R-CALF

Did the Administration's Plan to Lower Beef Prices Wreck the Bull Run in the Cattle Market?

Fri, 14 Nov 2025 20:02:31 GMT

2025 has been a historic year in the cattle market. The tightest cattle numbers in 70 years laid the ground work for cash and futures prices to push to record and all-time highs.

From All-Time High to Crash
The peak in the cattle futures market was hit on Oct. 16. However, by Nov. 6, live cattle saw a $30 correction from the highs and feeder cattle futures set back nearly $70. The cattle market chaos wasn’t tied to fundamentals but liquidation by speculative traders on fear of policy changes by the administration as President Donald Trump announced a plan to lower beef prices for consumers.

Fundamentals Have Not Changed
Don Close, senior animal protein analyst with Terrain, says the market fundamentals that started the bull run in the cattle market are still intact.

“Certainly with domestic supplies, they have not changed in any fashion when you’re looking at the tightest cattle numbers that we’ve had in 70 years,” he says.

With high retail beef prices, there is no evidence of consumer sticker shock or trading down to other lower-priced proteins. Close says the beef industry has not seen any erosion in demand.

So, what changed? Analysts say it was the shift in market psychology in reaction to President Trump’s announced plan to lower beef prices for consumers on Oct. 16.

While the President’s announcement lacked details, the goal seemed to be to mimic the success the administration had in bringing down egg prices. With the prospect of government intervention, the live and feeder cattle futures touched limit down the following day as speculative traders who had been long in the cattle futures market for many weeks took profits and liquidated.

Jeff Hoogendoorn, with Professional Ag Marketing, says the managed money fund traders did not want to bet against the government.

“If you’re a hedge fund manager, you look at this cattle thing and say ‘Yeah it’s gone up an awful lot. We’ve made a lot of money,’” he says. “‘Now the administration’s going to be fighting against me. I think I’ll go find something else to do’, and you move your money elsewhere.”

Trump Administration Quadruples Argentina Beef Imports
Just days later, President Trump made an announcement to quadruple the Tariff Rate Quota for Argentina beef imports . That triggered additional selling in cattle futures despite the insignificant impact it has on U.S. beef supplies.

Patrick Linnell, director of market research with CattleFax, explains: “That change from 20,000 metric tons to 80,000 metric tons would represent around 132 million lb. And really, that comes down to about three-tenths of a lb. per capita to net beef supplies.”

(Allendale )

The move drew immediate fire from the nation’s cattle groups, including the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA).

Colin Woodall, NCBA chief executive officer, explains that with the current trade imbalance with Argentina, the administration needed to push for more market access in Argentina instead of importing more of its beef.

“Over the past five years, Argentina has sent over $800 million worth of their beef into the U.S. market, and they’ve only accepted $7 million of our beef into their market,” Woodall explains.

Justin Tupper president of the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, adds that increasing beef imports was a slap in the face to U.S. cattle producers, and they opposed the move because countries like Brazil and Argentina have lower food safety standards and other practices that put the U.S. at a disadvantage.

“I think we want to be able to play on the same level playing field,” he says. “And I don’t think that happens with Argentina and Brazil. And again, I really don’t think it’s going to lower prices.”

Tupper adds neither producers or consumers stood to gain from increasing beef imports.

For more about Tupper’s thoughts:
South Dakota Producer Speaks Out About Beef Imports and “Product of USA” Push

Cattle Groups Tell Trump to Stay out of the Cattle Business
As a result, cattle groups and outraged producers warned the president to stay out of their business.

Woodall says: “We have worked really hard through the free market to be able to achieve the prices that we’re seeing. We don’t want government intervention coming in and messing with that and taking away these great opportunities we’re seeing.”

Tupper agrees: “It’s an industry that wants to work on competition and merit based, and we can do that if we make sure we don’t get to many outside interests — the government being one.”

Government Policy Pushes Prices Higher
However, two government policies pushed live cattle from $210 to $250 from July through September.

1. Increased Tariffs on Brazil. The U.S. increased tariffs on Brazil an additional 50% in mid-August, which nearly halted imports of beef trim coming into the U.S. Linnell explains, prior to that time, Brazil was a top importer of trim used to blend in ground beef.

“As of July on a 12-month basis, we’d imported just shy of 1.1 billion lb. from Brazil,” he says.

2. Closing the Mexican Border. The biggest policy change that tightened cattle numbers came from the U.S. closing the border to feeder cattle imports . Linnell says prior to closure, the U.S. imported more than 1.2 million feeder cattle annually. So, dropping the ban would have an immediate supply shock.

“We won’t see all 1.2 million head coming across at once but approaching that 25,000 head a week isn’t out of the question,” he adds.

(CattleFax )

While USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins has confirmed there’s no date for resuming trade, speculative traders are headline driven. Every time USDA hosts a news conference on New World screwworm, it tanks the market — especially feeder cattle futures.

The market has also been sensitive to rumors of the border reopening, says Scott Varilek, of Kooima Kooima Varilek.

“There’s this large supply in Mexico. That would be the one thing that would probably affect this market the most,” Varilek says. “So, we’re penciling that in.”

Trump Calls for DOJ Investigation
The latest attempt to curb beef inflation came Nov. 7, as the president announced on his Truth Social site the Department of Justice was launching an investigation of the nation’s meat packers .

The president’s announcement says he vows to “ensure these corporations aren’t criminally profiting at the expense of the American people.”

Packer concentration has long been a hot button issue for cattle producers and is at the root of R-CALF’s six-year lawsuit, explains Bill Bullard, chief executive officer.

“We have alleged that the meat packers had unlawfully colluded in order to artificially depress cattle prices, while at the same time raising or inflating the price of beef to the consumers,” he says.

Currently 85% of the U.S. beef packing industry is owned by four entities, and Bullard says this monopoly violates antitrust law.

“Both the producers on the beginning of the supply chain and consumers at the end of the supply chain were exploited as a result of this monopolistic marketing structure,” he says.

Read more about Bullard’s thoughts regarding the DOJ investigation: Is the Beef Market Broken? One Cattleman Says Yes

But according to Derrell Peel, livestock marketing specialist at Oklahoma State University, past DOJ price fixing probes and research have disputed that.

“While there’s a very small level of negative price impact due to the concentration of market power, if you will, it’s far outweighed by the by the benefits in terms of cost efficiencies that the large firms bring to the industry,” he summarizes.

Read more about Peel’s comments regarding the industry chaos today: Beef Industry Chaos: Tight Supplies, Strong Consumer Demand and Political Interference

Cattle Producers Say Trump’s Beef Plan Topped the Market
Some of the other aspects of the President’s plan to rebuild the cattle herd were met with favor, such as opening more public land to grazing. However, in the end, the president’s beef plan has wreaked havoc in the cattle market and outraged producers, according to Varilek.

“They’re mad,” he summarizes. “That’s all it took was just kind of the government shoving in there and wrecking [the] market. I think the biggest thing was that there were some claims that the tariffs were the reason that we got this high, and that is not at all the case.”

Linnell agrees the negative headlines have hurt the market, adding: “There is no doubt that these policy decisions are making a big impact on the marketplace. They also just increase a lot of uncertainty and volatility in the industry.”

Cattle Market Chaos Further Slows Herd Rebuilding
The loss in value of females just over the last three weeks has also hurt producer confidence, and according to Close, that could further slow heifer retention and herd rebuilding efforts .

“We’re seeing one more round where we’re going to kick that can down the road instead of actually retaining the females needed,” he explains.

Market analysts, including Peel, say the reality is lowering beef prices is like turning the Titanic — and the president’s plan is unlikely to affect much change.

“It took several years of of drought and other impacts to get us here,” Peel explains. “It’s going to take several years for us to grow our way out of this situation.”

Close says once the market refocuses on fundamentals, cattle could retest the highs.

“As crazy as it sounds today, I’m not yet convinced we’ve seen the high of the cash market, and I would readily argue that we get into next spring, next summer to see a cash market back in that $240 to $245 plus level. I think is entirely possible,” he predicts.

Is the Beef Market Broken? One Cattleman Says Yes

Wed, 12 Nov 2025 20:24:40 GMT

Concentration in the beef processing sector has long been a hot-button issue for cattle producers. Several groups have been fighting to break up the “monopoly,” including R-CALF. After 18 years, the organization hopes the Department of Justice (DOJ) will finally fix the problem. This optimism comes after President Trump’s request for DOJ to immediately begin an investigation into meatpackers for driving up the price of beef.

R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard says their ongoing lawsuit is based on the premise the meat-packing monopoly has resulted in price fixing.

“We have alleged that the meat packers had unlawfully colluded in order to artificially depress cattle prices, while at the same time raising or inflating the price of beef to the consumers,” he explains.

Currently 85% of the U.S. beef packing industry is owned by four entities, and Bullard says the meat packers are in clear violation of antitrust law.

“Both the producers on the beginning of the supply chain and consumers at the end of the supply chain were exploited as a result of this monopolistic marketing structure that we have in the cattle industry and beef industry today,” he says.

Could High Beef Prices Just be Supply and Demand?

Bullard refutes the current high beef prices are just a function of supply and demand, including the historic low in the cattle herd due to drought.

“It wasn’t until the economic shock, that straw that broke the camel’s back, that our cattle prices started to chase those beef prices upward,” he adds.

But Beef Packers are Losing Money

Bullard also discounts packers such as JBS showing nearly $300 million of losses in the second quarter of 2025 as evidence the packers aren’t making money from the high beef prices at the consumer level.

“Perhaps some of the losses that they made on their slaughtering side were made up from the margins of buying cheaper imports and passing it off to unsuspecting consumers as if it were a domestic product,” he predicts.

What Makes This Investigation Different?

However, the DOJ investigated packers in 2019 after the Holcomb, Kan., plant fire and again during COVID when consumers paid record beef prices while producers received record low cattle prices. So what makes this investigation different? Bullard says he thinks this is part of that ongoing probe.

“It’s our understanding or belief that the investigations that were first started under Trump administration one are continuing today,” he explains. “So the President’s recent announcement, I think, will encourage and incentivize the Justice Department to culminate their investigation and actually take enforcement action in order to protect independent cattle producers and consumers alike.”

Although he’s not sure what enforcement might look like, or if the packers could be broken up as a result.

“We’re hopeful that’s what we’ll see, we’ll see the Department of Justice actually file a lawsuit, alleging the beef packers have violated the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and Packers and Stockyards Act, to the detriment of independent producers and U .S. consumers,” he says.

While they’ve been waiting six years for their suit to be heard in court, he thinks the President will fast track the action and finally fix a market that has been fundamentally broken for years.

For more on Bullard’s conversation with Michelle Rook, listen to AgriTalk:

Your Next Read: Beef Industry Chaos: Tight Supplies, Strong Consumer Demand and Political Interference

Coal Mine Canaries Served an Important Purpose

Mon, 17 Jun 2024 19:42:08 GMT

Editor’s note: The opinions expressed in the following column are those of R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard, presented here in its entirety without edits.

In his June 5 opinion in Drovers, “ Speer: Protectionists Plagued By Wool Blindness ,” Nevil Speer objects to R-CALF USA’s characterization of the U.S. sheep industry as the cattle industry’s canary in the coal mine.

Populated with over a generation’s worth of annual data, R-CALF USA’s char t reveals that imports have supplanted domestic lamb and mutton production since the early 90s; and U.S. consumers must now rely mostly on foreign imports to satisfy their appetite for lamb.

I stated that in 2022, about 74% of the lamb consumed in America was foreign, and that excessive imports have decimated our domestic sheep industry.

