Meat

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

Fri, 08 May 2026 18:34:38 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

DOJ Encourages Whistleblowers to Come Forward

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

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

R-CALF USA Applauds Investigation

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

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

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

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

Rollins Links Herd Decline to Regulatory Pressure

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

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

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

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

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

Rollins argues drought alone is not responsible for cattle liquidation.

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

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

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

Rollins says additional announcements are expected later this week.

Agri Stats Settlement Targets Information Sharing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Industry Analysts Push Back on Concentration Claims

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

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

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

Nalivka also disputes the administration’s market concentration figures.

(Sterling Marketing Inc.)

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

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

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

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

(Sterling Marketing Inc.)

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

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

Producers Need Packers

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calls for Structural Reform Continue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your Next Reads:

CAB Insider: April 29

Wed, 29 Apr 2026 23:14:17 GMT

Fed cattle prices moderated slightly in last week’s trade with a $2/cwt. decline to average $246/cwt., just off the record high observed two weeks ago.

Last week’s 529,000 harvested total appears robust in a season when an erratic pattern of weekly head counts has bounced between 502,000 and 529,000 since mid-March. No doubt, worsening packer margins have been the overriding theme — intertwined with the temporary JBS Greeley, Colo., plant shutdown — through this time frame.

(Certified Angus Beef)

In reviewing total federally inspected harvest numbers, it’s important to factor in the normal seasonal decline in cull cow harvest during the spring. This year, the cull dairy cow harvest has declined from 60,000 head per week to 50,000 per week (-16%) from mid-February through early April. In the same period, cull beef cows have pulled back from 40,000 head to about 36,000 head (-10%) weekly. The confirmed year-to-date total cow harvest is down 4.6% compared to last year, whereas the fed steer and heifer total is down 8.8%.

The month of April closes out with a bang as live cattle futures set new record highs. With one day left on the contract, April live cattle traded at $256.35/cwt. by noon Wednesday. New highs will be recorded this week in the spot market as well, with Tuesday’s fed cattle business primarily conducted at $255/cwt., a $9/cwt. leap since Friday.

On the boxed beef side of the ledger, the market has recently eased lower in expected seasonal fashion from March through April. As the calendar turns to May, the smaller fed cattle harvest volume has turned a bit higher, driven by increasing end-user volume needs. Even so, market anticipation is that spot beef demand will get a boost from overall tighter supplies and continued consumer demand.

Beef Month Anticipation

May is “Beef Month,” and many in the supply chain are anxious to see what this important season has in store for cattle and beef values. So far in 2026, consumers have shown strong support for the most preferred protein in the market. Yet higher cutout values may test demand as higher gasoline prices and weakening consumer sentiment raise caution.

A look at wholesale prices indicates that demand for middle meat — steak — remains seasonally mixed, with CAB ribeyes recently priced at $11.80/lb., 14% cheaper than a year ago and 7% cheaper than a month ago. A strong weakening in the rib price trend in April is not uncommon, as three of the last five years saw a similar downtrend, while 2021 and 2025 featured a rapidly increasing rib market. A conservative estimate suggests wholesale ribeyes could rise above $14/lb. by June, adding nearly $40 of value per carcass.

Tenderloin demand typically increases modestly ahead of Mother’s Day, with just a 14% increase from February seasonal lows to early May. This year has featured a 4.5% softening of wholesale CAB tenderloin prices for the season since early March.

Strip loins are the classic “in demand” steak cut for spring, with a 26% price increase dating back to Jan. 1 through June over the past five years. This year’s price pattern is developing near expectations, with a recent 6% pullback from the March high. There is plenty of room for strip loin prices to increase 15% by late June.

(Certified Angus Beef)

Shifting focus to the lower-priced steak options shows strong recent demand for these cuts. CAB top sirloin butts had a massive price run in the first quarter, with a 22% increase into mid-March. This uncharacteristic early demand has since corrected lower, but historic sirloin price patterns suggest a potential 15% wholesale increase by mid-June.

The loin complex is currently boosted by chart-topping ball tips, priced at an amazing 50% increase over a year ago and a stout 44% higher than early February. This popular item for Cinco de Mayo typically gets a small seasonal increase ahead of the early May holiday. This year’s unexpectedly high demand suggests broader use of the cheaper cut, even as the current $6.67/lb. wholesale average nears its record high of $6.90/lb. touched briefly during the pandemic shutdowns. Also from the loin primal, CAB tri-tips are recently 31% pricier than a year ago, steadily higher within seasonal expectations. In keeping with other loin items, tri-tip prices are historically expected to increase by another 23% through June.

Briskets, flanks and plates combine to make up just 15.5% of total carcass weight. Unfortunate, given that these lighter primals are seeing some of the stoutest demand, marked by major price increases, of any beef cuts. The average price increase across the three is 38% over a year ago, while the total CAB cutout price is just 15% over a year ago.

Carcass cutout values show a promising setup with plenty of room to run higher over the next 60 days. Underpinned by ground beef prices, grilling demand should pull not only ribeye and strip loin prices higher, but also a handful of value steak items, which will likely gain attention as consumers budget their beef buying. Anticipated spot market demand growth will be important to keep processing margins moving in the right direction as fed cattle costs mark new record highs.

From Defense to Offense: A New Rulebook for Livestock Emissions

Wed, 22 Apr 2026 19:30:40 GMT

For years, livestock producers have been characterized by global emission averages that often fail to account for the efficiencies of modern U.S. production. A new report released by The Meat Institute entitled, “Greenhouse Gas Accounting: Emissions Factors Brief,” provides the “rulebook” for producers to prove their actual footprint rather than being defined by generic estimates.

The report offers a closer and comprehensive look at how companies across the animal agriculture supply chain are measuring and reporting upstream greenhouse gas emissions. It’s a core component of the industry’s commitment to the Protein PACT, aiming for transparent and continuous improvement in sustainability.

“This report is intended as a practical resource for companies throughout the meat and poultry supply chain to better understand how emissions data are developed, to ask clearer questions of data providers, and to build strategies that reflect their operational realities,” says Meat Institute President and CEO Julie Anna Potts. “The report also outlines current knowledge gaps and points to where practical guidance and coordination could help improve alignment throughout the supply chain.”

The brief focuses on the Scope 3 emission factors (indirect emissions occurring in the supply chain) used for beef, pork and poultry, and highlights areas where approaches differ across data sources, system boundaries and calculation methods.

Key Takeaways

• Standardization of Metrics

Using uniform emission factors across the sector is needed in animal agriculture. This ensures that sustainability data is consistent, comparable and credible for stakeholders and consumers. Reported emission factor values span a wide range across proteins, often due to differences in functional units, geographic assumptions, and whether impacts such as land use change are included or reported separately.

• Transition to Primary Data

The Meat Institute encourages moving away from generic global averages in favor of high-quality, peer-reviewed Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) data that reflects specific regional and production practices.

• Alignment with Global Standards

Global statistics often penalize U.S. producers by grouping them with less efficient international systems. The industry is asking for more clarity and consistency—so reporting is easier to understand and supports better decisionmaking. The guidelines are designed to help member companies align their reporting with international frameworks, including the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol and the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). This allows producers to use specific data to showcase how high-quality genetics, nutrition and management result in lower emissions per pound of meat produced.

• Closing the Data Gap

By providing clear methodology, The Meat Institute aims to help companies of all sizes overcome technical barriers to reporting, facilitating an industry-wide move toward “net zero” targets.

The Meat Institute is creating a new resource hub to help the industry—and everyone in its supply chains—tackle greenhouse gas reporting in a clearer, more practical way. This will allow the industry to move away from reacting to external criticism to setting the benchmark for what sustainable protein production looks like using peer-reviewed science.

Read the full report here: https://www.meatinstitute.org/sites/default/files/documents/Meat_Institute_Emissions_Factors_Brief.pdf

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.

CAB Insider: April 15

Thu, 16 Apr 2026 12:24:23 GMT

The fed cattle market has been on an exceptionally bullish trend for the past two weeks. As if the wildly aggressive $10/cwt. price increase two weeks ago wasn’t enough, last week’s trade featured yet another $3/cwt. jump to the amazement of most market participants.

CME Live Cattle contract values led last week’s optimism, emboldening cattle feeders to hold a firmer asking price despite the major upswing the week prior. The week’s resulting $248.68/cwt. steer price was highlighted at the top end of the range with $252/cwt. quotes in the northern feeding region.

This week’s market promises to hold further strength as April Live Cattle contracts were valued at $252/cwt. Wednesday morning. Small cash trade volume had already been recorded at $248/cwt. live with additional $390/cwt. dressed on Tuesday.

The strong cattle market has run counter to wholesale boxed beef cutout values, as this week started on a lower-price trend, with Choice boxes down $10/cwt. on Urner Barry’s quote and $5/cwt. on USDA’s report.

(Certified Angus Beef)

The resumption of processing at JBS’ Greeley, Colo., plant last Tuesday held promise for those looking for a larger national fed cattle harvest for the week. Reality set in by week’s end as packers collectively pulled the federally inspected total head count lower to 512,000 head, down 4%, with a fed cattle total of 414,000 head, down 3%. Packer margins have raced backward from decently positive to roughly $200/head negative in the past few weeks.

Spring holidays are lined up in the near future, with increased seasonal volume set to keep the supply chain on edge, as fulfilling large retail volumes requires larger headcounts. Beef demand appears to remain healthy, and a mid-April downturn in cutout values is not uncommon. Last year’s Choice cutout ran up 18% from April 15 through the end of June. Cutout values are 12% to 15% higher than a year ago.

