Packer

Beyond the Spread: Is it Time to Update the USDA Beef Grading Matrix?

Fri, 15 May 2026 17:29:38 GMT

For decades, the Choice-Select spread was the “North Star” for beef demand. But with the U.S. cattle herd at a 70-year low and Select supplies shrinking to just 10% of graded carcasses, Don Close, Terrain senior animal protein analyst, says it’s time to stop reading the old signals and start looking at what the modern consumer actually wants.

The recent inversion in the Choice-Select spread is sparking worry that consumers are “trading down” to cheaper, lower-quality beef. Close says in a recent Terrain Outlook the industry needs to quit overreacting to the old Choice-Select signal and start tracking more relevant indicators. For decades, the Choice-Select spread has been treated as a key gauge of beef demand and consumer preferences. An inverted spread — when Select trades higher than Choice — typically raised a red flag that buyers were shifting toward cheaper product. That narrative, he argues, simply doesn’t fit the current structure of the beef supply.

A Different Market Than the 1990s

Close says the conditions that once made the spread meaningful have changed dramatically.

“In previous years, an inverted spread mattered,” he explains. “But the grading percentage then was about 60% Choice or better and about 40% Select. And the majority of retail grocery chains carried Select product. There were also no branded beef programs, and the percentage of carcasses grading Prime ranged from 2% to 4%.”

Today, the entire grading and merchandising picture looks different.

“Now, retail stores predominantly carry Choice or better product,” Close notes. “It is also common for the percentage of Prime carcasses to be 10% to 15% and for there to be more Prime than Selects in the marketplace.”

In that kind of environment — where Select is a much smaller slice of total production and retailers lean heavily on branded and premium offerings — the old read on the spread doesn’t hold.

“In the current market environment, the spread is a meaningless measurement,” he stresses.

(Terrain)

Select is Scarce, Not Suddenly Popular

If consumers aren’t suddenly preferring Select, why has Select strengthened relative to Choice? Close points first to a structural decline in Select production.

“The main reason is that the supply of Select product has contracted, which can make it appear that there is an increase in demand,” he says. “The supply went from 50% of graded beef carcasses in the 1990s and early 2000s to about 10% currently. As with any commodity product as supply contracts, the price is going to increase.”

That supply-side squeeze is occurring alongside the smallest domestic cattle supply in 70 years. At the same time, tight lean supplies and growing use of blended products are pulling on every available pound of lean beef.

“Even with the escalation in lean beef trimmings because of imports, the supply of lean beef is exceptionally tight,” Close explains. “Processors are searching for any source of lean beef to increase supplies of lean grinding materials.”

He adds Select also still has a defined role in a couple of key channels.

“There is also demand for Select products in institutional use, primarily hospitals,” Close notes. “Select products are also still used in many prepared frozen foods.”

Combine smaller Select production, a historically tight cattle herd and ongoing demand in institutional and processed channels, and Select’s price strength looks more like a scarcity story than a consumer “trade down” signal.

Will This Inversion Last?

Close does not expect today’s situation to be permanent — but he also doesn’t see the inverted spread as a near-term threat.

“Is this going to be a long-term scenario? I certainly don’t think so. Is the inversion of the spread going to disrupt the current market again? I don’t think that’s the case,” he says.

Instead, he points producers to the economics of feeding cattle.

“When the day comes that grain prices escalate and the cost of gain exceeds the value of gain, the market may have to take another look,” Close says. “In that case, the economics would discourage cattle feeders from fattening cattle as much, leading to more Select beef, a lower Select price and a higher Choice price.”

For now, the numbers still favor feeding cattle to higher grades.

“Currently, with cost of gain running around $1 a pound and the value of gain approaching 250, the inversion of the spread will not be a market factor anytime soon,” he summarizes.

(Terrain)

Branded Beef and Prime Demand Call for a New Grading Matrix

Rather than obsess over the Choice-Select spread, Close believes the industry should focus on measures that reflect where beef demand has actually moved.

“A better measurement would be a Choice-branded beef cutout, or a Choice-Prime spread,” he suggests.

That shift would also require updating the grading framework itself.

“The last time USDA beef grading matrix was updated or changed was in 1997,” he explains. “At that time, there were no branded beef products. In my opinion, the grading matrix needs to be updated to incorporate all beef in the upper one-third of Choice and better.”

For Close, the consumer verdict is already in.

“Consumers have proven their demand for ultra-high-quality beef,” he says, pointing to the success of Certified Angus Beef and the expansion of Prime offerings at retail. “Now, protein diets have become the craze. The American consumer is not going to go back to eating a largely Select-based product.”

For producers and market watchers, the message is clear: don’t let an inverted Choice-Select spread distract from the bigger, long-term shift toward higher-quality beef and more relevant pricing signals.

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.

The Packer’s Dream: How Beef-on-Dairy is Solving the $2 Billion Consistency Problem

Thu, 23 Apr 2026 14:41:08 GMT

When Brad Kooima of KKV Trading spoke to “AgriTalk” in late January, he described beef-on-dairy as the “gorilla in the room.” But it wasn’t just the volume that caught his attention; it was the control.