I then presented a chart ( column 4 ) showing that cattle and beef imports have more than doubled during the past four decades. Hence, I concluded the sheep industry is the cattle industry’s canary in the coal mine.

But Speer argues that isn’t so, and only if my sheep chart had gone back farther in time could the truth be known. So, Speer constructed his own chart to disprove mine.

But his chart fails.

Speer’s chart doesn’t include consumption. Thus, it cannot identify when the market functioned properly – when domestic production was responsive to changes in domestic demand; nor when market failure occurred – when imports relegated the domestic industry unresponsive to changes in consumer demand.

So, below I’ve added another decade of data to my chart to reinforce what is manifestly true.

The addition of 1970-1979 reinforces the fact that the market functioned properly until the early 90s as domestic production was clearly responsive to changes in domestic demand (rising and falling with consumption), and it did so even with directionless, year-to-year imports. But market failure occurred in the 90s, when globalization caused policymakers to relax import restrictions for foreign meat, including our food safety standards and foreign meat plant inspection standards; and when the heretofore directionless imports had a decisive new direction – skyward!

Globalism’s free trade ushered in steadily rising imports (except during Australia’s drought) and those imports supplanted domestic production to an extent never before seen. Never has there been such a huge spread between domestic production and domestic consumption as there is today.

Speers’ omission of consumption data renders his chart and accompanying narrative meaningless to the discussion of whether the sheep industry has been decimated by imports. As demonstrated above, it most certainly has.

But Speer tries to ascribe other factors to the sheep industry’s decline: loss of the wool incentive program and not implementing a checkoff program until 2002.

But Speer again misses the forest for the trees. In our capitalistic economy, an industry experiencing significant demand growth for its products will increase the availability of those products to meet the new demand. And the sheep industry did just that, but not with domestic production. Instead, the industry met the growing demand with imports.

Why? Was it because exporting countries have a functioning wool incentive program or a longer serving checkoff?

Of course not. The answer is revealed below. Imported lamb enters the U.S. market at prices far too low to sustain our domestic sheep industry. If the U.S. wants a viable domestic sheep industry it must establish a meaningful tariff system to level the playing field for domestic sheep producers.

The failed free trade experiment decimated our commercial sheep industry. If we don’t begin regulating cheaper beef imports from countries like Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Australia, and others, the decline in the number of U.S. cattle producers, cattle, and family-sized feedlots will continue.

And, while Speer shifts his narrow focus on trees within the sheep industry to the cattle industry, as evidenced by his claim that, “Year-to-date, beef production on the fed side of the business is running ~2% ahead of 2023,” it’s important to note how this impressive feat was accomplished. The CME Group stated, “The increase in fed cattle weights is a direct result of cattle spending more days on feed.” which is also why cattle are grading more prime and choice than last year. See CME Group, Daily Livestock Report, Vol. 22, No. 107 /June 5, 2024.

The cattle industry must heed the canary’s warning.

Bullard: Nevil Speer’s Research Supports R-CALF USA’s Trade Concerns

Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:46:34 GMT

Editor’s note: The opinions expressed in the following column are those of R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard, presented here in its entirety without edits.

In his May 22 opinion in Drovers, “ Curiosity Leads To Better Answers ,” Nevil Speer reports that he dug deeper into R-CALF USA’s case study showing losses of beef cows and beef cattle operations in the Pacific Northwest in the face of hundreds of thousands of live cattle imports. My case study’s conclusion was that hundreds of thousands of annual live cattle imports displaced hundreds of thousands of PNW mother cows.

Speer attempted to disprove my case study’s conclusion by selecting three states on the opposite corner of the U.S. and finding that they had fared worse than the PNW in terms of losses in beef cows and beef cattle operations. But Speer’s research didn’t disprove my conclusion at all. It reinforced it!

You see, Speer missed the case study’s most relevant facts. Chief among them was that the PNW was a “microcosm” of the remainder of the United States’ cattle and beef industries “replete with its own import and domestic cattle supply chains, feedyards, and packers (emphasis added).”

Based on the PNW’s unique, self-contained characteristics, I wrote that the PNW “serves to inform us as to how the remainder of our nation’s cattle and beef industries are functioning while confronted with excessive imports (emphasis added).”

The plain meaning of what I wrote is this: Because the PNW is a microcosm of the entire U.S. cattle and beef industries, it is expected that every other region in the U.S. would likewise suffer the displacement of mother cows and beef cattle operations when their relevant market (the location of feedlots and packers serving the region) is inundated with live cattle imports. And, that’s precisely what Speer found.

Though Speer didn’t say how many annual live cattle imports entered the southeast region’s relevant market, we know that on average 2.1 million head of imported cattle entered the U.S. each year during the post-NAFTA case study period, and only 282,000 of those imports entered the PNW’s relevant market. That means more than 1.8 million annual live cattle imports impacted the other relevant markets outside the PNW, including the relevant markets serving cattle born in the southeast region.

Now, the relevant market (where the cattle born in the southeast are subsequently fed and slaughtered) is likely Kansas or Texas, and it’s a sure bet that those two markets are inundated each year with a large percentage of the remaining 1.8 million of those 2.1 million annual live cattle imports. I presume the number of imports in those two relevant markets is much higher than the number of imports entering the PNW.

So, albeit unwittingly, Speer has substantiated R-CALF USA’s concern that perpetual live cattle imports fed and/or slaughtered in the U.S. reduce demand for calves born throughout the U.S. and displace domestic mother cows and the beef cattle operations that would otherwise have raised those calves for their relevant market.

Speer then proceeds to deflect attention away from the contribution imports have on the decline in cow numbers and beef cattle operations by advancing the beef packing lobby’s standard talking points: Exports have increased, quality has improved, and carcasses are heavier – over 17% heavier, so we’re producing more with less and need fewer cattle and fewer cattle producers.

But wait! As the chart below shows, the U.S. population grew 27%; beef demand grew 4%; beef consumption increased 12%, retail beef prices increased 175%; exports volume grew 84%; total export value increased 310%; export value per pound increased 124%; and yet, despite the increased carcass weights and all these favorable percentage increases, domestic beef production from cattle born and raised in the U.S. grew by a paltry 17%, while the number of beef cattle operations and beef mother cows decreased by 31% and 13%, respectively.

Factors that Foretell a Strong, Vibrant U.S. Cattle Industry
	1994	2022	Percentage Change
U.S. Population	263.5 million	333.6 million	+27%
Domestic Consumption	25.1 billion lbs.	28.2 billion lbs.	+12%
Beef Demand Index (Average Monthly, 1988=100)	81.43	84.38	+4%
All Fresh Retail Beef Prices	$2.65 per lb.	$7.30 per lb.	+175%
Volume of Cattle/Beef Exports	1.9 billion lbs.	3.5 billion lbs.	+84%
Total Value of Cattle/Beef Exports	$2.9 billion	$11.9 billion	+310%
Unit Value of Cattle/Beef Exports	$1.54 per lb.	$3.45 per lb.	+124%
Factors that Evince a Weak, Shrinking U.S. Cattle Industry
Actual Domestic Beef Production (beef from cattle born and raised in the U.S.)	23.2 billion lbs.	27.1 billion lbs.	+17%
Number of U.S. Beef Cattle Operations	906,810	622,162	-31%
Number of Beef Cows	34.6 million	30 million	-13%
Total Volume of Cattle/Beef Imports	3.2 billion lbs.	4.1 billion lbs.	+28%
Total Value of Beef/Cattle Imports	$3 billion	$10.7 billion	+257%
Unit Value of Cattle/Beef Imports	$0.92 per lb.	$2.62 per lb.	+185%

Readers should ask: If imports are not a reason, then why are we losing cattle producers and cattle in the face of all these favorable industry gains? And, why is the percentage growth in imports higher than the percentage growth in domestic production?

Speer: Protectionism’s Persistent Misunderstandings

Wed, 24 Apr 2024 18:42:39 GMT

Disclaimer: This is the third column (see one and two ) grappling with some of the claims regarding international trade. And while it’s always been a contentious issue, the rhetoric has seemingly been amplified in recent months. Like the disclaimer noted in the first column, none of the discussion that follows should be interpreted as commentary extending to broader political issues and/or candidates.

Such a disclaimer is especially pertinent, because when it comes to trade, the U.S. beef industry stands alone on two separate fronts. Domestically: it’s difficult to identify a comparable industry that holds such a solid competitive position in the global marketplace. Internationally: no other country is able to match the U.S. beef industry’s dominant ability to readily source large volumes of high-quality beef.

USDA Trade Policy: That said, there’s a floating narrative out there that often condemns the presence of international trade – while baffling, it’s often positioned as a detrimental influence on the business. For example, RCALF recently proclaimed that USDA’s trade policies are hurting ranchers . The ranch group claiming: “…hundreds of millions of dollars in economic injury inflicted on America’s ranchers by the USDA’s trade policies have contributed greatly to what we learned in the 2022 census – and that is that during each of the past five years, on average more than 21,000 American ranchers have quit ranching, with a total loss of ranchers of 107,000 during that short period.”

The series’ first column countered that contention by highlighting the beef industry’s fiscal trade surplus. The second column further debunked the claim by demonstrating beef imports have neither hindered the fed market nor influenced beef cow inventory. But that leaves us with a third item to consider – namely imports of live animals. Maybe that’s detrimental to beef producers?

Facts Are Stubborn Things: There are two sets of data detailed below.

Fed cattle: The first graph details the relationship between annual changes in the fed market (inflation adjusted) and annual fed steer / heifer imports. Here’s what’s most important – the regression line is essentially flat; even in those years when imports exceeded the prior year, the subsequent influence on the fed market was negligible. (Note also the COOL years – the absence of any trend is telling.)

Feeder cattle: Now let’s turn our attention to feeder cattle. The anti-trade narrative goes something like this: too many feeder cattle are being imported into the U.S. and subsequently compete with domestic cow/calf producers, thus driving them out of business. What about that? The second graph demonstrates there’s simply no evidence to back that up. The regression of change in cow numbers versus feeder cattle imports is flat (the covariance is essentially zero).

Dr. Rick: Everyone loves the Progressive insurance ads with Dr. Rick. You know, “Maybe Progressive can’t help you from becoming your parents, but we can protect your home and auto when you bundle with us.” My favorite one is the “social listening” commercial. Dr. Rick asks at the end, “Okay, do you really think we need 47 photos of fun dinner at Pam’s?” And Pam enthusiastically responds, “Yes!” Dr. Rick immediately counters, “No.”

Now envision Dr. Rick at the coffee shop talking about this data. He asks, “Do you really believe international trade is driving producers out of business?” Straightaway, one cowboy enthusiastically responds with, “Yes!” Just like the ad, Dr. Rick then counters with, “No.” Maybe Progressive can’t help you from becoming a protectionist…

Persistent Misunderstanding: In all seriousness, Drs. Glynn Tonsor (Kansas State University) and Derrell Peel (Oklahoma State University) describe it best in their white paper entitled, “ Assessing Economic Impact That Would Follow Loss of U.S. Beef Exports & Imports .” They summarize the importance of international trade like this:

…the economic importance of beef exports and imports is substantial and growing with time. In the absence of beef trade, the entire industry would shrink significantly.

Most significant, subsequent to the critical nature of trade, Tonsor and Peel also implore their readers to be discerning students of the trade data influencing their business; sifting out the noise and meaningless talking points related to trade policy:

Given persistent misunderstanding [emphasis mine] and market dynamics in the global marketplace, periodic updated assessments are encouraged.