The Marbling Milestone: A Deep Dive into Carcass Grading

The nation’s carcass marbling achievement has never been richer, as USDA data reports the latest record-high USDA Prime share at 15.55% of fed cattle. Year to date, the Prime grade has recorded weekly values of 14% or higher. With USDA Choice giving incremental ground to the growing Prime category, the two grades combine to chart a record 88.1% for the first quarter. In contrast, USDA Select carcasses comprised a new record-low 8% of fed carcasses during March.

Historic highs in marbling outcomes logically suggest that the Certified Angus Beef brand would similarly capture record volumes of Angus-type carcasses, given the brand’s focus on quality and its Modest 00 (Premium Choice) or higher marbling requirement. The importance of marbling among the brand’s 10 carcass specifications can’t be overstated. Several million Angus-type carcasses (often more than 2 million annually) have been evaluated using detailed data since 2012, revealing that 82% to 95% of carcasses failing to meet brand requirements did so due to insufficient marbling. Consequently, the greatest opportunity for improvement or failure in CAB certification rates lies within the marbling specification.

However, in the midst of record-high nationwide marbling outcomes, the brand’s certification rate in March fell to 37% of eligible carcasses — less than impressive in contrast to 41.8% in March 2025. As confusing as this seems, current feedlot economics tell the rest of the story. Cheap corn, increased days on feed and temperate feeding weather combined to push average carcass weights to new heights in March. Twenty-pound leaps in year-over-year weight increases have been a hallmark of the past two years. But the trend since December has held weights to a higher plane than ever. This means that average steer carcasses in the 980-plus lb. range yield a record proportion surpassing the brand’s 1,100-lb. upper limit. Our 2025 annual data review indicated that, of the eligible carcasses failing to meet brand standards, 14.5% of the cause was due to carcasses exceeding 1,100 lb., a significant increase from 8.6% in 2024. It’s a safe bet that this carcass weight fallout rate was higher than 14.5% in the first quarter this year, given that steer weights have not dropped below 981 lb., year to date.

(Certified Angus Beef)

Longer feedlot stays have also generated a steady increase in external carcass fat in recent years. This was highlighted by the 2025 uptick to 9.8% of certification failures in the dataset exceeding the maximum allowable 1-inch backfat thickness. Fallout from excess backfat was basically unchanged, in the 7-8% range, from 2022 to 2024, but will likely be reported higher again in 2026 if first-quarter finished weights are any indication.

In March 2025, the brand adjusted the upper limit for ribeye area from 16 to 17 sq. inches. The move aligned with the evolving cattle supply and resulted in cutting the brand’s fallout rate due to oversized ribeyes in half in the 2025 analysis.

Feedlot economics continue to reward heavier weights, urging cattle feeders to add days as they try to offset the high cost of feeder cattle with a favorable cost of gain. This has yielded unprecedented Prime carcass percentages in grid payment summaries, while simultaneously pressuring CAB carcass acceptance in the last two months. Despite these recent challenges, marbling remains the driver in the brand’s ability to add value to a greater proportion of Angus-type cattle.

CAB Insider: April 1

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 12:22:31 GMT

The fed cattle market has traded in a steady range around $235/cwt. live and $372/cwt. dressed in the past two weeks, roughly $10/cwt. lower than the late February high on a live basis.

The post-report adjustment to the harvested head count two weeks ago pulled that week’s total to a paltry 503,000 head. Last week’s recovery to 520,000 returned the harvested throughput to the lower end of the range seen in the previous four weeks, with an average of 524,000 head per week for the period.

The JBS Greeley, Colo., plant remains closed for the third week now due to labor stoppages at that facility. This, combined with the general tightening of packer throughput, continues to impede harvest volume.

Meanwhile, feedyard cattle inventory currentness appears to be slipping further as combined steer and heifer carcass weights marked a new record high in the latest USDA report for the week of March 8. Steer weights matched their previous high, recorded in December at 989 lb. each, while heifers surpassed their December heaviest weight by 3 lb. to reach 903 lb. apiece.

(Certified Angus Beef)

Weighted average carcass weights for steers and heifers calculate to 955 lb., 43 lb. heavier than the same week last year. The added weight-per-head on 420,000 head of weekly fed cattle harvested is equivalent to an additional 18,900 head. More astonishingly, the latest weights are 67 lb. heavier than those from two years ago, equivalent to an additional 29,500 head at the recent harvest pace.

Carcass cutout values adjusted slightly lower over the past two weeks following an exceptional first-quarter run-up, during which the USDA Comprehensive cutout value increased 12.7% since Jan. 1. The Comprehensive cutout, describing all grades for all delivery periods, reached $400/cwt. in mid-March, a tremendous 21% increase over the same week a year ago. A small correction is certainly understandable at the beginning of April, immediately before Good Friday and Easter holidays. However, packers do have some pricing power to leverage with their wholesale customers at these reduced harvest head counts.

Spring Cutout Confusion

Seasonal shifts historically bring the year’s highest-quality, marbling-rich carcasses to packing plants in March. This phenomenon is often attributed to the finished cattle supply in this period being denser with yearlings than with calf-fed cattle, compared to other seasons.

Specific to March 2026, the share of USDA Select carcasses in packers’ coolers was disproportionally small. The beef sector’s rapid advance toward a 15% USDA Prime grade average in March came at the expense of Select, which dipped to a record-low 7.9% of the offering. This stands in stark contrast to the 12% Select gradeout in March 2025. Meanwhile, the Choice category remained unchanged this March at 73% of the mix, just as it was a year ago.

Last week, the USDA reported the Choice cutout dipping to a $5/cwt. discount to Select. Inversions of the Choice-Select spread, while extremely uncommon, tend to occur in the first quarter, when carcass quality grades are near their annual peak and spot market demand for the grilling season has yet to hit full stride.

(Certified Angus Beef)

There are end-users in the market, such as the institutional sector, that maintain a standing order specifically for the USDA Select product. This price-driven customer capitalized on an average $15/cwt. discount to Choice in the past two years. The recent shift to much tighter Select carcass supplies has narrowed the price gap, even momentarily inverting the Choice-Select spread due to the scarcity of Select carcasses.

Current quality grade trends are subject to seasonal change, but the long-term outlook suggests that the combination of genetics and management will continue to yield higher-quality carcass outcomes. Beef wholesalers are advising their traditionally Select-focused customers to move up to low Choice, given the evolution of the grade mix to a higher plane.

Product labeled simply as USDA Choice has increasingly been defined by carcasses that fall within the lower 1/3 of the Choice grade. This is due to overwhelming demand for Premium Choice-branded products, such as the Certified Angus Beef brand. Consequently, what’s left in the USDA Choice box looks much nearer to the marbling found in USDA Select than ever before.

What is the Livestock Consolidation Research Act?

Fri, 27 Mar 2026 16:24:30 GMT

Senate Agriculture Committee members Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Tina Smith (D-Minn.) have introduced the Livestock Consolidation Research Act , bipartisan legislation to support research into the economic impact of livestock market consolidation on farmers, ranchers and consumers.

“Consolidation in the meat and poultry industry impacts Iowa producers and consumers alike, and right now, they’re feeling the squeeze,” Grassley says. “The current patchwork of available data isn’t enough to tackle this problem. Our bipartisan legislation will work to address ag concentration by providing farmers, ranchers and shoppers a full picture of how the market is working.”

According to Grassley’s press release , “Cattle producers often make pennies on the dollar due to a lack of transparency and competition in the cattle processing industry, where just four companies control 85% of the market. The lack of competition means farmers get less for their products, while consumers pay more at the grocery store.”

The senators’ goal with the act is to move beyond existing research to discover the impact of this consolidation on farmers and ranchers, as well as the downstream impacts on consumers. The legislation directs the USDA Economic Research Service to conduct this research.

“Just a handful of large companies dominate the meat and poultry processing industry, which means higher prices for consumers and shrinking earnings for farmers. On top of that, farmers and ranchers are dealing with the worst farm economy in 30 years, skyrocketing input costs, and a cost-of-living crisis at home. We can all see that this market concentration spells disaster,” Smith says. “Our bipartisan bill would bring to light the impact of this consolidation on farmers and consumers and help us create the best possible solutions to fix the problem. I look forward to working with Sen. Grassley and my colleagues to pass this legislation as part of a farm bill.”

Grassley and Smith plan to push for the bill’s inclusion in the research title of the farm bill, which could form a base of data to inform future decisions.

Regulatory Concerns: The Economic Impact of Increased Oversight

“Significant liquidation of cattle herds has brought U.S. cattle numbers to a 70-year low and pushed prices and subsequently, cow-calf returns, to record highs,” says John Nalivka, Sterling Marketing Inc. president. “At the same time, Sterling Marketing’s estimate for beef packer margins is to average — $191/head during the first quarter of 2026.”

Nalivka says consolidation has become a top news headline in livestock and meat industries quite often lately.

“As I read about this [proposed legislation], I once again become concerned about the information that leads to this research effort,” he says.

He stresses packing capacity is a significant factor in the market.

“Consequently, I maintain a rather significant database of plants and their capacities for both the beef and pork industries. This database goes back to the late 1980s when I started focusing on capacity and its impact on the market,” he explains. “I adamantly point out that the importance of capacity in the beef and cattle market goes beyond the packing industry to include all aspects of the supply chain from production to packing and processing to the retail meat case.”

Nalivka has often pointed out that consolidation in any industry is the result of businesses growing larger to achieve economies of scale.

“This is extremely important as it has a direct and beneficial impact on the cost structure of a business and ultimately, its financial success,” he says. “It is related to and has an impact on production capacity and ultimately, the ownership of capacity across the supply chain.”