“For the first time, you got an integrator that has the ability to control that thing from its birthday and schedule it out 341 days later that we’re going to slaughter that thing,” Kooima said. “Once a dream that the packers chased.”

That dream is now a reality, according to data presented at this year’s High Plains Dairy Conference. For decades, the beef industry has struggled with the fragmented nature of the native cow-calf sector — thousands of small herds with different genetics, different calving seasons and massive variability at the rail.

Ending the War on Variability

Lauren Kimble, manager of ProfitSOURCE Supply Chains for Select Sires, Inc., highlighted the greatest strength of the beef-on-dairy movement is its ability to kill variability.

“I care deeply about consistency ... variability is the enemy,” said Sidney Abbot of OT Feedyard & Research Center, a sentiment echoed throughout the conference.

The data proves why. While the total U.S. fed cattle harvest is a mixed bag of quality, program-specific beef-on-dairy is hitting 40% Prime and 59% Choice. Because these calves are born on dairies that operate like clockwork, they offer the packer something the native beef industry rarely can: Year-round market supply and uniform carcasses.

The Factory Floor of Beef

In the Texas High Plains, where over 25% of the nation’s fed cattle are processed, the shift is undeniable. Data from Laphe LaRoe of Smith Cattle Company shows while native cattle inventories are plummeting, the beef-on-dairy line is climbing.

By 2026, the dairy barn has effectively become the factory floor for the beef industry. Because a dairy cow calves every day of the year, the integrator (the dairy producer) can provide a steady, predictable stream of high-quality protein to the packer every single week. There is no calf crop season. There is only a continuous, scheduled flow.

This isn’t just a marginal gain; it is a fundamental shift in the dairy business model that allows for this factory-like precision. Ken McCarty of McCarty Family Dairy in Kansas says the transition from Holstein bull calves to high-value beef-on-dairy crosses has rewritten their balance sheet. McCarty Family Farms was recognized as the 2025 Milk Business Leader in Technology Award winner for transforming their operation into a high-tech, 20,000-cow operation driven by innovation, data and bold decision-making.

“Bull calf sales went from something that you basically ignored in your budget to something that really today accounts for, depending on the month in the market, somewhere around 50% of our overall revenue,” McCarty says.

When half of a dairy’s revenue is tied to the beef side of the barn, the producer is no longer just a milk man — they are a high-stakes beef integrator with every incentive to meet the packer’s demand for perfection.

Systems Capture Value

As Troy Marshall of the American Angus Association notes: “Genetics create potential. Systems capture value.”

The system is the ability to track a calf from its specific beef-sire breeding date through a standardized calf-raising program, into a professional feedyard, and onto a rail where it hits Certified Angus Beef (CAB) specs with surgical precision.

By 2026, the industry isn’t just selling cattle; it’s selling predictability. For the packer, a beef-on-dairy calf isn’t a gamble — it’s a scheduled delivery of a high-marbling, consistent product that meets the consumer’s demand every time. The gorilla in the room isn’t just big; it’s incredibly disciplined.

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.

Tug of War in the Cattle Industry: Cow Size, Carcass Weights and Total System Efficiency

Wed, 15 Apr 2026 15:52:36 GMT

The beef industry is currently experiencing a tug of war between biological efficiency and market signals that reward heavier carcass weights.

Recent Oklahoma State University Rancher’s Thursday webinar sessions highlighted the growing tension in the beef industry between the market-driven feeding for heavier carcass weights, selection for increased growth and efficiency, and the economic realities of maintaining larger cows.

The Feedlot Perspective: Why Tonnage is King in 2026

Carcass weights are increasing largely because feedyards are keeping cattle on feed longer and marketing systems reward pounds of carcass weight. At the same time, cow size has increased, in turn raising maintenance requirements and forage demand.

Speakers also discussed the biological factors behind heavier carcasses. Growth in finishing cattle remains relatively linear even at heavier weights, and modern marketing systems favor carcass-based pricing.

There are market incentives that encourage feeding cattle to heavier endpoints, including low cattle numbers, relatively inexpensive feed and reduced discounts for heavyweight and yield grade 4 carcasses. These conditions can improve gross revenue at the feedlot but also increase days on feed and reduce feed efficiency.

The Hidden Cost of Growth: Maintenance Requirements and Production Risk

Bigger cows are not necessarily more efficient cows. Cow size is closely related to feed intake, so selecting for larger mature size without considering forage resources can reduce stocking flexibility and increase production risk, particularly during drought or periods of high feed costs. Matching cow type to the ranch environment remains one of the most important management decisions producers make.

Ultimately, long-term profitability of beef production depends on balancing genetics, nutrition and available resources across the entire production system. Producers who align cow size, stocking rate and marketing strategy with their forage base are better positioned to remain resilient in volatile markets and challenging weather conditions.

Efficiency should drive replacement and management decisions. The most profitable cow herds are those that fit their environment and optimize performance from pasture to packer.

Your Next Reads:

Closing the Child Care Gap: Cargill Invests $5 Million to Support Dodge City’s Workforce

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 11:39:59 GMT

Cargill is investing $5 million in the Full Circle Childcare Center in Dodge City, Kan., to provide 24-hour and extended childcare for 100 children. This project aims to strengthen the rural workforce supporting the regional beef supply chain.