Nevil Speer is an independent consultant based in Bowling Green, KY. The views and opinions expressed herein do not reflect, nor are associated with in any manner, any client or business relationship. He can be reached at nevil.speer@turkeytrack.biz .

Bullard: Alas, A Genuine Discussion on Beef and Cattle Trade

Tue, 23 Apr 2024 18:43:10 GMT

Editor’s note: The opinions expressed in the following column are those of R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard, presented here in its entirety without edits.

In his April 9, 2024, opinion, “Speer: Protectionists Make Bad Bookkeepers,” published in Drovers, Nevil Speer provides an opportunity of a lifetime for a serious discussion on international trade in cattle and beef. You see, over the past several decades the beef industry, including multinational beef packers and their trade associations, the U.S. Meat Export Federation, and the Beef Checkoff Program and its major contractors, have downplayed the impact that imported cattle and beef have on the U.S. cattle industry. Instead, they have all been devout cheerleaders reporting nearly exclusively on the benefits of beef and cattle exports.

Compelled to criticize R-CALF USA’s recent commentary, “ USDA trade policies hurt ranchers ” Speer has turned over a new stone! If you have not yet read Speer’s critique of R-CALF USA’s trade discussion found here: Speer: Protectionists Make Bad Bookkeepers | Drovers , please do so before reading further.

Speer brilliantly argues that, “To get the full accounting” about trade’s impact on U.S. cattle producers, “the credits,” meaning beef exports, “also have to be recorded” along with beef imports.

R-CALF USA has literally waited decades to hear this from the beef industry.

So, let’s now have a genuine discussion about imports and exports of beef. But first, and despite Speer’s ominous omission, we must acknowledge that the U.S. imports both live cattle (beef on the hoof) and beef (the commodity). Omitting beef produced from imported cattle, including cattle that are imported for immediate slaughter, renders Speer’s analysis incomplete and inaccurate.

When R-CALF USA analyzes trade data, we convert live cattle imports and exports to their beef equivalent and we use the same beef product categories the U.S. International Trade Commission determined were the product categories that account for trade in beef, which includes beef, beef variety meats, and processed beef, such as beef jerky and tongues.

So, if you replicate Speer’s simple arithmetic, and pretend as he does that live cattle do not add to the volume or value of imported and exported beef, then you too will erroneously conclude that over the past fourteen years, the U.S. has maintained a cumulative volume-based trade deficit in beef of only “~1.47 B lb – or roughly 105 M lb annually.”

So, let’s correct Speer’s analysis by including the trade in cattle, beef, beef variety meats, and processed beef so we get an accurate accounting of total beef trade. The data in the chart below show that over the past 14 years, the United States’ cumulative volume-based beef trade deficit was a negative ~15 B lb – or roughly a negative 1.1 B lb annually. That means we’ve imported on average 1.1 B lb of beef more than we’ve exported each year for the past 14 years, which is many times over what Speers claims is the United States’ volume-based beef trade deficit.

Then, Speer’s makes the same mistake in analyzing value-based trade by claiming: “During the past fourteen years, exports have outrun imports by nearly $21.5 B! Clearly, beef producers are winning in the global marketplace.” No they didn’t, and no U.S. beef producers aren’t! The next chart shows the United States’ value-based beef trade. It shows that over the past 14 years imports outran exports by nearly $3.2 B!

Every cattle producer knows that it’s the volume of available beef, including imported beef on the hoof, in the domestic supply chain that directly impacts demand for their U.S. cattle, not the value that the exporter receives for the beef and beef products derived from their cattle (the trickledown theory works no better today than it did when the term was first coined). Thus, every cattle producer should be concerned that current trade policies are causing the U.S. to be awash in an additional 1.1 B lbs. of imported beef and beef products on average each year. This reduces their opportunity to maintain profitable operations as well as opportunities for aspiring cattle farmers and ranchers to enter the industry.

Speer: Limestone vs Protectionist Brimstone

Tue, 16 Apr 2024 19:25:30 GMT

Imports Bad: For some in the business, the narrative surrounding trade is straightforward: imports bad. They argue the U.S. is absorbing too much imported beef, and current trade policies are hurting ranchers . The outcome being: “…hundreds of millions of dollars in economic injury inflicted on America’s ranchers by the USDA’s trade policies have contributed greatly to what we learned in the 2022 census – and that is that during each of the past five years, on average more than 21,000 American ranchers have quit ranching, with a total loss of ranchers of 107,000 during that short period.”

My previous column highlighted the narrow discrepancy between import and export tonnage while emphasizing the ever-widening advantage to U.S. producers in trade dollars. But you won’t often hear the trade-doubters talk about dollars, because it doesn’t fit the protectionist narrative.

The emphasis is always on tonnage – and the subsequent perceived damage to U.S. producers. Let’s address that thinking from two different perspectives.

Fed Price: Imported beef is often portrayed as a direct (and competitive) substitute for domestically produced beef. Typically, the rhetoric goes something like this: “Cheap beef from foreign countries is flooding the market and driving down cattle prices for U.S. farmers and ranchers.”

However, the majority of beef imports are NOT direct substitutes for domestic beef – and thus, don’t really compete with domestically produced beef. To the contrary, those imports, consisting primarily of lean trimmings, actually create value for domestic production. In their absence, 50/50 trim would be severely discounted and subsequently reduce the value of fed steers / heifers in the marketplace as we know it today.

The first graph below addresses the question: does increased import tonnage negatively affect fed price? It details year-over-year changes in average fed price (inflation-adjusted) vs. marginal change in imports. The relationship between imports and fed prices is flat-to-positive (versus the “imported beef drives down prices” narrative) – and year-over-year differences in imports explain very little of the variance (~5%) in annual price.

Cow Inventory: The protectionists also cling to the notion that imports are driving ranchers out of business. Per the quote above: cow numbers are declining as a result of the, “…economic injury inflicted on America’s ranchers by the USDA’s trade policies.”

The second graph addresses the question: does increased import tonnage negatively affect cow numbers? It details year-over-year in beef cow inventory vs. marginal change in imports. The correlation is essentially ZERO (.07).

Back to RCALF’s claim about keep / cull decisions being tied to imports. There’s no there there. Producers are not being influenced, nor affected, by import volume as it relates to cow inventory. (Last, but not least, it’s also clear that COOL wasn’t effective in terms of influencing herd expansion; to the contrary, beef cow inventory declined 1.63 M cows between ’09 and ’15.)

Limestone v Brimstone: I get it - international trade is an emotional issue – and per my previous column , that’s why it’s often one-sided. Dr. Lori Kletzer explains it like this (see her work here ):

To a general audience, imports are a palpable threat— they can be seen on store shelves (or car lots), and their mere presence suggests [emphasis mine] an American good, and therefore worker, displaced [emphasis mine]. Exports are much less visible, except to the workers who produce them. With transport, these goods leave the country and are more elusive to the general public.

Emotion and business usually don’t mix very well. That’s especially true in this instance. The Henny Penny “beef imports bad” story (emotion) does nothing to shore up the industry (business). There’s simply no evidence that “suggests” beef producers are being “displaced” by beef imports – nor being unduly damaged in the marketplace.

Given that reality, to borrow a phrase from Henry Hardin Cherry , what producers really need is “…more limestone and less [protectionist] political brimstone.”

Nevil Speer is an independent consultant based in Bowling Green, KY. The views and opinions expressed herein do not reflect, nor are associated with in any manner, any client or business relationship. He can be reached at nevil.speer@turkeytrack.biz .

Speer: Protectionists Make Bad Bookkeepers

Thu, 26 Sep 2024 18:57:27 GMT

Disclaimer: None of what follows is related to Paraguay, specifically (micro). Rather, it’s intended to provide a broader understanding of international trade (macro). Why this column now? One, the importance of international trade can never be over-emphasized (for more see the white paper authored by Drs. Peel and Tonsor ). Two, the Paraguayan situation has been overtly politicized regarding the attributes of trade.

Smoking Gun: RCALF is now declaring that, “ USDA trade policies hurt ranchers .”

The ranch group believes they found the smoking gun. They plucked the economic breakdown from USDA’s Paraguayan overview and extrapolated it to the entire trade complex. The Federal Register analysis reads as follows: “…consumer gains of $14 million to $27 million would outweigh producer losses of $12 million to $24 million, yielding annual net social welfare gains of $1.6 million to $3 million.”

If you’re a producer, and focus on just that tidbit, it all sounds ominous. Overall social good comes at your expense – net cost of Paraguayan beef imports would damage the industry to the tune of ~$18M annually. RCALF then plays on that theme and further explains that producers also got duped by allowing imports from Brazil and Argentina. As a result, “…these hundreds of millions of dollars in economic injury inflicted on America’s ranchers by the USDA’s trade policies have contributed greatly to what we learned in the 2022 census – and that is that during each of the past five years, on average more than 21,000 American ranchers have quit ranching, with a total loss of ranchers of 107,000 during that short period.”

Critical Thinking: All that rhetoric requires a little unpacking. If we’re objective, the analysis was likely premised on the assumption imported beef is a final product – versus an intermediate product (none of this is clear in the explanation). Why does that matter? Doug Irwin, in his great book, Clashing Over Commerce , explains the distinction this way: “…not all imports of manufactured goods are direct substitutes for domestic production: imports may be so different from domestically produced goods that they do not really compete with one another.”

That’s an important distinction. The majority of beef imports are lean trimmings for the purpose of being blended with 50/50 trim. Dr. Peel recently underscored the importance of imports to the domestic industry: “The major portion of U.S. beef imports is lean beef used for the ground beef market.”

IF-THEN: But never mind all that, let’s just take RCALF’s assessment (trade policies hurt ranchers) at face value – and imports are solely responsible for ranchers exiting the business. Therein enters the yin-and-yang of trade.

IF we’re intellectually honest, THEN we must also conclude this about trade: IF imports hinder producers, THEN (equally and oppositely) exports benefit producers. See, RCALF declares trade detrimental but highlights only the debit side of bookkeeping and conveniently avoids the credit side of the ledger.

Data: But never mind all that, let’s turn to the data (versus hyperbole). Let’s break it up in two parts. First, tonnage, and then second, dollars.

The first graph outlines annual import and export tonnage – along with the cumulative total since 2010. The net difference over the past fourteen years totals ~1.47 B lb – or roughly 105 M lb annually. For some perspective, consider that annual beef production during that time averaged 26.27 B lb. In other words, the import / export discrepancy represents only four-tenths-of-one-percent (.4%) versus domestic production.

The second graph is what really matters! During the past fourteen years, exports have outrun imports by nearly $21.5 B! Clearly, beef producers are winning in the global marketplace.

Protectionists Flawed Bookkeeping: Turns out, protectionists make bad bookkeepers – they only record the debits. No wonder they’re so glum about it all. Of course, the one-sided approach also avoids acknowledging the success of the Checkoff in building international markets over time. (It reminds me of one of the great lines from Casablanca : “We hear very little and understand even less.”)

To get the full accounting, the credits also have to be recorded. And those books tell a very different story. America’s ranchers are the direct beneficiaries of international trade.

Nevil Speer is an independent consultant based in Bowling Green, KY. The views and opinions expressed herein do not reflect, nor are associated with in any manner, any client or business relationship. He can be reached at nevil.speer@turkeytrack.biz .

Speer: Don’t Blame Trade – Blame Protectionism

Tue, 16 Jan 2024 18:45:38 GMT

Don’t Look Ethel: Do you remember Ray Stevens’ song, “The Streak”? “Don’t look Ethel.” That’s what went through my head as I clicked on one of R-CALF’s shorts in my YouTube feed (“…it was too late, I’d already been mooned”). The video was part of the group’s weekly address, “ Free trade distorts domestic cattle prices .”