He predicts with Tyson’s closure of the Lexington plant and reducing Amarillo to one shift, the total U.S. beef packing capacity (including both fed cattle and cows) is 36.7 million head. He adds the strike at JBS’s Greeley, Colo., plant brings annual fed cattle plant capacity down to 27.3 million from 28.9 million.

“This leaves my estimate for the four-firm fed cattle plants concentration with the Greeley plant included at 75.7%,” he says. “That is a notable difference from the quoted figure of 85%.”

Nalivka says a study such as the one proposed by Grassley and Smith should not be taken lightly considering the definite potential for increased regulatory activity.

“For those who do not believe that increased government oversight leads to greater government regulations, in 2025, there were 243 volumes in the Federal Register, proposed and final rules and regulations, which begs the question — Is this too much government oversight?”

From Pasture to Plate: Sysco Highlights the Value of Beef Quality Assurance

Fri, 27 Mar 2026 13:36:08 GMT

The best beef is raised the right way. This message was reinforced by remarks from Joe Don Eilers, Sysco vice president of merchandising, during the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) Producer Forum, which was part of CattleCon 2026.

Representing one of the nation’s largest food service distributors, Eilers shares how best practices in cattle care and beef production influence beef product, ultimately reaching the plates of restaurants and kitchen tables of consumers.

“At the end of the day, quality beef is a safe, wholesome product for our participants to use,” Eilers says, adding the ultimate goal is delivering a mouth-watering steak that keeps customers coming back for more.

Industry collaboration is key to delivering this eating experience, and programs like BQA help ensure consistency from pasture to plate. For decades, BQA has provided science-based guidelines and education to help family farmers and ranchers improve cattle care, product quality and consumer confidence.

“We believe in the value that the BQA program has brought to the industry for decades,” Eilers says. “That mission to bring knowledge about best practices and innovations to producers across the industry has resulted in a better product that we’re able to purchase and ultimately serve to consumers.”

The commitment to cattle care and continuous improvement is also reflected in the Raised with Respect program, a partnership between Certified Angus Beef and Sysco, now in its third year. The initiative helps expand awareness of BQA principles while supporting educational resources for ranchers and additional collaboration across universities, extension systems and industry partners.

“This campaign is really about bringing another level of awareness to the work BQA has done over the years,” Eilers says, “and creating more opportunities to communicate what can be improved in beef production.”

The commitment to advancing best practices and helping to ensure beef demand recently earned Sysco national recognition — National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) named the company the 2026 BQA Marketer of the Year during CattleCon. This award highlights leaders who go above and beyond to promote BQA and support responsible cattle care across the beef industry.

“As a primary producer-facing program, BQA has been providing guidelines and resources to help cattlemen improve their cattle and resulting beef for decades,” says Josh White, NCBA senior executive director of producer education and sustainability. “It’s exciting to see this work done on farms and ranches across the country and also lends value for how a large beef seller, like Sysco, tells the beef production story.”

For Eilers, those efforts also help build trust with consumers who want greater transparency about how their food is raised.

“Customers and consumers today want more and more information about the products they’re buying and eating,” he says. “The BQA program really helps us talk about best practices around animal husbandry and environmental stewardship, and that builds confidence in the beef producers raise.”

Grilling Season 2026: Will Record Beef Prices Cool Summer Demand?

Wed, 25 Mar 2026 12:44:38 GMT

The cattle industry is closely watching availability as we transition into the spring and summer months.

In a recent issue of “ In the Cattle Markets ,” Bernt Nelson, American Farm Bureau Federation economist, discussed cattle availability and where market conditions could be headed as the industry moves into spring and eventually the summer grilling season when seasonal demand for beef typically peaks.

(American Farm Bureau)

As of March 1, 2026, the total number of cattle on feed is estimated at 11.55 million head. While this is up slightly from last month and down slightly from the same time period as last year, specific trends in placements and marketings suggest a shift in the supply chain:

Placements: 1.61 million head (up 4% from 2025).
Marketings: 1.52 million head (down 7% from 2025).
The Trend: Placements have outpaced marketings in five of the last six months, indicating a growing volume of cattle being prepared for the peak summer demand.

“While marketings have been consistently lower than last year, marking fewer numbers of fed cattle available, it’s important to note that placements have outpaced marketings of cattle in five of the last six months,” he says. “This means more cattle are being placed on feed than are being marketed for beef. This should lead to more cattle being available for beef production during the next several months when grilling demand ramps up.”

Beef Demand and the “Grilling Season” Surge

Memorial Day is considered the unofficial start of grilling season, which typically brings peak seasonal demand for beef. March and April usually bring peak demand for other proteins such as ham and lamb, while beef demand slows.

“This year, demand for beef has risen over the last several weeks, pulling prices higher at a much faster pace than in past years,” Nelson says. “Since January, the Choice beef cutout value has increased by $50.14/cwt. or 13%, from $349.97/cwt. on Jan. 2, 2026, to $400.11/cwt. on March 20, 2026. This is 25% higher than 2025 and has many analysts questioning if the strong demand from grilling season will pull beef prices even higher this summer.”

(American Farm Bureau)

Josh Maples, associate professor of agriculture economics at Mississippi State University, says in a recent “ Southern Ag Today ” article, “The Select cutout has also surged and is at levels only surpassed by May 2020. The gap between the Choice and Select cutout has been narrow during the first few months of 2026, indicating there has not been much of a premium for Choice cattle over Select.”

(Southern Ag Today, USDA-AMS)

He adds boxed beef values tend to build gradually through the first quarter before accelerating in the spring and reaching a seasonal peak ahead of summer grilling season.

“In 2026, the cutout has surged earlier in the year as cyclical market fundamentals are outweighing typical seasonality,” he explains. “Cattle supplies and beef supplies are tight. When supplies are tight, wholesale prices tend to respond quickly. Additionally, buyers may be pulling some purchases forward due to expectations of tight supplies and even higher prices later this spring.”

Increases in the rib and loin primal values since the start of the year are key contributors to the overall cutout value increase.

Maples explains in 2025, the Rib value ran up sharply from March to April, while the Loin value increased from March to June. This year, both primal values have been on a strong uptrend since mid-January.

“For producers, strong early-year boxed beef prices are supportive of fed cattle markets,” he summarizes. “Strong demand and tight supplies are supporting beef values in 2026.”

Economic Headwinds: Recession Risks

While cattle supplies are slow to rebuild, consumer demand can shift rapidly.

“Cattle supplies will take years to rebuild, but demand can change more quickly,” Nelson says. “Events such as a recession could be a threat to the strong demand that has supported beef prices over the last couple of years. Continued strong demand is key to maintaining a strong cattle market in the months to come. If demand begins to fall for any reason, especially during grilling season, beef prices will also begin to fall along with the cutout value. When the cutout falls, the packer has to buy cattle at a lower price, which leads to lower prices at the farm gate.”

As we move toward the summer months, the balance between tight cattle supplies and consumer willingness to pay record prices will define the profitability of the 2026 grilling season.

Your Next Reads:
What Does Talk of $10 Ground Beef Mean to Producers?
High Cattle Prices Driven Not Just by Supply, but Strong Demand

CAB Insider: March 18

Thu, 19 Mar 2026 12:07:16 GMT

Cash fed cattle values have been under pressure from several factors over the past two weeks. The Iranian conflict began overshadowing equity markets earlier this month, while that general market uncertainty spilled over to Live Cattle futures, negatively impacting cash values.

Just as importantly, continuation of smaller weekly cattle harvest volumes have given packers a measure of pricing power over feedyards for the period. Finally, the strike at the JBS-Greeley packing facility, initiated last week, is a headwind in the region as JBS redirects cattle to its other plants. These combined factors have seen prices retreat from $243/cwt. two weeks ago to last week’s $234/cwt. average. Despite this, Live Cattle futures posted gains Monday and Tuesday.

(Certified Angus Beef)

Carcass weights remain heavy, relenting just 8 lb. lower than the December record-high in the latest report. In the last five years, steer carcass weights have declined 16 lb. from the beginning of January through mid-March, on average. This year, steer weights have declined by only 4 lb. for the period. While 2026 fed cattle supplies are estimated to be the lowest in the cycle, it appears that the feedlot sector is, ironically, becoming less current on market-ready cattle inventory.

Carcass cutout values have followed the opposite trajectory to that of cattle, with last week’s sharp upticks adding punctuation to increases building in prior weeks. Beef demand continues to hold strong with the “All Fresh” retail beef price at a record $9.64/lb. in February. Price increases in March are in line with the seasonal trend, but the 30-cent-per-lb. rise from mid-February through last week is more pronounced than similar patterns in recent years. Undoubtedly, limited cattle harvest throughput and the onset of early spring beef demand have combined to spur the increase.

Quality Soaring Higher

The 2025 U.S. annual average share for Prime carcasses set a new high watermark at 11.9% of fed cattle. While not a formidable percentage compared to USDA Choice at 72% of the mix, growing supplies in the Prime category have been transformational for the beef industry. With Prime historically relegated to just 2-3% of total fed cattle supply, it began it’s rise in 2013 with incremental annual increases.

The contrast is starker by illustrating the change in Prime carcass tonnage over this short timeline. First, we must factor in carcass weights, which were 85 lb. heavier in 2025 than in 2012, the last year that Prime comprised a 3% or less share. The Prime production increase was not linear over this period, yet has made a convincing overall move, generating 263% increased carcass tonnage in 2025 compared to 2012.

As if this weren’t enough, the Prime category has soared at a renewed pace since last September. Beef stakeholders rightly assumed that the Prime grade would continue to perform, given the current weather and feeding sector economics. Yet, the pace of the increase has likely outpaced most guesses, as the Prime grade has not charted below 14% of the grade mix so far in 2026.

