes against the one thing that allows a company to compete, including meatpackers, and that is economies of scale.’”

This is an important economic concept in agricultural production and many other industries for that matter.

“Think about when the government broke up the big telecommunications (phone) companies,” he says. “Did it help anything?”

Meat Institute Fires Back

The Meat Institute on Thursday says Senator Schumer’s bill will destroy the meatpacking industry, sending costs for consumers soaring, reducing union jobs, and harming livestock and poultry producers .

“This proposal is absurd,” says Meat Institute President and CEO Julie Anna Potts. “Schumer’s bill and other efforts to villainize meatpackers are simply reckless election-year pandering that threatens to damage a crucial industry at the center of every American meal. If the Senator is trying to make meat and poultry more affordable for consumers, this is the wrong approach. It will have the opposite effect. While this may be just a messaging bill to Senator Schumer, it is real life for American families, farmers and ranchers and for the 3.2 million Americans employed throughout the industry.”

Potts adds, “Such a foolish proposal would never even be considered in another industry. Imagine the federal government mandating that Ford only manufacture trucks, while forcing them to sell off all their other vehicle lines to separate small businesses. It is unthinkable in a free market. They don’t even do that in Russia anymore.”

The Meat Institute says the bill would create uncertainty for livestock and poultry producers, especially cattle producers. Provisions of the bill would hit cattle feeders especially hard, putting some out of business completely.

“In Schumer’s radical new market structure, what incentive does anyone have to own and operate a beef facility, especially now when economists predict the herd will take a decade to fully rebuild? Instead, the bill incentivizes beef and pork packing to leave the U.S. for foreign countries. For the past 18 months, beefpackers — large and small — have experienced the largest losses on record, with this week’s losses at more than $350 a head ,” she says. “The solution to reducing beef prices is to encourage cattle producers to retain heifers and rebuild the herd. Watching as our industry is used as a political football to score cheap points in the press does not provide certainty or confidence in the market.”

Nalivka adds the Sterling estimates for margins across the red meat industry would not support any contention that packers are taking advantage of producers or consumers for that matter.

“For 2025, my Sterling margin estimates indicated that beefpackers had an average loss of $138/head. Feedlots realized an average profit of $498/head last year while cow-calf producers made $897/head on cattle sales during 2025,” Nalivka says. “Record-high cattle prices certainly benefited feedlots and cow-calf producers over the last year. However, those same record-high fed cattle prices more than offset the record-high wholesale beef prices paid to packers last year, thus leading to significant packer losses.”

The argument for “too big” might begin with packers, but where does it go from there? Does it extend further to the government needing to regulate the size of feedlots and cow-calf ranches in the U.S.? That might sound unlikely, but what might seem like an appealing argument can often spiral further.

“Initiating an investigation is only the beginning,” Nalivka adds. “I have seen this with federal lands grazing in the western U.S.”

The meat industry competes in a global market. The U.S. meat industry has an advantage in many aspects of producing and marketing beef, pork and poultry with part of that advantage being the structure of the industry. As a result, U.S. consumers have access to a wide variety of safe and wholesome red meat and poultry meat products.

“Is beef affordable? I would answer yes, and consumer demand would support that,” Nalivka summarizes. “If consumers were unwilling to purchase beef at record-high prices, prices would fall.”

The Corn Fed Advantage? What’s Really Driving Growing Global Demand for U.S. Beef

Thu, 26 Feb 2026 20:54:14 GMT

Final 2025 export numbers are in, and while U.S. beef exports reflected the realities of tighter cattle supplies and lost access to China, the broader global demand story remains historically strong, according to Dan Halstrom, president and CEO of the U.S. Meat Export Federation.

Speaking during Commodity Classic, Halstrom detailed not only where exports landed in 2025, but what the numbers mean for cattle producers, grain farmers and the industry’s outlook in 2026 as the United States’ ability to supply high-quality corn-fed beef is feeding some of that growth in demand.

2025 Beef Numbers: China Drives the Decline

Looking back at 2025, Halstrom says most of the anticipated decline in beef exports materialized due to tight cattle supplies. But the magnitude of the drop largely centered on one country.

“Looking at the beef side, yeah, we’re down about 10%, 11%,” he says. “But majority of that is China.”
Halstrom says if you take out China, beef demand is steady compared to 2024, which was a historic year.
The issue with China traces back to last April, when China did not renew export registrations for approximately 400 U.S. beef establishments.

“Unfortunately, that was implemented, the ban on the establishments, or they didn’t renew the establishments last April, and that’s the primary reason we’re down,” Halstrom explains.

However, he was quick to point out that removing China from the equation changes the narrative significantly.
“So you take China out of the mix, our value is steady with a year ago, and we’re only down a couple percent on volume,” he says. “So I think that’s the real story here.”

While regaining access to China remains a priority, and could be a topic of discussion when China and the U.S. are poised to hold trade talks in April, Halstrom says the broader global marketplace is performing at exceptionally high levels.

“Obviously, it’s a real priority to try to get China back going again and it’s top of USTR’s list,” he says. “But the real story is that the rest of the world demand is record-breaking and it is really performing.”

With a potential meeting planned between President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in early April, Halstrom said he is cautiously optimistic.

“Well, I’m optimistic it will be, yes,” he said when asked whether trade would be part of the discussion. “Because, in my opinion, this is a political thing.”

He adds that from an administrative standpoint, restoring plant listings could be straightforward.
“The actual relisting of 400 establishments is relatively easy, if they choose to do it, in my opinion, from what we’ve heard,” Halstrom says. “So a momentous event like Trump and Xi spending a few days together, as it is planned in early April, could potentially be a breakthrough moment — and at least the first step in a breakthrough.”

Demand is “As Good As I’ve Ever Seen It”

Even without China fully active, Halstrom repeatedly returned to one theme: demand.

“Demand is not a problem,” he said. “The under-supply of cattle is a problem, we all know that, but demand is as good as I’ve ever seen it.”

He pointed to emerging shifts in buyer behavior, particularly in Latin America.

“There’s markets like Guatemala, Central America, even Mexico, that are demanding Choice and higher-graded beef from the U.S.,” he said. “That didn’t use to five to 10 years ago.”

The scale of the shift is notable given current price levels, according to Halstrom.

“Who would have thought that I would never have thought a place like Guatemala would be demanding Prime beef from the U.S. when the cutout for Choice is $360 and higher,” Halstrom says “It’s unbelievable what’s going on.”

After more than four decades in the meat export business, he described the current environment as unprecedented.

“I’ve been in this business now 43, 44th year,” he says. “We’re in an unprecedented area of demand for our product.”

The Corn-Fed Advantage

Halstrom attributed much of that sustained global interest to the unique characteristics of U.S. production.

“A lot of it is the corn-fed product that creates this marbling and this rich taste,” he says. “Nobody else in the world can copy it.”

That differentiation continues to allow U.S. beef to compete at premium price levels, even in developing markets that historically prioritized lower-cost protein options.

Corn and Soybean Growers Aren’t Just Exporting Grain

During Commodity Classic this week, Halstrom emphasized the measurable return meat exports generate for crop producers.

“We actually just finished the computations for 2025,” he says. “Every bushel of corn, $0.58 per bushel of that value is attributable to exports of U.S. pork and beef.”

The soybean impact was even more striking.

“On the soybean side, it was a little over $1 a bushel, just attributable to pork exports,” Halstrom says.
Halstrom says U.S. grain producers aren’t just exporting grain. They’re also exporting meat.

The 2026 Wild Card

Asked what single factor he is watching most closely in 2026, Halstrom again circled back to demand.
“Demand,” he says. “Demand is as good as I’ve ever seen.”

With historically tight cattle supplies likely to persist, maintaining that appetite at elevated price levels will be critical.

“It’s really hard to explain unless you’ve seen it,” Halstrom said of the current export climate. “It’s unbelievable what’s going on.”

If demand continues at today’s pace, and if China reenters the market, the ripple effects could extend well beyond the beef complex, reinforcing value throughout the feed and grain sectors once again.

Life After DEF: What Rolling Back The Endangerment Finding Means for Farmers

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 16:52:18 GMT

EPA’s repeal of the endangerment finding could be the largest deregulation in history, and it will have a huge impact on agriculture and the biofuels industry.

If the agency no longer determines greenhouse gases a danger to human health and welfare, it will relax federal emissions standards for cars and trucks. However, it also changes emissions regulations on farm equipment and could get rid of the requirement to use diesel exhaust fluid.

So what will life be like after DEF?

Farmers Happy to See DEF Die

Dalton Kenning, a farmer in Shelton, Neb., says: “Taking DEF off the table, it would kind of just simplify things a little bit more.”

He explains it doesn’t help the engines in tractors, combines or semitrucks run any better.

“I think that’s why you’ve seen a lot of producers go away from it, whether that’s deleting something or, you know, because that machine’s built to run more efficient than without it,” Kenning says.

What Does it Mean for Equipment Manufacturers?

For equipment manufacturers, it will require a change in engineering and design on engines — but it’s easier than meeting the stricter Tier 5 requirements.

Brandon Montgomery, senior brand marketing manager at Fendt North America, says they will be ready.

“We had Tier 3 engines with DEF and without DEF for countries that don’t have that as a requirement,” Montgomery says. “So, we have the knowledge base how to do it.”

However, he says, they and all OEM manufacturers must comply with current and future EPA emissions standards. His company released this statement:

Fendt and AGCO are closely monitoring ongoing regulatory discussions related to emissions requirements. While Fendt has experience designing engines to meet a wide range of global regulations, the company has made no decisions regarding changes to North American products or retrofit offerings. AGCO and its brands, including Fendt, will continue to build machines that comply with all appropriate regulations in the markets they serve.

The company has produced engines in the past that were compliant without DEF, but doing it for the U.S. market again would require:

Various engine and vehicle architecture changes
Revalidation of hardware, software, and emissions systems
Full regulatory approval

He says it’s not possible to simply remove DEF components and expect the machine to operate properly or remain compliant with whatever EPA sets as the latest standard.

Retrofit for Older Machines?

Some farmers avoided DEF by buying older, used equipment. There may be some now who try to convert newer machines back so they don’t have to use DEF. It takes more than just changing the software, as most modern emissions systems are considered integrated ecosystems built around software, hardware, sensors and aftertreatment components. Then there’s the added costs of reegineering, testing and getting new regulatory approvals.

Overall, Montgomery says it’s possible but there are a lot of factors to consider. Can the industry go back to equipment without DEF? Yes, but it’s not simple.

