Opinion

The Memorial Day Cookout: Honoring the Heritage of National Beef Month

Fri, 22 May 2026 12:02:41 GMT

For more than 40 years, May has served as a dedicated window to celebrate the heritage of American ranchers and the nutritional power of beef. Established during the market volatility of the 1980s, this observance has evolved from a grassroots industry support campaign into a national celebration. Today, beef remains the undisputed anchor of Memorial Day barbecues and family dinners across the country.

As we enter the 2026 summer grilling season, it is the perfect time to honor the producers behind the U.S. beef industry.

The Legacy of National Beef Month

Beef has long been a staple on American tables, but the designation of May as National Beef Month does more than promote a product. It successfully raises consumer awareness, instills pride among farmers and ranchers, and strengthens the overall market.

For producers, there is no better smell or sound than beef sizzling on the grill — except, perhaps, the sound of a soaking rain on a dry pasture. Celebrating this month is about more than just a meal; it’s about acknowledging the year-round dedication required to raise a high-quality, protein-packed product.

Grilling for the Herd: Memorial Day Recipe Inspiration

Whether you are firing up the grill for juicy steaks or slow-cooking a brisket for the neighborhood, use these resources to make your Memorial Day meal stand out:

Explore these delicious beef burger recipes or get inspired to create your own. After all, as long as it’s a beef burger on the grill, you really can’t go wrong.
Flavorful Smoked Beef Recipes. Fire up the smoker and enjoy the delicious taste of smoked beef. From traditional barbecue dishes to recipes with more flair, we have a recipe for expert and beginner pitmasters alike.
Flavor-Boosting Rubs and Marinades . Looking for big flavor and minimal effort? Want to customize your next meal with a steak rub? Learn what rub and marinade recipes can do for you.

Advocacy Through the Grill

National Beef Month is an opportunity to be an advocate for your industry. Use this holiday weekend to celebrate your heritage, your livelihood and your beef herd. When you share a beef meal with friends and family, you are sharing the story of American agriculture.

Nalivka: Beef Markets and Record-High Prices Going Forward

Fri, 15 May 2026 13:06:37 GMT

As Memorial Day weekend approaches, there is the question of market highs as we head toward the grilling season. I think it is worthwhile to look back at a year ago this time.

During the first week of May 2025, the Choice Cutout averaged $345/cwt., the Select Cutout $332/cwt. and the Comprehensive Cutout $342/cwt. Those prices peaked at $414/cwt. (+20%), $387/cwt. (+17%) and $409/cwt. (+20%), respectively.

This year during the week of May 9, the Choice Cutout averaged $390/cwt., the Select Cutout $388/cwt. and the Comprehensive Cutout $391/cwt. This year’s prices are 13%, 17% and 14% higher for each of the respective cutout values than a year ago.

Cutout Category	May 2025 Avg	May 2026 Avg	% Change
Choice	$345	$390	+13%
Select	$332	$388	+17%
Comprehensive	$342	$391	+14%

Is there a limit to how much current beef demand can drive those prices? My response is, “yes” and we are not too far from that limit.

The Government Question: Let Markets Be Markets

Record-high beef prices are the topic of discussion in cattlemen’s meetings, among market analysts, restaurant procurement, government, and state and federal legislatures with the discussion ranging from “Can prices go much higher” to the government assessing how to “Reduce prices for the consumer.”

My reaction when the government enters the discussion is that we do not need any government entity whether the administration, USDA or Congress to get involved. Markets operate best according to nonmanipulated supply-demand fundamentals, those very drivers that got us to the point of record prices in the first place. Manipulating the market toward the goal of lowering prices for the consumer is not an option, whether it be trade-related or any other manipulation.

(Sterling Marketing Inc.)

For the last 12 months, we have discussed and discussed when rebuilding of the cattle herd will begin. The consensus from all this expert analysis and discussion is that rebuilding will be slow. Why? My response is that the industry and the people involved have changed from those of past cattle cycles.

Farmers and ranchers are older and many no longer have family members who have come back to the ranch after graduating from high school or college. This is a critical factor for those existing full-time cattle ranching operations. These full-time cattlemen whose family members did not come back to the ranch are growing older and slowing down.

But the real driver to cattle numbers is the part-time cattleman — those who also have a cropping operation with pasture to raise a few cattle or people who don’t farm or ranch full time but have pasture, work at another job and want a few (25 to 50 head) cattle.

I believe these part-time cattlemen have declined significantly.

(Sterling Marketing Inc.)

Opportunity Cost: The Barrier to Heifer Retention

Aside from changing demographics of cattlemen, there is another critical issue to herd building and one which has been a driver in previous cattle cycles — record-high prices. While today’s prices are certainly a godsend to full-time cattlemen already in the business, those same record-high prices make the proposition of buying cows to get into the business a challenge, to say the least. And, for that matter, record-high prices can also be viewed as a record-high opportunity cost when a heifer is retained.

(Sterling Marketing Inc.)

Primetime to Reform the Conservation Reserve Program

Thu, 23 Apr 2026 12:26:06 GMT

Droughts, border closures , New World screwworm (NWS) , Argentina beef imports, wildfires, packing plant slowdowns and a 75-year-low in the U.S. cattle inventory — those aren’t just headlines, they are the realities cattle producers are working through every day. They have added volatility to the markets, but they have also created something else. Opportunity.

From my perspective as a feedlot operator in northwest Iowa, that opportunity is sitting right in front of us. When cattle numbers get this tight, everyone feels it. Feedlots are not running at capacity. Packers adjust. Rural communities feel it too. The market is sending a clear signal. We need more cattle.

Iowa is in a strong position to respond. We have the feed, the infrastructure and the people to not only finish cattle, but to help rebuild the cow herd. The piece we continue to run up against is access to land.

That is where the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) needs a harder look.

CRP was designed with good intentions, and it has delivered real conservation benefits. But today, it is also functioning as direct competition for land. When government-backed payments are strong enough to take acres completely out of production, it shifts the market. It drives up rental rates and limits access for farmers and ranchers who are trying to actively use that land.

At the same time, program requirements have created unintended consequences. In many cases, land has needed a recent row-crop history to qualify for enrollment. That has led to pasture being broken out and fences coming out, not because it made sense for the land long-term, but because it made sense to fit within a program. Once that infrastructure is gone, it is not easily replaced.

On the other side, Iowa producers are often shut out of opportunities like Grasslands CRP. Because our land is so productive and has a strong cropping history, we do not always meet the eligibility requirements that favor existing grass-based systems. So we end up in a situation where working pasture is reduced, and at the same time, we are limited in accessing programs that could actually support grazing.

That is a disconnect.

We are taking land out of livestock production, discouraging long-term pasture investment, and making it harder to rebuild the cow herd. All of this is happening at a time when cattle numbers are historically low, and demand signals are strong.

There is a better way to approach it.

Managed grazing within CRP offers a solution that keeps conservation goals intact while putting land back to work. Grazing, when done right, improves soil structure, supports plant diversity and maintains ground cover. It keeps the land functioning as it was intended, while also contributing to the food supply.

More importantly, it creates access. It gives producers, especially younger ones, a way to get started without competing against a system that is designed to sideline the land entirely.
For those of us in the feeding sector, rebuilding the cow herd starts with grass. Without it, there is no pathway to expand. Without it, we continue to tighten supply and limit the future of the industry.

The current situation should push us to think differently. Conservation and cattle production are not opposing goals. In many cases, they are strongest when they work together.

Reforming CRP to allow for responsible, managed grazing and to remove some of the barriers that have worked against pasture and livestock production is a practical step forward. It keeps conservation benefits in place while recognizing the need for active land use.

If we are serious about rebuilding the cow herd, supporting rural economies, and creating opportunities for the next generation, we have to address how land is being used.

This is one of those moments where policy and opportunity line up. We should not let it pass us by.

— Craig Moss from Hull, Iowa, is currently serving as the Iowa Cattlemen’s Association (ICA) president

Fewer Vegans, More Meat Eaters: What It Means for Beef

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 12:21:18 GMT

Not long ago, it felt like beef had a target on its back.

Between headlines about plant-based alternative proteins, questions about how cattle are raised and shifting consumer preferences, there was a lot of speculation about beef’s future. As a young rancher, I heard those conversations just like everyone else — and like many producers, I wondered what they might mean for our industry long term.

Today, the conversation looks very different.

Beef demand is strong, even as prices remain high and supplies are tight. And that strength isn’t just anecdotal — it’s backed by data. Beef Checkoff-funded research like the Meat Demand Monitor (MDM), a monthly national survey of U.S. consumers, continues to show that consumers value beef for its taste and that eating satisfaction plays a major role in their purchasing decisions.

In fact, a report summarizing the MDM’s findings from February 2020 to December 2025 shows that more than 85% of Americans today identify as meat consumers, and consumer willingness to pay for beef at retail has increased faster than inflation. Over that same period, the number of consumers identifying as vegetarian or vegan has declined from 14% to just 7%.

Furthermore, broader food and nutrition trends are working in beef’s favor. Protein continues to be top of mind for consumers, whether they’re focused on overall health, weight management or maintaining muscle as they age. Even the rise of GLP-1 medications has reinforced the importance of nutrient-dense foods, with many users prioritizing protein to support their health goals.

I occasionally run ultramarathons and enjoy strength training, and I’ve experienced firsthand how important nutrition is when you’re pushing your body to its limit. Athletes often tailor their diets carefully, focusing on complete protein to support muscle development and recovery. Increasingly, more Americans — even non-athletes — are thinking about food in those same terms.

That trend plays directly to beef’s strengths as a flavorful, nutrient-dense protein. It’s also reflected in the continued recognition of lean beef as part of a healthy dietary pattern in the latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans , reinforcing what many of us in the industry have long known: beef can absolutely be part of a healthy lifestyle.

That recognition doesn’t happen by accident. Research and education play an important role in helping consumers access accurate information about beef. Producers are investing in nutrition research through the Beef Checkoff, and that research continues to explore beef’s role in healthy dietary patterns. Meanwhile, outreach to health professionals helps ensure science-based information reaches the people influencing what we eat.

On our ranch, we’ve seen that demand play out firsthand. Cattle prices have remained strong for the past two years. That’s a welcome change from years when we hoped to simply break even after accounting for feed, fuel and other input costs. Strong cattle prices reflect the reality that supplies are tight and demand for finished beef remains strong.

Conversations with my neighbors suggest many operations are experiencing the same.

However, strong demand today doesn’t guarantee strong demand tomorrow. That’s why continued investment in building demand, expanding market opportunities and strengthening consumer trust matters.

Like many producers, I think a lot about what it will take to keep family operations viable for the next generation. Recent devastating wildfires near our ranch here in Nebraska are a reminder of just how quickly challenges can arise — and how deeply they can affect our communities. While there’s no single solution, continued investment in building demand, expanding market opportunities and strengthening consumer trust plays an important role in helping keep operations viable and our industry strong.

As I take on a larger role in our family ranch, I’m encouraged — not just by where beef demand stands today, but by the factors supporting it. My generation of cattle producers takes the future of this industry seriously. We want the opportunity to pass down healthy, viable operations to the next generation — just as previous generations did for us.

Jaslyn Livingston is a fourth-generation cattle producer from Broadwater, Neb., where she helps manage A Lazy L Ranch LLC with her family. The diversified operation includes cow-calf, feedlot and row-crop production. She also serves on the Cattlemen’s Beef Board, helping guide Beef Checkoff programs focused on research, education and promotion.

Nalivka: New University of Idaho Meat Science and Innovation Center Will Play Vital Role in Meat Industry

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 12:18:09 GMT

Over the past three years, the beef industry has offered ample topics for articles with market outlook as the hot subject. However, today I wanted to present some information on the April 10 dedication of the University of Idaho’s recently completed Meat Science and Innovation Center honoring Ron Richard on the campus in Moscow.

Ron Richard, who passed away in 2018, managed and contributed greatly to the success of the program for many years. While this does not relate to market outlook, I passionately believe, as do others, that meat science has become an increasingly key area of study and research at many universities — the University of Idaho included — for many years.

First, I will be forthcoming for readers who may not know that I am a little biased as I have an animal science degree from the University of Idaho – 1976 – and I have been pretty involved since the new center’s conception a decade ago. The plan for a new Meat Science Center was one of several put in motion by former Simplot Endowed Dean of the College of Agriculture, Michael Parrella, who is now retired and replaced by Leslie Edgar.

The new center or “meats lab” is state of the art in every aspect from the humane cattle handling equipment for the cattle coming into the facility to cattle slaughter to fabrication of beef primal cuts.

100% Placement: The High Demand for Idaho Meat Science Students

The University of Idaho meat science program has realized 100% job placement for its students enrolled in meat science coursework. Furthermore, it is one of the most popular programs in the college of agriculture.

This new Meat Science Center will only further support student enthusiasm for the program. This facility, the faculty and the students are key to the ongoing success of this academic and hands-on learning program as well as Idaho agribusiness and the U.S. meat industry.

There is significant structural change taking place across the red meat industry — U.S. and globally. A meat science and innovation facility like this one is key to building a necessary workforce. Robert Rebholtz, Agri Beef CEO and president, a Northwest cattle feeding and packing company, indicated in his presentation at the dedication that he has many employees who graduated from the University of Idaho meat science program.

One last note, sitting next to the new Meat Science and Innovation Center is the new Seed Potato Germplasm Laboratory and thus, the name “Meat and Potatoes” for the new research facilities sitting on the edge of campus proudly facing the University of Idaho Kibbie Dome.

The Beef Industry Cannot Afford to Treat AI as a Side Project

Fri, 06 Mar 2026 13:42:45 GMT

The U.S. cattle industry is operating under intense pressure. Supplies are tight, feedlots face rising costs and declining placements, and the national herd remains near multi-decade lows after years of drought, liquidation, and high input prices . Recent reports point to shrinking cattle-on-feed inventories and increasing strain on large feeding operations as they compete for a smaller pool of animals . Yet domestic and export demand for beef remains strong, meaning each animal now carries more economic value than at any point in decades.

Artificial intelligence is beginning to reshape how producers manage that reality. Sensors, cameras and predictive software are moving from pilot projects into everyday use across cow-calf operations, stocker systems, feedlots and packers. Wearables can flag illness through changes in activity or temperature. Computer vision systems estimate weight gain and body condition without handling cattle. Feedlot analytics track intake patterns to identify problems before they appear in closeout data.

Similar pattern-recognition systems are already helping operations detect changes in cattle health, management, and economics earlier across the production cycle. These tools matter because they protect value. When herd size is constrained, losses from disease, poor feed efficiency, or reproductive failure become more expensive. AI allows earlier intervention, reducing both biological and financial risk.

Labor pressures reinforce the shift. Skilled workers are difficult to recruit and retain, particularly in rural areas. Remote monitoring allows managers to oversee cattle across large distances while focusing physical effort where it is most needed. This does not replace stockmanship, but it changes how time is used. However, technology alone does not improve performance. Operations gaining real advantage are not simply installing systems. They are rethinking how decisions are made, how information flows, and how risk is managed across the entire business.