Story: R-CALF explains, “…fed cattle prices have been trending downward for several months, losing nearly $15 per cwt since early November.” And then provides this explanation for the selloff: “…during the month of November, about 42,000 imported cattle were slaughtered, which compares to 28,000 slaughtered during the same time last year…”

November: What about that claim? Cattle imported for immediate slaughter sourced from Canada are reported by USDA via this report . Here’s what’s important:

Reporting lumps fed steer and heifer imports with slaughter cows. It’s difficult, therefore, to immediately parse out what’s what in terms of fed cattle versus cows.
Meanwhile, November’s slaughter imports totaled ~52,500 head (not 42,000) – only 8,800 head (not 28,000) more than last year. (see table below)

October: To further bolster their trade / market distortion narrative, R-CALF sneaks in feeder cattle to the discussion citing a recent CME report: “…live cattle imports in October were up 76% compared to October last year, and for the first 10 months of this year, those imports were up more than 24% compared to the same period last year.”

For now, never mind feeder cattle (more on this below). Let’s stay focused on the fed market:

Slaughter imports from Canada were actually down in October (8,900 head) versus 2022. (see table)
Through October, the imported slaughter total lagged 2022 by ~9500 head (407,250 versus 397,760 in ’22 and ’23, respectively).

Carcass Weights / Exports: The ranch group avoids other drivers in the market. For example, November’s average steer / heifer carcass weight averaged 900 lb – 5 lb heavier versus year-ago weights. That means that for every 179 head slaughter in ‘23, the business now has the equivalent of one additional animal compared to 2022. Considering the beef industry slaughtered 2.066 M head of steers and heifers in November, the extra 5 lbs is equivalent to adding ~11,500 head compared to 2022 (more than November’s marginal import contribution).

Now let’s flip to the other side of trade. LMIC projects 4th-quarter exports to be down 136M lb compared to 2022. Given a 900 lb carcass, that’s the equivalent of adding 151,111 head to total slaughter mix – or roughly 50,000 head per month. That’s nearly equal to November’s total slaughter imports (which includes cows).

Fx: But then there’s this: “…imported cattle arrive in the U.S. duty free, so there is no adjustment to their value to address disparities between foreign and domestic production standards and related costs or differences in currency valuations.”

One, production disparities should be tariffed between the U.S. and Canada? What does that even mean? Clearly, there’s an inference to be made; I’m confident our Canadian trade partners wouldn’t appreciate the slight.

Two, “no adjustment [for] differences in currency valuations”? I’ve previously demonstrated (as it pertains to COOL) that Canadian cattle prices run in lock step with U.S. prices (see one and two and graph below).

Mad About Trade: Given R-CALF’s headline, “free trade distorts”, I’m waiting for the next press release highlighting the detrimental effects of importing the ranch-favorite Power Stroke engine. Yeah, that’s not happening.

That’s because the ranch group is seemingly content overlooking the benefits of trade being a two-way street. All the while, undermining the principles surrounding economic freedom (see Cowlandia ).

For instance, the ranch group never tells us about the backhauls. USDA explains it this way, “Canadian feed lots continue to maintain efficiency by purchasing U.S. feeder cattle rather than returning with empty trucks when delivering cattle to the United States”; the U.S. exports 300,000+ head of feeder cattle to Canada (encroaching nearly 2X volume of feeder cattle imports arriving from Canada).

Given that reality, it’s not trade that distorts markets, but rather protectionism.

mRNA Conspiracy Theories: Ranch Group Offers ‘Fearmongering’ and ‘Misinformation’

Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:23:57 GMT

Misinformation and conspiracy theories regarding the use of mRNA vaccines in livestock continue, despite efforts of the scientific community, the Animal Health Institute and government agencies.

Last week Drovers and AgWeb reported about a bogus claim on social media that producers are required to inject livestock with mRNA vaccines. USDA spokesperson Marissa Perry said, “There is no requirement or mandate that producers vaccinate their livestock for any disease.”

Further, the mRNA vaccines are not even available for cattle in the United States, and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association issued a statement indicating such in an effort to tamp down the internet falsehoods.

University of Florida professor Kevin Folta appeared on AgriTalk confirming to host Chip Flory that no mRNA cattle vaccine is approved in the U.S., but researchers are working on an mRNA vaccine for swine to battle porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS).

“It’s (mRNA) a vaccine for the animal that, just like any other vaccine, protects the animal from disease,” Folta said. And, “It’s not in your food.”

Despite Folta’s and assurances from many others in the scientific community, false accusations about the safety of meat and milk continue. Late last week one ranch group issued a press statement followed by a commentary, both filled with inaccuracies about mRNA and frosted with a coating of fear for consumers.

In the press release, R-CALF USA said after a briefing from its Animal Health Committee Chair, who “spoke with medical doctors and a microbiologist” who were unnamed, the group’s board passed a motion to bring the issue before the full membership at its next annual meeting to determine policy direction. Until then, R-CALF says mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) must be adopted, because without COOL, “The American consumer has no way of knowing if the beef they are buying is coming from a country using this debatable mRNA technology in their cattle health management.”

R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard went even further in his commentary , calling the mRNA vaccine “an injection.” Additionally, he claimed that mRNA “hijacks living cells, tricking them into producing some level of immunity against human viruses.”

But the most egregious statement from Bullard seems to cavalierly tarnish beef’s safety image.

“There is great concern that living cells excrete the mRNA over time and the mRNA can then be transferred to animals and humans that have never received the mRNA injection,” Bullard wrote. “It is believed, for example, that humans can contact (sic) mRNA by eating meat from livestock that have received the injection.”

All of that is false, of course. To obtain confirmation we reached out to Dr. Jeff Savell, Vice Chancellor and Dean, Agriculture and Life Sciences at Texas A&M University, who is also a Distinguished Professor, Meat Science. He promptly put us in contact with a faculty expert.

That would be Dr. Penny Riggs, associate professor of animal science at Texas A&M. More of her credentials later. But first, after reviewing the R-CALF releases she called them “fearmongering and misinformation.”

Quoting directly from the email Drovers received from Dr. Riggs:

“First. No mRNA vaccines are currently available for beef cattle. I understand that there are a couple of vaccines against respiratory disease and rotavirus for swine.”

“Second. No food safety risk exists for meat from animals that have received any vaccination.” [Regardless of vaccination type, proper withdrawal times should be ensured. Specified withdrawal times are based on the specific vaccine and its formulation components.]

“Third. mRNA from a vaccine will NOT be passed along in meat.”

So what about Dr. Riggs’ credentials? Start with a BS in Biology, and then a Masters in Cytogenetics from Purdue University. Then a PhD in molecular genetics from Texas A&M.

(Here’s a crash course in just what mRNA is and the important job it does, authored by Dr. Riggs for The Conversation.)

“Riggs’ research focuses on analyses of gene, RNA and protein expression, function, and signaling that regulate or influence aspects of beef quality, skeletal muscle traits, and developmental processes in beef cattle, as well as whole genome sequencing of bacterial pathogens. She has additional interests in genome technologies and genetic modifiers of disease susceptibility and in the role of animal agriculture and biotechnology in ensuring food and nutritional security,” according to her A&M profile.

And for good measure, Riggs “conducted postdoctoral work in the radiation biophysics lab as a Texas Aerospace Fellow at the University of Houston and the NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center.”

Regarding the misinformation about the safety of meat contained in the R-CALF releases, Riggs called it “unfortunate.” As agriculturalists, “we should be celebrating the advances in technology that enable more precise and effective strategies for ensuring animal health and well-being in order to continue producing the nutritious and safe meat, milk, and other animal source products that sustain life and good health.”

Riggs went on to address the commentary and press release specifically, noting they both contain numerous factual errors. The following are Riggs’ verbatim comments to Drovers:

1. mRNA itself is neither a vaccine, nor an injection. Specific mRNAs are produced in every cell of every living organism as the first step for every biological function. The mRNA is a specific and relatively short-lived nucleotide message that is translated into the proteins in our cells. The messages are destroyed in the cell after sufficient protein is made for each biological task (minutes to hours).

2. A vaccine is a derivative of a pathogen—such as a modified virus, a killed virus, part of a virus, or a specific mRNA copy of a small part of a virus—that can function as an antigen. That means that when the vaccine is delivered, often by injection, our bodies recognize that antigen and respond to it by making antibodies, enabling development of immunity to that original pathogen. What makes an mRNA vaccine different is that it is the minimal amount of sequence needed for eliciting an immune response. Viruses tend to mutate rapidly, so mRNA is an advantage for speedy vaccine production because the sequence can be revised as needed. Also, this type of vaccine doesn’t have to be grown – so there are fewer ingredients in the formulation that could have potential to elicit an allergic reaction. In short, the mRNA vaccine is a new tool that is very precise and can be formulated rapidly as threats emerge.

3. What does the mRNA in a vaccine do? THE mRNA from a vaccine DOES NOT rewrite instructions from the body’s DNA. The mRNA does not hijack the cell.

When the mRNA enters the cytoplasm of the immune system’s sentinel cells, the normal protein-making “machinery” present in the cytoplasm reads the message and generates a protein product that is then recognized as the foreign antigen. Then, our immune system is stimulated to produce antibodies, just like any other vaccine does.

4. Potential risks are very low for humans and livestock. Although vaccines are very safe and help protect people and animals from harmful viruses and other pathogens, they function by eliciting an immune response. Rarely, that triggering of the immune response may be harmful, or a person may have an allergic reaction to the materials used to formulate the vaccine – for example, people allergic to eggs should not receive a vaccine developed in eggs. So far, data only exists for the mRNA vaccines developed to protect again COVID-19 and the limited swine vaccinations. From data collected to date, the risk of adverse events compared to other types of vaccines is very low, achieving zero risk for anything is almost impossible.

5. NO, there is NOT “great concern that living cells excrete the mRNA over time and the mRNA can then be transferred to animals and humans that have never received the mRNA injection.”

6. NO it is NOT TRUE that “for example, that humans can contact [sic] mRNA by eating meat from livestock that have received the injection.”

This is false. These statements are unfounded fearmongering. Every morsel of food we eat that comes from plants or animals is loaded with the DNA, RNA (mRNA, rRNA, miRNA, etc), along with proteins and other contents of the cells from source organisms – no matter if it is spinach or steak. People can enjoy a great meal, digest the meat, and none of its DNA or RNA will be transferred to them. It’s just not physically possible for that to occur.

7. mRNA vaccines have been “in development” for a couple of decades, but mRNA is unstable and difficult to deliver as a vaccine. As a result of U.S. investments during COVID, the last hurdle was overcome – how to deliver the specific mRNA and keep it from being destroyed long enough for an immune response to occur. This is still expensive technology, but the big breakthrough enables highly specific vaccines to be formulated rapidly and deliver only what is required. However, tests have shown that even these types of mRNA molecules can’t survive very long in the cell – an estimate is that 50% of the mRNA from a vaccine is gone in about 20 hours, and completely destroyed within a few days.

8. NO, the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that contain a portion of the Sars-CoV2 spike protein will not deliver mRNA to consumers who drink milk if it is injected into dairy cows. Yes, there are ways to genetically engineer animals to deliver protein products in milk – this was done in dairy goats many years ago, but it CANNOT be accomplished by an mRNA vaccine.

9. NO, people who eat meat from an animal treated with an mRNA vaccine, CANNOT absorb the mRNA from the vaccine in the intestinal tract.