Will it Lower Fertilizer Prices?

The other possible upside is the impact it could have on nitrogen fertilizer prices, according to Josh Linville, vice president of fertilizer at StoneX.

“Obviously, a lot of nitrogen fertilizer is used to make this DEF product. The very, very long story short is, you do away with DEF, and that puts a lot of fertilizer back in the hands of the farmer who can go use that to grow our food,” he says.

He cautions that won’t happen overnight, but it could start to ease some of the supply and price pressure on nitrogen fertilizer products.

Linville says: “It’s not going to solve nitrogen. It’s very important to note that we will still ebb and flow with global pricing, but having more of that product not being put into this DEF marketplace means it’s more tons at home. It means we can disconnect longer. It means we don’t have to move to a premium quite as hard as what we normally would as we start moving in the spring.”

And more supply is a good thing.

A Trade Win for Beef and Pork: U.S. and Taiwan Sign Agreement on Reciprocal Trade

Fri, 13 Feb 2026 15:31:22 GMT

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced the signing of an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade between the United States and Taiwan that includes significant market access gains for U.S. red meat.

“The Agreement on Reciprocal Trade with Taiwan will eliminate tariff and nontariff barriers facing U.S. exports to Taiwan, furthering opportunities for American farmers, ranchers, fishermen, workers, small businesses and manufacturers,” Ambassador Jamieson Greer said . “This agreement also builds on our longstanding economic and trade relationship with Taiwan and will significantly enhance the resilience of our supply chains, particularly in high-technology sectors.”

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins praised the agreement on X, saying this will open up real markets and boost opportunities for rural communities.

New trade deal with our partner, Taiwan!
🇺🇸🤝🇹🇼

THANK YOU @POTUS and @USTradeRep. Under the new U.S.–Taiwan Reciprocal Trade Agreement, Taiwan is cutting or eliminating tariffs on nearly all U.S. agricultural exports — from animal protein like beef, pork, and dairy to corn,… https://t.co/44xmlzP04o
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) February 13, 2026

U.S. Beef’s Potential to Grow Export Opportunities
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) says this will strengthen one of the most important and fastest-growing markets for U.S. beef. Taiwan is the fifth largest market for U.S. beef, with exports valued at about $650 million, and the U.S. is the largest supplier of beef to Taiwan.

“There is still potential for further growth with the increased access for all U.S. beef products, including those in high demand for yakiniku barbecue and trendy burger concepts,” U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) said. “The elimination of tariffs on U.S. beef will definitely improve our competitiveness.”

Foreign markets play a critical role in producer profitability with beef exports accounting for more than $415 per fed cattle processed in 2024, NCBA President Gene Copenhaver explained.

“Strong, science-based trade agreements are essential to adding value for U.S. cattle producers, and Taiwan has emerged as one of the strongest international markets for U.S. beef,” Copenhaver said. “Duty-free access improves competitiveness and provides long-term certainty for producers who depend on export markets to maximize the value of every animal. American cattle producers look forward to this expanded market access for years to come thanks to the work of President Trump and U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Jamieson Greer.”

Securing Greater Market Access for U.S. Pork
It’s also a step forward for the U.S. pork industry as U.S. pork has been “widely disadvantaged in Taiwan,” USMEF said. The EU and Canada currently dominate Taiwan’s pork imports.

“USMEF is optimistic that reducing both tariffs and nontariff barriers will help enable larger U.S. pork exports to Taiwan, as USMEF remains focused on regaining Taiwanese consumer trust in U.S. pork,” USMEF said.

Organizations say this trade deal reinforces science-based standards consistent with the World Organization for Animal Health and Codex Alimentarius.

“I would like to thank President Trump and Ambassadors Greer and Callahan for their hard work,” said Lori Stevermer, a Minnesota pig farmer. “This agreement stands to boost U.S. pork exports by cutting tariffs in half. It also requires Taiwan to follow maximum residue levels (MRLs) set by Codex for ractopamine in pork fat, kidney, liver and muscle. While not always as obvious as a tariff reduction, by accepting USDA FSIS inspections, audits and export certificates, this agreement reduces the nontariff barriers we face and allows opportunities for more plants to export pork. Overall, U.S. pig farmers will have greater market access to a country that loves pork and that’s good for our farms and businesses.”

Additionally, within six months Taiwan must recognize the African swine fever protection zone established by the U.S.

“Our 15-plus year endeavor to break down trade barriers in the high-value market of Taiwan has paid off,” said NPPC president Duane Stateler, an Ohio pork producer. “This means more U.S. pork on international tables and more opportunities and prosperity for American producers.”

Read the Fact Sheet on U.S.-Taiwan Agreement on Reciprocal Trade

Trump Signs Executive Order Quadrupling Beef Imports from Argentina to Keep Ground Beef Affordable

Fri, 06 Feb 2026 22:39:04 GMT

In a move aimed at easing pressure on U.S. beef supplies and keeping prices in check for consumers, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation on Feb. 6, 2026, temporarily quadrupling imports of lean beef trimmings from Argentina under the U.S. tariff-rate quota (TRQ).

The action comes as USDA confirmed just last week the U.S. cattle herd is now at a 75-year low . Not only are producers showing no signs of herd rebuilding, the White House says low cattle supplies can be attributed to droughts and wildfires in 2022 that impacted key U.S. cattle-producing states, including Texas, Kansas, Nebraska and South Dakota, which have constrained domestic beef production.

Compounding the supply challenges are restrictions on cattle imports from Mexico following detections of the New World screwworm have limited feedlot stocks, contributing to a record-low U.S. cattle herd.

“As President, I have a responsibility to ensure that hard-working Americans can afford to feed themselves and their families,” the proclamation states. “To increase the supply of ground beef for U.S. consumers, I am taking action to temporarily increase the quantity of in-quota imports of lean beef trimmings under the U.S. beef TRQ.”

The proclamation authorizes an 80,000 metric ton increase in in-quota lean beef trimmings imports for 2026, which will be allocated entirely to Argentina. The additional beef will be distributed in four quarterly tranches of 20,000 metric tons each, beginning Feb. 13, 2026, and continuing through the end of the year.

Record Beef Prices Drive Action

U.S. consumers have seen beef prices climb steadily in recent years, with ground beef reaching an average price of $6.69 per pound in December 2025, which was the highest level recorded since the 1980s. Despite higher prices and the availability of alternative proteins, demand for beef remains strong, prompting record beef imports of 4.64 billion pounds in 2024, a 24% increase over the previous year.

But this is not the first time President Trump has proposed measures to address rising beef costs. In October 2025, he told reporters at the White House, “We are working on beef, and I think we have a deal on beef. The price of beef is higher than we want it, and that’s going to be coming down pretty soon too. We did something,” without elaborating.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) responded at the time with a strong warning, criticizing the President’s approach. NCBA CEO Colin Woodall says. the plan risked “damaging the livelihoods of American cattlemen and women, while doing little to impact the price consumers are paying at the grocery store.”

He emphasizes concerns about trade imbalances, the risk of introducing foreign animal diseases from Argentina, and the importance of focusing on domestic solutions such as New World screwworm facilities, regulatory reforms, and disease prevention programs.

The Trump administration, however, argues the current import expansion is a necessary response to natural disasters and market disruptions that have reduced domestic beef supply. The administration will continue monitoring supply and demand, with the Secretary of Agriculture advising on any additional measures that may be necessary to ensure stable beef prices for American families.

This proclamation highlights ongoing challenges facing U.S. cattle producers, including climate-related disruptions, disease risks, and supply chain pressures, while signaling the administration’s willingness to leverage international trade to stabilize consumer costs.

Are Beef Prices Too High? Consumer Demand Signals No

Since the president’s initial comments in October, there’s been a debate about if beef prices are too high. Oklahoma State extension livestock specialist Derrell Peel agrees consumer behavior continues to support higher prices, even if there is talk about bringing beef prices down.

“I don’t think we have a demand problem or a beef price problem. Consumers are still paying,” Close says. “If consumers didn’t want to pay high prices for beef, they don’t have to. There’s places they can go. They’re still paying it.”

High prices have raised concerns about whether consumers will eventually push back, but Terrain’s Don Close says demand data continues to defy that narrative.

“Over the last two years at Terrain, we’ve spent more time trying to evaluate and study what we can about demand,” he says. “We’ve known what the supply is.”

By examining beef prices relative to income, inflation and competing proteins, Close said the results remain consistent.

“We’re looking at all-fresh beef prices against the consumer price index. We’re looking all fresh against average hourly wage. We’re now looking at beef in relationship to both pork and broilers,” he says. “And all those matrices that we’re looking at, we’re not seeing and have not yet seen any softening in beef demand. It’s still in place.”

Economists Weigh In: Can Beef Prices Be Lowered Without Harming Producers?

In October, Trump’s initial comments tanked the cattle market. To better understand whether retail beef prices can be reduced without affecting cattle markets, Farm Journal spoke with two economists and livestock market experts. When asked if there’s a way to lower beef prices without impacting cattle futures, both economists say the short answer is, “no.”

“Simple answer is no,” says Close. “I would add to that that when we look at beef prices in relationship to the other proteins, I would absolutely say that pork and broilers have been a beneficiary of the record high beef prices. No doubt. But they are not yet to a point that they are a detriment to beef prices; beef is still gaining market share relative to other proteins.”

David Anderson, extension livestock economist at Texas A&M, echoed that perspective. “I think it’s a great, interesting question, but from the ranch to wholesale beef to retail beef, these prices are all related,” Anderson says. “If it was possible to do something that actually brought down retail prices to consumers, it’s going to have an effect upstream, downstream, however you want to call that. But even then, I’m not sure there’s much you can do to bring down retail prices. We’ve got a product that’s in demand. Even though we look at our nominal retail beef prices that are record high, I think that for consumers, beef delivers value for the money and they’re going to keep buying. That and tighter supplies is a recipe for higher prices. People continue to buy. There’s a bunch of big trends there, heck, let’s eat more protein, you know, and that helps the whole meat complex: beef, dairy, eggs, beans, you name it. So while this supports cattle prices, it also means there’s not a whole lot you can do to bring down beef prices significantly.”

New U.S.-Argentina Trade Deal Sets Stage For President Trump’s Latest Proclamation

The move this week follows a new trade and investment agreement between the United States and Argentina, signed earlier this week by USTR Jamieson Greer and Argentina’s Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno. The agreement provides preferential market access for U.S. goods, eliminates or reduces tariffs on a wide range of products, and enhances cooperation on economic and national security issues.

