Cattle Pricing News

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

Thu, 13 Nov 2025 19:42:19 GMT

The current state of the cattle market and beef industry has been described as chaotic. “There’s chaos in cattle,” as Chip Flory, AgriTalk host, put it.

The industry turmoil follows recent statements made by President Donald Trump regarding the need to lower beef prices as well as his request for the Department of Justice to immediately begin an investigation into meatpackers for driving up the price of beef.

Derrell Peel, Extension livestock marketing specialist from Oklahoma State University, affirms these are unique times, emphasizing while political factors have always indirectly influenced agriculture, it’s unprecedented for the cattle and beef markets to be at the center of direct political debate.

On a recent AgriTalk segment, Peel points out the inherent biological and production constraints of the cattle industry — particularly the fixed timeline to raise cattle — make quick fixes impossible. Both Flory and Peel stress that no political policy can shorten the cattle production process; any effective supply response requires patience and long-term adjustment.

Packers Under Fire

The concept of industry consolidation and foreign packer ownership has long drawn scrutiny with frequent government investigations. Peel says highly concentrated industries such as beef packing have been targets for skepticism and regulatory attention for over a century, to the point suspicion of packers is almost “a cultural thing” within segments of the industry.

He characterizes the latest call as another attempt to target convenient scapegoats rather than addressing deeper systemic realities of supply and demand.

“The reason we have the industry structure we do is because the economies of size and cost efficiencies are such a powerful economic force,” Peels explains.

He confirms researchers have long studied market power, and while concentration does have a small negative price impact for producers, the efficiency and cost-savings from large-scale firms more than compensate. These benefits, he says, keep cattle prices higher for producers and beef prices lower for consumers than they would be with a less efficient structure.

Dissecting the economics of margin markets Peels explains why price changes in different parts of the beef supply chain — cow-calf, feeders, packers and retailers — don’t move in lockstep. He uses a “bungee cord” analogy to illustrate the complex, dynamic and time-lagged interactions linking cattle prices at the farm with retail beef prices.

“All cattle prices and beef prices are ultimately connected, but they’re not connected with a stick or a chain,” Peel summarizes.” They’re connected with a bungee cord. There’s just an enormous amount of dynamics in this thing.”

Regarding the foreign ownership debate, Peel says there is no evidence foreign ownership alters packer behavior within the U.S. marketplace. He emphasizes foreign firms have made large investments in U.S. facilities and continue to operate them by the same market logic that would govern domestic ownership.

He also points out it is unclear who else would be in a position to make such significant investments if these foreign companies were not involved. This pragmatic view suggests the ownership issue might be less important than is commonly believed, at least concerning everyday operations and market outcomes.

A Lot Hinges on Rebuilding the Cow Herd

In his latest article, “ All Bets are Off ,” Peel says: “The latest edition in the torrent of recent political attentions directed at the cattle and beef industry includes allegations of market manipulation against the beef packing industry. Beef packers are the one segment that has been most negatively impacted in the current market, incurring huge losses due to poor margins and limited cattle supplies.”

(Meat Institute)

Peel reports packers have been losing enormous amounts of money for about the past 18 to 24 months. According to the Meat Institute, packer margins slipped into the red in September 2024. Through the week ending Oct. 4, 2025, packer margins were a negative $126.50 per head, up slightly from a year earlier at a negative $125.65 per head, according to Sterling Profit Tracker. The outlook for the year is a negative $165.96 per head packer margin.

“There’s just simply not enough cattle for them to operate at cost efficient capacities,” Peel explains.

This negative trend was anticipated — the reduced supply of cattle has made it difficult for packing plants to function at cost-efficient capacities, leading to the accumulation of operating losses. Peel points out the combination of low unit margins and insufficient cattle supplies challenges the economic viability of packers, further illustrating the complexity of the current environment.

This decline in inventory is not the result of a single factor but is driven by several years of drought and other market pressures. It is clear high beef and cattle prices are a result of these tight supplies and, according to Peel, these high prices are likely to persist for several years. The industry simply cannot turn around production levels quickly, and it will take time — a matter of years, not months — for conditions to normalize.

“Using logic that only works in the office of a politician, packers are supposedly wielding unacceptable market power while paying record high cattle prices and artificially raising beef prices … but not enough to avoid losing a couple hundred dollars on every animal they process — certainly many millions of dollars,” Peel says. “If beef packers had any significant ability to exercise market power, I am certain that we would not have record high cattle prices and packers would not be losing money.”

