United States Cattlemen's Association

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.

Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act Reintroduced in 2023

Fri, 03 Feb 2023 16:12:18 GMT

On Thursday, Senators Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), John Tester (D-Mont.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) reintroduced the Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act in the 118th Congress.

This legislation includes the following, as summarized by the United States Cattlemen’s Association:

• Require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish 5-7 regions encompassing the entire continental U.S. and then establish minimum levels of fed cattle purchases made through approved pricing mechanisms—negotiated cash, negotiated grid, at a stockyard or through trading systems that multiple buyers and sellers regularly make and accept bids

• Establish a maximum penalty for covered packers of $90,000 for mandatory minimum violations. Covered packers are defined as those packers that during the immediately preceding five years have slaughtered five percent or more of the number of fed cattle nationally.

• Create a publicly available library of marketing contracts, mandating box beef reporting to ensure transparency, expediting the reporting of cattle carcass weights, and requiring a packer to report the number of cattle scheduled to be delivered for slaughter each day for the next 14 days. The contract library would be permanently authorized and specify key details about the contents that must be included in the library like the duration of the contract and provisions in the contract that may impact price such as schedules, premiums and discounts, and transportation arrangements.

“The U.S. cattle industry is cyclical by nature - there are ‘up’ years and ‘down’ years,” says Justin Tupper, USCA president. “But for producers, those up years come far too few and in between the down years due to an increasingly consolidated industry. Restoring fair and competitive market practices is essential to leveling the playing field for U.S. producers.”

Tupper adds, this bill gives producers access to valuable information that can help them make better, more profitable marketing decisions.

Sen. Grassley says in a recent press release, “Iowa cattle producers have struggled to receive a fair price for years – long before the massive market distortions cattle producers have endured most recently. It’s past time for Congress to stand with independent cattle producers and put an end to the cozy relationship between large meat packers and big cattle feedlots.”

Additionally, Sen. Fischer, Wyden and Test echo the sentiment that their cattle producing constituents desire greater transparency in the cattle market and a more fair playing field.

Other cosponsors to this bill include Senators Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Sherrod Brown (R-Ohio), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), John Kennedy (R-La.), and Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.), with 11 of the bill’s cosponsors also members of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Read More:

USDA Officially Launches Pilot Cattle Contracts Library

Farm Bill an Early Christmas Present for Cattlemen

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 05:29:41 GMT

Now that the farm bill has been signed by President Trump beef groups are celebrating an early Christmas gift for cattle producers.

The final bill was signed by President Trump on Dec. 20 in front of a crowd of Senators, House Representatives, USDA staff and agriculture association leaders.

“We’re here to celebrate a really tremendous victory for the American farmer, ranchers, agriculture — incredible people — by the signing of the 2018 Farm Bill,” Trump says. “We’ve been working long and hard on this one.”

Several cattlemen’s groups have been happy with how the farm bill came together for their associations. At the farm bill signing ceremony the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) was represented by Kevin Kester, fifth-generation California rancher and president of the group.

“It is an exciting day for cattle producers and I was honored to be at the White House for the signing ceremony. The 2018 Farm Bill is now law and producers will have the certainty they need going forward,” Kester says.

Establishment of up to three regional centers to be known as “Cattle and Carcass Grading Correlation and Training Centers” and clarification to the Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish program were applauded by the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA).

“We’d like to extend our sincere thanks and appreciation to Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts and Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow; and House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway and Ranking Member Colin Peterson and all of their staff. Delivering a farm bill, on-time and with needed resources for our farming and ranching families, is no small task,” says USCA President and North Dakota rancher Kenny Graner.

A primary area of the farm bill that gained the support of many state and national cattlemen’s associations was the National Animal Disease Preparedness Program and National Animal Vaccine Bank. This piece of the legislation secures $300 million in funding for programs like a foot and mouth vaccine (FMD) bank and requires a study for USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service more effectively conduct outreach with small meat packers.

“NCBA was pleased to see authorization of a new FMD bank. The FMD bank will provide critical protection to rural economies, and we look forward to working with Secretary Perdue and Congress to address future funding needs,” Kester says.