“At Cargill, we believe strong communities are essential to a strong workforce,” says Jeremy Burr, general manager of Cargill’s Dodge City beef plant. “Access to childcare is one of the biggest challenges facing families today, and it plays a critical role in supporting working families and strengthening local economies. We’re proud to partner with Dodge City and others to invest in a solution that will support families and benefit the broader community for years to come.”

Expected to be completed in July 2027, the facility will offer non-traditional hours to better meet the needs of working families and employers in the region. This project is structured as a community-wide solution in partnership with local and state stakeholders, aimed at strengthening the broader workforce that supports the regional cattle and beef supply chain.

Community leaders, partners and residents gathered on April 10 to celebrate the groundbreaking of the Full Circle Childcare Center.

According to a press releas e, the new facility represents years of planning and collaboration focused on addressing the community’s growing childcare needs. Conversations surrounding childcare challenges began in 2019, bringing together stakeholders to identify solutions and build a path forward. The groundbreaking marks a significant milestone in that ongoing effort.

“This project represents progress, momentum and a shared commitment to strengthening our community for years to come,” says Mollea Lightner, Dodge City/Ford County Development Corporation assistant director of economic development.

The project is backed by more than $6 million in total funding, including a $5 million investment from Cargill. Other major contributors include the State of Kansas, with funding allocated through the Kansas Children’s Cabinet Trust Fund with the support of Rep. Jason Goetz; the Patterson Family Foundation; and Hilmar Cheese. Additional contributions include MR Builder, who donated the building and site and is serving as the project’s contractor.

Your Next Reads:

Back to Normal: JBS Greeley Restores Stability with Two-Year Labor Agreement

Mon, 13 Apr 2026 15:58:20 GMT

JBS USA has reached a new collective bargaining agreement with UFCW Local 7 , allowing the Greeley beef production facility to return to normal operations and providing team members with clarity and stability after weeks of uncertainty.

The tentative agreement comes after a three-week unfair labor practice (ULP) strike.

Read more about the strike:

JBS Greeley Strike Ends: Workers Return to Plant Monday

What Does the JBS Strike Mean to Beef Producers?

According to a press release distributed by JBS, “The agreement, which runs through April 2028, reflects the same economic framework JBS USA presented in its ‘Last, Best and Final Offer’ — an offer that remained unchanged economically throughout the bargaining process. While JBS USA is pleased that an agreement has finally been reached, the company expressed disappointment that UFCW Local 7 leadership chose to eliminate the historic pension benefit that was part of the national agreement negotiated last year in partnership with UFCW International.”

As part of the agreement, Local 7 is also withdrawing seven alleged ULP charges. JBS says this further underscores this was a strike about the economics of the deal, not to stop ULPs as the union repeatedly claimed. Despite this, Local 7 continued to make public statements that did not reflect the facts and contributed to unnecessary confusion among team members.

According to a press release distributed by the union, “The tentative agreement represents a contract with all gains, countless improvements and not a single concession — a direct reflection of the power built by Local 7 members who refused to accept anything less than the fair treatment and working conditions they deserve.”

🚨 PRESS RELEASE🚨 pic.twitter.com/Oj0qhKojNw
— UFCW Local 7 (@UFCW_7) April 12, 2026

“This tentative agreement is a testament to the incredible resolve of our members at the JBS Greeley plant,” says Kim Cordova, UFCW Local 7 president. “These workers stood together on the picket line for three weeks, through extreme weather, because they knew their worth and refused to be disrespected. Today, that sacrifice has been rewarded. This is what union power looks like.”

The union summarizes the new agreement secures JBS-leading wage increases, defends workers against increases in health care costs and protects workers from having to pay for personal protective equipment that should be paid for by the company.

“By standing together, workers secured wage increases over the next two years some 33% higher in this tentative agreement than JBS had offered Greeley workers in its pre-strike final offer,” the union press release says.

The JBS USA release explains the strike ultimately ended without any major changes to the company’s offer and the final agreement remains entirely within the economic framework JBS USA presented months ago, with no economic terms added or expanded from the company’s “Last, Best and Final Offer.” Instead, UFCW Local 7 opted to reallocate pension contributions to wages, resulting in the following structure:

Key Terms of the Agreement

Term: July 21, 2025 to April 2028
Base Wage Increases:

$0.70 at ratification (no retroactive pay)
$0.40 in July 2026
$0.40 in July 2027

(All increases above the company’s Last, Best and Final offer were due to shifting the pension contributions)

Bonuses:

$750 one-time payment at ratification
$500 one-time payment in April 2027 (Eligibility requires employment at ratification and at time of payment)

Retirement:

No pension
Continuation of legacy 401(k) plan

“The company is relieved to move forward and restore stability for team members,” a JBS USA spokesperson says. “At the same time, JBS USA strongly disagrees with Local 7 leadership’s decision to forgo the historic pension that was secured for workers at other major JBS facilities across the country. The pension was designed in partnership with UFCW International to strengthen long-term retirement security for the workforce. Instead, Local 7 chose to shift those dollars into short-term wage increases — an approach that appears to prioritize the Local 7 leadership’s immediate agenda over the long-term financial future of team members.”