From Data Collection to Decision Power

The beef supply chain is long and biologically complex. Decisions made at breeding or weaning influence outcomes months or years later. Feed costs, weather, forage conditions, genetics, health protocols and market signals interact continuously. AI is valuable in this environment because it can integrate diverse data streams and identify patterns humans might miss.

In cow-calf systems, predictive tools can support heifer selection, breeding management and pasture allocation. Stocker operations can match cattle to forage conditions and growth targets. Feedlots can optimize ration strategies, placement weights, and marketing timing. Packers increasingly use similar tools to forecast demand and coordinate procurement.

When information flows across these segments, the system becomes more responsive. Early signals about feed grain prices, export demand or weather conditions can influence decisions long before cattle reach the packing plant. Health issues detected in one stage can trigger preventive action in another.

Yet many operations accumulate data without changing behavior . Dashboards multiply, reports become more detailed, but daily practices remain largely unchanged. Without a clear plan, AI becomes an expensive reporting system rather than a performance driver.

Our recent white paper on AI in agri-food argues that meaningful impact occurs only when technology is embedded in strategy rather than applied piecemeal. One practical approach is the DRIVE framework, which focuses on five priorities for turning digital tools into operational advantage:

Data first. Reliable, integrated records across genetics, health, feed, performance and marketing are essential. Poor data quality limits predictive accuracy.
Run purposeful pilots. Focus on high-value problems such as reducing death loss, improving feed conversion, or optimizing marketing windows, with clear metrics and a path to scale.
Internal capability matters. Managers and staff must understand how systems work and when human judgment should override model outputs.
VIPs are not exempt. Owner and executive engagement signal that AI is central to strategy, not a technical experiment delegated to vendors.
Execute now. Advantage comes from implementation and learning over time, not waiting for perfect solutions.

Operations that follow this disciplined approach move from experimentation to measurable improvement much faster than those pursuing scattered projects.

Leadership Will Determine Who Wins

Technology tends to amplify existing management quality. Producers with clear goals and disciplined processes extract far more value from AI than those hoping technology will compensate for weak planning. The central challenge is leadership, not software. The transition resembles the arrival of major infrastructure such as high-speed rail. The biggest gains accrue to those who reorganize activities around the new capability. Others see only marginal benefits because they continue operating as before. AI increases the speed of analysis and coordination, but speed without direction can create confusion rather than progress.

I have described AI as agriculture’s “bullet train”: fast, transformative, but requiring careful navigation. AI may be overhyped today, but it is likely to become as essential to food production as electricity and the internet. The question is not whether it will arrive, but how prepared operations will be when it does.

For the beef industry, timing is critical. Herd rebuilding will be slow, capital costs are high and volatility remains constant. At the same time, global demand for high-quality protein continues to grow.

Producers who can improve efficiency, consistency and responsiveness will be better positioned to capture that demand. AI will not replace experience or judgment. Successful cattle production remains rooted in understanding animals, land and markets. What AI changes is how that expertise is applied. Routine monitoring may decline, while interpretation, planning and risk management become more central.

In the coming decade, the divide in the beef sector will not be between those who use AI and those who do not. It will be between those who treat it as a tool and those who treat it as part of a long-term operating plan. The technology is already spreading across the industry. Competitive advantage will depend less on access and more on intent. Producers who start building capability now will shape the future of the beef business rather than reacting to it.

Aidan Connolly, president, AgriTech Capital , is described by Forbes as ‘a food/feed/farm futurologist. He is the author of the book ‘The Future of Agriculture’, now in four languages, and a recent white paper on AI in Agri-Food systems.

National Blue and Corn Gold: Building Tomorrow’s Leaders

Wed, 25 Feb 2026 18:47:11 GMT

It’s National FFA Week. A special week for all of those who have worn the blue corduroy jacket. To me, the FFA jacket is a symbol of leadership, commitment to agriculture and a heart to serve.

My FFA membership opened doors, helped me create lifelong networks and prepared me for my career. National FFA Week means more to me than just wearing the blue and gold — it’s about the people who make this organization unforgettable. My FFA friends growing up were not just teammates; they’re the ones who pushed me to work harder, laugh louder and grow into a better leader every day.

There was only one Mr. Dan Palmateer — no one like him — the Valley Heights FFA ag educator. He was just what the three Stump girls — Angie, Jami and Kim — needed to find their paths in FFA and in life. He knew how to make each one of them stronger, build on their strengths and overcome their weaknesses. He challenged each sister to be the best she could be.

(Stump Family)

I am who I am today because of my ag teacher, Dan Palmateer. He didn’t just teach agriculture — he taught me confidence and how to believe in myself even when things got tough. My two sisters — Jami Stump Gillig and Kim Stump Schmidt — and I were so blessed to call him our FFA advisor. He knew how to make each one of us stronger, build on our strengths and overcome our weaknesses. He challenged us to be the best we could be. I’m so thankful for my time in his classroom and the many lessons he taught me.

Like Mr. Palmateer, ag educators and FFA advisors are so critical to FFA’s success. Teaching is not an easy career. I’m so thankful for those who are majoring in agricultural education and have a passion to teach agriculture to the next generation. This profession is so essential as more and more generations are removed from the farm.

From an FFA Member to FFA Mom

I’m so thankful for my time in the jacket and the skills I developed because of this great organization. Now, as an FFA mom, I feel even more blessed to have watched both of my boys grow and develop because of their time as FFA members. From the classroom to the community, the organization empowers students with the skills and confidence to lead in agriculture and beyond.

Dustin Denton

(Kansas FFA)

My son, Dustin, is currently serving as a state FFA officer. While I, too, had the chance to serve our state many years ago, I’m amazed at how much the program has grown and the amazing opportunities he has had during his year of service. From traveling the state to meet with fellow members, to networking with key agriculture-industry stakeholders to numerous speaking and workshop-leading experiences this opportunity is life-changing.

A Global Perspective on Agriculture

Dustin also had the chance to travel to Spain in January for 12 days as part of the International Leadership Seminar for State Officers (ILSSO). ILSSO is a National FFA Organization program that takes 75 current or past state FFA officers abroad to study global agriculture and enhance cultural competency. Participants travel internationally, meet with agribusiness leaders and explore foreign farming practices to gain a global perspective on the industry.

Dustin had the opportunity to visit Ganados Ruigan — a beef cattle feeding operation. There he learned about the differences between American and Spanish beef production. He also toured Mas Bes Dairy and had the chance to learn a lot about vertical and horizontal integration in Spain’s dairy industry.

1 of 6:

Dustin Denton

2 of 6:

Dustin Denton

3 of 6:

Dustin Denton

4 of 6:

Dustin Denton

5 of 6:

Dustin Denton

6 of 6:

Dustin Denton

His experience was amazing, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. If you’d like to see a day-by-day recap of his trip you can visit his Instagram page .

Through hands-on learning, leadership development and real-world experiences, FFA members are building the skills that will shape the future of agriculture. I believe it is so important FFA members have a chance to learn what it means to work hard, serve others and be stewards of the land.

National FFA Week is a reminder that FFA isn’t just an organization — it’s family, mentorship and friendships that will last long after high school. We should all strive to live by the 12 words that make up the FFA motto: “Learning to Do, Doing to Learn, Earning to Live, Living to Serve.”

Give FFA Day

Because I believe so deeply in how this organization shapes the future generation of agriculturists, I want to share a specific way you can help: Thursday is Give FFA Day. This 24-hour campaign is a chance to invest directly in the students who will one day lead our industry.

If you are able, please consider giving to your local chapter, state association or the National FFA Foundation . If a financial gift isn’t possible right now, your time is an equally valuable investment. Local chapters are always looking for mentors to:

Critique speeches and facilitate mock interviews
Assist with career and leadership development event preparation
Mentor to a student as they build their supervised agricultural experience (SAE) program

You’ll find that when you invest in FFA students, the return on investment is seen in the strength of our entire agricultural community.

Nalivka: Economics and the Evolution of the Red Meat Industry

Mon, 23 Feb 2026 14:26:24 GMT

Driven by record-high beef and cattle prices, the cattle industry has become a major focus of discussion, not only in mainstream livestock news and information sources, but others as well. The Feb. 16 issue of Barron’s , a leading purveyor of financial news, is one recent example.

In addition, the major television news networks for the past 12 months have carried stories on beef prices and how they have stretched the consumer food dollar.

While the cattle cycle has always been a focus for cattle industry analysts who predict markets, one does not generally expect to see articles like the one in Barron’s that discuss the factors and challenges faced by ranchers that impact their decisions in managing their ranches and cattle, including the size of the herd — reducing the size of the herd or building the herd. Decisions on the ranch are often unique to every ranch or rancher’s circumstances.

I often comment that an average ranch does not exist They each have their own set of circumstances regarding grazing, cattle, financial resources, marketing objectives, and perhaps, most important, family situation, which in many cases has become the key factor regarding the direction of the ranch going forward.

Throughout the 1990s until 2000, the beef and pork industries expanded production, both in the U.S. and globally. As red meat processing capacity grew, the economic incentive for herd building — both cattle and hogs also grew. This all changed as the U.S. was hit with COVID, drought and high grain prices during the short four years from 2020 to 2024.

The economics that had defined both the cattle and hog industries changed significantly. Both industries transitioned from optimistic herd building to the challenge of low prices, increased costs of production and drought. Perhaps more importantly, the structure of the cattle industry began the process of change. And more recently, packers are consolidating production capacity and the process only in the beginning stage.

Many plants are outdated to accommodate the economic opportunities presented by technology. It is a business decision that will transform industry economics and subsequently, the incentive to build cattle numbers.

The beef industry has evolved and consequently, so are the drivers to the industry’s economics. While a shift in demand (consumer tastes and preferences) is likely one key factor impacting industry economics, others including changing the global economics of trade, production practices, and U.S. and global production capacity are having a significant impact on beef industry and the cattle inventory going forward.

I look back over the 40-plus years that I have analyzed beef industry economics and recognize that it is becoming increasingly apparent that the economics driving the industry today are not the same as those of 50 years ago or even 10 years ago.

2026 Beef Economics: Consumers Continue to Demand More Protein

Fri, 20 Feb 2026 15:21:14 GMT

Consumers still want beef. They still prefer beef. They still tell every survey they want more protein.

But 2026 is shaping up as a year where preferences collide with price fatigue, and the result is not “beef demand disappears.” The result is beef demand shifts.

The protein tailwind is real, but it does not guarantee more steak nights

The high-protein trend is not a fad anymore. Cargill’s Protein Profile found 61% of consumers reported increasing their protein intake in 2024, up from 48% in 2019.

And the latest dietary guidance conversation has become more protein-forward, at least in narrative. One recent analysis of the new U.S. Dietary Guidelines discussion points to a suggested protein range of 1.2–1.6 g/kg/day, which is materially higher than older “minimum intake” framing.

Here is the BBBP translation: A protein tailwind does not automatically mean more beef demand. In a high-price environment, it often means protein purchases shift from within, and the mix moves toward protein-per-dollar purchases.

Which leads to the next problem.

Price fatigue is the demand curve’s slow leak

We do not need to debate whether beef is expensive. Just go to the grocery store or order a burger.

USDA’s Food Price Outlook notes that in November 2025, farm-level cattle prices were 23.9% higher than a year earlier, and wholesale beef prices were 15.1% higher year over year.

That is the upstream pressure. At the checkout line, consumers respond the same way they always do.

They stretch servings. They wait for features. They buy what fits the weekly budget, not what fits a perfect macro plan.

A tight domestic supply year makes this more acute. ERS projects per-capita beef availability dropping slightly in 2026. That is not catastrophic. It is just enough tightening to keep prices sticky and keep fatigue building.

GLP-1s: protein share up, total intake down and “more protein” is relative

GLP-1s are going to be part of the 2026 demand story, but not in a simplistic way. The direction is pretty clear:

GLP-1s reduce caloric intake for users (by 30-50% in most cases).
Users and clinicians often emphasize “protein first” to preserve lean mass.

The nuance is the part people miss. Here is the math:

(The Big Bad Beef Packer)

If total calories fall, a higher protein share can still result in flat or lower absolute protein intake, even while protein outperforms other categories in relative terms.

From a market mechanics standpoint, GLP-1s are more likely to:

Favor smaller portions
Favor planned meals over impulse buys
Favor ground beef and value cuts that fit high-protein meals without a high-ticket checkout

IQVIA has also pointed out that U.S. GLP-1 supply constraints eased, with FDA declaring shortages resolved in April 2025 and enforcement discretion for compounded versions ending by May 2025, which matters because wider availability increases the odds that GLP-1 adoption shows up in consumer behavior during 2026.

Will consumers trade out of beef to chicken and pork?

Some might trade out a meal or two to competing proteins. But the bigger story is still trade-down within beef. The ERS per-capita chart is a useful compass: beef availability is projected lower in 2026, while pork and poultry availability is projected higher.

(The Big Bad Packer)

When cheaper proteins have more availability, the market naturally invites substitution. But beef’s advantage is preference and versatility. That is why substitution often starts as:

Chicken and pork pick up incremental share
While beef defends its position through ground, roasts, and value steaks

Foodservice will also feel a similar pain to retail

Foodservice demand tends to follow a similar path in contraction years.

High-end steakhouses can hold better because their customer is less price sensitive.
Mid-tier and casual dining feel it because steak is a check-size driver and a margin risk at the same time.
QSR and fast casual lean into value, which pushes more demand toward grind and lower-cost beef applications.

In other words, foodservice reinforces the same theme: mix shifts toward value, and premium holds where the customer can afford it.

The 2026 trade-down map inside beef

Looking at beef consumers, we can break them down into Value-seekers (often low income), Mainstream planners (often lower middle and middle income), and Premium loyalists (often upper middle and higher income brackets). Here is why each matter:

1. Value-seekers (often lower income, but also “budget-first” households)
They do not “trade down” from tenderloin. They are already living in value. As prices rise, the move is typically:

From lower value beef cuts toward more ground beef
With some probability of trading out to chicken or pork if the price gap widens

A simple price snapshot shows why we could see trade out to other proteins: ground beef averaged $6.687/lb in Dec 2025, while chicken breast averaged $4.153/lb, and pork chops averaged $4.298/lb. That spread is the consumer’s decision tree.

(The Big Bad Beef Packer)

As price spreads continue to grow, one can imagine it will eventually lead to some form of trade out of the beef sector into pork or poultry.

2. Mainstream planners (lower middle and middle income, “I still want steak, just not that steak”)
This is where you see the cut-level substitution:

Ribeye, strip, tenderloin gets replaced by sirloin, flank, skirt, and more roast usage
Steak night remains, but it potentially becomes a different steak

They are not leaving beef. They are optimizing beef.

3. Premium loyalists (upper middle and higher income, plus “steak is part of the lifestyle” buyers)
They keep buying steaks. Some trade down on frequency, not on cut. That is why the top end can look resilient even when the middle of the case is shifting.

Trade-down within beef during contraction years is inevitable

A lot of people talk about trading down like it is a demand collapse. It is not.