“The farm bill offers crucial certainty for Iowa’s cattle producers and farmers. We are encouraged to see Iowa Cattlemen’s Association’s (ICA) priorities addressed, including authorization and funding of a FMD vaccine bank, investment in trade promotion and market access, and reauthorization of key conservation programs,” says David Trowbridge, ICA President .

The Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TSCRA) was thankful to House Agriculture Chairman Mike Conaway (R-TX) for his leadership in moving the bill forward.

“The legislation retains many of the hard-fought provisions that were essential to cattle raisers, including authorization for a FMD vaccine bank and enhancements to important conservation programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program,” says Robert McKnight, Jr., president of TSCRA.

The farm bill also has a number of provisions that will aid U.S. producers in staying competitive on the internals stage, according to the U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF).

“One important aspect of the bill is its continued support for international promotion of U.S. agricultural products, as the bill maintains funding for the USDA Market Access Program and the USDA Foreign Market Development Program. Support from these programs is an important tool for expanding global demand for U.S. pork, beef and lamb, as well as many other U.S. products,” says USMEF President and CEO Dan Halstrom.

Japanese Market Fully Opened for U.S. Beef; Tariffs Remain Concern

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 05:29:17 GMT

U.S. beef producers now have full access into the Japanese market after being restricted on entry for more than a decade and a half, but tariffs are still a limiting point compared to Japan’s other trade partners.

All age restrictions were lifted by Japan regarding U.S. beef on May 17, completely opening up the Japanese market for the first time since 2003. Previously, Japan had halted all imports of U.S. beef following the discovery of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in a U.S. cow about 16 years ago. Then in 2005 imports from cattle no more than 20 months of age resumed. The stipulation was then eased to cattle 30 months of age or younger in 2013.

Politicians and cattle groups like the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) were applauding the move to completely allow U.S. beef.

“Putting American beef fully back on the menu in Japan will help our cattle ranchers grow their operations and continue to make a living off the land. This is a critical step in the right direction because we should be opening up foreign markets, not damaging longstanding trade alliances,” says U.S. Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) .

“U.S. beef has now secured a greater share of market access to the Japanese marketplace and we look forward to building on the $1.7 billion worth of U.S. beef that was sold to Japan in 2018,” says USCA President Kenny Graner.

Despite the win on gaining full entry to Japan for beef there are still tariffs to deal with. After the Trump Administration backed out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, countries like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Mexico all gained an advantage over the U.S. on access into Japan. The 10 other countries in TPP currently have a 26.6% tariff on beef going to Japan compared to 38.5% for U.S. beef.

“Now, we must focus on the negotiation of a bilateral trade agreement with Japan to bring down the 38.5% tariff the country places on our product,” Graner says.

Senator Tester adds, “I will continue to hold this Administration accountable by defending family farmers and ranchers against harmful tariffs and keep pushing to sell Montana beef to the world.”

While the issue of tariffs is important, NCBA President Jennifer Houston is optimistic that there could be some light at the end of the tunnel for narrowing that trade gap.

“Tariff rates grab all the headlines, but non-tariff barriers are often just as important, if not more so, when it comes to determining market access. Hopefully this will help spotlight this important point and lead to more trade victories in the near future,” she adds.

Countries in TPP will likely continue to see access into Japan increase as the agreement is slated to lower tariffs on beef to 9% by 2033.

For more on what Japan’s beef market potential could be and other beef related news watch the Drovers TV report from AgDay above or read the following stories:

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.

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

Crosby: Cattle Market Reform Cannot Wait

Thu, 08 Sep 2022 21:49:12 GMT

The following opinion is that of Brett Crosby, U.S. Cattlemen’s Association Region IV Director.

A blog post published by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on July 12, 2022, claimed that Congress is “rushing” to consider “aggressive legislation to regulate beef markets.”

Boy, if only that were true.

In February 2020, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) hosted its annual Cattle Producer’s Forum at the Public Auction Yards in Billings, Montana. It was there that a group of producers discussed the idea of reigniting a concept previously advanced by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa to improve the cash cattle market.

That concept was introduced by Iowa’s senior senator in 2002 as the Transparency for Independent Livestock Producers Act . It would require 25 percent of a packer’s daily kill to come as a result of purchases made on the daily, open market or spot market.