JBS USA notes workers at other JBS beef facilities across the country have already accepted and are benefiting from the historic pension and other enhancements negotiated in partnership with UFCW International. The company reiterated that the strike at Greeley could have been avoided entirely had Local 7 leadership allowed its members to vote on the same offer presented months earlier.

“The company’s goal has always been to provide a strong, competitive package that supports families today while protecting retirement security for the future,” a JBS USA spokesperson explains.

The company says it never refused to meet and never conditioned bargaining on the strike ending.

“With the agreement now finalized, JBS USA looks forward to restoring stability, supporting its workforce, and continuing to invest in the Greeley facility for the future,” the JBS USA spokesperson summarizes.

JBS Greeley Strike Ends: Workers Return to Plant Monday

Sun, 05 Apr 2026 02:28:27 GMT

Workers at the JBS meatpacking plant in Greeley , Colo., will return to work Monday without a new agreement in place.

In a news release , United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7 announced its members at Greeley’s Swift Beef Company, owned by JBS, will return to work after JBS agreed to return to the negotiating table. The strike originally began at 5:30 a.m. on Monday, March 16.

According to the union, thousands of workers have joined the picket lines every day, with workers demanding JBS return to the table and negotiate fairly.

UFCW Local 7 President Kim Cordova says JBS has agreed to meet on April 9 and 10 to resume contract negotiations, and as such, workers will return to work for shifts starting at or after 5 a.m. on April 7.

“This decision by the union comes without any new agreement or change to company’s original offer,” says Nikki Richardson, JBS corporate communications. “Throughout this process, we have remained committed to good-faith negotiations and to operating our facility safely, responsibly and in compliance with all regulatory standards.”

She adds, “Our last, best and final offer remains on the table. This comprehensive proposal includes meaningful wage increases, a pension and other valuable benefits designed to support our team members and their families. We believe this is a strong and competitive package, and we hope employees will have the opportunity to review and vote on it soon.”

Cordova says, “Workers remain united and will continue to fight until JBS fully ends its unfair labor practices and gives workers a contract offer that protects them, shows workers the respect they deserve, and pays them a livable wage. This fight will continue and workers can take strength from the community members, farmers and ranchers, and elected officials who have joined them in this battle. We will not stop until JBS rectifies the suffering it has brought on these workers and the American people as a whole.”

The union press release states the JBS agreed to meet on April 9 and 10 to resume contract negotiations.

“We are pleased to welcome our team members back and are preparing to resume and ramp up operations at the Greeley plant next week,” Richardson says. “Our focus remains on ensuring a smooth and safe return to work for all employees while continuing to meet the needs of our customers and community.”

Dave Weaber, Terrain senior animal protein analyst, says, “I’m not sure slaughter changes much after we got back to early March levels last week. Mostly depends on packers getting beef to rally post Easter.”

Your Next Read: Cattle Market Volatility: Is the Ride Just Getting Started?

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?”

Why Bigger Cows Aren't the Only Reason for Record Carcass Weights

Fri, 20 Mar 2026 15:20:23 GMT

Mature cow body weight has increased by an average of 7.7 lb. per year in the last 60 years. Recently, the industry has focused attention on the large increases in hot carcass weight (HCW) observed in 2024 and 2025; HCW increased by more than 20 lb. and 24 lb., respectively. Producers often assume that heavier carcasses are simply the result of larger cows, but the relationship between the two is more modest than many expect.

Hot carcass weight has increased at an average rate of about 4.8 lb. per year over time. The rate of increase differs slightly between sexes, with heifer carcass weights increasing about 0.8 lb. per year faster than steers (Figure 1).

(Oklahoma State)

While the recent increases in 2024 and 2025 appear dramatic, they are not unprecedented. Similar year-to-year jumps occurred in 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2012, 2015 and 2020, showing that periodic spikes in carcass weight are part of a longer-term pattern.

Looking at national data provides a similar perspective (Figure 2). The amount of carcass weight produced per 100 lb. of cow body weight has increased only gradually (0.12 lb. per year). In the early 1960s, cattle produced about 60 lb. of hot carcass weight for every 100 lb. of cow body weight. Today that figure averages around 69 lb. per 100 lb. of cow weight — an increase of only about 9 lb. over the past 66 years.

(Oklahoma State)

An analysis of a research cow herd in Arkansas reported that carcass weight increased by about 0.3 lb. for each lb. increase in cow body weight. In other words, larger cows do tend to produce calves that finish with heavier carcasses, but cow size alone explains only a portion of the overall increase. As cows get larger, the efficiency of HCW production per cow bodyweight decreases.

This indicates that improvements in carcass weight are not driven solely by larger cows. Other factors play major roles, including genetic selection for growth and carcass traits, the use of growth-promoting technologies, improved nutrition and feeding management, and economic incentives in the cattle market. For example, tight cattle supplies and relatively small discounts for heavier carcasses have encouraged feedlots to feed cattle longer, allowing more weight to be added before harvest.