In a tight supply year, trading down is simply the consumer doing what consumers do. They adjust the mix so beef stays in the cart, even when the steak case starts feeling like a car payment.

As higher income consumers continue to seek out the shortage of available steaks, the price will increase. This will push middle income consumers to purchase more of the roasts and non-traditional steak items. This, in turn, will push lower income consumers to purchase even more ground beef.

And here is the key balancing point for 2026.

There will likely be more lean supply available through imports, which supports ground beef availability. USDA is forecasting higher U.S. beef imports in 2026, and USDA-FAS is also forecasting imports up, specifically noting tight domestic supplies and lean processing dynamics as drivers.

That matters because imported lean trim is the pressure-release valve. It helps keep more beef moving through the grind even when domestic supplies are tight. It does not magically make beef cheap, but it does help keep beef on the table.

So no, trading down is not bearish beef (at least, not yet). It is the market doing the work of balancing the constrained supply.

Consumer demand conclusion: 2026 is a mix war, not a demand collapse

Beef demand is strong. But strong does not mean invincible or immune to change.

In 2026, the demand curve is most likely to shift through:

Price fatigue driving trade-down inside beef
Protein-forward narratives supporting beef’s relevance, but not guaranteeing more premium cuts
GLP-1 behavior nudging consumers toward smaller, protein-first meals that lean value
Some potential trade-out to chicken and pork where affordability gaps widen

If you sell the whole animal, 2026 is not about whether consumers want beef. It is about aligning cuts and grinds with commensurate values that speak to each consumer category.

— Hyrum Egbert authors the biweekly “ The Big Bad Beef Packer ” newsletter, which takes a look at packinghouse truths, trends and tough questions.

2026 Beef Economics: How Global Trade is a Fast Moving Lever

Fri, 13 Feb 2026 12:16:57 GMT

In part 1 of my 2026 beef economy series, we focused on domestic supply: fewer cattle, fewer pounds and the cattle cycle still doing cattle cycle things. In part 2, we will focus on trade, and this is where 2026 gets jumpy. Trade is a fast-moving lever in the beef complex. It can swing packer profitability, cattle prices and consumer affordability long before the domestic herd can respond.

Here’s the framework:

Imports are the pressure-release valve for ground beef and, in tight years, a quiet support beam for beef affordability.
Exports are the carcass value engine, especially for items the U.S. consumer does not consistently bid up (hello, variety meats).
Currency and policy are the accelerants that turn normal market movement into a bar fight.

The cattle inventory report just made imports more important

The latest USDA NASS cattle inventory report (Jan. 30, 2026) is a clean reminder that domestic supply is not expanding fast enough to bail anyone out in 2026.

(The Big Bad Beef Packer)

Key Statistics:

Total cattle and calves: 86.2 million head (Jan 1, 2026).
All cows and heifers that have calved: 37.2 million head.
Beef cows: 27.6 million head, down 1% year over year.
Calf crop (2025): 32.9 million head, down 2%.
All cattle on feed: 13.8 million head, down 3%.
Also worth noting: beef replacement heifers were reported up 1% to 4.71 million head (early hint of intent, not proof of a rebuild, yet).

Here’s why that is bullish imports.

A smaller beef cow herd and a smaller calf crop keep the domestic supply base tight. Tight domestic supply does two things at once:

It keeps more pressure on lean availability over time, which increases reliance on imported lean trim to keep ground beef moving.
It makes the U.S. more willing to pull imported product to fill gaps and protect retail sets, especially when consumers trade down.

“Bullish imports” does not mean imports are cheap. It means the need for imports increases when domestic supply stays tight.

The 2026 trade direction: higher imports, lower exports

The USDA ERS baseline for 2026 is still pointing to more imports and fewer exports.

(The Big Bad Beef Packer)

2026 beef imports forecast: 5.525 billion lb. (up from 2025).
2026 beef exports forecast: 2.425 billion lb. (down from 2025).

That is the setup:

More imports can cool the grind and help affordability.
Lower exports can take air out of carcass value and increase competition for product placement at home.

Imports: the grind pressure valve, and a backstop for affordability

In 2026, imports you care about most are:

Lean trim and manufacturing beef for ground beef pricing and availability.
Some primal/subprimal imports that help retailers/foodservice maintain price points and promotional flow when domestic product gets too expensive.
Live cattle flows (Mexico and Canada), because when live movement changes, regional supply gets weird fast.

The USDA FAS global outlook supports this direction: U.S. beef imports are forecast up in 2026 as the U.S. works through tight domestic supplies, including reduced cow and bull slaughter as the cycle shifts.

That is the “imports are bullish” logic tied directly to the cattle report. If the domestic herd is not adding supply, imports do more of the balancing.

Exports: the packers carcass optimization engine

This is where the domestic narrative often misses the point.

Exports are not just about ribeyes to rich people. A meaningful chunk of export value is in items that clear better overseas than they do at home.

Beef variety meats and specialty cuts have been a material contributor to export volume and revenue in recent years. If exports soften, it is not only “less volume.” It is a mix problem and a value problem, which shows up in carcass value and ultimately in packer margin.

Now combine that with where U.S. exports actually matter most: Japan, South Korea, and China are core destinations, with Mexico and Canada always in the conversation. These trade partners are vital to the packers success, as they largely consumer what the U.S. consumer doesn’t.

So if policy restrictions and tariffs intensify, the export engine does not stop, but it gets more competitive and less profitable.

The volatility drivers that will matter most in 2026

You don’t need a long list. In 2026, the big three are enough to move markets, margins, and consumer affordability in a hurry.

1. Tariffs and trade policy
Tariffs are not an abstract geopolitical talking point. They are a cost input.

When a tariff hits imported beef or imported inputs, the cost shows up first at the importer, then gets pushed through the chain. That matters in 2026 because imports are one of the key tools to cap grind inflation and protect beef affordability in a tight domestic supply year.

Compounding effects of multi-national tariffs will create more trade volatility in 2026. As China imposed a lower quota on imports of beef, this could shift more imports from Australia and Brazil into the U.S. If the U.S. were to change policy on tariffs, it could change the trajectory once again.

2. Currency
Currency is the quiet multiplier.

(The Big Bad Packer)

A stronger U.S. dollar generally:

Makes U.S. beef less competitive in export channels
Makes imported beef more attractive into the U.S. market

A weaker dollar generally does the opposite.

In a year like 2026, when domestic supply is tight, currency can shift the balance fast. It can change whether exports clear cleanly, whether imports show up quickly, and whether packers get enough help from trade to keep the carcass moving without margin bleeding even more.

3. Mexican cattle imports and border flow risk
If you want a volatility lever that can reprice regional supply, this is it.

Live cattle flows from Mexico are not just a footnote. When those flows change, the impact is strong:

Regional cattle availability shifts
Plant procurement gets tighter or looser depending on location
Cow and grind economics can move because the system is already tight

In 2026, this is a real risk category because border actions, animal health protocols and enforcement can change quickly. Even without a full shutdown, added friction at the border can slow movement and create the same effect as a supply shock in the regions that rely on those cattle.

That is why Mexican cattle imports belong in the “big three.” It’s not because they drive the entire U.S. supply curve. It’s because they drive volatility when the overall system has no slack.

Tariffs and affordability: the 96% reality check

Here’s the part that should get more airtime in beef circles, because it connects directly to affordability.

New research from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy found that U.S. importers and consumers bear about 96% of the tariff burden, with foreign exporters absorbing only about 4%.

Why this matters in beef trade:

When out-of-quota tariffs or broader tariff actions hit imported beef, it behaves like a consumption tax.
It raises the cost basis for imported product.
And those costs tend to get passed through, which makes beef affordability harder for the consumer, not easier.

So in 2026, imports may be bullish in volume and necessity, but tariffs can still make them an expensive form of relief.

2026 Global Trade Watchlist

Weekly import pace and pricing for lean trim and manufacturing beef
Live cattle flow changes tied to SPS and animal health actions
Currency moves that change export competitiveness and import appetite
Any new tariff actions, plus the pass-through reality that importers and consumers bear most of the cost

Trade conclusion: 2026 is a margin year, and trade is a major lever

Trade volatility in 2026 will be a major swing factor in:

Packer profitability (carcass value and placement options)
Cow prices and grind economics (lean availability and import cost)
Consumer affordability (whether imported relief is available and affordable)

The cattle inventory report tells you the domestic supply base stays tight. That makes the U.S. more reliant on imports for balance. But policy and tariff realities tell you that “reliant” does not mean “cheap.”

— Hyrum Egbert authors the biweekly “ The Big Bad Beef Packer ” newsletter, which takes a look at packinghouse truths, trends and tough questions.

2026 Beef Economics Starts With One Problem: There Are Not Enough Cattle

Fri, 06 Feb 2026 14:09:07 GMT

If you are trying to handicap 2026 beef economics, start here. The cattle cycle is still the cattle cycle. Biology does not care about your quarterly plan, your fixed costs or your “just run harder” pep talk.

USDA is already penciling in 2026 commercial beef production at 25.735 billion lb., down from 26 billion in 2025. That is not a cliff, but it is a smaller beef pile, and it is built on tighter fed cattle marketings that heavier weights only partially offset.

To be blunt, 2026 is a year where we keep selling through inventory faster than we can rebuild it. That supports cattle prices, but it also sets up a high-volatility year for anyone who has to keep a chain moving.

The Supply Baseline: Smaller, Tighter And Slower to Fix

Put 2026 in context with a few anchors:

2022 commercial beef production was about 28.3 billion lb., a recent high-water mark.
USDA’s current estimate for 2025 is 26.000 billion lb., down roughly 4% from 2024.
USDA’s current forecast for 2026 is 25.735 billion lb., down about 1% from 2025.

(Big Bad Beef Packer)

If you average 2021 through 2025 using USDA’s reported totals and the 2025 estimate, you land around 27.24 billion lb. That makes the current 2026 forecast roughly 5.5% below the recent five-year average.

That gap matters because it is not “a little tight.” It is tight enough that small shifts in weights, placements or slaughter can swing prices and margins quickly.

The Pipeline View: Feedlot Inventory Shows the Tightness

The cleanest “inventory in motion” lens is the Cattle on Feed report.

(The Big Bad Beef Packer)

On Jan. 1, 2026, cattle and calves on feed (1,000+ head lots) totaled 11.5 million head, down 3% from Jan. 1, 2025.

Inside that total:

Steers and steer calves: 7.02 million head, down 3% year over year, about 61% of total inventory.
Heifers and heifer calves: 4.44 million head, down 3% year over year, about 39% of total inventory.

Now the sell-through evidence. December flows:

December placements: 1.55 million head, 5% below December 2024.
December marketings: 1.77 million head, 2% above December 2024.

This is the simple math behind the point. The industry is moving cattle out at a pace that is not being fully replenished.

And this is where the reality check matters: one month does not make a trend. But in a tight cycle, it does not take many months of this pattern to turn the second half of the year into a procurement knife-fight.

Regional Callouts: Same Cycle, Different Pain Points

Even with a national lens, regional differences are where supply turns into logistics and logistics turns into dollars.

The Jan. 1 on-feed totals show the familiar concentration and the subtle shifts that matter:

Texas: 2.53 million head on feed, down year over year.
Kansas: 2.39 million head on feed, roughly steady year over year.
Nebraska: 2.62 million head on feed, up slightly year over year.

That is not just trivia. It changes freight, plant draw areas, procurement spreads and which regions feel tight first.

Heifer Retention: The Real “When Does it End” Question

Everyone wants a straight-line answer to when the herd rebuild shows up in volume.

Heifer retention is the throttle on expansion, and when heifers are still being used as a pressure valve, rebuilding takes longer. The Cattle on Feed inventory still shows heifers at roughly 39% of total on-feed inventory, and both steers and heifers are down year-over-year. That is not a screaming expansion signal.

Translation: 2026 is positioned as a tight supply year. If herd expansion is coming, it will show up in heifer retention — even lower cattle on feed numbers and higher prices.

Weights: The Lever That Makes 2026 Look Less Tight Than It Is

This is the part the market routinely underestimates.

USDA’s January outlook explicitly says the 2026 production forecast is supported by heavier expected carcass weights, which are expected to offset fewer fed cattle marketings.

And the most recent slaughter data shows why that assumption exists.

In December 2025, beef production was 2.298 billion lb., up 4% from the prior year, while cattle slaughter was 2.58 million head, up 2%. The average live weight was 1,463 lb., up 32 lb. year-over-year.

That is the weights story in plain English: even in a tight cattle environment, pounds can keep showing up longer than people expect.

But do not confuse “weights can help” with “weights fix it.” Weights are a cushion, not a parachute.

Cow Slaughter and Lean Supply: The Ground Beef Undercurrent

When cow slaughter stays elevated, you can temporarily add lean beef into the system. That can help ground beef availability near term, but it is usually a loud signal about the longer-term pipeline. I am not going deep here, but the point is simple: In a tight cycle, watch cow slaughter like a hawk because it can mask tightness today while worsening tightness tomorrow.

We will dive further into cow slaughter, lean trim and ground beef in the next part of this series.

Animal Health Risk: A Volatility Trigger That Behaves Like Supply

USDA APHIS is actively tracking New World screwworm ‘s status and response efforts, and CDC notes there are currently no cases in the U.S., while outbreaks in Mexico and Central America are a concern for livestock and monitoring.

Markets do not wait for confirmation. Headlines alone can move futures and basis, and trade or movement restrictions can function like a supply shock in the regions most exposed to those flows.

Many, myself included, believe it is a matter of when NWS hits the U.S., and not if it will. When it does, it will likely result in quarantines, trade restrictions and other impacts to the industry. Keep an eye on NWS.

Who Feels The Pain And When

Packers feel the most pain first. Tight cattle supply collides with fixed costs and the need to run consistent chain speeds. That is where margin gets ugly, fast.

Feedlots feel more pain later, especially late summer and fall. As the inventory pipeline thins and replacement economics stay expensive, the easy placements disappear and the market forces discipline.

2026 Domestic Supply Watchlist

What we will be watching on domestic supply:

Cattle on feed, especially placements of lighter cattle as the leading indicator for second-half fed supplies.
On-feed inventory and its composition (steers versus heifers and overall level).
Marketings’ pace relative to placements. Watch for multi-month patterns.
Carcass and live weights, the cushion that can hide tightness until it suddenly cannot.
Cow slaughter cadence, as the near-term lean supply valve and long-term pipeline tell.
Plant operating tells: Saturday kills, overtime, chain speed adjustments and procurement spreads in key regions.
Regional basis and freight tells, especially where on-feed inventory is shifting.
Screwworm headlines and official status updates, because this is a volatility trigger even when the base case is “no U.S. cases.”

Domestic Supply Conclusion: 2026 is a Rationing Year

If you only take one thing from this, remember 2026 is not the year the cattle cycle fixes itself. It is the year the industry learns how to ration a smaller supply base without blowing itself up.

Yes, weights can help. Yes, there will be months where production looks better than feared. But the system is still running with fewer cattle than it was built for, and that reality shows up first where fixed costs live. Packers feel it immediately because you cannot run a plant on hope. You run it on cattle.