On agriculture, Argentina has agreed to open its market to U.S. poultry and poultry products within a year and simplify export regulations for U.S. beef and pork. The agreement also requires Argentina to accept U.S. food safety and regulatory standards for meat and poultry, while prohibiting restrictions on U.S. use of certain cheese names, such as asiago, feta, or camembert.

USTR officials said the deal will also enhance cooperation on export controls for sensitive items, protect telecommunications infrastructure, and prevent digital trade barriers that could affect U.S. tech companies. Although China is not mentioned in the text, the agreement is designed to strengthen U.S.-Argentina coordination in addressing unfair trade practices from third countries.

What’s Ahead?

The Trump administration will continue monitoring domestic beef supply and demand, with the Secretary of Agriculture advising on any additional measures necessary to maintain affordable prices for American consumers. While some in the cattle industry remain cautious about importing Argentinian beef, the administration frames the decision as a short-term solution to natural disasters and market disruptions that have tightened domestic beef availability.

Buckle Up: Cattle Market Structure Signals the Highs May Still Be Ahead

Fri, 06 Feb 2026 15:51:03 GMT

For cattle producers wondering whether today’s price levels are sustainable, or whether the market has already peaked, the underlying fundamentals suggest the industry may not be finished yet. Despite historically high cattle and beef prices, the U.S. cow herd continues to contract, herd rebuilding has yet to meaningfully begin and beef demand remains resilient even as prices climb. And when you combine those forces together, it’s a recipe that indicates tight supplies are likely to persist well into the second half of the decade, setting the stage for continued strength, and potentially even higher highs yet this year.

That outlook was reinforced during a U.S. Farm Report roundtable markets discussion at this year’s CattleCon in Nashville, with Oklahoma State University Extension livestock economist Derrell Peel, Don Close, senior protein analyst for Terrain, and Joe Vaclavik of Standard Grain.

Close has been in the business for 48 years, and he says he’s waited his whole career for this, as the dynamics in the cattle market continue to build a strong case for cattle prices. And while there is definite risk at these price levels, and volatility is certain, both Peel and Close are bullish on cattle this year.

Inventory Report Confirms the Industry is Still Shrinking

The latest USDA Cattle Inventory report released last week showed another year-over-year decline in beef cows, underscoring just how tight supplies have become. While the number itself was not shocking, the market’s reaction reflected the realization that contraction is not over.

“The fact that [the beef herd] was down some was not a particular surprise,” Peel says. “I thought it also could have been up slightly, so plus or minus unchanged. It came in a little smaller than that. But in general, the report from my standpoint was pretty much what I expected.”

What matters most, according to Peel, is not a single percentage point, but the trend line producers are still on.

“The net effect is we continue to get smaller in this industry, and we are not growing at this point,” he adds.

For producers hoping tighter numbers would soon give way to expansion, the report instead confirmed the industry is still digging deeper into contraction.

Replacement Heifers Signal Intention, Not Expansion

One of the few increases in the report came in beef replacement heifers, but Close cautions producers should not confuse that with meaningful herd growth.

“I think it’s an encouraging indication that they’re starting to think about it,” Close says. “If you look at the offset to the decline in count numbers to an increase of 42,000, 44,000 heifers, there’s no real offset there. We’re still in the infancy of any expansion, and it can, depending on weather, go either way.”

From Close’s perspective, the increase reflects mindset more than action. After several years of drought and forced liquidation, producers are beginning to consider rebuilding, but that process is slow, cautious and far from uniform.

“I think the anecdotal evidence we’re seeing when talking with producers is [they’re] starting to see some very modest expansion,” he says. “And I would conclude with the number of ads we’re seeing online of bred heifers for sale, we’re just starting.”

That “just starting” phase suggests calf supplies will remain tight for several more years, even if expansion intentions continue to grow.

Very Solid Technical Uptrend in Cattle

From a market structure standpoint, Vaclavik says cattle and feeder cattle futures continue to reflect the supply realities producers are seeing today.

“The cattle market and the feeder cattle market are two of the strongest and most orderly bull markets that we’ve seen in a long, long time,” he says.

Vaclavik points to the long-term chart as evidence the rally is not speculative, but fundamentally driven.

“You basically go back, and it’s very easy to see. You go back to when the lows were posted in 2020, like right around the COVID timeframe, and what we built out of that,” he says. “I know there’s been some volatility, but big picture, it’s a very, very solid technical uptrend.”

While he acknowledges the potential for short-term disruptions, Vaclavik says the underlying fundamentals remain firmly in control.

“I just, I don’t see anything fundamentally to set this thing back,” he says. “I do worry about things like headline risk. You know, you worry about ‘Is Trump going to go on another crusade against beef prices?’ ‘Is there going to be a screwworm headline?’ There’s a lot of things that, over the near term, could result in a setback.”

However, he emphasizes recent inventory data does little to change the bigger picture.

“I just, I don’t see it as being material. It’s not enough to reverse the course,” Vaclavik says.

Market Structure Suggests the Highs May Not Be In Yet

When asked whether cattle prices have already peaked, Close was clear in his assessment.

“We’re not convinced we’ve seen the highs,” he says.

Looking at supply constraints and demand strength, he sees room for additional gains in fed cattle prices.

“We’re thinking we could see fed cattle prices this year up an additional 8% to as much as 10% over the average prices we saw in 2025,” Close says.

He points out the market correction tied to political headlines last fall ultimately strengthened the rally prices are currently experiencing, rather than ending it.

“When we went through that period in October, we had the headlines and the involvement from the administration, and that really gave us a scare, but it also gave a correction in the market,” he explains. “So, when we take the fundamentals we think we’ve been working with, and that was confirmed in that cattle inventory report last Friday, I think the structure of the market to continue the rally is absolutely in place.”

Even with the resounding bullish sentiment headlining the discussion, Vaclavik has a clear and pointed message for producers.

“I love all this optimism, but it scares me a little bit. Remember to keep your business a business. Don’t gamble,” he says.

Herd Rebuilding Timeline Keeps Slipping

One of the most critical implications for producers is how far the industry has delayed rebuilding the cow herd.

“We keep pushing off the timeline,” Peel says. “Every year that we could have started some heifer retention, we haven’t. So, I think we’re still pushing off that timeline.”

Even if producers begin retaining heifers in 2026, Peel says the biological clock means supply relief will not arrive quickly.

“If we start saving heifers in 2026, then that’s the start, but time it out. If you save a heifer calf in ’26, breed her in ’27, it’s 2028 or the end of the decade before we change beef production,” he says.

Peel also notes replacement heifers will first be used just to hold the line.

“The small increase we saw in replacement heifers may signal that we’re thinking about it a little bit,” he says. “But the other thing you have to keep in mind is that the beef cow herd has gotten smaller, and we’ve been culling less, so we need to replace some of those cows going forward. It’s going to take some of these additional heifers just to maintain the herd we’ve got.”

Delayed Culling Could Push Slaughter Higher

Close adds that years of holding onto older cows could create another wrinkle in the supply picture.

“If you take the number of cows that probably should have gone to town, but were kept back in 2024 to get one more calf, the same thing repeated in 2025,” he says. “I actually think we could see a modest increase in cow slaughter in 2026 just because of those cows that we kept an extra year or two longer than they probably should have stayed.”

That dynamic could further slow the pace of true herd expansion, even as producers begin thinking about rebuilding.

Another Bullish Factor: Beef Demand Continues to Hold Firm

High prices have raised concerns about whether consumers will eventually push back, but Close says demand data continues to defy that narrative.

“Over the last two years at Terrain, we’ve spent more time trying to evaluate and study what we can about demand,” he says. “We’ve known what the supply is.”

By examining beef prices relative to income, inflation and competing proteins, Close said the results remain consistent.

“We’re looking at all-fresh beef prices against the consumer price index. We’re looking all fresh against average hourly wage. We’re now looking at beef in relationship to both pork and broilers,” he says. “And all those matrices that we’re looking at, we’re not seeing and have not yet seen any softening in beef demand. It’s still in place.”

Peel agrees consumer behavior continues to support higher prices, even if there is talk about bringing beef prices down.

“I don’t think we have a demand problem or a beef price problem. Consumers are still paying,” Close says. “If consumers didn’t want to pay high prices for beef, they don’t have to. There’s places they can go. They’re still paying it.”

Tighter supplies mean prices may need to rise further.

“We do have supply getting tighter, and it’s going to continue to get tighter, which probably means we’re going to use higher prices in the future to ration a tighter supply even compared to where we are now,” Peel says.

What it All Means for Cattle Producers

With herd rebuilding still largely on hold, cow numbers continuing to tighten and beef demand holding firm, their message to producers is consistent: the fundamentals that drove cattle prices to record levels are still in place. While volatility and headline risk remain, the supply-side realities suggest the market may not yet be finished rewarding cattle producers as the industry heads toward 2026.

Policy, Protein and Progress: The D.C. Update

Tue, 03 Feb 2026 20:40:26 GMT

The D.C. Update session during CattleCon painted 2025 as a year of historic wins paired with intensifying challenges — political, regulatory and biological.

Ethan Lane, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) senior vice president of government affairs, summarizes the momentous year in D.C. for the beef industry: “In some respects, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. I think everyone in this room can sympathize with that sentiment.”

2025 Policy Wins: Taxes, Farm Bill and Nutrition

The NCBA policy team kicked off CattleCon 2026 with a clear message: 2025 delivered a string of generational policy victories.

On tax and business policy, NCBA helped secure major relief aimed at keeping ranches in the family.

“Members of NCBA have made it clear for years they need relief from the death tax to deal with escalating land values, equipment costs and interest rates,” Lane says.

The legislative package — referred to as the “ Big Beautiful Bill ” — contained nearly everything the industry requested regarding taxes and farm policy.

“The magnitude of the wins in that bill was historic — 90+% percent of the Farm Bill, probably 99% of what we were looking for, was put to bed by the Fourth of July,” Lane says.

However, the best of times quickly faced a challenge when the administration took a keen interest in rising beef prices. Lane notes when the industry was told it was “ doing too good a job ,” NCBA and beef producers fired back.

“It was a reminder of the power and respect this industry commands when we present a united front,” he says.

Sigrid Johannes, NCBA senior director of government affairs, highlights the bill includes the extremely crucial three-legged stool for animal health — National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program (NADPRP) grants, diagnostic lab capacity and the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) vaccine bank — is fully funded.

Perhaps the most visible win came in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans .

“We flipped the pyramid, and beef is pretty damn prominent up there,” Johannes summarizes.

She explains the daily protein intake has increased 50% to 100%, depending on the age group.

“There are a lot of Americans who are falling into an age bracket and caloric-need bracket where they are being told that it is healthy and it supports a healthy, successful lifestyle to double your protein intake. And that’s a really significant one for us.”

The guidelines also stopped treating fat as a simple villain and separated red meat from processed meats, backing a “real food” message that supports beef.

2026 Challenges: Fake Meat and Social Media Disinformation

Despite the celebrations, the D.C. team warns of a shifting landscape and the challenging environment in D.C.

On the issue of cell-cultured “fake meat,” the 2026 focus is on clear labeling and safety oversight. Johannes clarifies NCBA isn’t looking to ban alternatives, but rather to stop deceptive terms like “slaughter-free beef” or “cruelty-free meat.”

Digital battleground. Lane stresses social‑media‑driven disinformation — often funded by groups like Farm Action — is a constant hurdle. To demonstrate how easily adversaries can target policymakers, NCBA conducted a geofencing experiment at CattleCon.

“We geofenced this convention center, and you’re going to get bombarded on your social media with this video all week,” Lane reveals. “It didn’t cost us a nickel. Imagine how easy it is for our adversaries to geofence Capitol Hill and target decision-makers [with messages] that say whatever they want.”

At the same time, Lane reminds producers why NCBA remains confident when working in D.C.: “You have armed us with the truth. This job is easy because we’re right. This job is easy because the science, the facts back up what we do in this industry. But boy, do we have a fight on our hands in the media in order to defend this industry and keep us moving in the right direction.”

The Long Game: Disease and Trade

The update also spotlighted the threat of vector‑borne diseases.

“I think the biggest challenge for the beef cattle industry in the next 10 years will be vector-borne diseases,” says Dr. Kathy Simmons, NCBA chief veterinarian. “Diseases that are spread by ticks, flies and midges.”

The Asian longhorned tick (ALHT) poses a serious threat to cattle health. ALHTs carry Theileria , which is a protozoan parasite that infects red and white blood cells. It can lead to anemia and, in some cases, death.

The team also gave an update on New World screwworm and its threat to U.S. cattle production. NCBA is pushing for increasing sterile insect capacity, new treatments, research funding and realistic USDA response plans.

On the trade front, Kent Bacus, NCBA executive director of government affairs, describes the current environment as tariff-heavy and unpredictable.

“The president sees tariffs as a tool,” Bacus explains. “We continue to encourage the administration to view tariffs only as a tool and not a final destination.”

On the regulatory and legal front, Lane acknowledges that National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA) , Waters of the United States (WOTUS) and wolves remain long‑term fights.

NCBA’s 2026 Priorities

Released on Monday, NCBA’s 2026 policy priorities include:

Continue to press the administration to roll back harmful regulations to keep working lands working.
Enhance and strengthen U.S. mitigation measures against the incursion of New World screwworm.
Protect the U.S. cattle herd from foreign animal diseases and pests through heightened awareness and preparedness actions.
Expand market access for U.S. beef exports and hold trade partners accountable to ensure equivalent animal health and food safety standards for imported beef.
Promote science-based nutrition policies and sound, fact-based information for consumers.
Push for further hours-of-service flexibility, increased truck weights and continue delaying ELD requirements for livestock haulers.
Safeguard the U.S cattle and beef supply chain by working with the administration to ensure there is a strong workforce to limit processing disruptions for producers.

More DEF Relief? EPA Takes New Action for Farmers and Truckers

Tue, 03 Feb 2026 16:14:42 GMT

On the heels of clarifying farmers’ right to repair their own equipment, EPA is escalating pressure on diesel engine manufacturers over ongoing Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) system failures the administration claims continue to sideline farm machinery and trucks.

On Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency is demanding detailed failure data from major diesel engine manufacturers as it considers additional rules aimed at reducing DEF-related shutdowns and derates that have plagued farmers, truckers and equipment operators for years.

The move builds directly on Monday’s EPA right-to-repair guidance announcement that clarified the Clean Air Act does not prohibit farmers from fixing their own non-road diesel equipment, which includes making temporary emissions overrides when necessary to complete repairs.

“As I traveled to all 50 states during my first year as EPA administrator, I heard from truck drivers, farmers and many others rightly complaining about DEF and pleading for a fix,” Zeldin said in a statement on Tuesday. “EPA understands this is a massive issue, which is why we have already established commonsense guidance for manufacturers to update DEF systems.

“Today, we are furthering that work and demanding detailed data to hold manufacturers accountable for the continued system failures,” he added.

While neither announcement fully rolls back DEF requirements on tractors, a step many farmers and truckers continue to push for, both signal movement in that direction.

With today’s news in the mix, here’s what farmers and truckers need to know:

1. Increased Operational Up-Time.

The most immediate benefit is the reduction of “forced downtime.” Under the clarified guidance announced on Feb. 2, farmers can now perform temporary emissions overrides to complete essential work, such as planting or harvesting, even if a DEF failure occurs. The extension of warning periods — specifically the 36-hour window for non-road equipment before a derate kicks in — provides a buffer to finish a job before seeking repairs.

2. Legal Empowerment for Repairs.

EPA has explicitly stated the Clean Air Act cannot be used by manufacturers as a shield to prevent farmers from fixing your own equipment. This clarification removes a major legal hurdle in the right-to-repair movement, potentially lowering repair costs by allowing farmers and independent mechanics to access the tools and software needed to address DEF-related faults.

3. Manufacturer Accountability.

Under Section 208(a) of the Clean Air Act, EPA is demanding warranty and failure data for Model Year 2016, 2019 and 2023 engines from 14 major on-road and non-road diesel manufacturers (covering 80% of the market). That shifts the burden of DEF reliability from the end-user to the manufacturer. EPA says the information will help determine whether persistent DEF problems are tied to specific product generations, system designs or materials, and will inform further regulatory steps in 2026. Manufacturers have 30 days to comply or face potential enforcement actions.

4. Impact on Machinery Values.

Auction data suggests farmers are already voting with their checkbooks. According to Machinery Pete , demand and values remain strongest for pre-DEF used equipment, while interest in DEF-equipped machinery has softened.

If these EPA actions lead to more reliable DEF systems or easier repairs, the high demand (and inflated prices) for older, less efficient equipment might eventually stabilize as newer models become less of a liability in the field.

5. More Changes are Coming.

When asked why EPA has not eliminated DEF requirements entirely,Zeldin said the agency said it is actively building on last summer’s guidance and actively moving toward “common-sense” adjustments that prioritize productivity alongside emissions standards.

EPA’s demand for warranty and failure data follows DEF guidance issued in August 2025 that significantly softened inducement rules. That guidance delayed severe derates, reduced sudden shutdowns and required manufacturers to update software so operators could continue safely working while addressing faults.

For heavy-duty trucks, warning periods were extended to up to 650 miles or 10 hours before derates begin, with weeks of normal operation allowed before speed is limited. Non-road equipment now sees no impact for the first 36 hours after a DEF fault.

EPA has also said that starting with Model Year 2027, new diesel trucks must be engineered to avoid sudden and severe power loss after running out of DEF.

EPA Backs Farmers, Affirms Right to Repair Equipment

Mon, 02 Feb 2026 17:42:08 GMT

EPA issued new right-to-repair guidance on Monday, clarifying how the Clean Air Act applies to non-road diesel equipment. It’s a move EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin says is intended to end years of confusion and misuse of the law that has limited farmers’ ability to fix their own machinery.

“Unfortunately, equipment manufacturers have misused the Clean Air Act by falsely claiming that environmental laws prevented them from making essential repair tools or software available to all Americans,” he says. “Because of this misinterpretation of the law, manufacturers have limited the ability of farmers and independent repair shops to repair equipment.”

How Much Will Right to Repair Save the Average Farm?

According to Kelly Loeffler, Small Business Administration (SBA) administrator, the savings could be $48 billion across agriculture. For an individual farm, that could mean:

$33,000 in savings per repair
$3,000 to $4,000 in potential yield losses avoided due to reduced downtime
10% reduction in annual operating costs
Up to 80% reduction in repair costs annually

Loeffler says savings come from avoiding dealer-only repairs, reducing downtime during critical fieldwork windows, and eliminating transportation and labor delays tied to authorized service requirements.

The news came as a joint announcement on Feb. 2 with Loeffler as well as USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins.

“Today we are issuing guidance out of the Trump EPA to make abundantly clear that if you own your farm and other non-road diesel equipment, you have the right to fix it,” Zeldin says. “This might seem like a no-brainer, but ask any American farmer and they will tell you about the headaches and costly hassles that they have been forced to endure at the hands of equipment manufacturers.”

Zeldin says manufacturers have relied on what he calls a false interpretation of the Clean Air Act to restrict access to repair tools, software and diagnostic systems. He says today’s announcement will make that new guidance clear.

What EPA’s Announcement Didn’t Include? A Complete Rollback of DEF

Following today’s right-to-repair announcement, Farm Journal asked EPA why the administration isn’t also removing Diesel Exhaust Fluid, or DEF, requirements for farm equipment. Farmers have long cited DEF as a major contributor to rising equipment costs, particularly compared with competitors in Brazil, for example. In summer 2025, EPA issued guidance relaxing DEF “inducement” requirements, and today’s announcement focuses on allowing farmers to temporarily override DEF when making repairs.

In response, EPA says the agency is actively building on last summer’s DEF guidance.

“As Administrator Zeldin mentioned on today’s press call, EPA is actively working to build upon the DEF guidance the agency issued this summer,” the press office wrote. “EPA understands DEF is a major issue facing farmers, truck drivers and equipment operators. The agency will be making an announcement on DEF in the near future.”

This indicates that while today’s right-to-repair guidance stops short of changing DEF rules, additional updates could be coming soon.

Downtime, Dealer Dependence and Lost Productivity

Zeldin says farmers are often forced to rely exclusively on authorized dealerships for repairs, even during critical times like during planting and harvest when downtime costs farmers time and money.

“Instead of a farmer being able to fix their own equipment in the field or bring it down the road to their local repair shop, farmers have been forced to rely solely on authorized dealers for essential repairs, which are not always close by,” he says. “For farmers, timing is everything. When equipment breaks down during planting or harvesting, delays can result in thousands of dollars in lost productivity.”

He adds that the financial burden goes beyond inconvenience.

“Being forced to haul machinery to a certified dealership, pay higher prices for repairs and wait in line; it’s not just inconvenient,” Zeldin says. “It can prove to be very economically damaging.”