Bigger cows are only part of the carcass weight story for the beef industry. Increasing cow size is a very inefficient way to increase total beef production.

Your Next Read:
Is There an Optimum Cow Size?

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.”

Why Are BBs Found in Beef? A Hidden Problem Costing the Industry Millions

Thu, 05 Mar 2026 20:13:59 GMT

According to the latest National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA), 100% of U.S. processing plants now report challenges with foreign materials, specifically BBs and metal shot embedded deep in muscle tissue. This hidden threat causes a 1% loss in total ground beef production annually, effectively robbing 89% of American consumers of one serving of beef per year.

Jessica Lancaster, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) senior director of product quality and safety research, warns because these materials are classified as regulatory adulterants, a single BB can lead to the condemnation of thousands of pounds of beef.

“That’s really challenging, because that’s not something we see on the surface of a carcass,” Lancaster explains. “Often that’s getting embedded deep into the muscle and sometimes even to the bone.”

She summarizes the issue is both widespread and expensive — and it starts long before cattle reach the packing plant. It’s present across the country, in both the fed beef supply and the cull cow and bull plants.

(Photos: West Texas A&M University, USDA)

BBs aren’t the only problem. Lancaster has received documentation of numerous incidences when remote drug delivery devices (darts) were lodged in places like lungs and deep muscles. Critically, these issues originate in the pre-harvest segment — the production side that producers can control — but often aren’t discovered until post-harvest, during further processing.

What Happens When a BB is Found in Ground Beef?

The consequences reach far beyond a single affected carcass. When trimmings from multiple animals are combined into combos for ground beef, foreign materials often go unnoticed until it’s too late.

“The challenge is we don’t find that product until it hits the grinder blade,” Lancaster says. “And at that point there is thousands of pounds that are then impacted, and there’s no way to know if there was one BB or 40 BBs in that load.”

Because there is no practical way to isolate only the contaminated portion, entire lots must be condemned. That means even producers who have done everything right can see products from their cattle included in a load that ends up discarded because of a few bad producers somewhere upstream.

“It’s not only the cattle who are contaminated with the foreign material that are impacted,” Lancaster stresses, “All of our producers who are doing the right thing also are facing loss of product because of the bad actors.”

How Much Money Does the Beef Industry Lose to Foreign Materials?

The economic impact is substantial. Lancaster’s team estimates that about 1% of ground beef is lost due to foreign material contamination. On the consumer side, that translates into over 89% of U.S. consumers getting one less serving of beef per year. In a market environment where beef demand is tight and every pound matters, those lost servings add up quickly.

“Product from one animal could tank product from eight animals,” Lancaster explains. “When we’re making a batch of that, we’re impacting 51 head of cattle. And every time an event happens, it costs the industry $75,000, and in most facilities, we’re seeing 140 events of this per year at each facility.”

Add that up across the industry and the bill comes to roughly $476 million annually.

Is Foreign Material in Beef a New Issue?

Beyond the economic cost, foreign materials in beef are a regulatory and food safety concern.

While finding foreign materials in beef is not a new challenge — it was first noted in the early ’90s — changing regulations have redefined foreign objects to be adulterants regardless of physical characteristics.

“Foreign material is an adulterant today,” Lancaster emphasizes. “Anytime we see that, there’s regulatory action that takes place. Any objects that are not inherent to the animal are considered foreign material and we should never have foreign material in our animals as they’re entering the processing facility.”

In other words, if BBs or other foreign objects are present, the product is no longer acceptable for the food supply.

Is Foreign Material in Beef an Animal Welfare Issue?

There is also an animal welfare dimension. For a BB or metal shot to end up lodged deep within tissue, it must be propelled there with significant force. Lancaster points out this is not just a product quality issue — it raises serious questions about how and why animals are being exposed to these projectiles in the first place.

What is the Industry Doing About It?

While all modern plants use metal detectors and other detection systems, they have physical and technological limits.

“If we think about these BBs, they’re so small,” Lancaster summarizes.

Just as airport detectors can miss very small items, plant systems may not reliably catch tiny shot deeply embedded in muscle or near bone.

Lancaster says she sees a two-pronged path forward: education and technology.

First, there’s a clear need for producer education. Many in the production segment still believe foreign objects are primarily a plant problem. Lancaster’s data tells a different story, showing a significant share of contamination originating on-farm or in the field. Education efforts aim to change behaviors like moving cattle with shotguns and to raise awareness of how even small lapses can snowball into costly food safety and economic events downstream.

Second, NCBA, as a contractor to the beef checkoff, and its research partners are exploring new detection and tracing tools. One major research direction is investigating whether foreign objects can be detected in live animals or more effectively at harvest and then traced back to their source. If successful, this could support enforcement mechanisms and targeted interventions, discourage risky practices and prevent adulterated animals from entering the supply chain unnoticed.

The goal is to scan animals as they move through chutes or other handling systems, identifying BBs or metal fragments before they enter the processing chain. She explains this could mean using imaging or scanning technologies to flag animals that pose a risk, allowing them to be diverted or more closely evaluated before they are combined into large ground beef lots.