So the domestic supply outlook for 2026 is straightforward: tighter availability supports cattle prices, but it also increases margin volatility, widens regional friction and raises the penalty for being wrong on procurement timing.

— Hyrum Egbert authors the biweekly “ The Big Bad Beef Packer ” newsletter, which takes a look at packinghouse truths, trends and tough questions.

Providing You a Front-Row Seat to CattleCon

Mon, 02 Feb 2026 11:51:09 GMT

For beef industry stakeholders, CattleCon is one of the most anticipated annual events, bringing together thousands of producers, feedlot managers, suppliers, researchers and industry professionals.

As the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) Convention & Trade Show, CattleCon combines business, education, innovation, entertainment and networking opportunities.

Of course, one of my favorite sessions each year is the CattleFax Outlook session, which will be Thursday morning. The CattleFax team will also provide a glimpse into what 2026 and beyond have in store for the industry.

I also look forward to the NCBA Trade Show, where the latest in equipment, technology, pharmaceuticals and feed supplements can be found under one roof.

There are some new events planned for this year as well:

The new marquee stage on the trade show floor will host several dynamic education sessions and industry conversations spotlighting innovation, leadership and community.
The Prime Cut Awards event on Tuesday evening will feature the presentation of the National Environmental Stewardship Award and Beef Quality Assurance Awards.
There will be a sustainability forum on Thursday, which focuses on legacy in action. Serving on the panel will be producers and experts who have navigated — and are navigating — the challenges of succession planning and generational transfer, a big topic for many in the beef industry today.
Also on Thursday will be the NCBA town hall, an open state of the industry forum where producers and NCBA leaders tackle the issues shaping the beef business.

Throughout CattleCon, keynote general session speakers, including Dale Earnhardt, Jr., Jon Acuff and Jimmy Yeary, are sure to inspire and spark innovation. I think there will be a lot of exciting discussion in the sessions and on the trade show floor.

Overall, I believe there are five key reasons to attend CattleCon:

Education and Innovation: Access the latest in cattle care, handling and industry trends through Cattlemen’s College, Learning Lounges and Cattle Chats. Some topics covered include reproductive success, herd health and risk management.
Networking: Connect with producers, industry leaders and suppliers from across the country to form new business relationships and share best practices. At the core of CattleCon is the unparalleled networking opportunity. Whether you’re a seasoned rancher or new to the field, the convention connects you with industry leaders, innovative peers and potential partners. It’s a melting pot of expertise, experiences and passion for cattle.
Trade Show: Explore the massive trade show floor to see cutting-edge technology, equipment and services designed to improve operational productivity and profitability.
Advocacy and Policy: Participate in shaping the future of the cattle industry by influencing Checkoff and policy priorities.
Career Development: For students and new producers, the event offers specialized opportunities to connect with industry leaders and explore job opportunities.

It will be an eventful week. I’m looking forward to our Farm Journal team being in Nashville to bring our readers, listeners and viewers highlights of the meetings, educational sessions and more. You won’t want to miss Chip Flory live for “ AgriTalk ” broadcasts on Wednesday and Thursday from our Drovers booth No. 310. Tyne Morgan will tape a live U.S. Farm Report at noon on Wednesday from the marquee stage, and Michelle Rook will be doing reports for AgDay and her “Market News Now” podcasts from Nashville on Tuesday and Wednesday. Andrea Bedford, our Bovine Veterinarian editor, and myself will be producing a special CattleCon enewsletter that will be distributed to Drovers Daily subscribers on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday.

There’s no doubt I’m excited about the opportunity to learn and network with beef producers from across the country. I can’t wait to share with you, our Drovers readers, what I discover. I’ll be looking for strategies to share that will help make you more profitable.

Tradition Reimagined: The National Western Stock Show Enters a New Era

Tue, 20 Jan 2026 20:08:17 GMT

Legacy, tradition, the place to be in January — the National Western Stock Show (NWSS).

When I reflect on my younger years and the early days of my career, there’s no doubt I valued my annual trip to Denver for the NWSS. I looked forward to the chance to see some of the best beef genetics from across the U.S. and Canada. There was nothing like standing on the catwalk in the Yards and taking in the impressive view of pen after pen of bulls on display. And on the Hill, it was the Super Bowl of cattle shows.

NWSS was a chance to network with some of the leading seedstock and commercial producers, as well as chance to see some of the hot new sires.
While I understand and respect the showring does not reflect the commercial industry today, at one time NWSS was an elite event where commercial producers came in droves to purchase bulls from the Yards.

Today, the NWSS is a 16-day livestock show with more than 25 different cattle breeds and many other species of livestock. With more than 12,000 head of livestock moving in and out of the gates each year, visitors can watch traditional competitions including breeding, market and showmanship, or those primarily aimed for recreation or companionship — llamas, alpacas, poultry and stock dogs.

Last week, I had a chance to attend NWSS with my dad. It was an annual trip for us when I worked for the Angus and Hereford associations. Each year, he would hitch a ride with me and take in the activities on the Hill and in the Yards.

I’ll be honest, I’ve not been to Denver since COVID. My work and family schedules did not allow for my annual trip to the Mile High City.

(Angie Stump Denton)

New Facilities, New Perspective

Arriving at the facilities on Thursday, I was stunned and speechless. Where once was the history and tradition of the Denver yards is an impressive, state-of-the-art, beautiful new facility.

According to the NWSS website , the facilities beyond NWSS activities will host concerts and festivals, farmers markets, sporting events, trade shows and conventions, as well as office space, business incubators, classes, public art, cultural events, family activities and shops. Just two miles north of downtown Denver, the site is a unique opportunity to connect the rural and urban economies and become the new epicenter of innovative agribusiness.

Throughout the weekend while catching up with beef industry friends, including exhibitors and spectators, the common theme was: “Wow.”

This was the fourth year for the Stockyards Event Center and the updated Yards . While I admit I miss the famous catwalk and the chance to gaze over the pens, the updated pen space and showring are a welcome upgrade for exhibitors and spectators.

Opening for the 2026 event was the Sue Anschutz-Rodgers Livestock Center with a 17,760 sq. ft. arena. The new arena was spacious with amazing lighting, screens and sound. The cattle were exhibited on green turf. The stall area was also updated with many exhibitors commenting on the air quality in the barns, adequate electricity and good wash racks — the important things to cattle exhibitors.

Also new this year was the Legacy building. This building serve as the home to all members of the National Western family. It was built to be a gathering place, gallery and a watering hole for friends, cowboys and art lovers alike. This building was breathtaking .

Historical photos from the Yards and the Hill.

1 of 4:

National Western Stock Show

2 of 4:

National Western Stock Show

3 of 4:

National Western Stock Show

4 of 4:

National Western Stock Show

Times Change, Yet Tradition Continues

While NWSS exhibitors and spectators were excited about the updated facilities and the newness of the showring, you could still feel the tradition and legacy of the NWSS as you watched the show and walked through the Yards.

Since the first Stock Show in 1906, it has been a place where generations of beef producers have spent time reuniting with friends, learning about new genetics and techniques and doing business, year after year.

I can’t wait to watch my sons and future grandkids exhibit in the new facilities as it hosts future NWSS and junior nationals.

The New Food Pyramid Flips the Script

Tue, 20 Jan 2026 15:23:25 GMT

If you grew up in the 90s, the original Food Guide Pyramid was basically burned into your retinas: a wide base of bread, cereal, rice, and pasta, then fruits and vegetables, then dairy and “meat,” and at the tiny tip, fats and sweets.

That picture did more than decorate classrooms. It shaped a whole era of product development, menu planning, and “health” marketing.

Now, in January 2026, the federal government is rolling out a new, inverted pyramid under the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (2025 to 2030) that’s pushing the opposite message: prioritize whole foods and protein, and stop living on refined carbohydrates and highly processed snacks. The document is short, blunt, and intentionally practical: less philosophy, more marching orders.

And here’s the part that matters for beef: these guidelines are not just consumer advice( consumers are typically slow to change their dietary habits on their own). They’re positioned as the foundation for federal feeding programs, including school cafeterias, military and veteran meals, and other nutrition programs. In other words, this isn’t only going to influence grocery carts in the beginning. It’s going to influence government contracts across the country.

That’s where the demand curve starts to move.

The 1992 pyramid didn’t “cause” ultra processed America, but it made it easy

Let’s be fair about history. The 1992 pyramid didn’t tell people to eat Pop Tarts. But it did align perfectly with the low fat, high carb era that rewarded food companies for turning “healthy eating” into industrial math:

Start with grains and starches
Strip out anything inconvenient
Add sugar, binders, stabilizers, and shelf life
Advertise it as “heart healthy”
Call it a win

Even the official pyramid framework emphasized grains heavily, with the classic 6 to 11 servings per day guidance commonly associated with that era.

And what did America actually do over the decades that followed? We didn’t become a nation of people eating 11 servings of whole grains and a sensible portion of lean meat. We became a nation where ultra processed food became the default operating system.

The CDC’s most recent national data shows Americans are getting about 55% of daily calories from ultra processed foods (Aug 2021 to Aug 2023). Longer term research lines up with that reality:

Among U.S. adults, ultra processed foods increased from 53.5% of calories (2001 to 2002) to 57.0% (2017 to 2018).
Among U.S. youth, ultra processed foods increased from 61.4% (1999) to 67.0% (2018).

So the honest takeaway is this: The food pyramid of 1992 didn’t singlehandedly create the modern diet. But the “carbs as foundation” messaging fit perfectly into a system that industrialized food.

What the 2025 to 2030 guidelines are saying now, and why it’s different

The new Dietary Guidelines place a stake in the ground on three fronts:

Protein goes first: The document explicitly calls for prioritizing protein foods “at every meal” and gives a higher, bodyweight based target: 1.2 to 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day.
Refined carbs and highly processed foods get targeted directly: It calls to significantly reduce refined carbohydrates (white bread, packaged breakfast items, flour tortillas, crackers) and to avoid highly processed salty sweet foods (chips, cookies, candy), pushing people toward nutrient dense, home prepared meals.
Fats get a cultural nod, without removing the ceiling: It recommends prioritizing oils with essential fatty acids (example: olive oil), while also naming butter or beef tallow as “other options.” It still keeps the familiar note that saturated fat “should not exceed 10% of total daily calories.”

Whether you love or hate the optics around this rollout, the policy direction is clear:

Whole foods up. Refined carbs down. Protein front and center.

The procurement angle: this doesn’t stay in your kitchen

Both HHS and USDA messaging around this release explicitly frames the guidelines as impacting federal procurement and feeding programs, including school meals and military and veteran meals. Bloomberg Government’s coverage goes further, describing the guidelines as the basis for programs feeding tens of millions across schools, military bases, and veterans’ hospitals, and notes the sheer scale of government food assistance spending.

This matters because when guidelines change, institutions don’t “debate” them on social media. They translate them into:

menu requirements
nutrition standards
bid specs
vendor compliance
eligible product lists

That’s how nutrition guidance becomes demand.

Why that points to ground beef, and not ribeyes

If you tell institutional foodservice operators, schools, bases, cafeterias, hospitals, “protein at every meal,” you’ve given them a constraint system:

Protein grams per plate must rise
Budgets do not magically rise
Operational simplicity still rules (cook, hold, serve, portion at scale)

That combination does not send buyers running to ribeyes and tenderloins.

It pushes them toward cost effective, versatile, scalable proteins, and in beef, that means ground beef.

Ground beef works in everything. It can be blended into dozens of menu formats. It’s familiar. It’s easy to portion. And it fits the “whole foods, less processed” narrative far better than many industrial, formulated alternatives.

So when the government says “more protein plus real food,” the most likely beef beneficiary is not steaks, but ground beef.

Now the constraint: herd levels and the lean trim gap

Here’s the uncomfortable truth about ground beef: it’s a balancing act.

Most of the U.S. fed cattle system produces a lot of fat trim, and ground beef production requires sufficient lean trim to blend into desired lean points. When lean trim supply tightens, the system doesn’t magically invent it. It imports it.

The USDA’s official inventory report showed all cattle and calves at 86.7 million head on Jan. 1, 2025, down 1% year over year, with beef cows at 27.9 million head (also down). Tight cattle numbers don’t just mean “higher steaks.” They also constrain the supply of the raw materials that flow into ground beef, especially lean components.

On the ground beef side, land grant analysis lays out the mechanics clearly: lean trimmings from cull cows and bulls are a primary source for lean ground products (85s, 90s), and when cow slaughter declines, domestic lean trim production declines, while fed cattle production still generates fat trim.

What fills the gap? Imports.

USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service explicitly notes that U.S. beef imports mostly consist of lean trimmings used for processing into ground beef. Land grant commentary from Oklahoma State makes the same point: imported beef trimmings augment domestic lean supplies and allow the industry to utilize more domestic fat trim to produce ground beef.

So if federal feeding programs truly move toward “more protein at every meal,” and ground beef becomes a practical workhorse to meet that goal, you don’t just create demand for beef. You amplify demand for the lean trim side of the grind equation.

Which strongly implies: More ground beef demand plus tight domestic cattle numbers equals more imported lean trim to balance the meatblock.

The tallow subplot: seed oils down, animal fats up, and why it ties into beef

The seed oil conversation is messy, loud and often more cultural than clinical. But the consumer behavior trend underneath it is real: People are turning away from “industrial edible products” and gravitating toward “ingredients your grandparents recognize.”

The new guidelines are clearly trying to ride that wave by explicitly naming butter and beef tallow as cooking fat options (while keeping the saturated fat ceiling language).

For beef, that matters because it reframes fat from “byproduct” into “ingredient”:

tallow as a pantry staple
tallow as a premium cooking medium
tallow as a whole animal utilization story consumers actually understand

Even if the nutrition debate continues, the market signal is: whole foods and traditional ingredients are back in style.

My prediction

This is not a “steaks are back, baby” story. (They never left)

This is a “protein becomes policy” story.

If schools, military and veteran meals, and government cafeterias implement the guidance the way it’s being framed, more protein, more whole foods, less refined carbs, then the lowest friction beef solution is higher utilization of ground beef.

And because ground beef is a blending business, that demand doesn’t stop at domestic slaughter numbers. It pulls on the lever the market already uses: imported lean trimmings. We will see an even greater need for more imported trim. That increase, baring any tariff showdowns, will likely come from Brazil and Australia.

So yes, if the new pyramid actually makes it from PDF to procurement, the beef complex will feel it.

Not first in ribeyes. First in grind.

— Hyrum Egbert authors the biweekly “ The Big Bad Beef Packer ” newsletter, which takes a look at packinghouse truths, trends and tough questions.

Nalivka: A Positive Track Forward for the U.S. Beef Industry

Tue, 13 Jan 2026 14:13:40 GMT

The U.S. beef industry has experienced significant and positive change over the past five years, and while there is a great deal of discussion concerning U.S. cattle numbers and the impact on beef production, the greater issue is consumer demand.