Peel suggests the federal government attacks on beef packers are aided and supported by a vocal minority of the cattle industry and a few sympathetic politicians who view packers as a perennial villain and always worthy of attack anytime the opportunity is presented.

“The timing of such attacks this time is particularly puzzling as dismantling the packing industry would certainly jeopardize current record high cattle prices and the best economic returns most producers have ever enjoyed,” Peels says. “I guess some cowboys just can’t stand prosperity.”

R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard says the cattle market is fundamentally broken citing years of an inverse relationship between falling cattle prices and increasing retail beef prices when the only ingredient in beef is cattle. Read more about his perspective.

Patience not Politics

Beef and cattle prices, Peel notes, are historically high, a result of industry-wide low cattle inventory. Rebuilding the nation’s cow herd will be a long, slow process, keeping prices elevated for an extended period. And Peel says there is no definitive evidence producers are saving heifers to start the rebuilding process.

“2025 may prove to be technically the cyclical low, but 2026 is going to be barely bigger, if it is, and no growth in 2026 and probably none in 2027 ... it’s 2028 into 2029 before that turns into increased beef production,” Peel predicts.

He summarizes neither regulatory nor political action will can speed up the rebuilding process. It will take years of concerted effort, market healing and stability before the industry can expect a meaningful rebound in herd numbers and production — a reality that requires patience across the industry.

“There is absolutely nothing anybody can do to make beef prices go down, or cattle prices, other than maybe tear up the industry completely,” Peels says. “And if we tear up the industry, it’ll make cattle prices go down, but it won’t make beef prices go down. It’ll make beef prices go even higher for consumers and the only way to fix this is to give the industry time to rebuild, and that’s going to take two to four years if we ever get started.”

He says a majority of cattle producers understand the beef industry is extremely complex and all segments are critical and essential.

“Though the outcome of current political actions is uncertain, the potential for long-term harm to the industry is substantial,” Peel says. “Anytime politics trumps economics, the strong supply and demand fundamentals that have determined the outlook for the industry to this point become irrelevant. Expectations for prices and production going forward are now completely clouded…therefore… all bets are off.”

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

As Markets Search for Clarity, USDA Says NASS Will Issue Key Reports in November Despite Government Shutdown

Fri, 31 Oct 2025 17:37:32 GMT

The federal government’s continued shutdown is no longer just a Washington standoff — it’s becoming a real-world problem for farmers and ranchers. As the days drag on without resolution, three Kansas State University economists warn that even with FSA offices back open, the absence of key USDA reports is rippling through every corner of the ag economy, from commodity markets to cattle prices and farm-level business planning.

But on Friday, USDA-NASS issued a bit of surprise. The agency says NASS will release key data in November for the following reports , some with a delay:

Milk Production – Nov. 10 (previously scheduled for Oct. 22)
Crop Production – Nov. 14 (previously scheduled for Nov. 10)
Cattle on Feed – Nov. 21 (as previously scheduled)
Milk Production – Nov. 21 (as previously scheduled)
The World Agricultural Outlook Board will release the World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) in conjunction with the Crop Production report on Nov. 14.

With much of the agency still furloughed, there are questions regarding how NASS will have enough staff to provide those key reports. The release didn’t offer any additional details, only saying those key reports will be released in November.

However, there are a few key reports still missing, which includes daily flash sales reports and weekly export sales information.

A Data Blackout Hits the Heart of Agriculture

Until now, the shutdown has silenced the regular flow of government data that producers, analysts and traders depend on — reports like the weekly export sales, crop progress and Cattle on Feed updates, as well as the highly anticipated World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE).

“The fact that the government is still shut down means we aren’t getting those weekly export sales reports,” says Allen Featherstone, head of the department of agricultural economics at Kansas State University. “That’s a real problem because we rely on that information to confirm what’s actually happening in the market.”

Is China Actually Buying? The Absence of Flash Sales Reports Creates Confusion

With the U.S. and China negotiating renewed agricultural trade commitments , there are fresh promises of more purchases in the weeks and months ahead. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Thursday that China has agreed to buy 12 million metric tons of American soybeans during the current season through January and has committed to buying 25 million tons annually for the next three years as part of a larger trade agreement with Beijing.

Featherstone notes that while China claims it is buying U.S. soybeans, the lack of USDA verification makes it difficult to gauge the truth and confirm those buys are happening. And in USDA’s announcement Friday, there was no indication the flash sales and weekly export sales will resume.