That was 20 years ago. Since that time, we’ve seen a 75% decrease in the number of cattle feedlots – from 55,472 in 2002 to 13,379 in 2017 according to U.S. Census of Agriculture data. We’ve also lost approximately 1,200 cow-calf producers and backgrounders each year.

“Rushing” into legislation? While we continue to hem and haw over whether or not bold Congressional action is needed, independent producers will exit the business.

From an outsider’s view, it can certainly seem like all this talk of consolidation and anticompetitive practices in the U.S. beef and cattle industries suddenly sprung up. But USCA and other stakeholders have worked towards restoring leverage and true price discovery in the cattle marketplace for decades. Congressional passage of the Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act and the Meat and Poultry Special Investigator Act represents a significant step toward achieving that goal.

In testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Dr. Stephen Koontz of Colorado State University observed that, “There are no other industries outside of cattle and beef…that work in their entirety in this type of setting – whereby supply decisions, demand revelation, and changing the product form are in distinctly different industries. Coordinating the system is difficult.”

“Difficult” is certainly understated, but the point remains: The U.S. cattle and beef industries’ marketing process and dynamics are entirely unique. In our business, we need a referee to ensure a competitive playing field free from interference. We also need a healthy and viable cash market to keep our independent producers in business.

Not many have accused Congress of moving too quickly. Democracy is designed to be a slow, laborious process. Momentum for these two historic pieces of legislation grew over nearly two years from an idea conceived by a small group of from concerned producers to widespread support from producers and consumers, grassroots organizations, Members of Congress, and the White House. Now it’s time to finish what Senator Grassley began twenty years ago: Set aside the interests of multinational meatpackers and secure the future of our sovereign food system.

Brett Crosby currently serves as Region IV Director for the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, representing Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado.

Escobar: We Must Unite To Protect The Industry We Love

Tue, 16 Aug 2022 19:53:17 GMT

The opinions expressed in the following are those of Kevin Escobar, E Bar Cattle Company, Region XI Director (Florida and Georgia) of the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association.

What does the future of the cattle industry look like? As a Florida cattle producer this is an issue at the forefront of my mind. It has been estimated that 1200 people a day are moving into our state. To accommodate this rapid urban population growth, a sea of concrete and asphalt has sprung up across the land at an alarming rate. The landscape is changing faster than ever, but where does that leave the cattle industry and the future of our food source? This is a national security issue, in and of itself, and we must be ready to fight.

Throughout history we can see in precise detail, how the industry has changed, and each time the question was asked, “Is this the end”? From the late 1800’s and the end of the cattle drive era and the railroads connecting one end of the country to the next, the invention of barbed wire and the end of the open range, to screw worms and dip vats and most recently packer consolidation. These are just a few of the issues cattle producers have faced over the last 150 years and each has come with its own challenges and fears of “the end”.

There have always been obstacles to overcome and there are new challenges on the horizon that we’ve yet to face or are unaware of. It’s my belief that cattle producers are a unique group of people, that have an inherent will to succeed that surpasses all others and that will is what keeps this industry alive. This inherent will to thrive keeps our industry fiercely competitive, and in turn, keeps our individual operations alive and profitable from one generation to the next. Yet, it’s our willingness to work together to overcome challenges from outside the industry, challenges designed to divide and separate us and ultimately draw our attention away from the greater issues, that will be the difference maker. The enemies of the cattle industry have learned that the only way that they can beat us is to divide us and watch us fight amongst ourselves. Only by ignoring our common enemies that seek to divert our attention from the real threats, will we see the end of the cattle industry in this great nation.

It is my sincere belief and the reason I took the time to write this, that we need to set aside our differences and focus our collective attention on the real threats, which I will expand on below. Our ability to overcome outside challenges will be the difference between a healthy, food secure nation - and one that is not.

Freedom is the most important right we have in this country. Freedom to choose our religious or political beliefs, freedom to choose how and where we spend our money, freedom to choose our own values, and freedom to choose what we eat. We make our decisions on food products based on the information available to us. Most commonly, we rely on what’s printed on package labeling to make an informed decision. Therefore, truth in labeling is vital to our freedom of choice.