(Certified Angus Beef)

March tends to be the month with the richest marbling, as both CAB and Prime percentages peak at this time. The month started with a highlight well outside the trend, with USDA reporting that Nebraska packers averaged 24.3% Prime across their harvest in the first week of the month. The nearly 7% increase over the prior week is staggering enough to raise questions. However, with carcass weights remaining record-heavy for this time of year (32 lb. heavier than a year ago), one must embrace new possibilities.

Ultra-heavy carcasses and extended feeding days are a double-edged sword for the Certified Angus Beef brand. The richer marbling trend increases the share of eligible carcasses that meet the Modest 00 or higher requirement. Yet moderate slippage of carcasses above the 1,100 lb. maximum, plus a few with backfat above the 1-inch limit, are the most noted of the other specifications capping growth in brand acceptance rates currently.

Increased Prime carcass production is a boon to sales growth in this category for both Certified Angus Beef and the industry as a whole. A smaller Prime cutout premium above Choice also means greater adoption of this premium product tier by grocers and restaurants. All of the above lead to a firmer foothold for beef as the protein of choice for consumers.

What Does the JBS Strike Mean to Beef Producers?

Mon, 16 Mar 2026 14:25:46 GMT

Union workers at the JBS packing plant in Greeley, Colo., have gone on strike Monday morning. This is the first walkout at a U.S. beef slaughterhouse since the 1980s.

According to The Colorado Sun and the UFCW Local 7 , union workers were picketing early this morning. The workers are calling for higher wages, safer working conditions and respect on the job .

After months of disrespect and unfair labor practices, the workers at JBS Greeley are done waiting.

The line is drawn. The strike has begun.

UFCW Local 7 members are standing up for dignity, safety, and the contract they deserve. ✊#jbsulpstrike #greeleyco #ufcw7 #unionstrong pic.twitter.com/nBPsazGyF8
— UFCW Local 7 (@UFCW_7) March 16, 2026

According to a union press release , the unfair labor practice (ULP) strike at the JBS-owned Swift Beef plant was set to start at 5:30 a.m. Monday, March 16.

JBS spokesperson Nikki Richardson says, “This morning, many JBS Greeley team members chose to report to work rather than participate in the strike called by UFCW Local 7, and we expect that number to continue increasing in the days ahead. Our team members want stability, they want to support their families, and they deserved the opportunity to vote on the company’s historic offer — an opportunity the union leadership has denied them. We are paying all team members who come to work, and we are operating the facility to the best of our ability this week.”

The union says workers hoped a recent bargaining session would have led to a breakthrough in negotiations with JBS, but instead JBS sent the workers a clear message that the company is putting profits ahead of its people.

“The Union’s member-led bargaining committee has met more than two dozen times with the company in an effort to reach a mutually agreeable contract. JBS is failing to listen to the 99% of its workers who authorized a ULP strike,” the union says in the release. “The Company needs to give them an offer that takes life saving safety equipment seriously, provides wages which meet the rising cost of living in Colorado and ensures rising health care costs do not consume workers’ wages. The Company committed numerous Unfair Labor Practices which are preventing an agreement. The Company continues to threaten to withhold both a proposed bonus and lump-sum pension payment if workers strike. The Company also retaliated against workers who have stood up for their rights and co-workers.”

The union represents 3,800 workers at the plant.

The Greeley plant did not harvest cattle the week of March 9.

“To ensure continuity for our customers and partners, we are temporarily adjusting production across our network as needed,” Richardson explains. “By utilizing available capacity at other JBS facilities, we can maintain supply, protect the long‑term stability of the beef chain and minimize disruption for consumers and retailers. Our priority is to keep product moving while we work toward a resolution in Greeley.”

She summarizes, “We remain focused on supporting our team members, and any employee who reports for their scheduled shift will have work available and will be paid. We will continue scaling operations this week as more team members return.”

Markets Lack Reaction

Live and feeder cattle futures opened higher on Monday morning. Brad Kooima with Kooima Kooima Varilek says there are a couple of reasons why the market ignored the strike and the biggest are the higher equity markets and lower crude oil. However, he says it is also tied to the fact the strike news was already priced into the market.

Don Close, senior animal protein analyst at Terrain Ag, joined Chip Flory on AgriTalk Thursday, summarizing the strike will increase packer leverage and help reduce negative margins.

He says even with Greeley down, the industry still has excess slaughter capacity.

“Even with Greeley, with the limited cattle supply we’re dealing with, we still have excess slaughter capacity,” he stresses. “It’s going to give way more leverage to the packers, but it will help them shore up their negative margins.”

Close adds the biggest headache to the industry will be additional freight and added shrink from the extra haul to a different plant.

Glynn Tonsor, Kansas State University professor of agricultural economics, agrees with Close. “Any disruption in labor availability has largest impacts on producers operating closest to involved plants. In aggregate, I do not expect large fed cattle price impacts as the industry is operating with excess physical capacity, relative to available cattle supplies.”

From an industrywide standpoint, Close downplays the potential disruption to supply.

“From the industry as a whole, the supply of product going out to meet our demand side of the market should be fine,” he says.

John Nalivka, Sterling Marketing Inc. president, says it is hard to predict the impact on the market.

“We have had Tyson’s closure of Lexington [in Nebraska] and a shift taken off the Amarillo plant [in Texas], tariffs, the current Iran situation and oil back to $100/barrel with little to no impact on the market,” he summarizes. “Supplies are tight and demand is strong. These are the overriding factors impacting this beef market. I would not be comfortable with predicting the impact of an impending strike.”

Hyrum Egbert, Riverbend Meats vice president of strategy, sales, accounting, HR, FSQA, logistics, purchasing and warehousing — who authors the biweekly The Big Bad Beef Packer newsletter, which takes a look at packinghouse truths, trends and tough questions — predicts if Greeley goes dark, even temporarily, the immediate reaction is cattle backup fear.

“A potential strike at JBS Greeley is loud ... but it’s not automatically structural,” he says. “Yes, it’s a big plant. But in 2026, cattle availability is the governor, and packers have already been living in ‘under-utilized capacity’ land for a while.”

Egbert summarizes, “This is likely more of a pricing/psychology event than a true supply collapse ... unless it turns into a long, messy, multi-plant labor domino.”

Your Next Read: Can Cattle Recover and is the Greeley Strike Priced In? Row Crops Follow Oil

CarVe: Transforming Efficiency, Safety and Coaching at Cargill

Thu, 12 Mar 2026 14:08:20 GMT

With the U.S. cattle supply at its lowest level in years, every ounce matters. Cargill’s CarVe program is one way the company is working to get more from every animal, reduce waste and make protein production more efficient and sustainable from start to finish.

What is CarVe?

CarVe is Cargill’s proprietary, patent-pending computer vision and artificial intelligence (AI) system used to maximize red meat yield in real time while reducing waste and helping refine cutting techniques.

The CarVe system uses a network of cameras and data analytics positioned on the fabrication floors, collecting fine-grained metrics on every aspect of the production line.

According to Leon Fletcher, Cargill’s vice president of operations for North America beef, the philosophy behind the system is to harness AI’s capacity for real-time, actionable insights.

Currently, CarVe technology has been implemented in two Cargill facilities: Friona, Texas, and Fort Morgan, Colo.

“As we start to build out our CarVe program, the focus is on yield improvements,” Fletcher says. “We are using cameras on our production floors to provide us real-time insights.”

The Benefits

“Before CarVe, yield data was always yesterday’s news,” explains Jarrod Gillig, senior vice president of Cargill’s North American beef business. “Now, we’re making decisions in the moment and saving product that would’ve been lost.”

Even a 1% improvement in yields could save hundreds of millions of pounds of beef annually. Fletcher explains incremental gains of even one ounce, applied at scale, can equate to roughly 1.2 million quarter-pound servings.

“So, it’s a huge impact to the supply chain,” he says.

To summarize the potential of CarVe’s financial impact:

Consider the chuck roll market value of approximately $6.49 per lb.
If the plant can pick up just 0.1 lb. per head more through CarVe
A plant running about 1.2 million head per year could generate roughly $778,000 in incremental product value, based on prevailing market conditions

Gillig adds Cargill is actually targeting about 0.25 lb. per carcass, especially around the neck bones, which could equate to about a $2 million gain at a single site. When you multiply that across multiple facilities, the potential impact “gets exponentially large extremely quickly.”

“This is about maximizing yield, making sure more beef is available to help meet demand, and strengthening value across the entire supply chain,” Gillig adds.

CarVe is also changing plant culture by providing individualized, actionable feedback. It provides real-time coaching capabilities with details for the stakeholder to see.

“The other piece of it is a training device, so obviously there’s a lot of training that goes on when you have 2,500 team members in each facility,” Fletcher explains. “With our CarVe system, we’re able to use video technology to show our employees where they’re at, how they’re performing and things we can do better again in real time.”

Time is money, and a little piece of product adds up to so much in the packing industry.

“It’s a huge tool for our supervisors,” Fletcher says. “We are able to do some great coaching, whether it’s pacing, whether it’s knife work or whether it’s safety and food safety opportunities.”

He adds: “We can actually see the results for each individual. The employees, as they started to see the scoring, actually got more engaged with the process and realized, ‘How can I get better?” and actually soliciting that feedback from the supervisor.”

Gillig says the CarVe system “gamifies” performance with ranking systems, turning improvement into a friendly competition among employees. This makes feedback immediate and engaging for employees, enhancing motivation and job satisfaction.

“I started out on the processing floor,” adds Steve Rodriguez, fabrication floor manager at the Fort Morgan plant. “CarVe is a game changer. I wish we’d had it 20 years ago.”

Together, Cargill’s investments in people, technology and community partnerships reflect its long-term commitment to Fort Morgan and the broader food system.