In conclusion, Riggs wrote, “These outlandish claims are nothing more than fearmongering to push other agendas. The various state and federal proposed bills are not based on any kind of rational scientific evidence.”

Groups Seek Reintroduction of American Beef Labeling Act

Thu, 12 Jan 2023 21:11:47 GMT

The United States Cattlemen’s Association, R-CALF USA, among 48 other groups and organizations recently sent a letter to U.S. Senate and House members asking them to reintroduce the American Beef Labeling Act in 2023, which would reinstate country-of-origin-labeling (COOL) for beef in the U.S.

As the letter states, “We the undersigned organizations would like to express our gratitude for your leadership and support of the American Beef Labeling Act ( S.2716, H.R. 7291 ). This commonsense policy has remained popular with the American people since Congress rescinded country of origin labeling for beef in 2015.”

This bill would re-insert the words “beef” and “ground beef” to the existing 2002 MCOOL law, which requires country of origin labels on other foods, such as lamb, chicken, fish, nuts, fruits and vegetables. The bill would further require all beef, including imported beef, to be labeled as to where it was born, raised and harvested.

The joint letter also notes a recent poll conducted by Morning Consult on behalf of the Coalition for Prosperous America (CPA), in which 86% of votes support the American Beef Labeling Act, with 64% of voters who strongly support and 22% of voters who somewhat support the legislation.

Originally introduced in the Senate by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) in September 2021, the bill was last referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.

The letter addressed Sen. Thune and co-sponsors Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Sen. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wy.), Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wy.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), as well as U.S. House of Representatives supporters, including Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Virg.).

“Although we did not cross the finish line in the 117th Congress we are confident that with your continued leadership and our support we can ensure that beef produced from U.S. born and raised cattle is distinguished in the marketplace and consumers will have accurate information as to the origins of the beef they purchase for their families in the 118th Congress,” the letter states.

The 118th United States Congress session began on Jan. 3, 2023.

The full list of groups signing in support of the American Beef Labeling Act can be found in the letter .

Op-Ed: Let Us Be Clear, NCBA Responds

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 05:29:13 GMT

Editor’s note: The following commentary is in response to “ Op-Ed: No Smear Campaign, Unpaid Whistle Blower Retorts ”, a commentary by Kate Miller and “ Public Justice Attorney Claims ‘Smear Campaign’ Against R-CALF and OCM ”, a commentary by David Muraskin, published by Drovers. The opinions in the commentary below are those of John Robinson, Vice President Membership and Communications, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

David Muraskin, the activist lawyer for Public Justice and lead attorney in R-CALF’s lawsuit against the Montana Beef Council, has accused the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) of running a “smear campaign.” If NCBA was running a smear campaign Muraskin and his clients would know it. NCBA denounces attempts to weaken the checkoff, but we also don’t feel a need to step out and take a swing at every pitch they throw in the dirt and there have been plenty of them. Instead, attacks on the checkoff have caused supporters, which include nearly 75 percent of all cattlemen and women, to stand up in opposition on their own.

Muraskin cries foul to the rising tide of voices opposed to his efforts on behalf of R-CALF. He has resorted to name calling and belittling to distract the audience from the fact that he has a long history of litigating on behalf of activist groups opposed to beef producers. He denies taking HSUS money, but he has worked alongside groups like PETA, Western Watersheds Project, Friends of the Earth and others who are actively working against beef producers.

Public Justice may claim it’s not supported by HSUS. However, we know there are alliances that extend beyond just dollars and cents. Just last week the current executive director of the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM), a former HSUS staffer, proudly admitted that they have partnered with HSUS, accepted their money and five years of in-kind legal work, with a value that must round into the tens of thousands of dollars. We know R-CALF and OCM frequently partner to attack the checkoff, as well as NCBA and state cattlemen’s organizations that have ties with NCBA. It doesn’t matter where the anti-agriculture dollars come from, it’s all activist money directed at weakening the beef industry.

Kathryn Miller and others are taking a stand against Muraskin and R-CALF. They are opposing the effort to undermine more than 600 volunteer beef producers who serve on state beef councils across the country. But it’s Muraskin who appears desperate and heavily outmatched in his battle of wits with Ms. Miller and her army of pro-beef industry advocates.

Ms. Miller is a grassroots beef producer from Arkansas who has engaged in a public campaign opposed to R-CALF and its propaganda effort. She is not an NCBA member and she isn’t working for NCBA. She has repeatedly been clear on both points. Instead of taking the opposition of Miller and others for what it is, a rebuke of the beef industry attack staged by outsiders, Muraskin has painted Ms. Miller as a “corporate shill,” a dismissive portrayal that is both foolish and incorrect. Ms. Miller represents a growing majority of beef producers who are tired of R-CALF’s games and attacks funded by outsiders who want to divide cattlemen and women.

NCBA stands firmly opposed to any activists who are working to damage our industry. NCBA has also been very clear in its support for the beef checkoff. The association and its volunteer leaders will continue to support the state beef councils and beef producers being attacked by Muraskin, Public Justice, R-CALF and OCM.

The reason Muraskin and his clients feel smeared is because they’ve attacked an important program that enjoys widespread support among beef producers. No orchestration was needed in this case. The backlash among cattlemen and women who support the checkoff is predictable and anyone who is surprised by it doesn’t know NCBA or the people in our business very well.

So, Mr. Muraskin, since you felt the need to make yourself clear, let me do the same. NCBA isn’t conducting a smear campaign, if we were, you’d know it. We’d put our name at the top of the page.

Op-Ed: No Smear Campaign, Unpaid Whistle Blower Retorts

Public Justice Attorney Claims “Smear Campaign” Against R-CALF and OCM

OCM Stands Firm in Quest for Checkoff Transparency

HSUS, R-CALF, OCM: Guilt by Association?

“Great News" & "Missed Opportunity" in U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 05:29:13 GMT

President Donald Trump announced today he has renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and finalized a new United States-Mexico-Canada (USMC) Agreement. Cattlemen, however see both pluses and minuses to the changed.

Kevin Kester, a fifth-generation California rancher and president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, says producers from his organization view the agreement as a positive step forward with our two largest beef markets.

“This new agreement is great news for American cattle producers, and another sign that President Trump’s overall trade strategy is working,” Kester said in a statement . “Over the past quarter century, free and open trade between the United States, Mexico, and Canada has been tremendously successful for our producers, and we’re pleased that we’ll be able to maintain our existing market access while seeing other U.S. producers get a better deal than they’ve gotten in the past. Hopefully Congress will approve this new deal early next year and provide American producers with the certainty we need to continue selling our products to our partners to the north and south.”

Applaud for trade access was echoed by Robert McKnight, Jr., president of the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TSCRA ). “Trade is vitally important to cattle producers who, on average, send more than $2 billion in U.S. beef exports to Mexico and Canada each year. We are extremely pleased to hear the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) will maintain the market access that has been so beneficial to U.S. cattle producers over the last decade. We look forward to swift approval by Congress and the certainty of a bright future with our trading partners.”

What’s Not There

But market access is only part of the equation, says Bill Bullard, CEO, Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America .

“We fully supported the Trump Administration’s plan to renegotiate NAFTA and while the new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement includes several important improvements, such as a first ever chapter on currency manipulation, improved rules of origin for the auto industry that require higher percentages of supply-chain parts to be sourced within the three countries, and changes to NAFTA’s Investor State Dispute Settlement procedures, it nevertheless ignores the interests of America’s independent cattle farmers and ranchers.”

Namely, R-CALF wanted additional protections for the meat industry from multinational packers.

“We are deeply disappointed that the Trump Administration, like previous Administrations, has folded under the pressure of the multinational meatpackers and their allies who successfully sought to make no changes to NAFTA that would help the largest segment of American agriculture – the U.S. cattle industry – overcome the abusive market power of foreign and domestic multinational meatpackers who will continue to leverage-down the price and value of U.S. cattle under the new agreement,” Bullard said.

The agreement also does not allow the U.S. to reinstate country-of-origin labeling (COOL) requirements for beef, Bullard adds.

“The agreement appears also to contain the same rules of origin for cattle and beef as contained in the original NAFTA, as well as in the failed TPP agreement,” Bullard said. ”Those rules allow Mexico to import live cattle from South America, slaughter them in Mexico, and then export the resulting beef duty free to the U.S. where it can be mislabeled as a product of the United States. Even consumers abroad can receive USA labeled beef that is actually sourced from foreign cattle.”

“Since NAFTA, the U.S. has imported on average over 2 million tariff-free Mexican and Canadian cattle each year. If we negotiated a trade agreement that allowed us to produce those cattle in America, our industry could support well over 6,000 new ranches, each with a 300-head herd size. Instead, our trade agreements continue to encourage both Canada and Mexico to overproduce. Our domestic live cattle supply chain shrank by 6.5 million domestic cattle since NAFTA and this U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement will worsen our industry’s downward trend,” Bullard says.

NCBA Defends Checkoff Against R-CALF, Activists

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 05:29:13 GMT

Calling the expansion of the lawsuit against the beef checkoff to include 13 more states disappointing, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) reaffirmed it will continue to defend the checkoff.

“The phony allegations being perpetuated by R-CALF and its activist legal partners are without merit and only serve to divide beef producers and distract beef councils from the important work of building demand for our products,” NCBA said in a statement.

On Monday, the federal district court in Montana granted R-CALF’s motion to expand its beef checkoff lawsuit against USDA to include 13 more states, in addition to Montana.

Expressing disagreement with the ruling, NCBA CEO Kendal Frazier said, “The simple fact is that regular audits of the beef checkoff and NCBA have found both to be compliant with the laws governing the checkoff. Two audits conducted by USDA’s Office of the Inspector General have also come back clean. R-CALF’s accusations to the contrary are false. R-CALF has become nothing more than a front group for activists seeking to divide the industry, lessen beef demand and drive producers out of business.”

R-CALF filed the lawsuit last year, alleging the Montana Beef Council (MBC) is a private entity and therefore violates the First Amendment rights of Montana cattlemen by using the checkoff to fund speech some do not agree with. Early this year the court granted a preliminary injunction against the MBC which was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in April. Under the injunction, the $1 per head beef checkoff is still collected, and the money is sent to the Cattlemen’s Beef Board. Montana ranchers who wish for half of their dollar to go to the Montana Beef Council must complete a producer consent form, and the CBB then sends the money back to Montana.

Monday’s ruling allows the lawsuit to expand to state beef councils in the following states: Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Wisconsin.

NCBA, however, says accusations that checkoff money invested in the Federation of State Beef Councils is being misused are false. In its statement, NCBA said it has a longstanding commitment to the beef checkoff and the state beef councils, whose collections and demand-building work pre-date the federal checkoff. NCBA is firm in its commitment to defend both the checkoff and state beef councils against outside attacks. Further, NCBA said the volunteer cattlemen and cattlewomen who serve on state beef council boards do not deserve the attacks being leveled by activist groups.

“It has been repeatedly demonstrated that these attacks by R-CALF are being aided by allies at the Humane Society of the United States, Food and Water Watch, Public Justice and other activist organizations that stand against cattlemen and women,” NCBA’s statement says. “These groups know that beef demand is increasing in the United States and abroad, in part due to work funded by the checkoff. These achievements make the beef checkoff and other agriculture industry self-help mechanisms a target for organizations and individuals driving a vegetarian agenda.”

“It’s unfortunate that R-CALF has chosen to become a puppet in the war being waged by animal rights activists and the vegetarians seeking to drive beef producers out of business,” Frazier said. “Let’s be clear, though, the groups aligning with R-CALF are choosing a future with shrinking beef demand, less opportunity and more government involvement. That’s not the future NCBA members choose, so we will defend the beef checkoff and cattle producers against these attacks.”