The Future of DEF: Is an Emissions Rollback Coming?

This latest right-to-repair announcement builds on action taken by the Trump administration in August 2025, when EPA issued guidance addressing diesel exhaust fluid, or DEF, system failures in farm equipment. The 2025 guidance aimed to address widespread frustration among farmers with Tier 4 emissions technology, while maintaining long-term environmental protections.

Prior to that announcement, in early June, John Deere sent a letter to EPA, asking the agency to clarify that temporary emissions overrides are allowed. In response, EPA issued guidance on Aug. 12 and later urged DEF system software updates to prevent sudden shutdowns, helping farmers and equipment operators make repairs without losing productivity or safety.

The new right-to-repair guidance announced today by EPA, USDA and SBA aims to extend this administration’s approach by clarifying farmers’ ability to make essential repairs themselves, which they claim will further improve reliability, efficiency and cost savings on the farm.

If you go back to the Trump administration’s original announcement last summer, EPA said it would allow manufacturers to update DEF system software to prevent abrupt power loss in tractors, trucks and other diesel machinery. The goal was to reduce “red tape” and prevent equipment shutdowns during critical planting and harvest periods, while still maintaining emissions controls.

Key aspects of the 2025 DEF guidance included:

Reduced Derating: Instead of immediate, severe speed and power reductions when DEF levels are low or sensors fail, engines could now slow down more gradually, reducing disruption in the field.
“Soft” Power Loss for New Models: For 2027 and later models, engines were required not to shut down or lose power abruptly if DEF ran out.
Software Fixes for Existing Equipment: Manufacturers could issue software updates to ensure older machinery properly handled low-DEF scenarios.
No Deleting Permitted: Emissions equipment could not be removed, and the guidance did not legalize deleting any system.

EPA says the announcement meant tractors and machinery were less likely to experience sudden, catastrophic power loss, which would reduce downtime.

USDA: Right to Repair Is Important for Everyday Farm Operations

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins says the administration has been working on the guidance for months because of its importance to everyday farm operations.

“We have been working on today’s guidance now for a while because we know how much it means for the everyday farmer,” Rollins says. “The right to repair isn’t just a slogan. It’s a common-sense extension of the God-given right to private property.”

Rollins ties equipment downtime directly to food production and national security.

“Every single day our farmers feed us, they fuel us, they clothe us,” she says. “But when that equipment breaks down and remains out of operation, it means crops aren’t planted or harvested, mouths aren’t fed, and America’s economic growth and national security are put at risk.”

She says farmers overwhelmingly agree they should be able to repair their own equipment, an issue USDA has been hearing since President Trump took office more than a year ago.

“Farmers shouldn’t be forced to haul their equipment to specialized and costly repair shops when they could be making those repairs on their own,” Rollins says. “An overwhelming majority of farmers, north of 95%, agree with that statement.”

What Does the New EPA Right to Repair Guidance Allow?

Zeldin stresses the guidance does not weaken emissions standards or change the Clean Air Act.

“It does not change the law, and it does not reduce compliance obligations,” he says. “What it does do is stop the law from being misused to block common-sense repairs.”

The guidance clarifies that equipment owners may temporarily override emissions systems — including diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) systems — when necessary to complete a repair, as long as the equipment is returned to compliance.

“At times, a tractor might just stop working altogether in the middle of harvest because of a DEF issue,” Zeldin says. “This allows farmers to fix broken DEF systems right there at home or in the field.”

SBA: ‘Huge Relief’ with Measurable Savings

Small Business Administration Administrator Kelly Loeffler says the guidance delivers significant, quantifiable savings for farmers.

“I’m the product of one of the 1.9 million farms in this great nation that feed, fuel and clothe our country,” Loeffler says. “Diesel exhaust fluid and now right to repair — these are huge-relief, common-sense reforms.”

Loeffler says SBA economists worked to quantify the impact farm by farm.

“In the aggregate, this is about a $48 billion savings,” she says. “It’s about $33,000 per repair.”

She adds that downtime drives additional losses.

“The loss of yield could be up to $3,000 to $4,000 for the average farm,” Loeffler says. “That’s time spent leaving the field, missing a window of dry weather and dealing with delays in parts and labor.”

According to Loeffler, the guidance could reduce annual operating costs by roughly 10% and cut repair costs dramatically.

“This could potentially reach an 80% annual reduction in the cost of repairs,” she says. “And we know those repairs are getting even more expensive.”

John Deere Say’s EPA’s Guidance Responds to Formal Request

John Deere says the EPA’s right-to-repair guidance directly responds to a formal request the company made to the agency in June 2025 .

In a statement, John Deere says it sought updated guidance from EPA to expand repair options for customers and independent technicians while still ensuring compliance with federal emissions requirements.

“John Deere appreciates today’s action by EPA Administrator Zeldin, which responds directly to a formal request made by the company in June 2025,” the company says. “John Deere sought this updated guidance from the EPA with the intent to further increase customers’ and independent repair technicians’ repair capabilities while ensuring compliance with EPA requirements and guidance.”

The company says its request aligns with its long-standing position that customers should have flexibility in how their equipment is repaired.

“John Deere’s request to the EPA is consistent with the company’s longstanding commitment to supporting customer choice on how equipment is repaired — whether through their trusted John Deere dealer, with a local service provider, or by doing the work themselves,” the statement says.

John Deere adds that in light of the updated EPA guidance, it plans to roll out new repair functionality for customers.

“The temporary inducement override capability will soon be made available to John Deere customers through Operations Center™ PRO Service,” the company says, describing the platform as an enhanced digital repair tool that provides diagnostic, repair and reprogramming capabilities.

The company says additional information about the tool is available through its website.

Trump Administration Frames Announcement as Farmer Choice and Independence

All three officials frame the announcement as centered on farmer independence.

“This is about fairness, competition and independence,” Zeldin says. “Farmers should be able to choose where and how their equipment is repaired.”

“In America, the timely, affordable maintenance of agricultural equipment should not be a luxury,” Rollins says. “It should be a given.”

“And coming from a multigenerational farm family, this issue is very personal,” Loeffler says. “We’re going to continue to make sure farmers get the regulatory relief they deserve.”

Is The Death of DEF Coming Soon?

While today’s announcement is another step in reducing regulations and emissions standards, EPA didn’t go as far as to eliminate DEF requirements on farm equipment, but told Farm Journal an announcement on that is coming soon.

Industry analysts say a rollback of federal emissions requirements on machinery could send shockwaves through both the new and used equipment markets, though exactly how depends on how far any policy would go and how manufacturers respond.

Greg Peterson, widely known as “Machinery Pete,” says the biggest immediate impact would be on used equipment values, particularly older, pre-emissions models that farmers already favor.

Emissions Rollback Could Reshape Machinery Markets, Analysts Say

Peterson points to years of auction data showing strong demand, as well as rising prices for good-condition pre-DEF tractors and combines, even during tight grain markets. If emissions rules were suddenly relaxed, he says the industry would be entering uncharted territory.

“The wild card is what happens to that one-, two-, three-, four-, five- and six-year-old equipment that’s already out there,” Peterson says. “It would be unprecedented.”

Opportunity and Uncertainty for Dealers and OEMs

While that uncertainty could create short-term friction, Peterson also sees opportunity. If manufacturers were allowed to build simpler machines again, it could align more closely with what many farmers are already voting for with their checkbooks.

“That’s what farmers want,” Peterson says, noting the continued premium buyers are willing to pay for older machines without complex emissions systems.

He adds that such a shift could be “an unbelievable opportunity” for both manufacturers and dealers, depending on how quickly and cleanly changes could be implemented at the factory level.

Manufacturers Unlikely to Fully Abandon Emissions Systems

Casey Seymour, host of the ‘ Moving Iron ’ podcast, agrees the used equipment market could benefit, but he’s skeptical manufacturers would abandon emissions technology altogether.

Seymour says the bigger issue for OEMs is regulatory whiplash. Environmental rules can change dramatically from one administration to the next, making it risky to retool factories for non-emissions machines only to reverse course a few years later.

“I don’t see a manufacturer of any color completely stepping back and saying we’re not going to worry about this anymore,” Seymour says.

Flexibility Could Boost Used Equipment Values

Instead, if EPA would decide to roll back emissions standards, Seymour envisions machines leaving the factory “emissions-ready,” giving farmers flexibility down the road. If deleting emissions systems became legal, equipment could be modified and resold without violating regulations, opening new possibilities in the secondary market.

That shift, Seymour says, could actually strengthen used equipment values. Demand for legally modified machines could rise, and farmers would no longer need to remove emissions components illegally.

Both analysts agree the used market would likely react first to any regulatory change, while new equipment pricing may remain largely unchanged unless manufacturers gain long-term certainty on emissions policy.

Legislation to Delist the Mexican Wolf Advances

Fri, 23 Jan 2026 22:11:58 GMT

The House Natural Resources Committee advanced the Enhancing Safety for Animals Act of 2025 (H.R. 4255) with bipartisan support. The bill would remove federal ESA protections for the Mexican wolf, restoring commonsense wildlife management authority and providing much-needed relief to cattle producers and rural communities across the Southwest. The next step for the bill is to be presented to the full House for a vote.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and Public Lands Council (PLC) strongly support H.R. 4255, which would reduce regulatory barriers that have prevented effective management to safeguard livestock and rural communities from this abundant apex predator.

“For decades, cattle producers have borne the cost of federal policies that prioritize paperwork over practical wildlife management. The Mexican wolf population has grown well beyond recovery goals, yet producers are left without the tools needed to protect their livestock, their families and their livelihoods,” says Oregon rancher and NCBA Policy Division Chair Skye Krebs. “This isn’t just a producer issue — it’s a rural community issue. When predators cannot be responsibly managed, it puts people at risk and undermines the stewardship efforts of those who live and work on the land every day. Delisting the Mexican wolf would allow wildlife professionals to use proven, science-based management tools to reduce conflict and restore balance.”

Because of its ESA status, Mexican wolf management remains heavily restricted, even in areas where wolf populations have expanded significantly. Producers face ongoing livestock depredation, disrupted grazing operations, and delayed or denied responses to problem animals — often with little to no compensation for losses.

“Whether it is Mexican wolves, grey wolves or grizzly bears, ranchers across the West face daily challenges with recovered species protected by the Endangered Species Act. This bill is a step toward alleviating the challenges southwestern producers face and would recognize the realities on the ground,” says Colorado rancher and PLC President Tim Canterbury. “This legislation is grounded in established science and restores commonsense in the listing determination. The Mexican wolf has recovered, now is the time for Congress to finish the job and pass this legislation.”