Cargill uses auto-packaging systems to streamline the handling of products at both the front and back ends of its operations.

(Cargill)

Additional Technologies

CarVe is just one strategy within Cargill’s Factory of the Future initiative , aimed at improving operational efficiency, yield and worker safety.

“We’re just at the tip of this from a technology standpoint,” Gillig summarizes.

He explains during his 27 years with Cargill, he has watched how technology has increased rapidly in the meatpacking industry. From the use of cameras, AI and auto saws, technology is helping the industry better use the carcass and improve decision-making in the meat industry.

Beyond CarVe, the company has implemented a variety of technology tools in its packing plants to improve efficiency, safety and productivity in its beef facilities, including:

1. Automation (Packaging and Palletizing): Cargill uses auto-packaging systems to streamline the handling of products at both the front and back ends of its operations. Palletizing robotics perform repetitive “pick-and-place” tasks, reducing manual labor and increasing throughput.

Safety saws equipped with advanced sensors and vision technology are in place to minimize direct human interaction with large cutting equipment.

(Angie Stump Denton)

2. Safety Saws & Vision Technology: Safety saws equipped with advanced sensors and vision technology are in place to minimize direct human interaction with large cutting equipment. Fletcher says implementing the saws has greatly improved worker safety.

For example, in the Dodge City, Kan., facility, two chinesaw (spinal process or chine bone saws) lines are changing the game, helping separate meat from bone. Previously, two product line workers per shift pushed a large cut of beef into a bandsaw. They did this up to 3,000 times a day by hand.

Now a 3D vision system handles this product process in real time. It scans the meat to find the best cutting path after loading it into a cradle. The meat travels on a conveyor belt through a bandsaw that adjusts for the best cut.

Cargill employees only need to load the cradle, which minimizes the risk of injury from the blade.

3. Robotics: Robotic arms and automation are used to handle heavy or repetitive tasks, lessening labor strain and injury risk.

4. Process Optimization Technology: Cargill continually upgrades older facilities by integrating the new tech infrastructure, helping make operations more structured and efficient.

Together, these technologies drive efficiency, reduce risk, improve safety and enhance product quality — all while supporting Cargill’s focus on making jobs better for their employees.

Gillig stresses CarVe and related technologies are not about replacing employees but enhancing and supporting their work.

“With CarVe, we are not replacing employees. It is empowering them to work more efficiently and effectively and helping us optimize yield,” Gillig summarizes. “It’s actually making their jobs better and enhancing what they’re able to do.”

Through technology implementation, Cargill is not only improving operational metrics but reshaping how employees experience their work — through real-time feedback and improved safety.

Your Next Reads:
Cargill Invests in Beef Business and Employees
Investing in the Future: Cargill Announces $90-Million Investment in Automation and Technology

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

Thu, 05 Mar 2026 20:06:05 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meat Institute Fires Back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

98% of U.S. Households Are Buying Meat: New Report Shows Record Sales

Mon, 02 Mar 2026 18:02:01 GMT

Meat sales hit a record high of $112 billion in 2025, with a pound increase of 2%. Millennials and Gen Z were a driving force behind the growth, according to the 21st annual Power of Meat report released today at the Annual Meat Conference by the Meat Institute and FMI — The Food Industry Association .

According to Circana, more than 98% of American households purchase meat, and 45% of shoppers are actively trying to prepare more meals containing meat or poultry. According to 210 Analytics, of the five dinners shoppers prepare at home per week on average, 90% already contain a portion of meat or poultry.

“The meat department is outperforming because it delivers what shoppers want right now: protein, flexibility, value and taste,” says Rick Stein, FMI vice president of fresh foods. “Retailers that balance convenient ground options with premium, indulgent cuts will be best positioned to capture both budget-conscious and experience-driven shoppers.”

Which Generations Are Driving Meat Sales Growth?

Millennials and Gen Z shoppers accounted for 67% of unit growth. They are more likely than other shoppers to be actively trying to prepare more meals containing meat or poultry — Gen Z 50% and Millennials 57%. In 81% of households with children, kids have some level of influence on meat and poultry purchase decisions. Seventy-two percent of shoppers with teens at home say their teens request meat and poultry, far ahead of requests for protein bars, shakes and powders.

How is AI Changing How Consumers Buy Meat?

Younger generations also lead the way in using social media and artificial intelligence (AI) platforms for meal inspiration. Twenty-four percent of Gen Z and Millennial shoppers use AI tools, compared to 10% of Gen X and 4% of Boomers. Overall, 15% of shoppers use AI tools, a 650% increase compared to just two years ago.

Is Meat Still Considered Part of a Healthy Diet?

Meat and poultry continue to feature positively in shoppers’ health and nutrition perceptions, with 77% of shoppers agreeing that meat and poultry are part of a healthy diet, up more than 20% since 2020. GLP-1 users over-index versus non-users for eating somewhat or a lot more meat than last year (161) and for frequently including meat and poultry in snacking occasions (171).

“Americans are more focused on making smart food choices than ever before, and this latest Power of Meat report reinforces meat’s clear and irreplaceable role at the center of healthy, convenient, affordable meals today and for generations to come,” summarizes Julie Anna Potts, Meat Institute president.

Read more about how the food pyramid puts protein back on top:

New Dietary Guidelines Move Food Pyramid Closer to the Farm

The New Food Pyramid Flips the Script

The Power of Meat study was conducted by 210 Analytics on behalf of FMI and the Meat Foundation and sponsored by Cryovac Brand Food Packaging. Sales and purchase dynamics data are provided by Circana for the 52 weeks ending Dec. 28, 2025.

Your Next Read:
Consumer Craze for Protein Drives Beef Demand
Why Aren’t High Beef Prices Causing Sticker Shock With Consumers?
What Do Consumers Buy in the Meat Aisle When Money is Tight?
Global Protein Demand Surges 2% Annually as Producers Navigate Volatile Markets

CAB Insider: Feb. 25

Thu, 26 Feb 2026 13:10:27 GMT

The fed cattle market continued to show strength last week as negotiated trade developed very late on Friday. February Live Cattle futures traded near contract highs at $247/cwt. and small cash trade volume in the north centered on that price.

Extremely small harvest volume was the key element in last week’s market, sending a clear message that packer margins — near $300 per head in the red— have forced reductions on throughput. Granted, Monday’s President’s Day was a federal holiday, but this is negated as a consideration for harvest volume, as packer capacity for the week was sharply underutilized.

(Certified Angus Beef)

Friday’s Cattle on Feed report proved uneventful as analyst expectations were met with the number of cattle on feed in feedlots (with at least 1,000 head of capacity) at 98.2% of a year ago. January marketings look quite low at 87% of a year ago, but there was one fewer marketing day this January. With that said, a smaller cattle harvest is evident with year-to-date figures at -5.8%.

Carcass cutout values showed some life with slightly higher values last week on a steadily higher trajectory. Mixed price direction has recently been a theme across the major carcass primals. Firming demand for round cuts is the most notable trend in recent days, as utilization of lean, grinding beef is cropping up again. With spring spot market demand in the forward view, ribeye prices were a bit higher, but they are just trading off of their winter lows.- Wholesale strip loin prices have adjusted lower after making strong moves to the upside throughout January into early February.

Protein Price Spreads

The inflationary theme in the grocery sector is impossible to miss, as most Americans are faced with the buying a large share of their food at retail. Beef has been in the media crosshairs for months as retail prices have escalated. The “all fresh” retail beef price increased 10% from 2024 to 2025, with another 6% the prior year. Yet consumers have a choice in meeting their protein needs, and they continue to demand beef at an impressive level. In fact, beef demand in the fourth quarter of 2025 was record-high, according to analysts at Terrain.

A simpler approach is to realize that U.S. per capita beef consumption was nearly unchanged in 2025 at 58.4 lb., scarcely lower than the 59 lb. in 2024. Couple that with the 10% average annual retail price and one can quickly see that demand was robust.

Even more amazing: Beef has built a rapidly widening price gap over competing meats in the grocery store. This trend has become increasingly pronounced since the early 2000s, but as beef supplies have tightened over the past three years, the pace of the widening price disparity has accelerated.

During 2022, the peak of the cycle’s largest beef supplies, retail beef prices were 49% higher than pork and 200% higher than chicken. This is a large contrast to the 2025 average, with beef pricing 79% higher than pork and 260% higher than chicken. It’s important to note that beef retail prices rose rapidly throughout 2025 as the fourth quarter’s $9.44/lb. average was 13.8% higher than the first quarter average. Once again, the fourth quarter saw record beef demand despite rapidly escalating prices.

(Certified Angus Beef)

Market analysts point to evolving consumer attitudes toward meat as an important component of a healthy diet. The popularity of GLP-1 medications (with meat indicated as a healthy protein source) and the recent inversion of the USDA food pyramid are contributing factors. Consumers may be adapting to the nutrient density and wholesomeness of beef as they compare the return on their grocery dollar to less healthful food options.

It’s imperative to credit beef quality advancement in the consumer behavior discussion. The beef industry is offering consumers the most satisfying eating experience they’ve ever encountered, as the share of USDA Prime and Certified Angus Beef brand product continue to swell as a portion of fed cattle production. This leaves little doubt that marbling-rich carcasses are driving beef to outperform other protein sources in the meat case.

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.

Global Protein Demand Surges 2% Annually as Producers Navigate Volatile Markets

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 19:27:58 GMT

While global protein demand is growing at roughly 2% annually, livestock producers must navigate a complex landscape of regional shifts, disease risks and policy battles that will define the next decade of production.

“The Global Protein Outlook: Demand, Trade and the Supply Picture” panel discussion during this year’s Top Producer Summit brought together experts from the beef, dairy and pork industries to explore demand, trade dynamics and risks facing the livestock industry today.