While it might be easy to develop a comfort level regarding forecasting either the supply of or demand for beef based on key factors, I would strongly suggest it is probably now necessary to think beyond the historical data. The economic incentives are shifting, and subsequently, this creates a shift in the overall industry economics.

Typically, as economists assessing the livestock and meat industry, we think about cattle numbers in terms of the cattle cycle or the expansion or liquidation of the inventory in response to forage availability and/or returns to cow-calf production. A third factor that is often not mentioned is industry structure and the make-up of cow-calf operations regarding size, location and their motivation to own more or fewer cows. This is important, particularly in the current period of record-high prices and cash returns to cow-calf operations.

I have discussed it frequently, but the average cow-calf operation has about 40 cows. More important, for many of those operations, running cows is secondary to crop farming. These smaller operations with fewer than 100 cows account for 91% of the total cattle operations in the U.S., and it is their decisions that largely change beef cattle inventories. Ranchers with 100 to 500 cows account for about 8% of the beef cattle operations.

Heifer retention and growth in the cattle inventory is largely driven by the 91% of operations with fewer than 100 cows, and I think it should be noted that these operations do not generate enough net revenue to suffice as the sole income although 2025 could be an exception.

The point is another source of income has always been required to support the people who had 100 cows or fewer and while 2025 might have changed that situation, it also created the opportunity to reduce debt and put money in the bank rather than increasing the size of the cow herd if the forage is available, and I think that is the conclusion of many smaller operators. Financial certainty became the objective rather than betting against market risk.

There has been meaningful change across every sector of the U.S. beef industry, and while change offers opportunity, it can also increase risk. It is safe to say the changes that have occurred, some subtle and some significant, have had a permanent impact on industry dynamics regarding costs, capacity, marketing and profitability, and ultimately, those dynamics will impact long-term decisions by people in all sectors of the industry.

I doubt if there is any argument about the cattle numbers over the next two or three years. The real question is beyond the next two to three years.

The High Cost of Breaking Up Big Beef

Mon, 12 Jan 2026 15:55:39 GMT

After years of hearings, headlines and hashtags about “meatpacker monopolies,” regulators finally swing the hammer: the four largest U.S. beef packers are forced to split, sell plants, or spin off divisions. At a stroke, the industry’s most visible concentration disappears from the org chart.

The narrative would be simple: we broke up the Big 4, so markets are finally free!

The economic story would be a disaster.

What the Big 4 Actually Do Today

Start with the baseline. USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) estimates that the four largest beef packers buy about 85 percent of all steers and heifers in the United States (before the Lexington plant closure). That level of concentration did not appear overnight. In 1980, the top four handled roughly a third of purchases. By the mid-1990s, that share had climbed to around 80 percent as plants became much larger and many small, high-cost facilities closed.

ERS’s review of decades of research comes to an uncomfortable but important conclusion: moving slaughter to larger, more efficient plants clearly cut per-head processing costs.

The Verdict: The Cost of Efficiency - According to James MacDonald of the USDA ERS, the math is inescapable: “The industry’s largest plants can deliver meat to buyers at costs 3 to 5 percent lower than plants only a quarter as big.” In a low-margin business, 5% is the difference between profitability and plant closures.

Consolidation gave packers some leverage, yes. But the efficiency gains were so large that cattle producers and consumers were still better off overall than under the old, fragmented structure.

If We Break Them Up: Where the Costs Go

No matter how you structure a breakup (caps on regional market share, forced divestitures, or bans on multi-plant ownership) the basic economic effects are identical:

You take existing plants and make them smaller or less integrated.
You raise total system costs.
Those costs must land somewhere.

Producers: More Fragility in Practice - At the cow-calf and feedlot levels, the political promise is simple: more packers = more bids = better prices.

That may happen for a short period. But over time, the economics bite. Smaller, de-scaled plants have higher fixed costs per head. Without a large balance sheet behind them, these plants are exposed to bad margins, droughts, and disease events.

Dr. Derrell Peel, a livestock economist at Oklahoma State University, has warned about the dangers of ignoring these market fundamentals: “Anytime politics trumps economics, the strong supply and demand fundamentals that have determined the outlook for the industry become irrelevant.”

A forced breakup trades concentration with scale for fragility without scale. Over a full cattle cycle, more plants will fail outright during long-cattle, poor-margin periods, stranding local cattle and hammering basis when it hurts most.

Labor and Plant Communities

One of the social arguments for a breakup is that it would revive smaller, “local” packing plants and rural jobs. Reality check:

Data from 2007 to 2019 show that small slaughter plants have been disappearing, while plants with 500+ employees have held steady. This is largely due to financial viability to ride out the cattle cycle storm.
Wages: Larger plants generally pay higher average wages because they can spread fixed costs and offer stable employment.

If you push the system toward smaller firms, someone has to fund the higher labor costs per pound. In most cases, that means lower cattle bids or higher boxed beef prices. It does not, and cannot, mean higher cattle prices AND lower beef prices.

Quality and Food Safety

The modern Big 4 model is built around high-volume, high-specification production. Large plants run advanced grading camera systems and data collection that allow them to support branded programs (Prime, Certified Angus, Non-Hormone Treated, etc.) from the same chain.

Fragment the packers, and that investment evaporates. Smaller, under-capitalized plants will be slower to invest in the next generation of food safety and yield prediction technology. Furthermore, it detracts from quality that the consumer is demanding. Over the past several years, we have seen increases in per capita beef consumption. Taking away from investment and R&D will result in quality that will suffer or fail to meet the demands of the consumer.

With the ever-increasing number of regulations and government oversight on food safety, the big four are able to shoulder the financial burden and create food safety programs that span multiple plants and use best practices. Fragmentation of the big 4 would result in a reduction of food safety program effectiveness and innovation.

Feeding the World or Handing the Ball to Someone Else - By 2024, exports accounted for nearly 14 percent of U.S. beef production. That value helps support the entire supply chain. But competitors like Australia are actively ramping up grain-fed capacity.

If the U.S. deliberately undermines the scale and reliability of its beef packing sector, we make it harder to offer large, consistent export programs. We aren’t “fixing” the market; we are handing market share to Brazil and Australia.

What Happens to Consumers?

The popular promise is: break up big packers and beef will get cheaper. The likely outcome is the opposite.

Higher Average Costs and More Volatility - Agricultural economist Jayson Lusk has analyzed what actually drives price spreads. His research on industry resilience found that shocking the system doesn’t help: “Increasing odds of shutdown results in a widening of the farm-to-retail price spread even as packer profits fall, regardless of the structure.”

Breaking firms apart does not fix capacity constraints. It simply makes the system more expensive to operate. Consumers will see this as higher average prices and sudden spikes in ground beef costs when smaller plants go down.

The Counter-Points

Advocates for a breakup usually rely on three core arguments. On the surface, they sound intuitive. Under the microscope of actual market data, they crumble.

Argument 1: “More Plants Equal More Resilience”

The Theory: If we have 50 small plants instead of 4 giant ones, a fire or cyberattack at one facility won’t cripple the national supply. It creates “redundancy.”

The Dismantling: This confuses operational redundancy with financial resilience. While 50 small plants offer physical options, they lack financial armor. A giant packer can absorb a year of negative margins, a massive recall cost, or a sudden export ban. A small, standalone plant cannot. In a fragmented system, a market downturn doesn’t just mean lower profits; it means a wave of bankruptcies. We trade the risk of a temporary bottleneck for the risk of permanent capacity destruction.

Argument 2: “Small Packers Will Pay Ranchers a Fairer Share”

The Theory: Strip away the “monopoly power” of the Big 4, and the competition will force new, smaller packers to bid up cattle prices, returning a larger share of the retail dollar to the rancher.

The Dismantling: This ignores the “efficiency dividend.” Small packers might want to pay more, but they simply cannot afford to. Recall the ERS data: huge plants operate at significantly lower costs per head. That efficiency creates a surplus that gets shared between packer, consumer, and producer. If you force the industry back to a high-cost structure, the “pie” shrinks. You cannot distribute perceived wealth that has been eaten by inefficiency.

Argument 3: “Regulation Will Fix the Broken Market”

The Theory: Government mandates on cash trade and plant size will level the playing field.

The Dismantling: Industry economist Nevil Speer has spent years analyzing the collision between political mandates and market realities. His conclusion is a stark warning to those inviting government into the cattle pen: “One-size-fits-all government overlays are rife with unintended consequences... Bottom line, if you’re mad at ‘the packer’, be careful what you ask for; one fix always leads to the need for another fix and so on.”

Speer further notes that the industry’s success doesn’t come from regulation, but from listening to the consumer: “The industry’s track record is proof positive: the right focus has always been, and will always be, directed towards the consumer – improving quality and consistency and growing beef demand. That’s where opportunity happens.”

The Law of Unintended Consequences

Beyond the direct costs, a breakup would likely trigger four “hidden” side effects that almost never get discussed but would hit the industry immediately.

1. The Retailer Revolt (Vertical Integration) - If the government breaks up the Big 4 to “save” independent ranchers from corporate power, they might inadvertently hand the industry to a different corporate power. Giant retailers hate volatility. If a breakup makes the packing sector fragmented and unreliable, retailers will not sit idle. We are already seeing this with Walmart’s case-ready facilities and Costco’s poultry complex. A breakup would likely accelerate this trend, replacing “Big Beef” (who buys from many feedlots) with “Big Retail” (a closed loop owned by the grocery store).

2. The “Drop Credit” Collapse - The “drop credit” (the value of hides, tallow, and variety meats) can add $150 to $200 per head to the value of a steer. The Big 4 maximize this value through massive rendering infrastructure and global export networks. Small, fragmented plants often lack the volume to justify this equipment. Instead of selling these parts for profit, they often have to pay to throw them away. This destroys value per head, directly lowering the price they can pay the rancher.

3. Environmental Regression - Breaking up plants is bad for the environment. Large plants use significantly less water and energy per pound of beef produced due to advanced reclamation systems that small plants cannot afford. A fragmented industry would likely result in a higher carbon and water footprint per burger.

4. The Capital Freeze - A forced breakup isn’t a clean surgery; it’s a messy divorce that would likely take a decade of litigation. During those years, no packer will invest in upgrading plants or fixing bottlenecks because they don’t know if they’ll own the plant next year. The industry infrastructure would rot in place while lawyers argue, leaving producers with aging, inefficient plants.

The Bottom Line

If we forcibly break up the Big 4, we do not get a storybook cattle market where hundreds of small local packers bid up cattle and sell cheap steaks to grateful consumers. We are more likely to get:

Higher costs per pound.
Less investment in safety and R&D.
Weaker export competitiveness.
A supply chain that fails loudly during the next drought.
A reversion to packer concentration when plants fail.

Concentration does not automatically mean collusion, and fragmentation does not automatically mean fair. If we genuinely care about competition and resilience, the smarter path is NOT to smash the system and hope for the best. It is to shine light on how markets work, discipline bad behavior where we can prove it, and preserve the scale we need to keep beef on the global menu.

Caveat on Small Plants

Smaller, regional plants have been popping up across the country. These plants are important to the overall system, but do not serve the industry in the same way as the big 4. Smaller plants can serve niche markets, geographical locations, or consumer preferences that large packing plants can’t efficiently service. However, they simply cannot provide the scale to feed the growing population that efficient, commodity focused plants can. To survive, their strategies must rely heavily on product and claims differentiation, e-commerce, and “local” attributes that drive increased value over traditional commodity products.

— Hyrum Egbert authors the biweekly “ The Big Bad Beef Packer ” newsletter, which takes a look at packinghouse truths, trends and tough questions.

Your Next Read: Ghosts of Packing Past and Present

Ghosts of Packing Past and Present

Wed, 31 Dec 2025 21:24:16 GMT

If you’ve ever read (or watched) A Christmas Carol, you know the formula: you don’t learn much by staring at one snapshot of life. You have to compare past vs present to understand what changed, what didn’t, and what everyone conveniently forgets.

That’s exactly how I want to frame the packer conversation, because “packer concentration” gets argued like a bumper sticker. And the truth is: concentration has existed in multiple eras, but the rules of the game changed dramatically.

Packer Past (prior to 1980): Not a fairy tale, not all evil

Let’s be honest: when people romanticize the “old days,” they usually mean a single piece of the old days that is void of greater context.

1. Economics
The good:

Scale, refrigeration, rail, and national distribution drove major efficiency gains over time. That’s real.
Consistency increased: product specs, distribution reach, and “you can buy beef in places that don’t raise cattle” became normal.

The bad:

Consolidation isn’t a modern invention. Concerns over the “power of the five packers” were serious enough to trigger major federal investigation and reporting in the early 1900s. Federal Trade Commission
When an industry is concentrated and lightly constrained, the incentive to squeeze upstream sellers and downstream buyers becomes… let’s call it “tempting.”

2. Rural development
The good:

The system created demand and market access. It built supply chains that didn’t exist previously.

The bad:

The value capture tended to concentrate in key hubs and the corporate center of gravity, not necessarily in the cattle country towns doing the hard work.

3. Food and people safety
The good:

The Past is where the modern safety framework began (even if it took decades to mature).

The bad (and this is the headline):

The early 1900s were bad enough, and public enough, that Congress enacted landmark reforms in 1906. The Meat Inspection Act’s purpose was to prevent adulterated/misbranded meat from being sold and to ensure sanitary slaughter/processing. Encyclopedia Britannica
The Jungle didn’t invent the problem, it broadcast it, and it accelerated the political will to regulate.

4. Consumer affordability
The good:

Industrialization and scale helped keep food more available to a growing, increasingly urban country.

The bad:

“Cheap” often meant costs were being pushed somewhere else: worker conditions, sanitation, and fair competition. And when the public finally sees the sausage get made, literally, regulation shows up.

Past-era takeaway: The “Packer Past” was not a competitive utopia. It had power, concentration and ugly externalities.

This is exactly why the country built the early rulebook.

Packer Present (current): High scale, high rules, high scrutiny

Fast forward. Today’s packing system is a different animal; still concentrated, still controversial, but operating inside a far heavier framework.

The concentration reality (yes, it’s big)
USDA ERS summarizes a long trend: by 1995 the largest four firms accounted for 81% of steer/heifer purchases, and by 2019 steer/heifer purchases were effectively in the mid-80% range (and hogs around 67%). Economic Research Service

So yes... When people say “the Big 4,” they’re not hallucinating.

But here’s the nuance most takes skip: ERS also notes that a wave of research found only limited evidence that concentration by itself reduced cattle prices in the way the loudest narratives claim.

Translation: market outcomes are multi-factor: cycle, supply, demand, capacity, labor, energy, exports/imports, and risk premiums all matter.

1. Economics
The good:

Modern packing is a logistics and utilization machine: boxed beef, cold chain, byproduct value recovery, standardized specs, national distribution.
Efficiency is the hidden force that keeps beef available at scale.

The bad:

High scale can mean high fragility. When a big node breaks (labor disruption, cyber, fire, contamination event), the ripple effect is immediate and expensive.

2. Rural development
The good:

A major plant can be the economic anchor for an entire region: jobs, tax base, secondary services, transportation networks.