NCBA and PLC commend the House Natural Resources Committee for advancing this legislation and thank Rep. Paul Gosar for introducing a bill that recognizes conservation success while standing up for the men and women who help feed Americans.

Read More about Wolves:
House Approves Gray Wolf Protection Removal in a Victory for Cattlemen
Nightly Battles and Big Losses: Ranchers Demand Reform as Wolves Continue to Wreak Havoc
Wolves Are Not Going Away: Ranchers Push for Practical Management Tools
The Cost of Coexistence With Wolves

USDA Announces New World Screwworm Grand Challenge

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 21:47:36 GMT

Today, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins announced the launch of the N ew World Screwworm (NWS) Grand Challenge. This funding opportunity marks a pivotal step in USDA’s comprehensive strategy to combat NWS and prevent its northward spread.

“This is a strategic investment in America’s farmers and ranchers and is an important action to ensure the safety and future success of our food supply, which is essential to our national security,” Rollins says. “These are the kinds of innovations that will help us stay ahead of this pest and protect our food supply and our economy, protecting the way of life of our ranchers and go towards rebuilding our cattle herd to lower consumer prices on grocery store shelves. We know we have tried-and-true tools and methods to defeat this pest, but we must constantly look for new and better methods and innovate our way to success. Together, through science, innovation, and collaboration, we can ensure we’re utilizing the latest tools and technology to combat NWS in Mexico and Central America and keep it out of the United States.”

As part of the Grand Challenge, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will make up to $100 million available to support innovative projects that enhance sterile NWS fly production, strengthen preparedness and response strategies, and safeguard U.S. agriculture, animal health, and trade.

Priority Areas for Funding

APHIS invites proposals that support one or more of the following objectives:

Enhance sterile NWS fly production
Develop novel NWS traps and lures
Develop and increase understanding of NWS therapeutics/treatments (i.e., products that could treat, prevent, or control NWS) for animals
Develop other tools to bolster preparedness or response to NWS

The notice of funding opportunity, including application instructions, eligibility, and program requirements, is available on the NWS Grand Challenge webpage . Applicants can also find information on the ezFedGrants website  or  Grants.gov  by searching USDA-APHIS-10025-OA000000-26-0001.  

Eligible applicants are invited to submit proposals that align with and support these priorities by the deadline on February 23, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. ET.

Entities interested in submitting a proposal should ensure they are registered with the  U.S. Government System for Award Management (SAM) . Learn more about the basics of the funding process and  how to get ready to apply .  

Your Next Reads:
New World Screwworm Found in Newborn Calf 197 Miles from U.S.-Mexico Border
USDA Launches Screwworm.gov
The Smell You’ll Never Forget: A Calf Infested with New World Screwworm

'Dust Bowl' Agency at USDA Looks to Cut Red Tape and Speed Up Slow Computers That Frustrate Farmers

Tue, 20 Jan 2026 19:55:34 GMT

USDA’s reorganization plan in 2025 drew criticism over the number of job cuts and headcount reduction’s potential impact on farmers, with fears it would hinder field office staff and county offices, many of which were already understaffed. However, third-generation California farmer Aubrey Bettencourt, who’s now serving as chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), says those local constraints aren’t due to staff reductions. She says those issues stem from outdated infrastructure and processes that are creating bottlenecks for farmers and ranchers trying to sign up for programs through USDA agencies such as NRCS. And that’s something she’s now working to change.

By any measure, Bettencourt did not come to Washington to keep things the same. But then, her background for a government official isn’t that traditional either. Bettencourt was raised on her family’s farm in Hanford, Calif. But her political interest really started with her efforts to help lead California’s fight over water.

During the first Trump administration, she first served as the state executive director for USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA). She was then selected to work with both the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and USDA as a deputy assistant secretary with the DOI, where she oversaw water and science policy.

Bettencourt says conservation policy has never been theoretical for her. Instead, it is personal and it is operational, as she’s experienced the frustration firsthand with the slow speed at which many USDA agencies were forced to work.

As she entered into her role as chief of NRCS, Bettencourt says the changes she’s working to implement are about time and how much of it farmers lose navigating paperwork and how much time NRCS staff lose staring at what she calls the “spinning wheel of death” on outdated systems.

“I’ve always said my whole goal has been to keep farmers farming, get water to people who need it, take care of the resources that take care of all of us, and have high-speed internet everywhere in the United States, the indoor plumbing of the 21^st century,” Bettencourt says. “NRCS gets to do all of that.”

Now, nearly 90 years after the agency was created in response to the Dust Bowl, Bettencourt says NRCS is again confronting a foundational threat. This time, it is not erosion or war but the pace at which farmland is disappearing and the friction farmers face trying to stay productive on what remains.

“We are losing 5,000 acres of farmland a day in the United States,” she says. “Two thousand acres of prime farmland a day.”

To meet that challenge, Bettencourt is driving sweeping internal reforms, many of them invisible to farmers at first glance, that aim to reduce the number of times producers have to sign up, re-sign up, re-enter data or wait for answers. The goal, she says, is to get NRCS staff out from behind desks and back into the field, and to make USDA work at the speed agriculture actually operates.

From Policy to Processing, NRCS Is Undergoing Rapid Change

One of the most consequential changes underway is how NRCS processes applications for its flagship programs, EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program) and CSP (Conservation Stewardship Program). Bettencourt explains years of layering subcategories, scenarios and hyper-specific ranking criteria slowed everything down, not just for farmers, but also for USDA field staff.

“The reason it took so long for us to get an answer back as a customer of ‘where is my application and where am I in this process’ is because we had so many individualized and subcategories and scenarios of practices that we would have to rank and score the application for every scenario, every single time,” she says

Rather than forcing applications through dozens of narrowly defined pathways, NRCS is shifting toward higher-level practice codes that still rely on vetted science but allow district conservationists, those who she says are closest to the land, to make judgment calls based on local conditions.

“I think it’s getting people to where they need to be, and it’s giving them the tools they need to be there. So one is freeing up time. Time is a huge component, and the ability for someone to have less time in front of a computer,” she says. “And the numbers, I kid you not, just by going to email notifications, we’re going to save 96,000 hours a year. 96,00 hours. Just by going to a singular ranking that then, you on your adventure. We’re going to save over 75,000 hours. That amount of time is a huge capacity builder for us, for our staff.”

Fixing the Infrastructure Farmers Never See

While some reforms focus on simplifying rules, Bettencourt points out some of the most significant barriers to faster program delivery have nothing to do with policy at all. They are physical and technological shortcomings inside USDA field offices, and problems farmers rarely see, but ones they often feel.

“I already knew we had rough bandwidth capacity at our offices,” Bettencourt says drawing on her experience at FSA. “What I didn’t realize is statistically how bad it was.”

She says industry standards call for five to eight megabits per second per person. Many NRCS offices, she says, operate with roughly 10 megabits total per office, regardless of whether that office has four employees or two dozen employees. She says the result is a system where applications stall through no fault of the farmer or the staff.

“You get your application in on time, and staff is working their rear ends off trying to get these things uploaded,” she points out. “And you miss out on the opportunity, not by any fault of your own, not by fault of the staff’s own, but because of a failure of the basic infrastructure to support the operations of our mission.”

As USDA programs have become more digital and data-heavy, those limitations have only been compounded. Bettencourt says improving connectivity might not sound exciting, but it is essential to restoring fairness and predictability in the process.

“It may sound boring. It may just sound not that sexy,” she says, “but it is so vitally important that we get the basic structure available to our staff, because that is doing respect to them and doing respect to our customer.”

The payoff, she says, is capacity. When staff are not losing hours to failed uploads and system delays, they can spend that time where it matters, and that’s working directly with farmers on conservation solutions.

“That’s how you build capacity,” Bettencourt says. “Not by asking people to work harder but by removing the friction.”

New Initiative Called ‘One Farmer, One File’

If infrastructure fixes address how fast data can move, the new “One Farmer, One File” initiative tackles how often that data has to move at all.

Bettencourt says USDA agencies routinely ask farmers for the same information, even though that data already exists elsewhere within the department, just often with a different agency within USDA.

“That’s why I have to fill out the same eligibility form twice,” she says. “That’s why I have to fill out the same direct deposit form twice. It makes no sense. It’s the exact same form with the same information.”

Working with FSA and RMA, NRCS is building a unified, protected back-end system that allows agencies to securely share core farmer information. Privacy protections remain unchanged, Bettencourt emphasizes, but usability improve dramatically.

“We share so much data between us to operate our different programs,” she adds. “But we don’t actually have it in one place where we can see it … It saves time, it saves energy and it saves my dad having to drive 50 miles back to the office to sign the same farm file that he signed four months earlier for FSA.”

For farmers who participate in multiple USDA programs, Bettencourt says redundancy has been a persistent barrier, especially during busy seasons. One Farmer, One File is designed to remove that friction by allowing USDA to view farmers holistically rather than as separate program participants.

“When we can see the farmer as a whole. It improves the customer experience, and it improves our operational capacity,” she says.

The More Talked About Issue: USDA Faces Major Workforce Shake-Up Amid Departures and Reorganization

The reality in 2026, though, is USDA has seen a sharp decline in staffing over the past year, with more than 20,000 employees leaving between mid-January and mid-June 2025, which was a 20% drop in total workforce during that time. Data also shows roughly 15,000 employees accepted voluntary buyouts through the Deferred Resignation Program, while others retired or resigned. Reports also show agencies such as NRCS and FSA experienced some of the steepest losses.

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins announced the downsizing last summer and said she would oversee a rapid reorganization aimed at reducing bureaucracy. That included the relocation of 2,600 Washington-based staff to five regional hubs and aligning staffing with budget constraints. That relocation plan is still underway.

At the time, Rollins framed the restructuring as a move to make USDA “efficient, nimble and innovative” while bringing staff closer to rural farmers and ranchers.

“Over the last four years, USDA’s workforce grew by 8%, and employees’ salaries increased by 14.5%, including hiring thousands of employees with no sustainable way to pay them,” USDA’s announcement stated last summer. “This all occurred without any tangible increase in service to USDA’s core constituencies across the agricultural sector.”

Still, it’s those cuts that critics say will further strain field staff. But Bettencourt says it’s current changes underway with processes and infrastructure that will help relieve some of the time constraints on staff, ultimately getting staff back in front of farmers and bringing NRCS back to its roots as a field-based agency.