“Earlier this week, China reportedly purchased three vessels, about 180,000 metric tons, but not having official data from USDA is a major issue,” he says. “Tracking purchases becomes challenging when the normal reporting mechanisms are down.”

Despite some optimism around U.S.-China trade progress, Featherstone says markets are hesitant to believe much until concrete export numbers appear.

“If China doesn’t come through, that will lead to more negativity in prices given the size of this year’s crop,” he says. “China imports roughly 60% of the world’s soybeans, and if they don’t buy from us, that’s a big problem.”

Featherstone emphasizes the importance of diversifying U.S. export markets.

“We need to broaden who’s buying our products,” he says. “Relying too heavily on one trade partner makes us vulnerable, and this shutdown is a reminder of just how fragile that system can be when government data and diplomacy both stall.”

No November WASDE?

While some private companies attempt to replicate USDA’s data models, those efforts often fall short, according to Terry Griffin, K-State’s precision agriculture economist.

“We’re not likely to have a November WASDE because all the footwork that leads up to it hasn’t happened,” Griffin explains. “Even if the shutdown ends this weekend, that report won’t be ready. There’s just too much groundwork that hasn’t been done.”

He says the lack of USDA reports has forced brokers, trading firms and agribusinesses to depend on private estimates that vary widely.

“They’ve become so reliant on USDA’s National Ag Statistics Service that they’re struggling right now to do their business,” Griffin says. “It’s throwing off everything from national models to local crop forecasts.”

Griffin also points out the shutdown’s impact reaches beyond the boardroom and into academia.

“We have a graduate student working on a peanut production forecasting model, and she’s using crop progress data that come out every week,” he explains. “Without those reports, she can’t validate her model. The data blackout affects research, innovation and business planning all at once.”

Cattle Producers Face Growing Uncertainty

The shutdown’s effects extend deeply into the livestock sector, where missing data is already creating confusion and volatility. Glynn Tonsor, K-State livestock economist, says the absence of reports like Cattle on Feed and slaughter estimates makes it difficult to assess market fundamentals.

“The Cattle on Feed Report is something we normally get monthly. Historically, it has a steer and heifer breakdown, which would be quite useful at the moment as the most recent insight about whether we’re expanding the herd or not, and we’re not going to have that detail,” says Tonsor. “There’s also been a lot of discussion about beef prices and some accusations or desires to make those lower, and we’re actually already behind on what the beef price is in this country. So there’s lots of examples that we could give you that are not just livestock and not just crops. And the longer the shutdown goes, the longer those data gaps exist and build, the harder it is for anybody, whether it’s an academic like us up here or private sector or individual producers, to adjust.”

He notes while we did see life in the cattle market this week, if you look at what happened since President Trump made comments about cattle prices being too high , the cattle market has pulled back significantly in recent weeks.

“Roughly $200 per head has come off the value of cattle in just 10 days,” Tonsor says. “If you’re a cow-calf producer, you’re still positioned for 2025 to be a good year, but uncertainty is the biggest risk right now. Anything that elevates uncertainty delays long-term investments, whether that’s expanding the herd or making capital improvements.”

That uncertainty isn’t only about market data. Tonsor says the political noise out of Washington, including renewed calls for mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (MCOOL), adds to the confusion.

“Taste remains the main driver of beef demand,” he says. “Origin and traceability rank much lower for the average consumer. There are niche opportunities, but for most people, it’s not what decides their protein purchases.”

A Cloud of Uncertainty Over Rural America

For now, K-State’s economists agree on one thing: The shutdown’s ripple effects are growing with every passing day. From grain markets to livestock pricing, from academic research to on-farm decision-making, the absence of reliable government data leaves agriculture flying blind.

“The longer the shutdown goes, the more those data gaps build,” Tonsor says. “And the harder it becomes for anyone, whether you’re an academic, a trader or a producer, to adjust.”

Political Blame Game in Washington

The political blame game continues in Washington, and it’s creating a stalemate. The Democrats are blaming the GOP, and the GOP is blaming the Democrats, both claiming the other party doesn’t care about every day Americans, otherwise the other side would make concessions to reopen the government.

House Committee on Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, R-Pa., released a statement on Friday, the day before SNAP benefits are set to expire, saying the prolonged government shutdown is caused by Democrats in the U.S. Senate.