The bad:

Anchors cut both ways. When a large plant slows or stops, rural communities feel it first and hardest, because there aren’t ten alternative employers or buyers sitting across the street.

3. Food and people safety
The good (this is the biggest “then vs now” difference):

Modern packer concentration exists inside a system with dramatically more oversight capacity and legal structure than the early 1900s. The U.S. isn’t relying on vibes and newspaper exposés anymore; it’s relying on law, inspection, enforcement, and science.
And the competition/fair practice rulebook is explicit: the Packers and Stockyards Act exists to assure fair competition and trade practices and protect producers and consumers from unfair, deceptive, discriminatory, and monopolistic practices.

The bad:

“More regulation” does not mean “no problems.” It means failures are less tolerated, more trackable, and more punishable.
And when something goes wrong at scale, the consequences are also at scale.

4. Consumer affordability
The good:

Efficiency and scale still matter to affordability. A fragmented system would almost certainly raise per-unit costs (and consumers already feel stretched).

The bad:

Consumers experience price spikes and assume it must be a single villain. But affordability is driven by a web: cattle costs, capacity utilization, labor, transport, demand, and global trade flows. Concentration becomes the easiest punching bag, even when it’s not the sole, or even a large, driver.

Present-era takeaway: Today’s concentration is real, but it’s not the same beast as early 1900s concentration because the governance environment is radically different: stronger safety law, stronger enforcement, more transparency, more consequences.

The Comparison We Should Make

Here’s the cleanest way to say it: Packer concentration “then” often existed in a world where the rulebook was thin and enforcement capacity was immature. Packer concentration “now” exists in a world with thick rules, formal inspection regimes, and far higher consequences for bad behavior.

That doesn’t make modern concentration “good” or “bad.” It makes it different, and you can’t solve a “different” set of problems with the “same” argument.

Cliffhanger: Packer Future (next newsletter)

In A Christmas Carol, the third spirit isn’t there to entertain; you get shown what happens if the current path doesn’t change.
So in my next article, I’ll tackle Packer Future:

what happens to affordability, cattle procurement, rural America, and resiliency if we keep stacking capacity in fewer nodes,
what happens if policy swings hard (antitrust, trade, labeling, labor),
and what happens if the consumer finally hits the ceiling and demand stops politely cooperating.

Because whether you love big packing or hate it… the future is going to ask the system to do more with less margin for error.

Stay tuned for the Packer Future … because that’s where it gets spicy.

— Hyrum Egbert authors the biweekly “ The Big Bad Beef Packer ” newsletter, which takes a look at packinghouse truths, trends and tough questions.

Sports Partnerships Are a Smart Investment in Beef's Future

Tue, 30 Dec 2025 13:55:21 GMT

As a beef producer raising a young family in the Black Hills of South Dakota, I think a lot about the future of our industry. Like many producers, I’m proud of the work we do, and I want to make sure the next generation has the same opportunities.

That’s one reason I serve on the Cattlemen’s Beef Board, which oversees the Beef Checkoff. I also serve on the Checkoff’s Promotion Committee, which helps guide investments that build confidence in beef’s nutrition, safety and responsible production.

In that role, I’ve seen how important it is to meet consumers where they already are. Today, one of the best places to do that is in the world of sports and entertainment.

Many producers ask why they don’t see Beef. It’s What’s For Dinner. ads on TV like they used to. The reality is that national TV advertising is extremely expensive, and it reaches an audience that’s already more likely to eat beef. The Checkoff has a responsibility to invest producer dollars where they can make the biggest impact. And that’s by reaching consumers who eat less beef, have questions about how it’s raised or live in regions where beef demand has room to grow. Sports partnerships can offer that kind of smart, targeted reach.

A great example is the work happening in the Northeast through the Northeast Beef Promotion Initiative (NEBPI). This region’s huge population has tremendous purchasing power. NEBPI partners with both athletic teams and student-athletes , using a mix of team sponsorships and Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) agreements to reach Northeast fans and young consumers where they gather. These on-field and athlete-driven activations help beef connect with audiences in ways traditional ads often can’t.

Across the country, State Beef Councils are leading equally creative efforts. The Kansas Beef Council partnered with the Kansas State football team’s offensive line — the “protectors” —to help tell beef’s story in a fun and relatable way.

Texas , Iowa and Colorado have run their own athletic activations, from stadium promotions to community race events to college partnerships. These efforts help keep more Checkoff dollars close to home while engaging the students, families and fans who will shape beef demand in the years ahead.

Sports partnerships also give us the chance to highlight beef’s strong nutrition story — something I care about personally as a beef producer and as a member of the Promotion Committee. Programs like Build Your Base provide performance nutrition education, refueling stations and hands-on experiences for athletes and families, all backed by current science. These efforts help reinforce what many of us already know: beef delivers high-quality protein, iron, zinc and B-vitamins that support strength, recovery and endurance.

Recent reports from the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission — a federal health initiative focused on improving diets and reducing chronic disease — have reinforced that message. The commission’s report highlighted the benefits of high-quality protein like beef. For producers, it’s encouraging to see national nutrition discussions acknowledge what we already know from experience: beef fits squarely within healthy, balanced eating patterns.

Sports also tap into something many producers understand well: community. Teams, school spirit, mascots and tailgates create traditions passed down through generations. People build memories around those experiences, and food is always part of it. When beef is present in those settings — at tailgates, stadium events or through athlete partnerships — it becomes part of those traditions too. That kind of connection can help build long-term loyalty and demand.

Athletic partnerships might not look like the traditional advertising some of us grew up with, but they’re helping us reach diverse new audiences, build trust and reinforce beef’s role in a healthy lifestyle. If we want to maintain strong demand, we need to be visible in the places where consumers spend their time.

Looking ahead, I don’t know if there’s one single “big opportunity” for beef in the sports world. What I do see is potential across many sports, campuses and communities. The more places we show up with a positive, science-supported message, the more opportunity to influence how people think about and choose beef.

— David Uhrig, Hermosa, South Dakota.
Manager, Mount Rushmore Angus Ranch and Cattlemen’s Beef Board Member

Do Packers Control Cattle and Beef Prices?

Fri, 05 Dec 2025 17:34:20 GMT

This is the next in the series explaining the accusations against the beef packers.

Opening Statements

Charge (Media/Prosecution): The Big 4 suppress cattle bids in a thin cash market, underpay farmers and ranchers, and control what consumers pay for beef.

Defense (Packers): Cash trade shows breathing competition, not lockstep pricing. The beef dollar split does not evidence packer capture, and retail prices are formed largely downstream while wholesale formulas reference negotiated trade.

Ground Rules

Relevant market.

Media: Fed-cattle cash trade is thin; formulas magnify any move.
Packers: Price discovery occurs in regional draw areas; wholesale formulas are anchored to negotiated prices, not unilateral lists.

Burden of proof. Durable market power must appear in outcomes — persistently tight bid ranges, a rising packer take of the beef dollar, and wholesale/retail pricing detached from negotiated bases.

Facts Not in Dispute

Fed-cattle concentration is high.
Wholesale formulas have grown as a share of boxed beef sales.
Negotiated trade (both cattle and wholesale) still exists and is the pricing reference for formulas.

The Media’s Case (Defendant)

Count 1 — Thin cash lets packers control cattle prices

Negotiated cattle sales only account for 12% of all trade in 2025.
Fed-cattle marketing also relies heavily on arrangements; thin cash means a small nudge can move the base.
Packers collude to control prices through different regions at different times.

Count 2 — Farmers and ranchers aren’t paid fairly

Packer fabrication is the chokepoint; if they control bids, the farm share should be squeezed.
Beef packers get rich, while farmers and ranchers struggle.

Count 3 — Packers control consumer beef prices

Because formula sales dominate, packers can push through higher wholesale prices that retailers must accept, ultimately raising the shelf price.

Media’s ask: Find that packers control cattle bids, short the farm gate and dictate consumer prices.

The Packers’ Case (Plaintiff)

Count 1 — Cash is thin, but it’s not collusive; formulas still point to cash

Bid dispersion shows time of major spikes during shock periods. We don’t see continue periods of near zero bid dispersion by region.

(The Big Bad Packer)

Cash cattle sales are at 12.1%, but that is up 202.4% from 2014.

(The Big Bad Packer)

What is the right amount of negotiated trade? 20%, 30%, 50%?

Count 2 — The beef dollar split doesn’t show packer capture

(The Big Bad Packer)

Retailer dollar increased from $1.24 (2000) to $3.70 (2025), an increase of 198%.
Farm dollar increased from $1.49 (2000) to $4.90 (2025), an increase of 229%.
Packer dollar increased from $0.33 (2000) to $0.44 (2025), an increase of only 34%.
Despite the rhetoric, the packer share of total beef dollars has decreased from 10.9% (2000) to 4.9% (2025).

Count 3 — Packers control wholesale prices

(The Big Bad Packer)

Negotiated sales have decreased in recent years, but are still above the 20% mark.
Internal goals for retail, foodservice, and distributors incentivize buyers to buy as close to the USDA negotiated price as possible. Formula sales are a result of such incentives.

Cross-Examination

For the Media

Identify multi-month stretches in Exhibit A where dispersion is near zero through stress periods.
Reconcile a “packer squeeze” with packer at 4.9% and farm at 54.2% of the beef dollar in 2025 (Exhibit C).
Explain how packers “dictate” prices when Exhibit D states formulas typically reference a robust negotiated market.

Jury Instructions (Deciding tests from the exhibits)

Dispersion: Exhibit A must show persistent compression to prove control.
Beef dollar: Exhibit C must show a large, rising packer share to prove capture.
Pricing mechanism: Exhibit D must show formulas detached from negotiated to prove unilateral control.
Spot trend: Exhibit B shows whether negotiated liquidity is eroding or improving.

Verdict (Reasoned)

Bid behavior: Variable and shock-responsive with reversion (Exhibit A).
Economics: Packer value is small and falling in share; farm value is largest and rising (Exhibit C).
Mechanics: Formulas reference negotiated; negotiated participation in fed cattle is up since 2015 (Exhibit B).

Finding: The claims that packers control cattle bids, short producers and set consumer beef prices are not proven on the economic record.

— Hyrum Egbert authors the biweekly “ The Big Bad Beef Packer ” newsletter, which takes a look at packinghouse truths, trends and tough questions.

Your Next Reads:
Do Foreign Powers Control Beef Prices?
Did Meatpackers Collude to Raise Beef Prices?
You Be The Judge: The Big Bad Beef Packers Are On Trial

Why Is Everyone Talking About Sustainability?

Fri, 05 Dec 2025 14:58:05 GMT

Sustainability is a complex, multifaceted concept that extends beyond simple environmental metrics.

The holistic approach to sustainability, as defined by the U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (USRSB), encompasses “socially responsible, environmentally sound, economically viable” practices that “prioritize climate, people, animals and progress.”

Read more about how one California rancher says involvement with USRSB changed his sustainability perspective:
Sustainability Isn’t a Bad Word

Similarly, Matthew Cleveland, ABS Global senior director of global bovine sustainability, says sustainability is fundamentally about stewardship — caring for the land, caring for the animals, caring for our families and caring for our communities. He was a featured speaker during the 2025 Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) Symposium in June.

The global context is critical when considering sustainability. With the world population projected to reach 10 billion by 2050, Cleveland says the focus has shifted from producing more food to producing better food. He explains this means “focusing on the quality of calories, more than the quantity of calories.”

From a producer’s perspective, sustainability is deeply rooted in profitability. Cleveland notes that in a survey of ranchers, profitability was the largest consideration in sustainability discussions.

“Producers have to remain profitable in order to be sustainable,” he says.

Read more about how one ranch focuses on leaving the land better for future generations believing sustainability helps their family be more profitable in the long run:
Profit Meets Purpose: A Rancher’s Guide to Sustainable Success

Consumers view sustainability differently. Surveys reveal people are most concerned about practices like “no antibiotics” and animal management, with environmental factors ranking lowest in their priorities. Understanding consumer perspectives is important when developing effective sustainability strategies.

Environmentally, the beef industry faces significant challenges. Retailers are increasingly focused on reducing Scope 3 emissions, of which beef supply chains can represent up to 96% of total emissions.

“Genetic intervention is the most important practice for permanent reduction of environmental impact on livestock production,” Cleveland says.

His research demonstrates that genetic improvements can deliver tangible environmental benefits. Through targeted breeding programs, they discovered a 5% to 9% reduction in environmental impact per genetic line, a number that compounds over time, potentially reaching 30% to 40% reduction over five years.

The Food and Agricultural Organization supports this approach, identifying genetic improvement as a critical strategy for reducing global emissions. Genetics can contribute to about 50% of interventions identified to reduce climate impacts.

Cleveland says there is “tremendous opportunity to use genetic innovations to drive efficiency and sustainability.” By developing credible, evidence-based approaches, the beef industry can address environmental concerns while maintaining productivity.

According to Cleveland’s presentation, four key strategies for achieving sustainability include:

Continuing to invest in innovation.
Maximizing existing genetic tools.
Developing targeted improvement programs.
Creating integrated supply chains that incentivize sustainable practices.

Producer Perspective

When it comes to sustainability, it is important for beef producers to become part of the story, not ignore it.

“We need to be part of a sustainability conversation and lead the conversation and not be told what to do,” says Joe Lowe, an eighth-generation seedstock producer at Oak Hollow Angus in Smiths Grove, Ky.

Shannon Wharton of Wharton 3C Cattle adds his perspective regarding getting more producer involvement and understanding about the sustainability issue.

“When we talk about sustainability, we have to frame that in a way that producers are going to get engaged,” he explains. “Let’s talk about profitability. Let’s talk about ROI.”

Read more a fifth-generation cattle producer who blends Silicon Valley precision with generational agricultural wisdom. He views himself not just as a cattle producer, but as an ecosystem manager:
I’m a Drover: An Innovator Redefining Ranching

Ultimately, sustainability is about “producing more with less while ensuring we can continue to do that in the future.” It requires a comprehensive view that balances environmental considerations, economic viability and social responsibility.

Sustainability should not be seen as a constraint, but as an opportunity.

“We can create more value for our products and open up markets,” Cleveland summarizes.

Your Next Read:

Do Foreign Powers Control Beef Prices?

Tue, 25 Nov 2025 19:28:17 GMT

This is the next in the series explaining the accusations against the beef packers.

Opening Statements

Charge (Media/Prosecution): Foreign-controlled packers, principally JBS (Brazil), National Beef/Marfrig (Brazil), control the U.S. beef market. Their ability to own U.S. plants and import product from affiliated foreign operations allows them to shape domestic prices and supply to the detriment of U.S. producers and consumers.

Defense (Packers): Foreign ownership is material but not controlling on the total FI market (fed + non-fed). Ownership ≠ price-setting power. Observed prices, spreads, and margins follow fundamentals (herd cycles, capacity utilization, logistics, and retail stickiness), not nationality. Affiliated imports mostly fill lean-trim gaps and are constrained by U.S. regulation and buyer standards.