Beef, dairy and pork experts explain how foreign animal disease and climate extremes threaten herds and what risk-management strategies producers can use to stay profitable.

(Farm Journal)

On the panel were:

Kenny Burdine, University of Kentucky agricultural economist
Stephen Cain, National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC)
Renee Strickland, Strickland Ranch & Exports, Inc.
Scott Hays, Missouri Pork Association

Five key takeaways from the discussion include:

1. Global protein demand is structurally strong, driven by population growth, rising incomes and a broad cultural focus on protein.

“Globally, we are seeing an increase in protein demand broadly across the board,” Cain summarizes.

He describes a few demand patterns:

Regions like sub-Saharan Africa and India: demand mainly from more mouths to feed, not big per-capita jumps.
Regions like Southeast Asia and China: both population and per-capita protein consumption have risen sharply.
Developed regions like the U.S. and Europe are in a fortified-protein trend: “We are cramming protein into everything,” Cain describes. “We have protein water on the market now … it’s across the world.”

Plant-based and alternative proteins seem to be a niche.

Burdine explains: “They’ve not taken any market share. It’s still kind of staying in that niche and not impacting the major protein categories.”

Cain adds the dairy alternatives are seeing category declines, with more consumers realizing milk is a whole food compared to the ingredient in an almond beverage.

2. Supply and trade are shifting toward more regionalized production and stronger competitors, but U.S. strengths in productivity and quality remain critical.

On the supply side, Cain explains rising demand does not always translate into equally increasing exports.

“We’ve seen that slow down,” he says. “More of that protein demand is being filled by domestic production, more regionalized players.”

He links this to some pushback against globalism and more inward-looking, domestic strategies. The U.S. remains a key exporter but faces growing regional competition.

Burdine adds while the U.S. has the smallest cow herd since 1961 , productivity gains mean more output per animal. He points out Brazil passed the U.S. as the largest beef producer.

“It’s not that there’s not competition out there, but we absolutely [have] a great advantage here in the states,” he says.

From pork’s perspective, Hays says the U.S. pork supply should stay steady into 2026, while global pork supply is shrinking. He predicts China may decrease 1.4 million sows, Spain is cutting numbers due to African Swine Fever, yet Brazil is continuing to grow its numbers.

3. Risk and resilience — disease, climate extremes and feed quality — are central concerns, making biosecurity, preparedness and careful storage essential.

Hays highlights herd health is the biggest concern for all livestock producers.

“What keeps every producer up is herd health,” he stresses.

He points out to these concerns today:

Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS): PRRS causes “very, very significant losses” and takes a multiyear recovery
Foreign animal diseases – African Swine Fever, foot-and-mouth disease and New World screwworm .

“Foot and mouth should scare everybody at this conference,” he stresses. “We would lose all of those exports on all of those products, from dairy to beef to pork.”

From the cattle perspective, Strickland adds climate extremes are a concern for ranchers today.

“I also fear the climate change extremes that we’re all experiencing,” she says. “Extreme drought, extreme rains… that’s really challenging for me as a producer.”

More information about disease challenges facing the livestock producers today:

PRRS ‘Still Sucks’: New Strain Plagues Pork Producers in Ohio

Strategies to Help Raise PRRS-Positive Pigs

Is a World Without PRRS Possible? Two Veterinarians Say ‘Yes’

Help Protect the U.S. from African Swine Fever

African Swine Fever: What it means for America if it were to get into the country

What Do Foot-and-Mouth Disease Outbreaks in Europe Mean for the U.S.?

The Smell You’ll Never Forget: A Calf Infested with New World Screwworm

New World Screwworm: An Infestation, Not Infection

4. Consumer behavior shows both opportunity and caution: strong protein demand despite high prices, but some trade-down, weaker foodservice and ongoing debates over “ultra-processed” foods.

Burdine compares today’s protein enthusiasm to past diet waves like Atkins and South Beach, but emphasizes: “Consumer trends are always challenging, but it’s the most encouraging in my career.”

Two features about the demand craze he points out are:

How widespread it is across species and products, including eggs.
Price behavior — despite very high retail prices, demand remains strong.

Burdines explains this suggests a deeper, more durable shift for increased protein demand, not just a short-lived fad.

Cain adds in the protein world trade-down due to inflation and increasing costs is real, especially in foodservice.

He notes lower-income consumers pull back on fast food and quick service, which hurts cheese and dairy demand. Cheese consumption, which usually increases about 2% per year, fell 2% last year, which he says is largely due to weaker foodservice traffic.

Burdine adds that trade-down happens across and within species.

Hays emphasizes the new dietary guidelines are a big win for protein and specifically animal protein.

“We’re excited,” he says. “Pork is at the top on the left-hand side, but it’s more about shifting the conversation. We’re moving away from ‘animal fat makes you fat.’ Meat provides hard-to-replace vitamins and minerals, including in the fat portion.”

He did share concern about how ultra-processed concepts are being used.

“We’ve taken this word ‘ultra-processed’, and now it’s a household word. It is the single unit of measure [for] whether or not we should or should not eat something,” Hays says. “And we don’t even know what the definition of it is.”

He explains if ultra-processed is the only metric, a sausage patty and a honey bun look identical, which is misleading for real nutrition decisions.

Cain adds allowing whole milk in schools is a big win, but schools are facing a higher cost than skim and calorie caps that make menu-balancing harder.

5. Strategic actions for producers: robust risk management, efficiency and quality focus, diversification and a commitment to mentoring the next generation.

Cain encourages producers to use risk management and pricing strategies to help make them viable at today’s prices.

“If you’re not economically viable today, you’re not going to be economically viable tomorrow,” he says.

Burdine adds to think about risk management broadly considering price tools and protection from acts of God. This includes biosecurity strategies and insurance.

“Focus on efficiency and quality to stay competitive in good and bad markets,” he stresses.

Hays asks grain producers to protect feed quality. Poorly stored corn or DDGs (dry distillers grains) can create toxin issues that hurt animal performance and reduce demand.

“Your consumer really needs it to be high quality,” he stresses. “And we’ll buy more of it.”

Strickland encourages producers to diversify their income and not put all their eggs in one basket. Her business includes a ranch, export company and a non-ag title search company.

“When one of them is not doing so well, something else bails me out,” she summarizes. “If you’re in a position that you can diversify just a little bit, it can get you through the hard times.”

The final message was a question: Who are you mentoring and investing in? All producers need to consider how they are going to pass information on to the next generation and help them be successful and thrive.

Your Next Reads:
U.S. Cattle Inventory Hits 75-Year Low at 86.2 Million Head
What Do Consumers Buy in the Meat Aisle When Money is Tight?
New Dietary Guidelines Move Food Pyramid Closer to the Farm

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.

CAB Insider: Feb. 11

Thu, 12 Feb 2026 12:55:52 GMT

The fed cattle market has been steadily stronger since the first of the year, gaining $10/cwt. from the opening week’s $231/cwt. value through last week’s $241/cwt. average. This closely matches the early 2025 trend but has extended the pattern a week longer than that of a year ago with last week’s continuation higher.

The drastically smaller year-on-year cattle harvest is a significant factor differentiating 2025 and 2026. Since the beginning of the year, fed cattle harvest head counts have run roughly 10% smaller than a year ago. Tightened cattle supply and packer losses deeply in the red both continue to ration the harvest pace. Logic suggests no changes to throughput as long as both cattle and cutout prices work antagonistically against packer profitability.

(Certified Angus Beef)

A counterbalance to lighter harvest runs continues to rear its head in the form of heavy carcass weights. Latest data for the week of January 19 featured a 3 lb. uptick in steer weights to average 987 lb. each, just 2 lb. below the record marked in December. January weights will average near 30 lb. heavier than a year ago.

Weekly average cutout prices turned modestly lower in early February after the comprehensive cutout value increased 3.6% since the beginning of January. As demand turned to the ends of the carcass, significant discounting on middle meats was a theme last month. History suggests that the most preferred steak items have already posted seasonal low prices, with unseasonably warm weather in some regions coupled with expected early spring buying stimulating prices.

Utilization Key to Prime Success

Fed steer and heifer carcass quality is charting new territory in the first five weeks of the quarter. Record-heavy carcass weights, the longest feeding periods on record and generations of improved genetics continue to press carcass quality grades to new heights. This has generated an average 14.2% Prime carcasses in the fed cattle mix while Select carcasses average an unprecedented low at 9.7% of the total since January 1. This stands in stark contrast to the 10.7% Prime and 13.6% Select grade mix recorded for the same period a year ago.

As the carcass mix continues to press higher with richer quality grades, the expected impact to cutout prices has also come to fruition. The Prime cutout premium to Choice narrowed to $19/cwt. in January versus $59/cwt. a year ago and $37/cwt. in January 2024. This contrast indicates a wide range and directional change in the premium across three years.

However, the number of Prime carcasses in the past five weeks has been 21% greater than a year ago while carcass weights have also been 30 lb. heavier for the period.

(Certified Angus Beef)

Recent Prime demand models show 20% and greater year-over-year consumer demand increases for multiple months for the recent two years. Growing Prime supply has been met with growing demand, generally across the last decade. The recent added upswing in the Prime carcass supply suggests that expanded utilization of Prime-specific sales across the entire carcass is warranted. In the past couple of years packers have added a growing list of cuts to their sales sheets specific to their Prime-graded product. This is evident in Certified Angus Beef ^® brand sales as we have seen the most recent year’s sales growth in the CAB^® Prime category.