R-CALF USA filed its lawsuit against the Montana Beef Council in May of 2016, alleging the Beef Checkoff Program violates the First Amendment rights of Montana cattlemen. A preliminary injunction was imposed by U.S. District Judge Brian Morris, and upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in April, barring MBC from using checkoff funds unless prior consent is obtained from the cattlemen paying the checkoff. In October, 2018, the federal court allowed R-CALF to expand the suit to include beef councils from 13 additional states. Additional information can be found at the links below.

R-CALF Files Reply In Checkoff Lawsuit

Checkoff Can Expand To More States, Court Says

Contentious Battle Continues Over The Beef Checkoff

Judge Affirms Montana Checkoff Injunction

It's Time to End the Checkoff Squabble

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 05:29:13 GMT

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in his majority opinion upholding the constitutionality of the beef checkoff, wrote: “The message set out in the beef promotions is from beginning to end the message established by the Federal Government.”

Handed down in May 2005, Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association confirmed the checkoff’s status as government speech. The vote brought together an unusual alliance of justices who often represented polar extremes. Voting with Scalia was Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Clarence Thomas, Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Some 13 years later, tensions remain high over America’s beef checkoff, with a new legal challenge that seeks to deliver a crippling blow to the state beef councils in 15 states (see Contentious Battle Continues Over the Beef Checkoff ). The lawsuit was filed against the Montana Beef Council last year by Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund (R-CALF), alleging that state beef councils are private entities and are not subject to the ruling of the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision.

Defending this new case is USDA, the Cattlemen’s Beef Board (CBB) and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA). R-CALF is supported in its efforts by the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) and lead counsel David Muraskin of Public Justice.

Outside the courtroom, R-CALF and OCM have come under scrutiny for their ties to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), an animal rights organization with a history of legal battles seeking to undermine food animal production. Both R-CALF and OCM deny any relationship or monetary help from HSUS, though it’s clear Public Justice attorneys are on the case pro bono until—should they prevail—they can petition the court for their fees.

Despite denials of any relationship with HSUS, coincidental connections between the groups and its players are disturbing. For instance, “Public Justice is supported by trial lawyers and radical environmentalists,” says Rick Berman, executive director of the Center for Consumer Freedom. “One of its two food project attorneys formerly worked for HSUS. It’s outrageous that R-CALF is joining hands with a fanatical anti-agriculture activist group and their lawyers.”

Ironically, should R-CALF prevail in the case, checkoff collections will continue, though 15 states could lose control of their half of that money. Managing those funds would become the responsibility of the CBB, which would mean a smaller voice for local cattlemen, not a larger one.

Consumer demands are rapidly evolving. Twitter, for instance, didn’t exist when
Scalia declared the checkoff constitutional, and checkoff-funded programs such as social media campaigns are crucial today.

Logic suggests it is time to end the bitter industry infighting and legal maneuvers over the beef checkoff.

No Smear Campaign, Unpaid Whistle Blower Retorts

Public Justice Attorney Claims “Smear Campaign” Against R-CALF and OCM

OCM Stands Firm in Quest for Checkoff Transparency

HSUS, R-CALF, OCM: Guilt by Association?

Cattle Industry Groups Hold Closed-Door Meeting to Discuss Price Imbalances

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 05:28:45 GMT

The current price imbalance between the packer, the feedlot and the ranch, was at the heart of a closed-door meeting among cattle industry representatives this week. AgDay has learned six groups, including NCBA, R-CALF, U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, American Farm Bureau, National Farmers Union and Livestock Marketing Association met in Phoenix.

The groups, typically at odds, telling AgDay they were on the same page and in agreement about possible changes and solutions.

One representative saying a tangible solution will come out of the meeting including a possible announcement next week.

This meeting comes as the latest Sterling Beef Profit Tracker showed packer margins hit $929 per head. Which is an increase of more than $260 per head in the past week.

Beef packer capacity is currently estimated at less than 90%, AgDay reports. Meanwhile, cattle prices held steady at $119 per hundred, and average feedyard margins were positive at $87—even as finishing costs go up.

Oklahoma State Livestock Specialist Derrell Peel says spiking feed costs—along with a backlog of cattle—aren’t helping producer margins right now.

“One of the big ones at the moment is that we simply have a very large supply of fed cattle, and not enough packing capacity to process at all,” Peel says. “We’ve been aware for several years that packing capacity had gotten down to a point where it was kind of imbalanced with cattle numbers, and actually now is a little bit shorter what we need.”

Peel says some packers are working Saturdays, and even with the Saturday kills, they can’t keep up.

Cattle Contract Library Act Passes Ag Committee

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 05:28:40 GMT

By a unanimous vote on Thursday, the U.S. House Agriculture Committee passed the bipartisan Cattle Contract Library Act of 2021 (H.R. 5609). The bill must be approved by the full House and would also need Senate consideration before it could be signed into law.

Introduced earlier this week by Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD) and Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), the Cattle Contract Library Act would establish a library of contracts for the Agricultural Marketing Service to report terms of alternative marketing agreements between packers and producers. Supporters of the bill say it would greatly increase transparency in cattle markets.

Rep. Johnson said the bill is the result of nearly a year of work with producers and industry leaders following the July 2020 Boxed Beef & Fed Cattle Price Spread Investigation Report. The investigation recommended the creation of a cattle contract library.

According to a statement from Rep. Johnson, this is the first cattle market transparency bill to pass out of the Agriculture Committee since the July 2020 report was released. The Cattle Contact Library Act is supported by the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, National Farmers Union, Livestock Marketing Association, South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association, South Dakota Farm Bureau, and the South Dakota Farmers Union.

“Producers want action – they want more transparency in the cattle market – this bill is a step in the right direction,” Rep. Johnson said. “The Cattle Contract Library Act ushers in greater transparency and competition to an industry that desperately needs it. I’m grateful to the farmers & ranchers for their critical input to come to a consensus and I’m glad the committee answered this request. I’m going to fight like hell to get this bill passed out of the House.”

During an interview with Chip Flory on AgriTalk Thursday, Tanner Beymer, NCBA director of government affairs and government regulatory policy, said the cattle contract library has “broad support from all sectors” and has been a longstanding priority for NCBA.

“Members of Congress recognize this broad support,” Beymer said.

The cattle contract library will give cattlemen valuable information about “what attributes are being incentivized by packers and at what (price) levels,” he said. Such information will help producers gain more marketing leverage.

“Information is power, and this bill allows cattle producers to compare their agreements with other (packer/producer) agreements and allows them the opportunity to negotiate more favorable terms,” Beymer said.

The only cattle producer group that has not endorsed the Cattle Market Transparency Act is R-CALF USA, the group said in a statement. R-CALF directors reviewed the bill and determined it “does not address the competition-disrupting leverage” the beef packers now have.

“The problem with our broken market is not that we don’t know the details of the contracts that confer market leverage to the packers, the problem is there are too many contracts and because of that, our price discovery market is being destroyed,” said Iowa cattle feeder and R-CALF USA Director Eric Nelson. “Putting a contract library ahead of taking action to preserve our price discovery market sends a signal that more contracts are good and more producers should try to access them. This is not what is needed.”

Prior to Thursday’s vote, the North American Meat Institute urged the House Ag Committee to pause.

“Members of the Meat Institute are still analyzing the bill and how it might affect their operations,” said Julie Anna Potts, President and CEO. Due to the limited time allowed to consider the legislation, “we ask the House to pause and include packers in the conversation, since the packers would bear the burden of complying with this new government mandate.”

The bill must be approved by the full House and would also need Senate consideration before it could be signed into law.

“There is already robust price discovery provided by beef packers on a daily basis,” Potts said. “We urge members of Congress to slow down and to first do no harm.”

Related stories:

Beef Contract Library Bill Introduced In House

Cowboys React To Revised Cattle Price Discovery Bill

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 05:28:31 GMT

On Monday four Senators announced they have revised their proposal that would reform the nation’s cattle markets. The updated legislation, called the Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act of 2022, drew comments from a wide range of industry stakeholders with varying degrees of support and opposition.

Among the three prominent cattle producer groups, U.S. Cattlemen’s Association supports the bill, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) opposes, and R-CALF USA is undecided.

The revised bill would establish 5-7 regions in the U.S. where minimum levels of fed cattle purchases must be made through “approved pricing mechanisms.” Violations of the regulation would result in a maximum penalty of $90,000 for packers that have slaughtered 5% or more of the nation’s harvest over the past five years. The bill would also create a publicly available library of marketing contracts.

The four Senators introducing the bill are: Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). The senators first introduced the bill in November.

Statements from stakeholders:

U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) president Brooke Miller says there is “momentum for industry change.” In a statement, Miller said USCA supports “mandatory cash trade minimums,” a concept he says is supported by a majority of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

National Farmers Union (NFU) president Rob Larew says “rampant consolidation in the cattle industry has made pricing in the cattle market increasingly opaque. Fair and competitive markets rely on price discovery and transparency. For farmers and ranchers to bargain effectively with packers, they need access to reliable, accurate pricing information. This bill would shed light on the market and bring about greater fairness.”

Support for the bill from Senator Fischer’s home state came from both the Nebraska Farm Bureau and the Nebraska Famer Union.

“NEFB remains committed to working with Senator Fischer to provide additional cattle market transparency and price discovery,” said Nebraska Farm Bureau President Mark McHargue.

“Nebraska Farmers Union (NeFU) strongly supports” the revised bill, says NeFU president John Hansen. “This negotiated bipartisan bill represents an historic opportunity to substantially improve and reform beef markets. It will increase beef market competition, transparency, the volume of mandatory price reporting data, cash market sales, penalties for packer violations, and establishes a cattle contract library.” He said the current system “is systematically squeezing multi-generational” ranchers out of business.

From the Nebraska Cattlemen, president Brenda Masek said, “Until price discovery participation is better valued at all points in the supply chain, live cattle market price negotiation will continue to decrease until there is little to no negotiated trade left and outside markets will have to be relied upon for price determination.”

Opposing the legislation, NCBA Vice President of Government Affairs Ethan Lane issued the following:

“Despite overwhelming feedback in opposition to a cash mandate, this latest version of the Fischer/Grassley bill expands the concept to ensure that every single producer in the country selling fat cattle would be subject to a business-altering government edict. This is an indication of just how far the sponsors of this bill have strayed from the wishes of the majority of cattle producers around the country. It is time for the sponsors to finally consider the perspectives of all those who this bill would impact, not just those in their own backyards – and we are ready to have that conversation whenever they are.”

In a statement from R-CALF USA, the group noted it was “strongly opposed to the initial version” of the bill and called for its rejection by the Senate Ag Committee.

Regarding the new revision, R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard said his group “remains deeply disappointed that Congress has not yet taken any meaningful action to address the serious crisis in the cattle industry that is now entering its eighth year.”

He said R-CALF fears many more ranchers and cattle feeders will leave the business without market reforms, and that the group has asked Congress to take “decisive action” in the past.

“While we reserve our opinion regarding the modified compromise bill pending our ongoing analysis, we remain concerned that at its heart, the proposal authorizes the USDA to take up to two more years before it even establishes minimum cash volume requirements; to set those minimum requirements at the same inappropriate level that they’ve been at during the past two years; and then to keep them at that inappropriate level following the required review after the first two years of implementation and periodic reviews after each five-year increment,” Bullard said.

“We were hoping Congress would provide a measured response to this serious crisis and we will continue wading through this complicated proposal to determine if it provides any meaningful reform worthy of America’s independent cattle producers’ support,” he concluded.