Bringing the Office to the Farmer

Through a new Integrated Field Tool, NRCS staff will be able to build conservation plans with farmers in real time, on the farm and in the field.

“Our staff will be able to go out in the field with you and design your farm plan in the field with you,” Bettencourt says. “Auto-populate your application, verify it, sign it, send it off and get the process going.”

Rather than requiring multiple office visits, Bettencourt says NRCS wants to reverse the dynamic.

“This will actually be a digital and mobile-based platform where our staff at NRCS will be able to go out in the field with you, the farmer, and design your farm plan in the field with you in real time and say, ‘All right, here’s your options. What would you like to focus on? Let’s go ahead and do these EQIP practices here, here and here. Let me auto-populate your farm and your application. Can you verify this is right for me? Great let’s go ahead and just sign that and send that off and get this process going,’ and we’ll be able to do that in the field with the farmer in real time,” she says. “Again that’s back where we should be; that’s where we’re working with you instead of, you know, trying to make you come to the office and go back and forth 9 million times. We’re just going to be out in the field and bring the office to you.”

County offices will still play a role, she says, but the future of NRCS is face-to-face where it’s convenient for farmers.

A New Sense of Urgency Inside USDA

Behind the scenes, Bettencourt says collaboration across the administration is happening at a pace she has not seen before, including with USDA’s recently announced $700 million Regenerative Ag Pilot Program , which will be administered through NRCS.

“The conversations are happening lightning fast, and there is that sense of urgency,” she says.

That urgency, she says comes from a shared understanding that redundancy, inconsistency and delay cost farmers real money.

“As a Californian, I pay for the privilege to farm to 86 separate agencies,” she adds. “I know that frustration.”

Her charge at NRCS is to ensure farmers feel the difference, not through press releases but through fewer forms, fewer trips to the office and faster answers.

“We’re judged by one lens every day,” Bettencourt says. “Farmer first, and how are we producing in practical and measurable terms?”

For Bettencourt, she says it’s vital NRCS gets back to the basics, which is exactly what this new plan intends to do.

You can watch the full episode of “Unscripted” on the Farm Journal YouTube page.

The New Beef Powerhouse? As Brazil Overtakes the U.S., Here’s What It Means

Tue, 13 Jan 2026 21:54:26 GMT

The global beef landscape is witnessing a historic changing of the guard. According to recent reporting from Reuters , Brazil has officially surpassed the U.S. as the world’s leading beef producer.

While the U.S. industry grapples with a significant herd contraction, Brazil’s production has defied earlier bearish forecasts to take the top spot on the global stage.

In 2025, U.S. beef production fell by 3.9%, dropping to 11.8 million tons. In stark contrast, Brazil’s production, which analysts at Rabobank previously expected to decline, surged by 0.5% to reach 12.5 million tons in carcass weight equivalent.

And as Mike North of Ever.ag and Dan Basse, president of AgResource Company, told “U.S. Farm Report,” Brazil’s growth isn’t a shock, but it is something that is changing the global dynamics of the beef industry.

The Feed Engine: Why Brazil’s Growth Isn’t a Shock

For many in the industry, Brazil’s ascent is the result of years of aggressive agricultural expansion. Mike North, of Ever.ag, notes the foundation of Brazil’s livestock success is its massive grain production capacity.

“Livestock industries depend on the availability of feed, and let’s look at the track record,” North explains. “They’re continuing to grow bigger and bigger crops each year. As we look at their exports, yes, they’ve become a growing partner to China, especially in our absence, but they have enough there to also feed a growing livestock industry.”

North points out Brazil’s “double-crop” system, planting soybeans followed immediately by a second crop of corn (safrinha), has created a consistent, high-volume feed supply that the U.S. is finding harder to compete with.

“The writing’s kind of been on the wall as they grow more and more soybeans and then backfill that during the second crop with more and more corn,” North says. “The gates are open, and they walk through them. This doesn’t come as a shock.”

However, North warns that volume isn’t everything. Brazil still faces hurdles in global perception.

“It’ll be an interesting thing to see what they do as those cattle leave the feedlot, go to processing, and whether or not they can meet all the phytosanitary concerns that the world demands as that meat leaves the country,” he explains.

A Shift in Market Sentiment: From Bullish to Neutral

For the past several years, Basse has been one of the most vocal bulls in the cattle market. However, the combination of Brazil’s dominance and shifting domestic factors has caused him to re-evaluate his position.

“I’ve been bullish for about the last four years,” Basse admits, “but I’m starting to see where there’s some solutions to the tightness in the beef market in particular. My outlook is starting to be a little more neutral, or let’s say, in a wide-swinging market.”

Basse notes international beef is increasingly filling the void left by the shrinking U.S. herd. Imports from Brazil and Australia are becoming a “solution” to high domestic prices, potentially capping the market’s upside.

“As you look at Australian and Brazilian imports of beef, it is going to be something that will keep this market under the high that we scored last October,” Basse says. “I’d be a little careful here on feeders, because while people are still optimistic, I’m becoming less bullish of cattle just based on imports.”

The “Ozempic” Factor and the Dairy Influence on Supply

Beyond international trade, Basse says internal shifts in the U.S. protein market are also underway. Interestingly, he says that while general protein demand remains high, partially influenced by health trends and weight-loss medications like Ozempic, the U.S. is finding new ways to supplement beef supplies.

“As we look at the dairy herd, we’re keeping back numbers,” Basse says. “We’re seeing more cross-calves being produced by the dairy industry. Between that and the expansion of imports into the United States, the supply picture is changing.”

Looking Toward the Horizon

While Brazil’s production numbers are the headline, several wild cards remain for 2025. Basse points to the upcoming USDA inventory report as a critical data point that will determine the next leg of the market. Additionally, biological threats remain a concern for the coming year.

“Screwworm is something we’ll have to deal with as we turn the page to April or May of next year,” Basse cautions.

For now, the U.S. cattle industry finds itself in a period of transition, watching a southern competitor take the lead while navigating a domestic market that might have already seen its historical highs. Yet, as the U.S. cattle herd remains tight, Brazil could continue to outproduce the U.S., just based on the fact it will take years for the U.S. to rebuild the cattle herd. And some economists think the herd might never get back to cattle numbers the U.S. saw at its highs.

Economists Forecast Farm Economy to Stabilize, But High Costs and Policy Uncertainty Block a 2026 Rebound

Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:26:40 GMT

As 2026 ushers in a fresh start, agricultural economists say the U.S. farm economy has stopped sliding, but it’s far from fully healed.

The December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor shows month-to-month sentiment is improving, but deep structural strain remains — especially in row crops. Meanwhile, livestock markets continue to provide strength. Crop producers face another year of tight margins driven by high input costs, weak prices and unresolved trade and policy uncertainty.

“There’s cautious optimism,” the economists say, “but very little belief that 2026 will bring a meaningful rebound without cost relief or stronger demand.”

Those themes mirror the perspective of Seth Meyer, former USDA chief economist and now director of the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri. In a recent interview, Meyer connected the dots between narrow margins, policy responses and what might actually move the dial for U.S. agriculture heading into 2026.

Stabilizing, Not Recovering

December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

Economists see the ag economy holding its ground — but not gaining strength.

54% say the ag economy is somewhat better than one month ago.
Compared with a year ago:
- 42% say conditions are worse
- 33% say they are better
Looking ahead 12 months:
- 46% expect conditions unchanged
- 38% expect improvement
- 15% expect conditions to worsen

“Momentum has improved since mid-2025,” Meyer notes, “but tight margins have been with us for a long time. Turning that around requires demand growth, not just price stabilization.

Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

Grant Gardner, assistant Extension professor at the University of Kentucky, tells AgriTalk’s Chip Flory: “I think as we move into kind of this next marketing year, you’re looking at what looks like a breakeven and not a loss, but breakeven still doesn’t look great after three years of breakeven or losses.”

He says even with the $11 billion in Farmer Bridge Program payments , it won’t drastically change the outlook for the farm economy.

“Purdue had a good survey about a month ago, where they looked at what were these payments going to go to, and research would show that a lot of these payments go into long-term assets, and so land tractors, but I think over 60% of producers right now are in such a tight cash crunch that you’re going to see a lot of these payments go into that short-term debt,” Gardner says.

Consolidation a Growing Threat

Economists are nearly unanimous that the crop sector remains under extreme financial stress. 83 percent say row crops are currently in a recession. That isn’t about production declines — acres and yields haven’t collapsed — but about persistently weak profitability.

“Negative returns for at least the third consecutive year across nearly all row crops,” one economist wrote in the survey.

Another said: “Margins remain below full costs of production for many producers.”

Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes)

Meyer traces that back to how abruptly agriculture moved from the high prices of 2021 and 2022 into today’s tighter margins.

“We moved very quickly from a very high price environment and good profitability in 2022 to very tight margins,” he says. “That usually happens coming off price peaks, but this time it happened really rapidly.”

A minority of survey respondents argued farms are “treading water,” supported by strong land values and government aid rather than eroding further, which Meyer acknowledged aligns with how risk and safety nets have interacted this year.

But when you look at how the current stress in the farm economy could impact consolidation, the ag economists say it’s the economic pressure combined with demographic trends causing the acceleration. In fact, 92% of them say consolidation is underway and unavoidable.

“Markets go to the lowest-cost producers,” one economist wrote. “That sorting is consolidation on the production side.”

Aging producers exiting and rent-heavy operations under pressure only add fuel to that trend, with one economist saying: “Consolidation happens because producers have to exit, not because they want to.

What’s Driving the Farm Economy Right Now

When economists were asked to identify the two most important factors shaping agriculture’s economic health today, their responses clustered around a familiar, but increasingly sharp, divide: strong demand in livestock and the protein sector versus persistent oversupply and cost pressure in crops, all layered with trade and policy uncertainty.

Several economists pointed to continued strength in beef demand, both domestically and through export channels, as a key stabilizing force. While the dairy sector is an area that shows signs of weakness for 2026.

“Livestock revenues are a bright spot,” one respondent noted, underscoring why the livestock sector continues to outperform crops financially.

Looking to 2026, economists overwhelmingly point to input costs, not interest rates, as the biggest barrier to profitability. Nearly 70% cited input prices as the largest challenge as well, far ahead of trade concerns or capital availability.

Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

“We have too much supply and not enough demand for row crops,” one economist wrote.

Another said: “Input costs are still too high.”