Cattle producers, at every level of the industry, work tirelessly to provide the highest quality meat protein to consumers. Roughly 2% of the population is feeding the world and year after year, we have found a way to continue to make improvements in quality and availability. Whether the consumer likes grain finished or grass finished beef, purchasing from their favorite grocery chain or a local producer supplying direct-to-consumer beef, each and every cattle producer is doing their part with the consumer’s best interest in mind. In addition, Cattle producers have used management practices for over 100 years that benefit the environment. Today we recognize them as sustainable management practices that allow grazing lands to absorb more carbon, filter more rainfall and water runoff, produce more photosynthesis and protect wildlife habitat.

Labeling foods that are not animal products as being more environmentally friendly is simply not true. Labeling products that do not come from animals as “meat” is simply false advertising. The issue of Plant based foods, and as recently reported in the news, cell cultured products as “meat”, is an attack on the American consumers right to freedom of choice. There are laws at both state and federal level that make deceptive claims illegal. Yet, we find ourselves having to fight to protect the very nature and integrity of the healthy food source we provide. Why? As a strong supporter of the Agriculture community in the United States, I appreciate the contributions that farmers of wheat, corn, cotton, soybeans, sugar and many others, grow for our food supply. We need those food sources as well but the false labeling and packaging of compounded ingredients as “meat” is the issue at hand. Allowing manufactured products to manipulatively apply the term “meat” to their packaging would be a grave disservice to consumers seeking truthful, accurate label information in order to make an informed decision.

Reports show that the plant based category has more than doubled in the United States in recent years, rising by 148% from 2019 to 2020 alone. An expert projection has the plant based category growing to a $252 billion market by 2030. Make no mistake, these are not your parents’ veggie burgers. These newer, flashier, cell-cultured products have attempted to replicate the flavor profile, texture and eating experience of real meat.

Cell-cultured products take the cells of living animals, place them on an

artificial-yet-edible skeleton-mimicking structure, baste them in a serum of hormones, vitamins and extracellular vesicles required for cell growth, and then propagate them in a laboratory to create a product that they will attempt to label as “meat”. Does that sound like meat to you?

Cell Cultured products are being touted as more humane and environmentally friendly as they could require a smaller carbon footprint to produce. I challenge that statement, as I outlined the environmental benefits that cattle production provides versus the industrial complexity it will require to make a single cell cultured food product. Cell Cultured food is not commercially available in the United States today, but experts are projecting it to be a price comparable product on the shelves by 2025. It’s been reported that this is a game changer and a “significant disruption” to the traditional meat market. They will advertise this food product as real meat because it came from “real animals”.

Reports show that in 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture reached an agreement to regulate cell based products jointly, safely and properly labeled. The problem is that they are in fact labeling this new product as “meat”.

There is an irony that is being overlooked by many: eating meat has been deemed bad for our health by a number of chefs, dietitians, celebrities, doctors and at times, even our own U.S. Government. Yet, these same people desire to provide a food source that intends to genetically mirror a piece of beef in color, flavor and texture but it was never born, raised and harvested. A more concerning aspect of this is that a large segment of protein needed for our personal growth and development would not be able to be grown by you or I. This is an attack on our freedom of food supply. Ask yourself this question: why is there such a drive to have a food product on the market that is designed in every way to appear as something it is not, yet, market it as if it were and make it so we can not produce it ourselves? I believe this is the kind of threat and common enemy we can all agree on.

I recently had the opportunity to meet and speak with current National Cattlemen’s Beef Association president Don Schiefelbein at the Florida Cattlemen’s convention in June. During our conversation, I learned that we had the same opinion on the many topics we discussed. When I mentioned it, he too agreed that most cattlemen see eye-to-eye on at least 90% of the issues. We all live in a town with a Baptist church, a Methodist, Non Denomination, etc.. Theology is what separates us but we all believe we are going to end up in Heaven.

We continued dialogue over the last couple months, agreeing that we needed to be leaders in the industry and show that we are fighting for the same issues, that everyone needs to work together towards our common goals and against our common enemies.

Taking a quote from Don, “We need, as leaders, to find common ground on the 90% plus issues that will likely determine our long-term fate and avoid the death trap of wedge issues that places our industry groups in the circular firing squad where we inflict damage to each other as our enemies gleefully watch. Just as my father reminds our family, our industry needs to heed that same advice: The only way we lose is by attacking each other BUT if we stand together united, we are unstoppable.”