Related stories:

Cornett: The Mandaters Move On

Senators Revise Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act

Potts: Supply, Demand Balance Without Government Intervention

Cornett: A ‘Hard Cull’ On The Facts

Packers and Allies Urge Congress to Do Nothing in Face of Broken Markets

Speer: Policy Makers Should Just Leave Well Enough Alone

Speer: Is Fair What We Really Want?

Uhl: The quest to improve cattle markets

Speer: Business First, Market Second

Cornett: ‘What Does the End of Beef Mean for Our Sense of Self?’

Cornett: Cattle Markets Could See ‘Techtonic Shifts’

Cornett: Insights From ‘A Yankee’ Feeder

Cornett: Charity Markets

Cornett: Stewardship and Sustainability Will Influence Price Discovery

R-CALF Loses Appeal On RFID Challenge

Tue, 24 May 2022 18:56:51 GMT

Ranchers lost their federal claims in an appeal of a suit originally filed in 2019 against USDA and the Secretary of Agriculture challenging the use of two private groups to help develop the government’s proposed rule requiring the use of electronic ear tags for cattle.

The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 10th District on Friday ruled against R-CALF USA and ranchers from Wyoming and South Dakota who had challenged the agencies use of two private groups to help formalize the government’s proposed rule requiring electronic ear tags. The ranchers claimed the Cattle Traceability Working Group (CTWG) and the Producers Traceability Council (PTC) were subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), but the three-judge panel disagreed.

In April 2019, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) published its mandatory radio frequency identification (RFID) mandate which was scheduled to go into effect Jan. 1, 2023. R-CALF USA sued in October 2019, alleging the agencies’ mandate was unlawful. Subsequently, the agencies withdrew the mandate and asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit on grounds that the agencies had voluntarily cured their violation.

That lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge in February 2020 when the USDA withdrew a factsheet promoting the change. That’s when the CTWG and PTC began meeting to discuss the technology. USDA claimed it neither created nor managed the groups, but R-CALF USA called the group’s makeup biased and claimed violations of the FACA. R-CALF filed an amended complaint in April 2021, asking the court “to issue a declaratory judgment that [defendants] violated FACA,” or to enjoin defendants from using any “of the work product from” CTWG or PTC. When the lower court dismissed the second complaint in May 2021, the plaintiffs appealed.

Harriet Hageman, an attorney with New Civil Liberties Alliance, told the three-judge appeals court USDA couldn’t have moved forward with rulemaking without the working groups’ input and urged the panel to focus on the rule’s consequences.

“The harm is the USDA is trying to move forward with a radio-frequency identification requirement based on two committees illegally formed under FACA,” Hageman said.

The Circuit Court, however, disagreed with Hageman.

“We agree with the district court that there is no basis to conclude that defendants either ‘established’ or ‘utilized’ the Cattle Traceability Working Group or Producers Traceability Council within the meaning of the Federal Advisory Committee Act,” wrote Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Mary Beck Briscoe in a 46-page opinion.

“Consequently, we reject plaintiffs’ requests to direct the entry of judgment in their favor. Instead, we affirm the district court’s decision in its entirety,” she wrote for the panel.

“The evidence in the record quite clearly indicates that both the Cattle Traceability Working Group and Producers Traceability Council were formed by and composed of industry leaders,” Briscoe wrote.

R-CALF Asks FTC and DOJ to Investigate Vertical Integration of Feedlots

Tue, 26 Apr 2022 01:37:24 GMT

In a statement issued Monday, R-CALF USA said it has submitted formal comments to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice regarding concentration and integration of cattle feedlots in the U.S. Specifically, the group said the “oligopolistic structure of the beef packing industry is now being pushed upstream into the live cattle supply chain.”

R-CALF said nearly 85,000 feedlots have exited the feeding industry over the past 25 years, with 1,000 small farmer/feeder lots exiting just last year. The group said that loss represents75% of the nation’s cattle feeders. Conversely, the group said, the number of the largest feedlots has increased from 45 to 77 over the same period, and those 77 lots fed 35% of the nation’s cattle last year.

The 2017 Census of Agriculture estimated 26,586 feedlots in the U.S., and of those about 61% have fewer than 100 cattle. USDA says 77% of fed cattle are produced in feedlots with capacity greater than 1,000 head.

R-CALF said it is concerned about the rapid consolidation of the feeding industry and it urged the FTC and DOJ to investigate the degree of buyer power the concentrated beef packers exercise over those feedlots – in particular, the 77 largest feedlots.

The agencies had called for public comments to help them improve enforcement of U.S. antitrust laws regarding both horizontal and vertical mergers.

Speer: The Tale of Market Reform

Mon, 11 Apr 2022 17:51:33 GMT

Rising action is an essential element of any good story. It’s what enables the writer (or producer) to establish meaning along the way. That’s precisely where we find ourselves in the market reform story (never lacking for drama). And R-CALF’s most recent press release reveals several key themes for us to ponder.

First, there’s the aspect of irony. The self-proclaimed “Ranch Group” is calling on Congress to “table [the] new cattle market price discovery and transparency act.” That’s a complete 180: just a few weeks ago, R-CALF was scolding the industry for urging “Congress to do nothing.” And even singled out one observer who “unabashedly tells policy makers to ‘leave well enough alone’.”

R-CALF has presumably figured out what we’ve known all along: the cure is worse than the disease. That is, when it comes to “…implementing new legislation. The devil is in the details…it’s the principles that really matter…And regardless how good intentions may be, government generally fails at making things better.” As a result, the ranch group now saying thanks-but-no-thanks – we’ll stick with doing nothing.

Second, when it comes to data, there’s always some element of evasiveness. That’s not a new theme and best illustrated by the discussion around COOL. Amidst R-CALF’s attempt to defend COOL, they only tell part of the story. The law never altered market dynamics nor provided any marginal advantage to U.S. producers.

Similarly, the April press release proclaims, “…the cattle industry lost another 1,000 small, independent feedlots.” “Another” portrays an ongoing phenomenon. But that’s not what the data says (see graph). A couple of other key components are important here – all being avoided by R-CALF.

One, the count of feedlots with less than 1,000-head capacity is an estimate that gets backed into based on other factors (hence the count’s lack of precision). Two, it’s subject to revision; for instance, 2015’s first estimate indicated only 25,000 operations – but was subsequently revised upwards the following year (to 26,000). And three, there’s no gap in throughput; in fact, these same operations marketed an additional 50,000 head in ’21 versus ’20.

A second graph is also included to outline the trends for feedyards on the other side of the 1,000-head mark. The scale is vastly different – marketings are nearly 7-to-1 with only one-tenth of the operations. But the pattern is the same – some consolidation, more marketings.

That leads us to the final theme percolating here: business principles always prevail. R-CALF repeatedly attempts to turn some snippet of data into further evidence of a “chronically dysfunctional market.” That misses the mark; the tenets of business apply to beef just like every other business.

Both graphs represent that reality. The overarching precept best explained by strategist Michael Hammer (2002): “Increasing productivity does enable a company to lower its costs while increasing its output and that ought to be good for any business. But what is good for any business, it turns out, isn’t good for every business.”

In the end, the beef industry owns an incredible story of business success. The commitment to consumers makes the market better. And producers have enjoyed the fruits of that commitment during the past 20 years. That’s where the industry needs to stay focused – it’s the only way to ensure a good ending to the ongoing tale of market reform.

Nevil Speer is an independent consultant based in Bowling Green, KY. The views and opinions expressed herein do not reflect, nor are associated with in any manner, any client or business relationship. He can be reached at nevil.speer@turkeytrack.biz .

Related:

Speer: I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

R-CALF Says New Studies ‘Validate’ Calls For Market Reform

Cornett: The Mandaters Move On

Senators Revise Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act

Potts: Supply, Demand Balance Without Government Intervention

Cornett: A ‘Hard Cull’ On The Facts

Packers and Allies Urge Congress to Do Nothing in Face of Broken Markets

Speer: Policy Makers Should Just Leave Well Enough Alone

Speer: Is Fair What We Really Want?

Uhl: The quest to improve cattle markets

Speer: Business First, Market Second

R-CALF Says New Studies ‘Validate’ Calls For Market Reform

Mon, 04 Apr 2022 10:56:33 GMT

R-CALF USA announced late last week it now opposes the revised Cattle Market Price Discovery and Transparency Act of 2022 .

The group joins the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and the American Farm Bureau (AFB) in opposing the measure , though not because R-CALF opposes mandates, but because the group wants stronger regulations. The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) remains in support of the bill.

In a statement, R-CALF said the proposed cattle market reform bill was drafted without the “benefit of two new cattle market studies.” These new studies contain “monumental findings” that R-CALF believes should encourage Congress to further strengthen any proposed legislation to reform cattle markets.

The first study is a summary of “a developing research project” by economists from Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, Georgetown University, and Ohio State University. The project seeks to explore the pricing behavior of U.S. beef packers and the role of market power and whether “packers may have been able to exercise buyer power in the market for fed cattle to a greater degree.”

The summary, “ Buyer Power in the Beef Packing Industry: An Update on Research in Progress ,” focuses on the potential cause for the increasing spread between live cattle prices and wholesale beef prices from 2015 to 2019. Specifically, the authors said their focus is on alternative marketing arrangements (AMA) feedyards and packers use to price fed cattle, and whether such arrangements “distort the packer’s bidding incentives in the cash market.”

The second study is an economic analysis issued by Iowa State University’s Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, titled, Multi-plant Coordination in the US Beef Packing Industry . This analysis focuses on the contribution that multi-plant ownership has made to the increased packer spread observed in recent years.

Prior to about 2005 when the volume of cattle procured in the cash market was over 60%, the Iowa State researchers found that the large beef packing companies operated each of their plants as an independent profit center. However, sometime after 2005 the large packers began coordinating procurement and slaughter activities across their plants, which resulted in “more than 20 separate economic agents suddenly consolidated into four.”

While R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard called these two studies “earthshattering,” university economists contacted by Drovers were hesitant to either endorse or condemn the work. That’s because neither of the two studies have been peer-reviewed. The lack of peer-review doesn’t make the conclusions invalid, but economists are not willing to comment on research that has yet to earn the stamp of peer-review approval from other experts in the field.

Related stories:

Cornett: The Mandaters Move On

Senators Revise Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act

Potts: Supply, Demand Balance Without Government Intervention

Cornett: A ‘Hard Cull’ On The Facts

Packers and Allies Urge Congress to Do Nothing in Face of Broken Markets

Speer: Policy Makers Should Just Leave Well Enough Alone

Speer: Is Fair What We Really Want?

Uhl: The quest to improve cattle markets

Speer: Business First, Market Second

Group Seeks To Add to R-CALF’s Suit Over RFID

Thu, 03 Dec 2020 17:44:01 GMT

A new nonprofit civil rights group has filed a lawsuit challenging USDA’s attempts to implement mandatory use of “radio frequency identification” (RFID) eartags for cattle and bison.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance has filed a motion asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming to add nine documents to the Administrative Record in the case of R-CALF, et al. v. USDA, et al. The suit seeks consideration of extra-record evidence and challenges USDA’s alleged violation of both the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by establishing and utilizing two separate advisory committees to provide recommendations for implementing the RFID eartags, but failing to follow the proper procedures for doing so.

According to a statement issued by New Civil Liberties Alliance, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) established the “Cattle Traceability Working Group” in 2017 of which NCLA client Kenny Fox was a member.