Lancaster also stresses the industry can’t treat foreign materials as a side issue. For years, food safety conversations have centered primarily on biological hazards such as bacteria and pathogens. Those remain critical priorities, but today, foreign materials carry similar weight.

“I think we not only have to think about those biological hazards we always talk about with food safety,” she says, “but as we’ve seen foreign material become an adulterant, we truly have to take some actions to help prevent this impacting our beef demand.”

Ultimately, solving the foreign material challenge will require a combination of producer responsibility, better on-farm and field practices, new detection technologies and strong communication across the supply chain. By tackling the issue where it starts — and not just where it’s discovered — the industry can protect animal welfare, reduce costly product losses and ensure more safe, high‑quality beef makes it to consumers’ tables.

Your Next Read:
Hidden Hazards: Now is the Time to Rethink Gun Use in Cattle Handling

JBS USA Breaks Ground on $150 Million Expansion at Cactus Beef Production Facility

Mon, 02 Mar 2026 14:28:13 GMT

JBS USA broke ground Friday on a $150 million expansion project at its beef production facility in Cactus, Texas. The project includes construction of a new, state-of-the-art fabrication floor and an expanded ground beef room, strengthening the long-term competitiveness of one of the company’s largest and most important beef plants.

This major investment is designed to increase operational efficiency, enhance production capacity, and create new opportunities for cattle producers, customers, team members, and the surrounding rural communities. Construction is underway, with expectation of being completed by early 2027.

“This groundbreaking marks an exciting moment for JBS USA, our team in Cactus, and cattle producers,” says Wesley Batista Filho, JBS USA CEO. “The investment reflects our long-term commitment to the U.S. beef industry and the rural communities where we live and work. By modernizing and expanding our Cactus facility, we are ensuring that our business, and the thousands of families who depend on it, remain positioned for success now and in the future.”

The Cactus facility, located in the Texas Panhandle, currently employs more than 3,600 team members and partners with local cattle producers, purchasing approximately $3.3 billion in livestock annually.

The reinvestment marks a major step forward for the region, highlighting its economic significance and benefits for Texas producers.

“I commend JBS for their investment right here in Cactus,” says state Rep. Caroline Fairly. “This transformational project sends a clear message that they believe in the Texas Panhandle, in our workforce, and in the long-term future of this area. We are proud to see JBS continue investing in our community and in American agriculture.”

Moore County Judge Rowdy Rhoades applauds JBS’s investment in the local community and its ongoing impact on Cactus residents. “The investment is about more than just expanded production capacity, it reinforces JBS’s longstanding commitment to the people who call this community home. Through their Hometown Strong and Better Futures programs, they’ve partnered directly with community leaders to fund numerous local projects that our residents enjoy and benefit from, along with education opportunities for their employees and their families. This expansion builds on that momentum, ensuring that Cactus continues to thrive and remains a vibrant, resilient place.”

Beyond its facility upgrades, JBS USA continues to invest in rural communities like Cactus through its Hometown Strong and Better Futures programs. Since 2020, JBS has invested more than $11 million in Cactus community projects — including parks, enhanced local facilities, nonprofit support, and affordable housing—while enabling more than 259 team members and their children to pursue tuition-free community college.

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.

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.

Record Profits, Reluctant Expansion: Why Ranchers Are Still Hesitant to Rebuild

Wed, 18 Feb 2026 15:24:06 GMT

From drought memories to high interest rates, beef producers today are hesitant to rebuild even with record cow-calf profits. Structural risks are outweighing the immediate price signal.

Patrick Linnell, CattleFax director of market research, frames today’s beef market as a familiar cattle cycle operating under new structural conditions. Linnell was the featured guest in “ The Future of Beef Show ” podcast episode 17.

He shares the idea that history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme, summarizing cycles still exist, numbers will eventually grow and prices will come down from today’s highs, but the underlying drivers and constraints are different from past decades.

Despite record cow‑calf profits, herd expansion is being slowed by structural headwinds and risk aversion. The industry is planting the seeds of expansion, but the rebuild will be slow and cautious.

Debating the decision of selling or keeping high-priced replacements, Linnell summarizes: “Whether somebody’s looking at retaining that heifer calf or selling her, honestly, it’s hard to argue with either decision.”

Regarding herd size, he predicts 30 million beef cows as likely the upper end of what’s realistically achievable, and only on a long timeline — possibly around 2030 to 2032. He says land coming out of beef production and other constraints cap the upside. Yet the industry has offset some of this land and herd reduction by producing more beef per animal, largely through rising carcass weights.

Bottom line: Linnell points to aging operators and succession uncertainty, labor shortages and high labor costs, high capital and interest rates, alternative land uses and urban sprawl, and memories of drought that push many to sell versus build. Layered on top is greater market volatility as well as policy and social media shocks, which make many producers unwilling to commit to expansion right now.

Here are four takeaways from the podcast:

1. High Prices Are Demand-Driven, Not Just About Short Cattle Numbers

Today’s strong prices reflect exceptional beef demand as much as, or more than, tight supplies.