Ground Rules

Relevant market.

Media: Fed-cattle (steers/heifers) slaughter = the price-setting core for boxed beef.
Packers: Total FI beef (fed + non-fed), measured where procurement is actually contested; regional draw areas (~150–250 miles), not a single national auction.

Burden of proof. Durable market power must be shown in outcomes (prices, margins, spreads) beyond what fundamentals justify. “Foreign ownership” alone is not dispositive.

Facts Not in Dispute (scope and shares)

Fed segment is concentrated; the “Big 4” dominate fed throughput.
On total FI (fed + non-fed), concentration falls meaningfully vs. fed-only snapshots.
Directionally, recent plant-level rollups place JBS as the largest single foreign owner on total FI, National Beef (Marfrig) comes in second.
In many recent years, JBS + National together land in the low–to–mid-30% of total FI production (varies with actual utilization).
Exact annual percentages require a plant-by-plant capacity and realized-throughput table (fed vs. non-fed) for the year in question.

The Media’s Case (Defendant)

Count 1 — Structure & foreign control

Two of the dominant fed packers are foreign-controlled (JBS, National/Marfrig). Combined, foreign parents anchor a large footprint in the price-setting fed segment.

(The Big Bad Packer)

They went from owning 0% of production in 2006 to 34% in 2025

Count 2 — Affiliated imports as a lever

Foreign parents can toggle import flows (e.g., Brazil 0201/0202 muscle cuts; 90CL lean trim) while operating U.S. plants, giving them portfolio options to stabilize boxes and potentially dampen cattle bids in tight windows.

Count 3 — Thin spot + AMA dependence

Negotiated cash is thin in several regions; AMAs/formulas benchmark off LMR spot. In a high-CR4 environment, small scheduling/basis moves by large foreign-controlled firms could nudge a thin benchmark that prices a much larger formula volume.

Count 4 — Shock episodes

Holcomb and COVID produced spread blowouts when capacity buckled. With few owners of chain speed, bottlenecks translate to wider spreads and weaker bids—the pattern, says the Media, of power in action.

Media’s ask: Conclude that foreign-controlled owners possess market-shaping power in fed cattle, reinforced by affiliated imports and thin cash discovery.

The Packers’ Case (Plaintiff)

Count 1 — Market definition & actual shares

“Control of U.S. beef” must be judged on total FI. On that basis, foreign-controlled share is sub-majority and variable; regional draw areas show multiple active buyers with rivalry fluctuating on logistics/outages.
Looking at fed beef slaughter alone, foreign ownership is still well below a majority share (~34%).

(Big Bad Packer)

Other industries (cellular service, Beer) share similar foreign ownership percentages with little to know concern over foreign dominance.

Count 2 — Imports are a composition valve, not a control lever

Most imports into the U.S. complex are lean trimmings (90CL) that balance grinds when non-fed supply is short; supporting retail ground beef, not suppressing fed bids nationwide.

(The Big Bad Packer)

Imports have increased in recent years, as domestic production has curtailed; helping to cure the imbalance of low trim availability for ground beef.
Imported muscle cuts face tariffs/quotas/inspection and retailer specs; they compete rather than dictate.

Count 3 — Outcomes track fundamentals, not nationality

Live ↔ wholesale co-move; spreads widen when utilization falls and compress as chain speed normalizes.
Retail is the enduring spread (category management, labor, packaging, shrink).
Margins cycle and loss periods; incompatible with the idea that foreign owners can set prices at will.
Our bid-dispersion work shows breathing competition, not the near-zero compression you’d expect under coordination.

Count 4 — Owning U.S. plants and importing can be pro-supply

Dual roles increase supply reliability (backfilling shocks, balancing trim needs). All imports must clear FSIS/CBP/LMR and commercial buyer programs; related-party transactions are scrutinized in audits and filings.

Packers’ ask: Foreign ownership ≠ control. Measured on total FI and regional rivalry, the data (dispersion, utilization-linked margins, retail lag) contradict the control thesis.

Character and Governance (Neutral Sidebar)

JBS/J&F bribery history (Brazil) & U.S. context.

Public record shows bribery-related admissions/settlements with Brazilian authorities and FCPA-related resolutions; these events overlap periods of international expansion, including U.S. acquisitions.
JBS has stated it implemented compliance enhancements (ethics programs, third-party controls, internal monitoring).

Why it matters (media’s angle):

Governance failures heighten concerns that global cash flows and portfolio positioning (imports + U.S. plants) could be opportunistically timed to influence markets, warranting enhanced transparency.

Why it isn’t dispositive (packers’ angle):

Misconduct abroad does not prove U.S. price control. U.S. operations face FSIS, CBP, LMR, DOJ/FTC, SEC oversight and retailer audits. If control were exercised, we’d observe persistent supranormal margins and abnormally tight bid dispersion outside shock windows. BOTTOM LINE: we don’t.

Jury Instructions (Deciding Tests)

Shares: Are JBS + National a majority on total FI production? (If no, control of U.S. beef is hard to sustain.)
Dispersion: Do regional bids show abnormal compression beyond freight/quality/utilization?
Utilization model: Do margins/spreads normalize as capacity returns?
Import-timing test: Do affiliated imports systematically depress bids after controlling for composition and retail lag?
Governance relevance: Credibility concerns justify transparency, but they must be corroborated by outcomes to prove control.

Verdict (Reasoned)

Foreign ownership: Material but not controlling on total FI. Fed is concentrated; total FI is less so.
Affiliated imports: Mostly a composition valve (lean trim, timing); not shown to be a standing price lever once fundamentals are controlled.
Outcomes: Bid dispersion breathes, margins cycle (including loss periods), spreads track utilization and retail; not a durable, nationality-based control mechanism.
Governance: JBS/J&F history elevates scrutiny and supports transparency reforms, but it does not establish market control on its own.

Finding: The claim of foreign control of U.S. beef as a durable, market-wide pricing power is not proven on the economic record. Heightened transparency and compliance are warranted; a verdict of control is not.

— Hyrum Egbert authors the biweekly “ The Big Bad Beef Packer ” newsletter, which takes a look at packinghouse truths, trends and tough questions.

Your Next Read: Did Meatpackers Collude to Raise Beef Prices?
You Be The Judge: The Big Bad Beef Packers Are On Trial

Nalivka: Beef Industry Prices Prove the Market is Working

Mon, 24 Nov 2025 13:09:27 GMT

Beef prices are high and the market is working — perhaps, the best it ever has from the cattlemen’s perspective.

Brooke Rollins, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, recently outlined the USDA’s “multi-step plan” to bring down beef prices including:

Releasing 5 million acres of federal land for ranchers to lease,
Implementing programs for young ranchers to get loans,
Working with the “Make America Healthy Again” movement,
Opening new, smaller, processing plants to promote Beef Made in America, and
Buying a larger quota of beef from Argentina.

In that same interview, Rollins also indicated that prices should come down in the spring of 2026 and at least during the second half of the year. Though I understand the politics of consumer prices, those politics are currently inconsistent with the economics of the cattle industry, particularly when U.S. consumer beef demand has been a significant driver to beef prices.

I disagree with both the USDA’s multi-step plan and their assessment of when beef prices will come down. I am not alone in making that statement.

Cattle numbers will continue to decline into 2026 unless there was a considerable number of heifers held as replacements from the 2023 calf crop and bred in 2024 to calve this year (2025). That is not the situation if USDA’s January 1 Cattle Inventory, Monthly Cattle on Feed reports and Cattle Slaughter reports were correct. Aside from the reports, I did not hear any conversation amongst cattlemen they were retaining and breeding heifers to build herds during 2024.

A review of heifer slaughter shows that through the first week of November, it was down 6% from a year ago, but a better comparison might be for 2014 when cattlemen were expanding herds during the previous cattle cycle. That year, herd rebuilding began after eight years of liquidation.

Heifer slaughter through the first week of November this year was up 10% over that same period in 2014. For all of 2014, during herd rebuilding, the industry slaughtered 10% fewer heifers than during 2013 and the cattle inventory grew 1% from the beginning of 2013 to the beginning of 2014.

Though heifer slaughter this year is down 6% from 2024, I do not believe we will see increased cattle numbers for January 2026. Cattlemen did not begin to rebuild herds during 2024. I expect the initial steps of herd rebuilding will begin slowly this year with an increased number of heifers held as replacements from this year’s calf crop.

This herd building scenario will pull down the number of heifers on feed into 2026.

Regarding beef prices, I continue to emphasize that the outlook will be largely dependent upon consumer demand. Regardless of how much supply drops, if consumers are unwilling or unable to pay higher prices, the market will not be sustained.

Did Meatpackers Collude to Raise Beef Prices?

Thu, 20 Nov 2025 16:18:37 GMT

The rhetoric has been loud — the data has been quiet. Today we put “packer collusion” on trial. The question isn’t whether spreads spiked (they did), or whether concentration exists (it does). The question is whether the spikes were the product of an agreement rather than the predictable result of herd cycles, external events and plant utilization.

The Charges

Count 1 — Price-fixing (Sherman Act §1). An agreement among packers to raise or stabilize prices for beef products, while simultaneously lowering prices for cattle.

Count 2 — Output restriction. An agreement to reduce slaughter/chain speeds to elevate wholesale prices.

Count 3 — Bid suppression/market allocation. An agreement to limit competition for cattle (fewer bids, coordinated schedules, regional allocation).

Legal standard (what must be proved):

Agreement (express or tacit) + anticompetitive intent/effect
Evidence must overcome alternative explanations (supply, utilization, demand, shocks).
Civil = preponderance of the evidence; Criminal = beyond a reasonable doubt.

Prosecution’s Case (what would be needed to convict)

1. Direct evidence (smoking guns)

Emails, messages, calls or meeting notes discussing prices/volumes/bid strategy/kill schedules.
Trade-association sidebars where competitively sensitive forward data are exchanged.

2. Economic fingerprints that don’t wash out with fundamentals

Sustained super-normal profits across multiple years after COVID/outages, materially above cost of capital.
Spread persistence: live↔cutout spreads remain abnormally high once utilization normalizes.
Price convergence: regional bid dispersion collapses nationwide even after controlling for freight, quality, weather, and distance to plant.
Coordinated capacity discipline: parallel slowdowns or kill cuts not attributable to labor, maintenance, or regulation.
Procurement anomalies: bid rotations, unusual “no-bid” patterns across buyers, punishment for undercutting.

3. Patterns around non-fundamental dates

Spreads jump around communication or lawsuit milestones but NOT around observable shocks (fires, labor, black swan events).

Defense’s Case

Exhibit A: Ground Beef Price vs Cattle Price

(The Big Bad Beef Packer)

Fact: Wholesale & cattle track; as cattle prices rise and fall, so do wholesale ground beef prices.
Data points: Only major deviation occurred during COVID, when store shelves were cleared out and production capacity experienced a major shock.
Interpretation: Wholesale ≠ packer margin; category management, labor, and packaging explain much of the higher wholesale gap.

Exhibit B: Operating Margins - Oligopolies

(The Big Bad Beef Packer)

Fact: Packer margins rise and fall with herd expansion, market shocks, and capacity constraints. Other oligopolies, such as wireless carriers, see similar price changes; albeit at a higher operating margin level.
Interpretation: If a beef “cartel” existed, you wouldn’t see loss years; losses are consistent with rising cattle costs outpacing cutout during tight supply + throughput frictions. Further, oligopolies see fierce competition, which, when kept in check, produce better quality and a cheaper value for consumers.

Exhibit C: Price Spreads

(Economic Research Service - Meat Price Spreads)

Fact: Wholesale to farm meat spreads have seen only modest increases over the past 50 years; COVID is the outlier. Retail to wholesale spreads tell a completely different story.
Interpretation: What farmers are paid for cattle and packers are paid for beef align across more than half a century (outside of COVID). Contrarily, the price consumers pay at the retail counter has been a runaway train.

Exhibit D: Beef Dollar by Industry Segment

(Economic Research Service - Meat Price Spreads)

Fact: From 1970 to 2025, packers’ % of the beef dollar has decreased 7%, farms’ % of the beef dollar has dropped 10%, while the retailer has increased 18%.
Interpretation: Prior to packer concentration concerns, 1970-1980, the packers’ % of the beef was 12%. From 1981 to 2025, the average drops to 9%. While a modest bump was seen in the years following the last cattle cycle downturn (2013-2015), the past 10 years were only 12%.

Observed facts that CONTRADICT a cartel:

Spike & reversion: Spreads fall back as utilization recovers.
Regional dispersion: Basis/bids vary by region and plant outages.
Loss years: Public P/L shows red ink; cartels won’t tolerate that.
Retail stickiness: Category pricing and costs break any 1:1 pass-through story.

Jury Instructions (how to weigh the case)

Step 1: Do utilization, herd, and shocks explain the lion’s share of spread variation?
Step 2: After controlling for these, is there a durable, unexplained elevation consistent with agreement?
Step 3: Do we have direct communications or procurement anomalies consistent with coordination?
Step 4: Do profits remain consistently super-normal across normal periods?

If the answer to Steps 2–4 is no, reasonable doubt remains.

Verdict

Count 1 (Price-fixing): Not Proven. The clearest spread spikes coincide with capacity shocks (Holcomb, COVID) and herd dynamics; spreads compress as plants normalize. No durable, post-shock elevation or persistent super-normal profits are shown in the long-run data.

Count 2 (Output restriction): Not Proven. Throughput reductions align with cattle availability/labor/safety/maintenance realities. We lack evidence of coordinated slowdowns absent operational and cattle inventory causality.

Count 3 (Bid suppression/market allocation): Not Proven. Regional dispersion and loss years undermine a national coordination story. Absent documentary evidence or procurement anomalies, the burden is unmet.

Final finding: The price behavior is best explained by herd cycles + utilization + retail stickiness. The prosecution has not cleared the economic or legal bar for collusion.

“Sentencing” (reforms that actually help)

Even with a “Not Proven” verdict, the system can work better. Apply remedies that lower volatility and raise trust:

Spread transparency: A consistent, public gross spread definition (Comprehensive Cutout + Drop − 5-Area Live) published monthly.
Data access: Encourage scanner data and regional basis publication, with clear methodology notes.
Voluntary labeling: Keep MCOOL program-based and auditable; don’t sell it as a price-lowering tool.
Targeted trade tools, not blunt ones: Avoid broad Section 232 quotas/tariffs that raise consumer prices on lean trim without fixing supply.

Closing

The market doesn’t need a scapegoat to explain beef prices. It needs throughput, better transparency, and a shared understanding of the facts.

When we measure the right things — herd size, utilization, spreads, and the composition of imports — the picture is coherent.

That’s the truth. It’s less thrilling than a soundbite and far more useful to ranchers, feeders, packers, retailers, policymakers, and consumers.

— Hyrum Egbert authors the biweekly “ The Big Bad Beef Packer ” newsletter, which takes a look at packinghouse truths, trends and tough questions.