“Because Senate Democrats insist on keeping the federal government shut down, more than 40 million Americans — including children, seniors, veterans and military families — will not receive their November SNAP benefits beginning this weekend. The No. 2 House Democrat acknowledged that suffering families are their ‘leverage’, confirming that this is a political choice.”

U.S. Representative Angie Craig, D-Minn., and Ranking Member of the House Ag Committee, says the onus falls on President Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans.

“Secretary Rollins said one honest thing today: The government is failing the American people. Republicans control the House, Senate and White House. The Trump administration has the legal authority and funds necessary to get November SNAP benefits out the door. They are illegally withholding food from 42 million Americans, and it is shameful,” said Craig in a statement on Friday.

USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden says the fallout extends well beyond the Capitol. From families losing access to food assistance to disruptions in beef and soybean markets, Vaden warns that the consequences are real and immediate.

In an interview on “AgriTalk,” Vaden accuses congressional Democrats of blocking a “clean continuing resolution” and says the resulting gridlock could harm both consumers and producers.

“If they don’t vote to reopen the government, then 40-plus million SNAP recipients see no extra money added to their benefit cards this weekend,” Vaden says. “We shouldn’t be playing politics with people’s lives and people’s dinner tables.”

SNAP and WIC Funding Hang in the Balance

Vaden says USDA manages to keep the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program funded for now by reallocating money from other programs. But the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which costs about $9 billion each month, has no such cushion.

“When it comes to SNAP, we’re talking about more than 9 billion — with a B — dollars,” he explains. “We don’t have that kind of money lying around here at USDA. The contingency fund people talk about is nowhere close to that amount, and it’s meant for natural disasters. We surely don’t want to be spending that and then hoping there’s no hurricane while Congress continues this shutdown.”

Without congressional action, Vaden says 40 million Americans might not receive their grocery benefits at the start of November — a moment when both food demand and household strain typically rise ahead of the holidays.

“That’s 9 billion dollars of groceries,” Vaden emphasizes. “And those groceries include beef, pork and poultry. These are markets that are sensitive to even a 1% shift in demand.”

“A Lump of Coal” for the Holidays

As the shutdown looms, Vaden says the timing is especially painful.

“We’re heading into the holiday season; it’s supposed to be a time of good cheer,” he says. “Unfortunately, Senator Schumer and Representative Jeffries are giving everybody a lump of coal. This needs to stop. We shouldn’t be playing games with people’s lives.”

He adds that USDA can move quickly once Congress passes appropriations.

“You want people to receive their SNAP benefits? It’s real simple,” Vaden says. “Give us our normal appropriations, and USDA will do what it does so well: get those benefits onto people’s cards quickly and efficiently.”

Beef Producers React to USDA's Plan to Fortify Industry and Trump's Social Media Comments

Thu, 23 Oct 2025 16:03:10 GMT

In an effort to strengthen the American beef industry and reinforce and prioritize the rancher’s critical role in national security, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and other cabinet members announced a suite of actions on Wednesday.

Since 2017, the U.S. has lost over 17% of family farms — more than 100,000 operations over the last decade. The national herd is at a 75-year low while consumer demand for beef has grown 9% over the past decade. Because increasing the size of the domestic herd takes time, USDA says it is investing now to make these markets less volatile for ranchers over the long term and more affordable for consumers.

“America’s food supply chain is a national security priority for the Trump Administration. We are committed to ensuring the American people have an affordable source of protein and that America’s ranchers have a strong economic environment where they can continue to operate for generations to come,” Rollins says in a press release . “At USDA we are protecting our beef industry and incentivizing new ranchers to take up the noble vocation of ranching. Today, USDA will immediately expedite deregulatory reforms, boost processing capacity, including getting more locally raised beef into schools, and working across the government to fix longstanding common-sense barriers for ranchers like outdated grazing restrictions.”

The plan includes three coordinated priorities:

Protecting and improving the business of ranching
- Strengthening the foundation of U.S. cattle production through endangered species reforms, enhanced disaster relief, increased grazing access (approximately 5 million acres), increased access to capital, and affordable risk management tools.
Expanding processing, consumer transparency and market access.
- Lowering long-term costs by cutting inspection costs by up to 75% for small processors, increasing marketing options for consumers with Product of USA labeling and ensuring consumers have clear, truthful information about American beef.
Building demand alongside domestic supply
- Growing the domestic herd while boosting domestic and international demand so that ranchers are not trapped in the boom/bust cycle that has defined past cattle markets. This strategy includes boosting long-term demand to reduce prices for consumers while growing markets for ranchers through significant farm-to-school grans and protein-focused dietary guidelines.