Linnell notes U.S. beef production is still historically large, roughly around a 25‑year average, and per capita beef consumption has increased, reaching its highest level since about 2010 at just more than 59 lb. per person. Consumers are not eating less beef; instead, they’re paying more because they want the product.

Looking ahead, Linnell expects demand to flatten rather than keep climbing steeply from here. With retail beef prices around $9.50 per pound, he thinks many consumers are at a point where they will continue to pay current levels but are resistant to going significantly higher. Over the long term, he still sees an upward trend in beef demand, but near term, he anticipates a plateau. A severe recession would be the clear downside risk to this picture.

2. Structural Shift: More Beef from Fewer Cows Through Genetics and Carcass Weights

With land and cow numbers constrained, growth is coming from heavier, more efficient carcasses — but that also creates new challenges .

“We’ve been able to just produce more with less, too,” Linnell says. “And that really comes back to how big carcass weights have become.”

Linnell says he doubts carcass weights will decrease significantly. While cheap corn supports feeding cattle to heavier weights, he concedes corn won’t stay this inexpensive forever.

He summarizes today’s heavy carcasses are only possible because of decades of genetic progress. Through continual investment in better bulls, cow‑calf producers have dramatically increased the animals’ genetic potential for growth and carcass performance.

In his view, cattle feeders are simply realizing genetic potential, and any policy or management shifts going forward, will have to balance cow size, forage efficiency and carcass performance.

3. Trade and Trim: Why Imports Are Critical in a High-Demand, Heavy-Carcass World

Heavy carcasses in the U.S. generate fat trim, which must be blended with lean beef from imports to make products like 90/10 ground beef. With ground beef demand also very strong, Linnell sees imports as necessary to satisfy consumer preferences.

At the same time, he expects global beef demand to grow over the next decades, meaning more competition for that lean product worldwide.

4. Outlook: Strong-but-Softer Calf Market, Plus Faster, More Volatile Markets in General

Linnell predicts continued strength in calf prices — likely below last year’s highs, but still near record levels.

“[There is a] very strong likelihood that we are looking at calf prices that are probably below year-ago levels this coming year,” he says, “But it’s still the second-strongest calf market on record.”

He cautions the reopening the U.S. border to Mexican cattle could pull prices down a notch.

On technology, Linnell sees artificial intelligence (AI) as a useful support tool — a great editor and helper — but not something that can yet write a credible forward‑looking market report.

He explains AI is inherently backward‑looking and struggles with regime changes or new normals. For CattleFax, he says the value remains in human synthesis of data, market structure and producer feedback.

Linnell also connects AI and algorithmic trading to the increasing speed and volatility of financial and commodity markets. Markets may end up in the same place eventually, but price moves now happen faster and more violently, complicating hedging and risk management.

Overall, Linnell’s view is the outlook for cow‑calf producers remains historically strong, even with the downside risks from policy, trade and macroeconomic shifts.

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.

Cargill Announces Closing of Milwaukee Ground Beef Facility

Thu, 12 Feb 2026 21:57:13 GMT

Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation announced it will permanently close its protein processing facility in Milwaukee, Wis. This closing is expected to result in the permanent elimination of approximately 221 positions.

A Cargill representative reports the company made the difficult decision to close its Milwaukee ground beef facility to better align its portfolio with current customer demand and prioritize investments where they are needed most for the future.

“We recognize the impact this decision has on our 221 employees, and our focus is on supporting them with respect, care and assistance as they navigate this transition. Moving forward, we will shift ground beef production volume to our other North American beef processing facilities, including the nearby Butler, Wis., plant, to continue reliably serving our customers.”

The Milwaukee plant specializes in producing ground beef patties, loaves and chubs. The plant came under Cargill’s ownership with the 2001 acquisition of Emmpak Foods Inc.

According to the WARN notice , Cargill expects to begin the process of winding down operations soon, with production stopping on or around April 17 and the plant fully closed on or around May 31. Separations will happen in phases, based on customer and operational needs. The first employee separations are expected to be April 11.

Impacted employees may apply for open jobs at other Cargill facilities. Employees who exit the Company through this plant closing will be eligible for a severance package.

Are Record Carcass Weights Pushing the Supply Chain to Its Limit?

Fri, 06 Feb 2026 16:59:34 GMT

Has the beef industry hit the tipping point when the unintended consequences of animal size outweigh the benefits? Industry leaders say rising carcass weights have boosted beef supply and efficiency, but they have also increased bruising, mobility issues, heat stress and economic risk.

Kevin Good, CattleFax vice president of market analysis, says carcass weights the last two years have gone up by 52 lb., with carcasses now averaging 975-990 lb.

“That’s an offset of 2 million head harvested,” he explains.

While the added weight has helped fill the supply gap due to the reduced cow herd and fewer cattle on feed, Jessica Lancaster, NCBA senior director of product quality and safety research, says these huge incremental shifts in carcass weight can certainly cause challenges.

Lancaster was a guest on “AgriTalk” Thursday, discussing carcass size research as well as foreign object research results.