Your Next Read: You Be The Judge: The Big Bad Beef Packers Are On Trial

You Be The Judge: The Big Bad Beef Packers Are On Trial

Mon, 10 Nov 2025 17:09:45 GMT

Beef prices rise and fall for the same unglamorous reasons they always have: supply cycles, plant utilization and downstream demand. That story doesn’t fit in a headline, so the search for villains keeps returning — secret control, foreign dominance and collusion.

This article addresses three claims head-on:

Packers colluded to raise prices
The BIG 4 and foreign-owned firms control U.S. beef
Packers set cattle and retail prices at will.

The truth is less thrilling than a press conference or soundbite, but it is, well... the truth!

Debunk No. 1: Packers colluded to raise prices

Many have said the BIG 4’s decisions to settle price fixing claims out of court is an admission of guilt. However, through many industry contacts, the true nature of the price fixing settlements came from each firm deciding it was far cheaper to settle than to continue paying legal fees. While this was understandably logical, it created more scrutiny as it made the packers look guilty — even if they were innocent.

If collusion were the driver, you wouldn’t see a continued increase in the spread between wholesale and retail prices, nor would you see packer spreads expand and contract with plant utilization bottlenecks.

Herd cycles drive the baseline. When the national herd tightens, prices lift. When the herd rebuilds, they ease.
Margins behave within supply constraints, operational efficiencies and consumer preferences — not conspiracies. Spreads widen when plants can’t run (labor, downtime, COVID, etc.), and compress when chain speeds normalize.
The “spike” periods line up with observable shocks, not back-room meetings.

Exhibit A - Ground Beef - Who Should the Consumer Blame for Higher Prices?

(The Big Bad Beef Packer, Hyrum Egbert)

2011 to 2013: Ground beef spread between retail and wholesale = $1.64/lb.
2023 to 2025: Ground beef spread between retail and wholesale = $3.22/lb.
Spikes in wholesale price, away from the dressed cattle price, are reflective of COVID and the lingering effects of the glut of cattle in 2021 and 2022.
The price reflected in retail does not translate to the packer.

So what? Collusion isn’t required to explain any of the big moves. The cattle cycle and plant utilization do the heavy lifting.

Debunk No. 2: The BIG 4 and foreign-owned packers control U.S. beef

This talking point usually leans on fed-cattle concentration and then generalizes to the entire beef market. That’s a category error. While the BIG 4 have between 80% to 85% of the fed production capacity, they only have about 50% of the non-fed beef production.

Counting all federally inspected beef (fed and non-fed) changes the picture. Non-fed volume (cows/bulls) is material and not monopolized by any single group.
Concentration is variable — not a one-way march. The BIG 4 share has moved with investment cycles, openings/closures and permitting/labor constraints.
Profit data doesn’t match the control story: persistent, outsize returns would be the tell. Outside of shock windows, long-run segment margins in public filings sit in the low single digits (see the Tyson graph below).

What portion is foreign-owned? Using total FI production (fed + non-fed) rather than fed-only stats, the combined share held by foreign-owned firms JBS and National Beef is meaningfully lower than headlines.

A reasonable, plant-by-plant roll-up over the last decade typically places their combined share in the low–to–mid 30% range of total FI beef, varying by year as capacity and throughput shift. The exact value depends on which year you pick and whether you measure capacity or actual production. But in either case, it is well below “control of the whole industry.”

While it is important for the country to keep tabs on foreign-owned interests, especially in our food supply chain, we should be careful about miss-characterizing their actual influence on the market.

So what? Ownership headlines make noise; capacity and throughput make prices. The practical chokepoint for ranchers, feeders, and consumers is capacity resilience; labor, downtime, logistics, permitting, not the nationality of owners.

Debunk No. 3: Packers control cattle and retail prices

Prices move because the chain is… a chain. Live cattle trade into the wholesale cutout, and wholesale gets translated into retail categories with delays, packaging, labor and merchandising layered on top.

Key points:

Live ↔ wholesale co-movement is structural. Cattle supply and plant speed determine how quickly shocks pass through and how wide spreads get.
Retail is sticky by design. Grocers price to categories and promotions — not to a daily cattle quote. That’s why your ground beef figure shows wholesale and cattle tracking while retail moves on a different cadence.
And if packers truly “set” prices, they wouldn’t periodically lose money for more than year at a time. Yet, they do.

Exhibit B - Profit Margin by Segment

(The Big Bad Beef Packer, Hyrum Egbert)

Sterling publishes a Beef Profit Tracker that outlines expected returns by segment in the industry.
Adapting this information and overlaying Dressed Cattle Price and the Choice Cutout, it becomes clear that market control is clearly not in the hands of the packer (or anyone).
The accelerated rise in cattle prices, due to supply, has outpaced the cutout and led to major packer losses.

Exhibit C - Tyson vs S&P

(The Big Bad Beef Packer, Hyrum Egbert)

Tyson Beef versus S&P: ~4% average segment operating margin across 17 years. Only the COVID dislocation produced standout highs. That’s not a price-setting juggernaut. That’s a cyclical, asset-intensive business struggling to survive.

So what? Why would the beef packers, with all the alleged control over prices and markets, lose money some years, and underperform equity markets by more than 50%?

Notes for policy staffers (pragmatic, data-first)

Country-of-Origin Labeling (beef): Don’t sell mandatory labels as a price-lowering tool. Past scanner data didn’t produce a durable retail demand lift. Keep origin claims voluntary and program-based for customers who will pay.
Imports: Incremental flows are predominantly lean trim, offsetting non-fed shortages and keeping grinds available. Blunt Section 232 quotas/tariffs raise consumer prices without fixing structural supply.
Grazing/public lands: Additional acreage helps over time, but herd rebuilds are multi-year and capital-intensive. Anchor expectations in timelines, not headlines.
Transparency: Back consistent monthly reporting on capacity utilization and live↔cutout spreads, plus better outage reporting. Reducing rumor gaps lowers volatility without picking winners.

Brief Rebuttal FAQ

“If there’s no control, why did packer margins spike in 2020?”
Because capacity collapsed. When dozens of shifts vanish, wholesale outruns live supply. Spreads narrowed as chain speeds recovered.

“Don’t foreign owners dominate U.S. beef?”
Not really. On total FI beef, JBS + National Beef generally sit in the low–to–mid 30% combined share, moving with capacity and production each year; not domination.

“Would mandatory origin labels fix retail prices?”
No. They add cost and didn’t produce a durable demand bump last time. Voluntary, auditable programs capture premiums without taxing everyone.

“Retail doesn’t track cattle, doesn’t that prove manipulation?”
Retail is category-managed and sticky. Labor, packaging and promotions add inertia. That’s why wholesale/cattle co-move while retail moves on a different cadence.

Conclusion

The U.S. beef complex doesn’t need a boogeyman to explain price behavior. It needs sober arithmetic and better throughput. When you measure the right things — herd size, utilization, spreads and the composition of imports — 25 years of history line up. The truth may be boring. It’s also what helps ranchers, feeders, packers, retailers and consumers make better decisions.

Your Next Read: Trump Asks DOJ to Investigate Meatpackers over Beef Prices

— Hyrum Egbert authors the biweekly “ The Big Bad Beef Packer ” newsletter, which takes a look at packinghouse truths, trends and tough questions.

Nalivka: The Key to Record Beef Prices

Mon, 27 Oct 2025 11:11:05 GMT

The USDA released its plan Wednesday to “ fortify the American beef industry .” The plan is based on “strengthening ranches, rebuilding capacity, and lowering costs for consumers.”

Wow! Where do I begin in my assessment? I do know that any response does not require 25 pages of text. If I boiled it down to my initial reaction, the first statement I will make is the beef industry, and specifically the ranching sector, does not need a government plan to make the market work.

The market is working. That is why we have record-high prices and the most profitable year on record (at least for the cow-calf operating margin that I calculate goes back to 1972).

Throughout 2025, I have discussed (with emphasis) that beef demand is the driving force pushing beef prices to a record high and, furthermore, maintaining prices at or near those record highs.

This year’s strong demand for beef is driven by quality — consistent quality. I would submit that without this significant and positive shift in demand, record-high prices across the supply chain likely would not be sustained — even with cattle numbers at a 75-year low.

In a recent release, Certified Angus Beef echoed my statement. The 47-year-old brand reported annual sales of 1.235 billion lb. worldwide. This is one of its strongest years and reflects consumers’ continued taste for premium beef.

Consequently, any statement about lowering beef prices so beef would be more affordable for “every” consumer must begin with reducing demand.

What? Obviously, reducing demand to lower beef prices to any business in the beef supply chain would be a bad strategy. Furthermore, it would be negative to herd expansion.

The impetus to herd building is:

profitability for cow-calf ranchers.
grazing conditions.
the outlook for continued profits and grazing.

I will once again point out that the industry in 2025 will produce about 700 lb. of beef per brood cow with 37.2 million total cows (both beef and dairy).This is the lowest total cow herd since 1941, and that year the industry produced 213 lb. of beef per brood cow.

Part of the increase can be accounted for by the number of dairy-beef cross calves that are now being produced.

There was also a statement regarding imported beef. The U.S. imports beef to supplement our production of lean grinding beef, a key component for ground beef.

This is particularly important this year when our cow slaughter is down sharply following significant herd liquidation from 2021 to 2022. Cows are the primary source of lean grind.

In 2025, U.S. beef imports are projected to be up 13% (Sterling) against last year’s 24% increase. U.S. beef exports will be down 10% in response to tariffs.

Once ranchers begin retaining heifers to expand herds, it takes two years before a larger cattle herd is realized and then into a third year for the production from that larger inventory to hit the market.

The significantly increased production efficiency noted above will play a role increased beef production. That will have an impact on the market.

Boom! USDA’s mission accomplished — prices fall and so does the rancher’s and cattle feeder’s margin. This is part of the impetus to maintain herd numbers — producer profits.

With today’s production efficiency, herd expansion will likely have a greater impact on the market: good for consumers who want beef at a much lower price, but bad for producers enjoying solid operating margins.

Enhancing cattle production begins with supporting an industry driven by the market forces of supply and demand unhindered by regulations.

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

Cattle Economics: Is the Beef Industry Killing Elephants or Cattle?

Thu, 16 Oct 2025 17:00:54 GMT

No, the beef industry is not killing elephants. However, the industry’s live slaughter weight is averaging more than 1,400 lb., which is about 10% of the size of a mature elephant.

The title of this article is not meant to be distasteful, but it is meant to catch a person’s attention. As the industry works through the lowest beef cattle inventory since 1951, participants have combated the lower number of cattle by growing them larger in the feedlot.

Cattle slaughter weights have changed — just as beef production has — through the years. Hopefully, this information will balance some of the storyline of a smaller beef cattle herd.

Increasing Slaughter Weights

The weekly average live weight for slaughtered cattle at the time of this writing is 1,414 lb., which is 21 lb. heavier than the same week one year ago, and 58 lb. heavier than the same week in 2023. Thus, slaughter weights have increased 4.3% in two years.

This compares to cattle weights of 1,335 lb. in 2014 when prices were at record levels up to that point. Thus, it is clear cattle feeders have really been pushing cattle to heavier weights the past couple of years.

This may be enough information to put cattle weights in perspective, but more historical weights may drive the message home. For instance, the average slaughter cattle weight the same week in the year 2000 was 1,228 lb., which is approaching 200 lb. lighter than today.

The increasing weights in and of themselves fail to put it into full perspective. Consider the quantity of cattle being slaughtered on a weekly basis is in excess of 500,000 head. This means there were more than 10 million more pounds of live weight during one week in 2025 compared to the same week in 2024 — and closer to 30 million lb. more than the same week in 2023.

The bottom line is: it does not take as many cattle to produce the same quantity of beef.

For example, total domestic beef production in 2025 is estimated to be 26.4 billion lb. This compares to 27.1 billion lb. of beef production in both 2023 and 2024. Despite reduced cattle slaughter rates in 2025, the increased weight of cattle is staving off large production declines. Again, to place these values in more of a historical context, fewer cattle today are producing more beef than in 2014 when beef production was 24.3 billion lb.

Impact of Beef Imports and Exports

Despite this plethora of information, it still does not fully address why beef prices and cattle prices are so strong. One would also need to consider beef imports and exports, the quantity of domestic and international beef consumers and beef demand in general. All of these factors influence beef and cattle prices. The point is that cattle inventory is not the only variable in this equation as beef markets are extremely dynamic.

Since this article has focused on the supply side, it is important to make some observational comments. The first is that the market cannot grow cattle to be the size of elephants anytime soon. The industry may be able to add more pounds to a carcass, but both production and marketing challenges will be faced if animal weights continue to increase.

Second, the cattle industry does not need as many cattle as it had some certain number of years ago. The quantity of cattle is important, but it is not the end all and be all.

Lastly, cattle producers will grow the herd when profitability is sufficient to do so. The market is probably there, but how quickly will the industry retain females to grow the herd?

One last thought is that this is not a difficult concept. If it were a challenging concept to understand, then this author would probably be doing something else for a living. A little bit of critical thinking to go along with data can be revealing.

Your Next Read: 15 Insights on the State of the Beef Industry

Nalivka: The Cost of Regulations on Ranching

Mon, 13 Oct 2025 10:59:28 GMT

Reading about the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) concern for farmers and ranchers brings one thought to mind — the impact of regulations. While I believe Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins has the best of intentions for U.S. agriculture, I am not sure how the government can play a role in building cattle herds other than to reduce regulations that lead to increased costs of production.

With their finances benefitting from record-high cattle prices, I do not believe America’s ranchers need any assistance from the USDA to build cattle herds. Aside from the key issues I have discussed over the last several months that are currently playing a role in that decision, I tend to get nervous when I see the words government and herd building in the same sentence!

Secretary Rollins was on the right track when she indicated in her Sept. 25 Memorandum of Understanding that the agency’s “commitment to understanding and protecting U.S. ag producers from “burdens imposed by high input costs.” Taking that statement to the next step, many of those high input costs are related to or are the direct result of regulations.

There are many costs associated with raising cattle, but a large share of those costs is associated with grazing. Drought that limits or totally derails grazing is a key factor of the cattle cycle. Grazing is the primary resource for raising cattle and in the Western U.S., a large share of grazing is on federal land. Critical disputes often arise on federal lands that can impact a ranch with a federal grazing permit and oftentimes, impact ranch costs of production. The politics of managing wild horse numbers is one of those.

Wild horses have once again become a major focus as sound grazing management. As has often been the case, the wild horse numbers have simply become overwhelming and in the attempt to remove horses, the Bureau of Land Management has met strong opposition and lawsuits.

This has been a major controversy in southwestern Wyoming. Ranchers who are dependent on federal grazing leases are directly impacted by an issue like wild horses and it is not without a cost, oftentimes, an exceedingly excessive cost. I know this from personal experience as an expert to discuss the cost impact on the ranch in a court case that went on for 15 years.

We know why the U.S. cattle inventory has fallen to a 75-year low and costs of production have played a key role. And, in that regard, the best advice I can offer to Secretary Rollins in her effort to address these rising costs, which I do believe she is sincere in her statement, is to eliminate and reduce regulations on the cattle industry.