Abraham Lincoln said, “A house divided against itself, cannot stand.” I believe an industry divided against itself, too, cannot stand.

Regardless of organization or association, we must unite and find common ground to fight together to protect the life that we love, and for many, the heritage that we want to pass on. The next generation is already here. I challenge you, not to solely focus on issues within the cattle industry but the issues that surround us, the issues that are inherently and expressly designed to attack the very nature of our industry and the value we provide to the consumer. I encourage you to have an open minded discussion with a fellow cattle producer that you don’t agree with and set aside issues you may not see eye-to-eye on. Find the issues that you do agree on. It will all come down to you and me, not the acronyms, the associations or committees. We are what makes the committees, we are the difference between the past and future of the cattle industry and it is up to us as individual producers to protect our love, our heritage, our legacy and our freedom.

Miller: Cattle Market Reform Necessary for a Sovereign, Secure Food System

Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:01:13 GMT

More than one hundred years have passed since the last major regulatory action on the U.S. meatpacking industry. The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 was enacted at a time when the National Packing Company, a conglomeration of three of the largest meat processors at the time, controlled 45 percent of the nation’s total slaughter capacity, and 97 percent of slaughter capacity in the West.

Today, the “Big Four” meatpacking corporations – Tyson, JBS, Cargill, and National Beef Packing – control around 85 percent of U.S. steer and heifer slaughter, more than twice the market share that spurred Congress to action in 1921.

The game has changed, but the rules have remained the same. Without bold action, the United States risks losing its independent livestock producers.

U.S. Senator Deb Fischer, Chuck Grassley, and Jon Tester’s Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act would be the first time in over one hundred years that a referee, with a whistle, would be placed back on the playing field. And for each violation of the Act, packers would pay a $90,000 fine.

Under the bill, USDA would establish 5-7 regions covering the continental United States based on similar fed cattle purchases. Packing companies controlling five or more percent of fed cattle slaughter in these regions would then be required to participate in the cash market. The bill would establish minimum levels of purchases through approved pricing mechanisms like negotiated cash, negotiated grid, at stockyards, and through trading systems where multiple buyers can make and accept bids.

The initial established mandatory minimum may not be less than the average of that region’s negotiated trade for the two-year period of 2020-2021. However, this is just the floor of what USDA can establish – USDA can choose to set minimum purchase levels higher. In fact, they are required to consider a number of factors including the proportion of negotiated purchases in that region relative to the number of AMAs that use negotiated purchases to determine their base price.

The bill would also require USDA to review levels of cash sales not more than two years after passage, and then periodically after that. If anything changes after the bill passes, there is a built-in mechanism to quickly make it right.

Further, the bill makes much-needed changes to Mandatory Price Reporting, including creating a publicly available library of marketing contracts, mandating box beef reporting to ensure transparency, expediting the reporting of cattle carcass weights, and requiring packers to report the number of cattle scheduled to be delivered for slaughter each day for the next 14 days.

And what would happen if the bill is not passed? A study compiled by Texas A&M’s Agricultural and Food Policy Center , at the behest of the Senate Agriculture Committee, forecasted that without the Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act, negotiated trade in Texas-Oklahoma-New Mexico is expected to fall to zero percent by 2026.

This isn’t a discussion over whether producers should or should not be able to market their cattle through Alternative Marketing Agreements, or AMAs. This is a discussion about how we can place solid ground back under producers’ feet by establishing a floor of minimum weekly negotiated purchases. Without these purchases, there would be no way to determine a base price for the majority of AMAs.

The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) stands with the 20 Senate cospsonors of the bill on the need to pass the Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act. A new Congress will begin on January 3, 2023 – and with it, all of our work on cattle market reform legislation will be wiped clean. Time is not on our side – but momentum is. Let’s get this bill across the finish line and bring true price discovery back to the cattle marketplace.

Dr. Brooke Miller currently serves as president of the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, a nationwide organization of independent cattle producers.

USCA Applauds Bill to Establish Office of the Special Investigator for Competition Matters

Fri, 11 Jun 2021 20:13:18 GMT

On Friday, U.S. Senators Jon Tester (D-MT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), and Mike Rounds (R-SD) teamed up to introduce legislation that would amend the Packers and Stockyards Act to establish theOffice of the Special Investigator for Competition Matters.