Further opportunity exists to capture consumer demand across the Prime carcass as evidenced by the most recent USDA carcass cutout value report. For the first week in February, USDA lists the Prime cutout premium to Choice at $16.94/cwt. for the entire carcass. Yet, practically all of the premium is found in the rib primal which features a $73.17/cwt. premium, and loin at $39.36/cwt. Briskets have often carried a larger premium than at present, but very adequate supplies have narrowed that premium to $3.13/cwt. While Prime premiums are increasingly being captured on some cuts on both ends of the carcass, chuck and round summary values show relatively small premium contributions, as do the flank and plate.

It’s important to note that more demand for individual Prime grade cuts is being discovered on the part of packers and wholesalers as they educate downstream users about the opportunities to capitalize on growing Prime demand. Emphasis on greater utilization of Prime and CAB Prime carcasses is key to recapturing larger Prime cutout premiums that get allocated throughout the supply chain. After all, the economic drivers fueling current carcass weights and extended feedlot stays may shift over time such that carcass quality takes a step back. Even if not, building demand through exceptional quality is the factor that has allowed beef to vastly outpace other protein options in the market.

Why Beef Prices Remain High Despite Record-Low Cattle Supplies

Thu, 29 Jan 2026 18:37:38 GMT

Consumer’s demand for beef — not just shrinking cattle numbers — is playing a central role in shaping prices and profitability across the U.S. beef supply chain, according to research from Kansas State University agricultural economists.

Brian Coffey, who co-authored a recent paper examining the U.S. retail beef market, says a microeconomic assessment shows consumer preferences have become a powerful driver of market outcomes, even during a period of historically tight supplies.

“A microeconomic assessment is really about using economic theory and models to help explain what we’re seeing in the real world,” Coffey says. “We make simplifying assumptions and apply economic frameworks to real data so we can isolate what’s driving changes in prices and quantities.”

In this case, Coffey and co-author Glynn Tonsor analyzed retail-level beef data from recent years to better understand how supply and demand interacted as the cattle industry moved through a major contraction. Their findings suggest demand has been stronger than many expected.

The current trajectory began in 2019, Coffey says, when the U.S. beef cow herd reached its most recent peak. Since then, drought, market conditions and other pressures have combined to trigger rapid herd liquidation.

“Since 2019, the number of beef cows in the U.S. has gotten smaller and smaller,” Coffey summarizes. “That’s been front and center when we think about the cattle and beef supply chain.”

By 2023, the industry was still firmly in a liquidation phase. Fewer cows meant fewer animals available for feeding, and cow slaughter also declined compared with 2022, creating another supply shock. Yet the total amount of beef available to consumers held steady.

The reason, Coffey explains, was innovation. Advances in genetics, feeding methods and technology allowed feedlots to finish cattle at heavier weights and produce larger carcasses with more high-quality beef. Imports of lean trim also played a key role, helping maintain ground beef supplies — a cornerstone of the U.S. market.

“As an industry, we really stepped up,” Coffey says. “We had fewer animals, but we were able to offset that with heavier weights and imports.”

The result was that total retail beef availability in 2024 was actually higher than in 2023, even though individual cuts varied in availability. Prices, however, moved higher.

“Between 2023 and 2024, we did see a price increase,” Coffey says. “That’s interesting because basic economics tells us that when supply goes up, prices usually go down. Instead, we had more beef, and people paid more for it.”

That divergence points directly to demand. Consumers, Coffey says, were willing to pay higher prices, signaling a stronger underlying value for beef.

Looking ahead, Coffey expects 2025 data to show a modest decline in retail beef supply — likely a few percent — as production efficiencies can no longer fully offset declining cattle numbers. Prices, he said, are again expected to rise.

The key takeaway for producers is clear.

“Demand really matters,” Coffey says. “What consumers think about beef feeds all the way back up the supply chain and determines profitability. Strong consumer demand right now is providing price support beyond what supply factors alone would explain.”

Your Next Reads:
Consumer Craze for Protein Drives Beef Demand
Consumers Confirm Protein is In: Meat Continues to Have Its Moment on the Plate
How Many Minutes Does a Consumer Have to Work to Buy A Pound of Ground Beef?

CAB Insider: Jan. 28

Thu, 29 Jan 2026 13:05:27 GMT

Starting with the Martin Luther King holiday, the federally inspected cattle harvest suffered a big setback last week, with the total reflecting a 10,000-head deficit compared to the Tuesday-Thursday totals. The winter storm in the South is noted as a slaughter-reduction impact on Friday, but the head count was just a few thousand short of recent Friday production totals, reflecting 35-hour week schedules.

Tyson’s published intention to close the Lexington, Neb., plant and remove one shift from the Amarillo, Texas, plant by January 20 caused another shift in the supply chain.

In fed cattle prices: Last week’s values were slightly stronger, with the top end of reported prices in the $236/cwt. range. The February Live Cattle contract was valued at $235/cwt. early this week and consequently provides no directional guidance beyond current spot market news.

(Certified Angus Beef)

Compared to analyst expectations, last Friday’s Cattle on Feed Report held no surprises, as the Jan. 1 head count was 3.2% below a year ago. The ninth consecutive month of year-on-year declines in placements saw December placements 5.4% smaller than in December 2024. The larger December marketing number, 1.8% higher than a year ago, reflects an additional marketing day in the month but a net daily marketing volume smaller than a year ago.

Carcass cutout values have primarily increased in January, although last week’s average CAB cutout value is shown as a few dollars cheaper as the quality spreads narrowed. It should be noted that Urner Barry’s $9.78/cwt. Choice/Select spread is double that of USDA’s reported value for the week. This is due to nuances in how the two entities capture and have the data weighted in the weekly information.

Seasonal Demand Shifts Carcass Values

As we wrap up January it’s apparent that the month’s carcass cutout values have held up quite well in relation to December values. Through last week, the CAB cutout price was just $3/cwt. cheaper than a month ago, by less than 1%. Evaluating the steer and heifer harvest totals shows much smaller weekly totals in January than in early December, creating a significant supply difference relative to demand.

We often discuss January as the lowest beef demand month of the year, while February likely vies for the second lowest, with the exception of a Valentine’s Day uptick. Also, we see a shift in consumer preference away from holiday middle meat roasts toward end cuts for “comfort food” meals.

Price adjustments across a variety of beef cuts are quite dramatic from the fourth quarter into the first quarter of the year. For instance, the wholesale price of the CAB lip-on ribeye roll has been 20% cheaper in the first quarter than it has been in the fourth quarter for the past five years. The January ribeye roll price downshift has been substantial with a 25% decline from the December average. This action has placed ribeye values slightly lower than in the previous three Januarys. The seasonal downturn for tenderloins is similarly sharp, with an 18% price decline from December to January.

(Certified Angus Beef)

So far, the characteristic January increase in demand for end cuts has occurred with all of the round primals either maintaining an elevated price or undergoing sharp increases. Roasting cuts from the chuck have also posted big increases, aligning with the expected January trend.

These shifts in demand affect price spreads based on carcass quality, as the cuts that command the highest per-pound premiums lose some seasonal demand through the first quarter. As cattlemen observe the current market there are questions about the decline in the Choice-Select spread and further premiums for CAB and Prime cutout values. Some have suggested that demand for premium Choice (CAB) and Prime carcasses is possibly waning. However, it’s perfectly natural this time of year as the total rib primal price drops from 170% of the cutout price to 125% and the loin drops from 132% to 126%. Meanwhile, the chuck has increased from 82% to 92% of the cutout price and the round elevated from 79% to 84% of the cutout in the December to January price changes.

Looking ahead to March, carcass quality grades should build toward the annual high percentages for the share of CAB and Prime carcasses. Potential to test or break recent records for high-quality grades is possible late in the first quarter. However, a very limited fed cattle harvest is at the top of the “issues” list during this period, so the likelihood of an overabundance of quality carcasses may very well be countered by small head counts. It promises to be an interesting season for premium beef supply.

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.

CAB Insider: Market Update Jan. 14

Thu, 15 Jan 2026 03:55:44 GMT

As we wrapped up 2025 and the calendar turned to 2026, two holiday-shortened weeks of federally inspected cattle harvest pulled head counts down to 425,000 head and 474,000 head. Last week’s 553,000 head was not a decisive return to pre-holiday volume as the week’s total was the second smallest since mid-October.

Fed steer and heifer volume was 445,000 head, compared to 4th quarter non-holiday weekly averages of 464,000 head and all 4th quarter weeks at 436,000 head. Looking to the first quarter, feedlot turnover rates should continue on a slow pace with added days on feed remaining a theme, and the expectation is for smaller weekly totals. Assuming the U.S. border reopens, CattleFax is projecting a 600,000 head decline in fed cattle harvest for the year. That eventuality is not a given, while a change to the current policy would not increase fed cattle supply until the second half of the year.

Adding disincentive to increase production volume, packer margins are estimated to be at more than $200 per head in the red, according to latest reports.

(Certified Angus Beef)

The comprehensive carcass cutout value began the year with the first week’s average at $353/cwt., 8% higher than the January 2025 average. The first three full weeks of 2025 featured fed cattle harvest volume of 485,000 head. Continuation of smaller weekly head counts is likely to hold wholesale boxed beef prices on a higher plane.

Mid-way into January, seasonal focus has shifted from middle meats toward the more favored winter end-meat roasting cuts. Wholesale cut prices are reflecting major downward corrections with ribeyes and tenderloins dipping below spot prices of the last two years. It’s yet to be seen if retailers will take advantage of the opportunty to buy a volume in the spot market to entice consumers to the meat case.

Price Speaks Volumes

Whether it’s calves, fed cattle or boxed beef, staying current with relevant price information has been an everyday task in the beef sector. Volatility is a tired term in the modern era, even with the exclusion of major industry news.