Shown is the “Bigger Cattle, Bigger Decisions: Managing Health and Welfare as Cattle Size Increases” panel including: Lily Edwards-Calloway, Colorado State University associate professor of animal science; Scott Pohlman, Cargill director of beef supply chain sustainability; and AJ Tarpoff, Kansas State University Extension veterinarian.

(Angie Stump Denton)

Today’s Bigger Animals Are Testing Transport and Plant Limits

The Cattlemen’s College session “Bigger Cattle, Bigger Decisions: Managing Health and Welfare as Cattle Size Increases” featured industry experts Scott Pohlman, Cargill director of beef supply chain sustainability; Lily Edwards-Calloway, Colorado State University associate professor of animal science; and AJ Tarpoff, Kansas State University Extension veterinarian.

From longer days on feed to tougher transport and processing, the panelists discussed how a more efficient, heavier animal can strain welfare, infrastructure and profitability. They all agree proactive management and research are critical to dealing with the rising carcass weights.

Here are some key takeaways from their conversation:

1. Structural Shift: Fewer Cows, Bigger Cattle

Pohlman says the U.S. cow herd is at its lowest level since the Roosevelt administration.

Feedlots have compensated by adding days on feed and pushing carcass weights sharply higher — approaching 975-990 lb. — resulting in similar total beef supply with fewer animals but much larger individuals.

2. Efficiency Gains Are Real, and So Are the Risks

According to Tarpoff, the larger, heavier cattle and longer feeding periods have improved overall efficiency: more beef with fewer animals, less total feed and water per pound of beef. This has helped “backfill” lost production from the smaller cow herd.

However, longer time in the system means:

Higher probability of adverse outcomes.
Rising death loss and greater economic risk per head, because each animal is more valuable.

3. Welfare: Tipping Point Concerns Around Size

Welfare is framed around biological functioning: growth, health and reproduction, the ability to express normal behavior and the freedom from discomfort, fear and distress.

Edwards-Calloway says there is a particular concern for animals at the extremes of the size bell curve, whose welfare can be “pretty compromised.”

The industry must proactively address welfare challenges associated with larger cattle to maintain consumer trust. Edwards-Calloway says if consumers think the industry knew about a welfare problem and didn’t act, that’s seen as worse than making an honest mistake and fixing it.

4. Transport and Packing Plants: Systems Not Built for Today’s Cattle

Edwards-Calloway explains transporting from feedlot to packing plant is still one of the most stressful phases, even with best practices.

Research has often controlled for size rather than explicitly asking how large size affects outcomes. She says evidence suggests larger‑frame cattle have more traumatic events and bruising on certain trailer types.

Not all fed cattle are fit for transport; there’s a call for mobility scoring at loading, not just at the plant, she adds.

Pohlman says the frequency of bruising in the 2022 National Beef Quality Audit was the highest on record, with major/critical bruises increasing. He stresses the economic impact is significant at about $110 million from loin bruises alone.

He also says mobility scores at arrival have worsened.

Processing facilities built decades ago are struggling to accommodate today’s larger cattle. Plants are having to modify pen densities, single-file alleyways, restrainer sizes, intervention cabinets and even re-engineer rail systems to handle the increased weight and size of modern cattle carcasses.

5. Heat Stress, Dark Cutting and Seasonal Losses

Heat stress represents a more than $650 million annual loss to the industry, with heavy, near-slaughter cattle at highest risk. Larger animals have increased difficulty with thermoregulation, making heat-stress management increasingly critical as cattle weights continue to rise.

Tarpoff says summer heat correlates with higher dark‑cutting rates, causing additional carcass‑value loss.

6. Call to Action: Upgrade Infrastructure and Management for a ‘Different Animal’

Today’s cattle are heavier, bigger‑framed and take up more space per head than 10 to 20 years ago. Now is the time to reinvest in infrastructure: pens, water systems, shade and heat‑stress mitigation, transport equipment and plant modifications.

Tarpoff says the industry needs to be nimble enough to make individual outcome decisions because every animal is a bigger financial and reputational stake.

He encourages the industry to consider welfare investments — comfort, health, mobility and heat mitigation — as economic investments with real returns in performance and risk reduction.

Tarpoff stresses that now is the time to adapt systems to the realities of larger cattle so the industry can keep delivering high‑quality, efficient beef without eroding welfare or consumer trust.

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

Fri, 06 Feb 2026 14:09:07 GMT

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

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

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

The Supply Baseline: Smaller, Tighter And Slower to Fix

Put 2026 in context with a few anchors:

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

(Big Bad Beef Packer)

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

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

The Pipeline View: Feedlot Inventory Shows the Tightness

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

(The Big Bad Beef Packer)

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

Inside that total:

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

Now the sell-through evidence. December flows:

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

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

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

Regional Callouts: Same Cycle, Different Pain Points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the part the market routinely underestimates.

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

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

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

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

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

Cow Slaughter and Lean Supply: The Ground Beef Undercurrent

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

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

Animal Health Risk: A Volatility Trigger That Behaves Like Supply

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

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

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

Who Feels The Pain And When

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

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

2026 Domestic Supply Watchlist

What we will be watching on domestic supply:

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

Domestic Supply Conclusion: 2026 is a Rationing Year

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

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

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

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

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.