Trade remains a central wild card, especially relationships with China and uncertainty around global supply. Several respondents cited trade disputes and agreements as critical factors, along with questions about the size of South American crops and how that could shape global competition in the months ahead.

Policy uncertainty was also featured prominently, with economists pointing to domestic biofuels policy, government payments and broader market signals as factors influencing both short-term cash flow and longer-term demand growth.

Overall, economists say the ag economy is being pulled in opposite directions: strong livestock demand providing support, while crops struggle under high costs, oversupply and unresolved trade and policy questions — a dynamic that helps explain why the broader farm economy feels stable, but far from healthy, as 2026 approaches.

Livestock: A Continued Bright Spot

Livestock continues to stand out as the most financially healthy segment of the ag economy. Every economist surveyed rated beef as above average or excellent, supported by strong domestic demand and tight supplies. Dairy and pork were viewed as stable to moderately strong.

That success creates a stark contrast with row crops, where corn and cotton were cited by 38% each as the commodities most at risk financially in 2026.

What Could Move Crop Prices in the Next Six Months

Looking ahead to the first half of 2026, economists say crop prices will hinge less on domestic fundamentals and more on global supply, trade flows and policy clarity.

Across responses, South America emerged as the dominant influence, with economists repeatedly citing Brazilian weather, the size of the South American harvest and how those supplies compete with U.S. exports. Several noted that clarity around South American production will be critical in setting price direction for corn, soybeans and wheat.

Trade, particularly with China, remains another key swing factor. Economists emphasized not just the announcement of trade agreements, but whether purchases translate into actual shipments.

“China purchases of U.S. crops, but also if and when actual shipments occur,” one respondent noted, adding that details within any trade deal, including purchase commitments, will matter just as much as headlines.

Domestic factors still play a role, but economists see them as secondary in the near term. Input prices, early U.S. planting conditions and assumptions about 2026 acreage were all cited as important — especially as markets begin to trade expectations for next year’s crop mix.

Policy uncertainty also hangs over the outlook. Economists pointed to ongoing questions around trade policy, biofuels policy and broader economic conditions as variables that could amplify or mute price moves.

Economists say crop prices over the next six months are likely to be driven by how global supply unfolds, whether export demand materializes and how quickly policy uncertainty is resolved, rather than by any single domestic production shock.

Biofuels Policy: A Potential Turning Point?

One of the clearest themes Meyer highlights as a possible game changer for demand, and ultimately prices, is biofuels policy.

For economists, policy levers like year-round E15, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) volumes, 45Z investment tax credits and how small refinery exemptions are handled could meaningfully influence demand for corn and soybeans in 2026 and beyond.

“It’s one of the places where policymakers actually have levers to help with tight margins in the row crop sector,” Meyer says.

He emphasizes that final rules on RFS volumes and how biobased credits are implemented could impact feedstock demand.

“For the next couple of crop seasons, RVO (Renewable Volume Obligations) and how EPA reallocates small refinery exemptions are big factors,” Meyer says. “Should we raise the RVO to soak up that pool like a sponge? Should imported feedstocks get full 45Z credit? Those decisions could move demand.”

On year-round E15, a long-sought policy priority for corn growers, Meyer is cautiously optimistic.

“I do think it matters,” he says. “Maybe it’s not a huge swing this year, but offering certainty and building demand over multiple seasons is supportive. Other countries like Brazil are ramping up their biofuels production too, so this isn’t happening in a vacuum.”

Policy Uncertainty Still Looms

Economists also flagged top priorities for 2026 policy action:

Year-round E15 (row crops)
Trade policy clarity (row crops & livestock)
Labor reform and regulatory issues (livestock)

They also highlighted under-covered risks, which include pressure on land rents and values, labor shortages, biofuels policy details (such as 45Z credits) and slower population growth affecting long-term demand.

What Could Move Livestock and Dairy Prices in the Next Six Months

When economists look ahead to livestock and dairy markets in early 2026, they see a mix of strong demand signals, supply-side risks and policy uncertainty shaping price direction.

Consumer demand remains the cornerstone of the outlook, particularly for beef. Several economists pointed to continued buying interest from U.S. consumers as the primary support for cattle prices, even as affordability pressures rise. At the same time, some warned that a more “K-shaped” economy could begin to shift demand, pulling some consumers away from beef and toward pork.

Supply dynamics and herd trends are another major focus. Economists cited herd size, potential herd expansion and the availability of feeder cattle as critical variables. The expected resumption of feeder cattle imports from Mexico was highlighted as a key factor that could influence cattle supplies and pricing, depending on timing and volume.

Animal health risks also remain on the radar. Issues such as avian influenza, screwworm and other disease threats were mentioned as potential disruptors that could quickly alter supply conditions in both livestock and dairy markets.

Policy and trade uncertainty continues to hover over the sector. Economists pointed to ongoing questions around tariffs, restrictions on live animal trade with Mexico and the next steps under the USMCA as factors that could impact both imports and exports. Political uncertainty more broadly was also cited as a potential source of market volatility.

For dairy, economists noted that beef-on-dairy dynamics are likely to continue weighing on milk prices by increasing beef supplies while complicating dairy herd decisions.

Taken together, economists say livestock and dairy prices over the next six months will be driven by a delicate balance between strong consumer demand, evolving supply conditions and unresolved trade and policy questions, with any shift in one of those areas capable of moving markets quickly.

Acreage Expectations: Stress, Not Shock

Despite margin pressure, economists do not expect dramatic acreage pullbacks in 2026. Most expect:

Corn: 93 to 95 million acres
Soybeans: 84 to 86 million acres
Wheat: 44 to 45 million acres
Cotton: 9 to 10 million acres

Corn acreage expectations have edged lower since November, as economists backed away from another year above 95 million acres. At the same time, soybean acreage expectations have firmed, with 75% now targeting 84 to 86 million acres, suggesting stronger relative economics for beans.

“Export demand has helped keep corn acres supported,” Meyer says. “The question is whether that demand holds and whether policy supports it.”

As for acreage, the major impact on prices would be a large acreage reduction, which is unlikely.

“That’s what it comes down to, too. What I’ve been thinking about is what else can you use land for? And you’ve got the pushback on urban sprawl, you’ve got pushback on other uses for ag land. But right now, the simple fact is we’ve got way too much production. Without that slowing, or a drastic increase in demand, I don’t see prices improving to very lucrative levels,” Gardner says.

Overall, The Ag Economy Is a Grind, Not a Rebound

When you look at all the results from the December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, economists paint a picture of an industry that has stopped getting worse, but has not yet found a path to durable profitability.

Crops remain mired in margin compression; livestock continues to outperform but remains sensitive to policy decisions. Government aid is buying time but not addressing structural challenges, but it’s policy outcomes, especially around biofuels, trade and E15, that could be decisive in shaping 2026 outcomes.

For now, the farm economy has found a floor. The tougher question, economists say, is whether policy can help lift it, or if it will continue to grind forward without a genuine rebound.

Related News: As Screwworm Inches Closer, When Could the U.S. Reopen the Southern Border to Cattle Imports?

As Screwworm Inches Closer, When Could the U.S. Reopen the Southern Border to Cattle Imports?

Tue, 06 Jan 2026 20:49:09 GMT

A newly confirmed case of New World screwworm (NWS) in northern Mexico is renewing concern among U.S. cattle producers and policymakers, as the parasitic fly continues to inch closer to the U.S.-Mexico border.

As reported by Drovers, on Dec. 27, Mexico’s National Service of Agro-Alimentary Health, Safety, and Quality (SENASICA) reported a case of NWS in a 6-day-old calf with an umbilical lesion in the municipality of Llera, located in the state of Tamaulipas. The location is approximately 197 miles south of the U.S.-Mexico border, and a reminder that NWS is still a high threat to the U.S.

Critical Timing with Calving Season Approaching

NWS, which was eradicated from the U.S. in the 1960s through an extensive sterile fly program, poses a serious threat to livestock. The larvae infest open wounds, feeding on living tissue and often leading to severe injury or death if untreated. Calving season is considered a particularly vulnerable period due to natural points of entry such as navels and birthing injuries.

Seth Meyer, director of the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) and former chief economist for USDA, says the new case raises a tremendous amount of concern as USDA remains vigilant on keeping NWS out of the U.S. But Meyer says the growing proximity of NWS complicates already difficult decisions for cattle producers at calving season , which is a critical time of the year.

“There are concerns not just from a consumer standpoint, but also about whether southern producers are willing to retain heifers during calving season if there’s a risk of fly exposure,” he says. “Calving is a point of access for these animals, and that risk matters.”

Those decisions could have longer-term implications for herd expansion and cattle supplies, Meyer notes. If producers decide the risk is too great and opt against retaining replacement heifers, it could tighten supplies further down the road.

“That’s the last thing you want,” Meyer says. “You don’t want people giving up on retaining heifers and turning away from herd rebuilding.”

The Possibility of Reopening the Southern Border

The U.S. most recently closed its southern border to Mexican cattle imports in May of 2025 due to the rapid spread of NWS in Mexico. There were additional closures and reopenings in July 2025 as the situation evolved ultimately halting trade again to protect U.S. livestock.

Here’s a timeline so far:

November 2024: NWS was first detected in southern Mexico, leading to initial border closures and trade disruptions.
Feb. 1, 2025: A temporary ban was lifted after agreements for inspections.
May 11, 2025: U.S Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins ordered an immediate suspension of imports due to NWS spreading closer to the border.
July 2025: A phased reopening began but was halted again after new NWS cases were found farther north, leading to another immediate closure of southern ports to protect American livestock.

Considering the cattle just south of the border are being vigilantly monitored and inspected, the bigger threat of NWS crossing the Southern border could be through wildlife . Still, as NWS gets closer, USDA is keeping the border closed and remaining cautious.

When could the U.S. reopen the border? That’s exactly what Farm Journal asked economists in the latest Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor and the responses were extremely mixed. It’s important to note the survey was sent out prior to the most recent detection of NWS.

33% of economists say USDA could reopen the border in February 2026
25% say it could happen April through June
17% think the border could reopen July through September
And 17% were unsure.

For policymakers, the situation adds another layer of complexity as they balance animal health, trade and producer confidence. While officials stress that there is no immediate threat to the U.S. herd, the latest detection underscores the importance of surveillance, rapid response and continued cooperation between U.S. and Mexican animal health authorities.

As Meyer puts it: “There are a lot of balls in the air right now,” and preventing NWS from crossing the border remains a critical priority for the livestock industry on both sides.

Follow Farm Journal’s extensive coverage of the ongoing NWS situation.