Senator Tester announced the legislation at an event held at the Public Auction Yards in Billings, Montana on Friday, June 11.

USCA Director Emeritus Leo McDonnell of Columbus, Montana issued the following statement:

“This bill comes at a critical time for the U.S. cattle industry. To ensure a level playing field for U.S. cattle producers, we need a referee that can call foul on anticompetitive market practices.

“This bill directs coordination between the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. It grants subpoena power to aid in the investigation and prosecution of violators of the Packers & Stockyards Act, and bolsters the legal power of the USDA by maintaining a staff of attorneys and other professionals with relevant expertise that can elevate cases of corruption.

“USCA has long advocated for the creation of this special investigator position, and we applaud Senators Tester, Grassley, and Rounds for advancing this legislation.”

Read the bill here.

USCA Sends Letter to Biden Administration on Buy American Mandate

Fri, 12 Feb 2021 16:35:04 GMT

On Thursday, the United States Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) sent a letter to the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council regarding the enforcement of President Joe Biden’s Buy American mandate , signed on January 25, 2021.

With the existence of the current loophole that allows for imported beef to claim the “Product of the U.S.A.” label, it is virtually impossible to provide assurance that the federal Buy American program will in any way benefit U.S. cattle producers. In its letter, USCA recommended changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulations that would realign how USDA procures meat products for domestic food assistance programs.

In October 2019 , USCA submitted a proposed rulemaking to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) requesting the needed changes to permanently close this loophole. I n March 2020 , USDA FSIS advanced USCA’s recommendations - though, under their proposal, live cattle from Canada and Mexico would still be eligible to receive the “Product of the U.S.A” label, a definition which USCA adamantly opposes.

Regarding the Buy American mandate, USCA President Brooke Miller issued the following statement:

“USCA sincerely appreciates the vision of President Biden in his Executive Order to reset how the federal government uses its purchasing power to proactively invest in American businesses.

“The ongoing global pandemic has highlighted the need for a safe, stable, and secure food supply. U.S. cattle producers are more than willing to step up and support those goals by providing wholesome and nutritious American beef. We now ask that Congress and the Administration support us by providing a pathway forward for defining what constitutes a U.S. beef product. For far too long, there has been confusion at the retail counter when it comes to tracing the origin of meat products. If we are going to build and maintain a successful and vibrant U.S. cattle industry – we must have a transparent and informed labeling process at the meat counter.

“USCA also appreciates Senator John Thune of South Dakota for raising this issue during a recent confirmation hearing for Agriculture Secretary nominee Tom Vilsack. USCA urges full Senate support for Mr. Vilsack’s nomination. Once confirmed, we look forward to working with the incoming Secretary on solidifying these definitions and permanently closing this labeling loophole.”

USCA Urges Action to Address Drop in Cattle Market due to COVID-19

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:55:22 GMT

The United States Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) called on the U.S. Department of Agriculture to take immediate steps to address the impact the Coronavirus (COVID-19) is having on the U.S. cattle market. Click here for the letter.

USCA President Dr. Brooke Miller, M.D. issued the following statement:

“The actions that federal, state, and local government - along with private entities - are making to control the spread of the outbreak are the right decisions. We must continue to ‘flatten the curve’ to protect our loved ones at greater risk of contracting the virus.

“However, producers’ bottom lines are suffering due to the effect the outbreak has had on the cattle and beef industries. We must act expeditiously to return normalcy to the cattle marketplace. Fortunately, the USDA Commodity Credit Corporation can provide the needed programs and funding to address these rare and tumultuous incidents.

“We call on Secretary Sonny Perdue to work in an expedited manner to provide the needed programs and financial support. In addition, we ask for oversight of the cattle marketplace to prevent anti-competitive buying practices in the days and weeks ahead.

“USCA has created a special task force to address the market fallout as a result of the Coronavirus. These are uneasy times, but cattle producers can rest assured that the industry will get through this. This is the second major market disruption and producers need to know that work is underway to ensure the future is both stable and profitable. We will overcome and continue to produce a healthy and abundant food supply; while simultaneously serving as stewards of the environment and ensuring a thriving rural and national economy.”

Read the letter here.