NCLA alleges that upon discovering that the CTWG was not producing the pro-RFID recommendations they desired, certain CTWG members sought to exclude anyone who opposed mandatory RFID from further participation, eventually starting a second advisory committee called the “Producer Traceability Council” or PTC.

“High-level USDA employees were actively involved with both the CTWG and PTC, but failed to follow the requirements of FACA by, among other things, ignoring public notice requirements and blocking participation of those opposed to RFID requirements,” NCLA’s statement says. “Mr. Fox and other cattle producers who oppose mandating RFID eartag use have been entirely excluded from PTC membership, with only pro-RFID individuals and companies (such as electronic eartag manufacturers) being allowed to participate.”

NCLA said the nine documents it has asked the court to add to the lawsuit are crucial to “showing that USDA ‘established’ and ‘utilized’ the CTWG and PTC as advisory committees in the development of the 2019 Factsheet and policy to move forward with mandating cattle and bison producers to use RFID eartags.”

NCLA further said that USDA’s “briefs filed to date suggest that it will defend itself against R-CALF’s FACA claims by asserting that the Act is inapplicable to USDA’s interactions with the two advisory committees.”

NCLA’s senior litigation counsel Harriet Hageman said, “Our battle against USDA’s unlawful push to force livestock producers to use RFID eartags continues. Our latest efforts are designed to ensure that the Court has a full record on which to evaluate our FACA claim against USDA. While USDA has sought to avoid its obligations under FACA and the APA, we will keep moving forward to demand accountability and transparency in order to protect the constitutional and property rights of livestock producers throughout the country.”

COOL: R-CALF, NFU Seek FTC Assistance

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:57:04 GMT

R-CALF USA has asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to correct “substantive conflicts” it sees between existing federal law and USDA’s “past, present and future meat labeling schemes.”

Separately, the National Farmers Union also called on the FTC to “swiftly finalize” the recent proposed rule that would strengthen voluntary U.S. origin claims on labels and penalize those who incorrectly label products. NFU President Rob Larew urged the FTC to adopt the proposed rule and “vigorously enforce it.”

In a statement released Tuesday evening, R-CALF alleges USDA has been violating the Tariff Act of 1930 which requires imported beef to retain its foreign country of origin label throughout the marketing channels unless the product is subjected to substantial transformation. Current USDA regulations only requires minimal processing for the foreign label to be removed from the product.

R-CALF also alleges that USDA’s meat labeling policy is in “direct conflict” with the mandatory country of origin labeling (mCOOL) law that applys to lamb, chicken and other commodities. In comments submitted to the FTC, R-CALF said that “while USDA’s policy allows foreign lamb to bear a USA label when it too is subjected to only minimal processing, the mCOOL law expressly states that lamb cannot bear a United States designation unless it is from an animal that is exclusively born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States.”

R-CALF’s comments claim USDA’s policies favor the beef industry’s larger players, including the large beef packing companies. R-CALF claims such policies help those large entities in “deceptively labeling their foreign products” such that it causes harm to American cattlemen. The group claims USDA “is catering to only a handful of multinational beef packers” and a minority of cattlemen who purchase imported cattle.

In the statement, R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard said American ranchers have received no help from Congress or the USDA in correcting USDA’s deceptive beef labeling regime. “We’re hopeful that the independent Federal Trade Commission can step in and help America’s independent ranchers.”

R-CALF Offers ‘Corrective Actions’ For Cattle Markets

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:55:33 GMT

Seeking to actively engage with cattle producers and underscore what it calls “the unprecedented disconnect between live cattle prices and wholesale and retail beef prices,” R-CALF USA held a Facebook Live meeting Monday evening (April 6, 2020).

Bill Bullard, R-CALF CEO, told the roughly 1,000 viewers on Facebook Live his group seeks “genuine solutions to fix the broken (cattle) marketplace.”

On March 18, R-CALF sent a letter to President Trump asking him to work with Congress to pass reforms the group believes will help give cattlemen a “competitive price” for their cattle.

Bill Bullard

In his address on Facebook Live, Bullard said thousands of cattle producers have left the business the past two decades in an environment that provides non-competitive prices for family ranchers.

Specifically, Bullard was critical of the evolving manner in which packers procure cattle. In the early 2000s, he said, cattle procured on a negotiated cash basis was shrinking from “well over half the cattle” sold. By 2010 that number had declined to “less than 40%,” and in today’s market negotiated cash sales represent “less than 25%” of the trade.

“Since 2015 the value of cattle has been disconnected from the value of beef,” Bullard said. “For the past three years consumer beef prices have been trending upward and cattle prices have been trending downward.”

R-CALF offers four specific corrective actions, Bullard said.

“First we must dust off Senate Bill 786 and immediately begin forcing packers to purchase the majority of their cattle needs in the competitive marketplace.”

Second he called for Congress to “fully restore mandatory country-of-origin labeling for all beef sold in America.”

Third, Bullard wants Senate Bill 27 to be implemented, which would “prevent packers from owning or controlling their cattle input needs for more than seven days before slaughter.”

Finally, Bullard said his group seeks the implementation of Senate Bill 1017, which would “prevent the packers from procuring cattle without having to negotiate a price.”

Those four corrective actions would “restore balance to our dysfunctional cattle market” and give America’s cattle producers the “opportunity to earn a competitive income from a competitive marketplace.”

Related stories:

Beef Market Impacts From COVID-19 Vary Widely

R-CALF Will Challenge Judge’s Checkoff Ruling

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:54:45 GMT

R-CALF USA will submit “formal objections” to the U.S. federal court after last week’s ruling for summary judgement by a Montana magistrate judge in R-CALF’s lawsuit against 15 Qualified State Beef Councils (QSBC).

In a 21-page decision, U.S. magistrate John Johnson recommended the ruling for summary judgement to the U.S. District Court, which will make a final decision. The parties may file an appeal of Johnson’s recommendation within 14 days, but they may not file an appeal directly to the Court of Appeals until the District Court announces its decision. That ruling may be several months away.

A statement issued by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association called Johnson’s ruling “an important victory helping ensure cattlemen and cattlewomen will continue to direct how checkoff investments are made at the state level.”

But R-CALF maintains its stance that the beef councils’ speech violates the First Amendment. The key issue is whether the speech of the 15 QSBCs, funded through Beef Checkoff dollars, is private speech or government speech.

The 15 QSBS are: Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

While R-CALF made the argument the 15 QSBCs are private corporations expressing private speech, Judge Johnson noted the USDA now has “significant authority” as it has entered into a Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with all of the 15 QSBCs in the lawsuit, and that the QSBCs agreed to submit to USDA “for pre-approval any and all promotion, advertising, research, and consumer information plans and projects.”

Further, Johnson wrote that while “the First Amendment protects private parties from subsidizing speech that the private party disagrees with,” he noted that “protection does not extend to subsidizing government speech.” Because the MOUs are in place, “USDA now retains complete final approval over all QSBC ads.”

Additionally, R-CALF argued that USDA does not maintain effective control of organizations downstream that receive funds from QSBCs. But Judge Johnson said “R-CALF offers no rationale to explain why QSBCs may not pay for membership in organizations like the Federation of State Beef Councils or the U.S. Meat Export Federation.” Ruling otherwise would risk “micro-managing” legislative and regulatory schemes, he said.

In a statement, R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard, criticized the 15 QSBCs for entering into the MOUs with USDA after R-CALF’s lawsuit was filed because they “realized they had been caught violating the constitutional rights of cattle producers and scrambled to correct their violation.” Bullard said the MOUs were an attempt to convert private speech into government speech “in hopes they could correct their decades-long violation of the Constitution.”

The court, however, disagreed. “The Court sees no reason here to assume the Government entered these MOUs as merely a way to avoid an adverse result in this Court,” Johnson wrote.

In a statement issued following Judge Johnson’s ruling, NCBA CEO Colin Woodall said, “The Beef Checkoff is weakened, and the benefits it provides our industry are put in jeopardy, by lawsuits such as this one. We’re committed to defending state beef councils from these attacks and ensuring producers at the grassroots level continue to determine how checkoff dollars are invested in their states.”

Related stories:

Beef Checkoff Prevails In Crucial Court Ruling

Purchase of Iowa Premium by National Beef Completed

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:48:07 GMT

The sale of Iowa Premium, LLC, a beef packing company in Tama, Iowa, to National Beef Packing Company, LLC, has been finalized. The purchase was formally announced by National Beef on June 10 .

The acquisition of Iowa Premium, also known as Iowa Premium Beef, was first made public in March . The sale was pending a customary waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act. National Beef is the fourth largest beef packing company in the U.S. and has a majority of its shares owned by Brazilian meat packer Marfrig Global Foods .

The addition adds another 1,100 head per day harvest capacity for National Beef. Prior to this National Beef was harvesting 12,000 head per day at two other packing plants in Dodge City and Liberal, Kan.

After the purchase was first announced there was a request filed to U.S. Attorney General William Barr by Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) seeking to block the acquisition .

In the request R-CALF USA expressed concerns that the purchase would reduce competition for fed cattle regionally and accused Marfrig of attempting to “swallow up America’s critical food production facilities.” It appears that the request by R-CALF USA did not halt the purchase from being approved as National Beef expected the sale to close late in the second quarter of 2019.

The former Iowa Premium beef packing plant processed primarily Angus fed cattle purchased primarily in Iowa and surrounding states in the Midwest. The plant specialized in marketing USDA Choice and Prime grade beef.

National Beef plans expand processing operations at the plant and expects to employ more than 850 people. Prior to the purchase National Beef employed approximately 8,400 employees with further processing facilities located in five states with the company being headquartered in Kansas City, Mo. During the 2018 fiscal year, National Beef generated $7.5 billion in sales.

For more information about National Beef read the following articles:

R-CALF

Did the Administration's Plan to Lower Beef Prices Wreck the Bull Run in the Cattle Market?

Is the Beef Market Broken? One Cattleman Says Yes

Could High Beef Prices Just be Supply and Demand?

But Beef Packers are Losing Money

What Makes This Investigation Different?

Coal Mine Canaries Served an Important Purpose

Bullard: Nevil Speer’s Research Supports R-CALF USA’s Trade Concerns

Speer: Protectionism’s Persistent Misunderstandings

Bullard: Alas, A Genuine Discussion on Beef and Cattle Trade

Speer: Limestone vs Protectionist Brimstone

Speer: Protectionists Make Bad Bookkeepers

Speer: Don’t Blame Trade – Blame Protectionism

mRNA Conspiracy Theories: Ranch Group Offers ‘Fearmongering’ and ‘Misinformation’

Groups Seek Reintroduction of American Beef Labeling Act

Op-Ed: Let Us Be Clear, NCBA Responds

Related Content:

“Great News" & "Missed Opportunity" in U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement

What’s Not There

NCBA Defends Checkoff Against R-CALF, Activists

It's Time to End the Checkoff Squabble

Related Content:

Cattle Industry Groups Hold Closed-Door Meeting to Discuss Price Imbalances

Cattle Contract Library Act Passes Ag Committee

Cowboys React To Revised Cattle Price Discovery Bill

R-CALF Loses Appeal On RFID Challenge

R-CALF Asks FTC and DOJ to Investigate Vertical Integration of Feedlots

Speer: The Tale of Market Reform

R-CALF Says New Studies ‘Validate’ Calls For Market Reform

Group Seeks To Add to R-CALF’s Suit Over RFID

COOL: R-CALF, NFU Seek FTC Assistance

R-CALF Offers ‘Corrective Actions’ For Cattle Markets

R-CALF Will Challenge Judge’s Checkoff Ruling

Purchase of Iowa Premium by National Beef Completed