Running headlong into 2026, the cattle market is ablaze with feeder cattle generating a highlight reel of prices in the first two weeks of January. It’s as if the industry awoke on Jan. 1 to realize that projected declines in feeder calf supplies were suddenly truthful.

On the the end-product side of the equation, there have been recent seasonal undulations as new record carcass weights were charted — accompanied by a record share of 87% Choice and Prime carcasses for the past four weeks. Certified Angus Beef^® brand certification has been steady for the period, near 37% of Angus-type carcasses qualifying. As carcass weights touched new records in the fourth quarter, a disproportional number of those were excluded from the brand as they exceeded 1,100-lb. weight limit specification.

With USDA Prime carcass tonnage (including CAB^® Prime) record-large again in 2025 we revisit price spreads up and down the quality grade and branded product offering. Even as Prime carcass supply increased 11% on the year, the annual average Prime premium increased to $39.04/cwt.above commodity Choice, up $4.72/cwt. for the year. The record $56.21/cwt. annual Prime premium, set in 2022, is unlikely to be tested again anytime soon.

(USDA, Urner Barry)

CAB carcass counts were the fifth largest in brand history for the fiscal 2025 and just 3% fewer than a year ago on the calendar year. Yet the year’s advance of $5.59/cwt. in the cutout premium for traditional CAB carcasses was up 36% over 2024 to average $20.73/cwt. according to Urner Barry.

Calculated Select carcass tonnage slipped 9% on the year while the discount deepened from $17.04/cwt. to average $21.33/cwt. Recent seasonality has brought focus to the Choice/Select spread dipping briefly below $1/cwt. in early January. However, the year-long trend brings to light the big picture of further demand destruction for Select carcasses even as they are less prevalent in the supply chain.

The strong price spread trend is a clear indicator for the industry in 2026. While the tightest fed cattle supplies in the cycle are projected this year, consumer demand has issued directional support that tight supplies do not necessitate narrowing of price differentiation for quality. Importantly, more and more retail and foodservice firms are grasping that a satisfied beef customer is a loyal customer. That starts with a marbling-rich carcass meeting specifications.

2025 Beef Imports See 20% Jump During First 10 Months

Mon, 12 Jan 2026 19:26:23 GMT

The latest release of shutdown-delayed trade data provides information on beef and cattle imports and exports through October 2025. Beef imports have been a particular focus in the industry and politically for several months.

For the first 10 months of 2025, beef imports were up 20% year over year (Figure 1). This follows a 24.4% year-over-year increase in 2024. Increased beef imports are the expected market response to declining beef production in the U.S., especially decreased production of nonfed processing beef. Through 2025, U.S. cow slaughter is projected to be down a total of 29.2% from the recent peak in 2022. Beef imports have increased to partially mitigate the resulting decreases in lean processing.

Through October, Australia was the largest source of U.S. beef imports with a 23.6% share of total imports. Brazil, at No. 2, accounted for 19.5% of beef imports, followed by Canada (18.2% share), Mexico (12.3% share), New Zealand (10.8% share) and Uruguay (6.8% share). Despite much political focus on Argentina in the fourth quarter of 2025, Argentina only represents about 25% of the “Other” category in Figure 1, representing 2.2% of total beef imports.

(Oklahoma State University)

Figures 1 and 2 show the dramatic increase in beef imports from both Australia and Brazil since 2022. Figure 2 also illustrates the dramatic difference in the seasonal pattern of beef imports from the two countries.

Beef imports from Brazil are included in the “Other Country” quota. Since 2022, Brazil has moved quickly in January of each year to fill the “Other Country” quota before being subject to over-quota tariffs. The January spikes in imports of Brazilian beef are obvious in Figure 2.

In 2025, a second peak in beef imports from Brazil occurred in May as market values stimulated additional imports despite the over-quota tariffs and additional 10% tariffs imposed in April. However, an additional 40% tariff imposed on Brazil in August did result in sharply lower imports from Brazil in September and October. By the end of November, all the additional tariffs have been removed leaving Brazil with only the over-quota tariff (26.5%) for the remainder of the year.

So far in January 2026, Brazil is moving quickly to fill the “Other Country” quota in the first two weeks of the year with zero tariff. Subsequent imports from Brazil going forward will be subject to the over-quota tariff.

Once again, data will eventually confirm a spike in total beef imports in January as a result. Despite this, the domestic price of 90% lean trimmings in the first full week of January was $401.71 per cwt, up 19.8% from the same period one year ago.

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

Brazil Surpassing U.S. As Top Beef Producer, Easing Global Supply Squeeze

Thu, 08 Jan 2026 15:53:01 GMT

Brazil surpassed the U.S. as the world’s top beef producer last year, according to market estimates, after the South American country beat output forecasts by hundreds of thousands of tons, easing a global supply squeeze and helping limit a surge in meat prices.

Brazil was already the biggest beef exporter, shipping meat worth almost $17 billion in 2025, according to government trade data released on Tuesday. Beef production numbers are not due until February, but analysts have recently raised their estimates. Farmers have been sending more animals to slaughter, cashing in on high export demand from countries including China and the U.S., where low supply has pushed beef prices to record levels.

Elevated slaughter typically leads to a period of low output as producers hold back animals to breed and rebuild herds. But productivity gains in Brazil may limit or even prevent a downturn, people in the industry say. They noted that farms have been inseminating cattle quicker, fattening them faster and slaughtering them younger.

“Ten years ago, the average age of cattle slaughtered in Brazil was five years,” said Vinicius Barbosa, a commercial manager responsible for tens of thousands of cattle at the CMA feedlot in Barretos, about 260 miles (420 km) north of Sao Paulo. “Now it is 36 months and going rapidly to 24,” he said.

Mauricio Nogueira, head of livestock consultancy Athenagro, said Brazilian beef production far surpassed his forecast in 2025. Output grew 4% for the year, where he had predicted a 2.7% drop. The increase of around 800,000 tons was about equal to total annual exports of Argentina, the world’s No. 5 beef shipper.

Rabobank, which had expected Brazil’s beef production to decline in 2025, now sees 0.5% growth to 12.5 million tons carcass weight equivalent. The U.S. Department of Agriculture in December raised its estimate for Brazilian beef output by 450,000 tons to 12.35 million tons.

If the official numbers confirm market estimates, 2025 will be the first year that Brazil’s output will have surpassed U.S. production, which fell 3.9% to 11.8 million tons in 2025, according to USDA estimates, following years of drought.

Feedlots, Rising Carcass Weight Drive Output

U.S. beef production will fall a further 0.9% to 11.7 million tons in 2026, the USDA said. In Brazil, the USDA and Rabobank project a decline in output, but Nogueira said rising productivity could actually boost Brazil’s production by around 300,000 tons.

Almost 28% of cattle slaughtered in Brazil will be fattened in feedlots by 2027, up from 22% in 2025, according to consultants Scot Consultoria.

“Feedlots do in 100 days for cattle what pasture does in between 18 and 24 months,” said Barbosa, adding that CMA’s Barretos feedlot would process 80,000 cattle in 2026, up from 65,000 last year.

A drone image shows cattle entering a feedlot at CMA Farm in Barretos, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

(Joel Silva/Reuters)

Brazil’s booming corn ethanol industry is generating a byproduct known as dried distillers grains that has higher protein than corn and helps cattle fatten faster, analysts said.

Cows are becoming pregnant more often as farmers adopt more efficient insemination techniques, allowing producers to slaughter more animals without reducing herd size.

Scot Consultoria expects Brazil’s pregnancy rate - the proportion of females that become pregnant during a breeding season - to rise to 54% in 2027 from an expected 50% in 2026.

Better genetics are also improving cattle growth and boosting meat quality, analysts say. And Brazil still has not matched the 90% proportion of cattle passing through feedlots as in the U.S., or Australia’s 40%.

If Brazil’s pregnancy rate rose to 66%, equivalent to neighbouring Argentina, the number of calves birthed each year would rise from an estimated 32 million to 40 million, according to consultants Datagro. The pregnancy rate in Canada is 96%, they said.

Government data show Brazil has 238 million cattle, well over double the 94 million in the U.S. Higher productivity would allow output to expand without increasing cattle numbers or the area of pasture land. That could ease one economic driver of deforestation of the Amazon rainforest.

Brazil’s cattle herd is expected to grow just 4% between 2024 and 2034 while beef production increases 24%, according to Brazilian beef exporter group ABIEC. U.S. beef production will rise 3.5% and cattle numbers will grow 5% over that period, by USDA estimates.

Brazil Key As Top Producers Scale Down

Global beef prices will hinge on whether Brazil can avoid a production downturn this year.

The USDA expects output in the world’s six biggest producers to fall in 2026 by a combined 2.4% - the biggest annual drop in decades - after rising 0.4% in 2025. These producers are Brazil, the U.S., China, the European Union, Argentina and Australia. The list excludes India, which the USDA names as one of the six top beef producers even though that country produces buffalo meat rather than beef.

The USDA expects Brazilian production to fall 5.3% to 11.7 million tons carcass weight equivalent this year. If Nogueira’s estimates are confirmed and output rises instead to around 12.6 million tons, the decline in the top six producers would be just 0.2%.

“There has never been so much international demand for Brazilian beef,” said Guilherme Jank, a Datagro analyst, adding that local beef packers have also ramped up capacity.

“We are witnessing firsthand a significant shift in how the beef cattle supply system works in Brazil, in terms of quality, scale, efficiency, and productivity,” he said.

(Reporting by Ana Mano in Barretos and Peter Hobson in Canberra; Additional reporting by Ella Cao in Beijing and Tom Polansek in Chicago; Editing by Brad Haynes and David Gregorio)