The plan is available through the USDA website.

Trump Takes to Social on Beef

President Donald Trump shared his perspective on beef industry success on X.

“The Cattle Ranchers, who I love, don’t understand that the only reason they are doing so well, for the first time in decades, is because I put Tariffs on cattle coming into the United States, including a 50% tariff on Brazil,” Trump posted.

Following the post, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) made a post on Facebook in response and also released a statement on the president’s steps to undercut U.S. cattle producers:

“In a misguided effort to lower the price of beef in grocery stores, President Trump said he plans to increase the volume of beef being imported from Argentina. Efforts to manipulate markets only risk damaging the livelihoods of American cattlemen and women, while doing little to impact the price consumers are paying at the grocery store.”

“The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and its members cannot stand behind the President while he undercuts the future of family farmers and ranchers by importing Argentinian beef in an attempt to influence prices,” said NCBA CEO Colin Woodall. “It is imperative that President Trump and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins let the cattle markets work.”

”The U.S. already faces a deep trade imbalance with Argentina, one that is made worse by the President’s plan. During the past five years, Argentina has shipped beef valued at more than $800 million to the U.S., while purchasing only $7 million of U.S. beef. Furthermore, Argentina is a nation with a long history of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), and USDA has not completed the necessary steps to ensure Argentina can guarantee the safety of the products being shipped here, further endangering America’s cattle herd.

“If President Trump is truly an ally of America’s cattle producers, we call on him to abandon this effort to manipulate markets and focus instead on the promised New World Screwworm facilities in Texas; making additional investments that protect the domestic cattle herd from foreign animal diseases such as FMD; and addressing regulatory burdens, such as delisting of the gray wolf and addressing the scourge of black vultures,” Woodall said, concluding the statement.

Your Next Read: Is Argentina Beef the Answer to Lowering Beef Prices?

Is The Record Ag Trade Deficit Cause For Alarm?

Mon, 11 Aug 2025 18:15:48 GMT

The U.S. agricultural trade deficit hit a record $28.6 billion the first half of 2025, according to data released from USDA.

(FJM)

It’s due to weak production growth, increased demand for imported food and ongoing trade conflicts.

In June alone, the value of U.S. agricultural exports trailed imports by $4.1 billion. It’s a gap that’s 14% wider than a year ago.

Not Time To Panic
The trade deficit is one of the main reasons President Trump has given for why he’s imposing tariffs and working on new trade deals.

But former USDA chief economist Joe Glauber, who is now a senior research fellow with the International Food Policy Research Institute, says the trade imbalance is not as alarming as it looks on the surface.

He says that’s partly because the U.S. imports many products it can’t grow — like seasonal produce.

“We kind of define ‘What are agricultural exports?’ and ‘What are agricultural imports?’” Glauber says. “They’re very different in one sense. In fact, we export a lot of bulk commodities like corn, wheat and soybeans and import a lot of fresh fruits and vegetables. And there are obviously some products that compete against each other, but by and large, we’re importing and exporting very different things.”

Skewed Definition
Furthermore, the definition of what constitutes an ag export includes some bulk commodities, but not their value-added end product.

“We import calves and feeder cattle from Canada and Mexico, we import hogs from Canada that are then finished and slaughtered. Whats showing up as imports is actually a part of the production process,” he adds.

Lower Grain Prices Are a Factor
The widening deficit marks a historic reversal for U.S. ag, which ran major trade surpluses for the past five decades. But Glauber says for the last three years, the data has been skewed as prices for bulk commodities, like grain, have fallen — especially compared to the $200 billion of ag exports in 2022.

“If you were to consider what we exported last year in terms of volume and valued them at the prices in 2022, we’d be back at the $200 billion marker. So, with almost no deficit if the prices were reversed,” he explains.

That’s why Glauber says he’s not overly concerned about the trade imbalance.

“I think a surplus or deficit, as far as I’m concerned, is meaningless. What is really important, I think, is improving market access for U.S. agricultural products.”

The Exception
One exception is China, where the trade war has cut exports in half.

Commerce department data shows the U.S. exported just $5.5 billion to China the first half of 2025 — verses $11.8 billion last year.

In June alone, exports were the lowest since 2010, with no soybeans at all.

Why Aren't High Beef Prices Causing Sticker Shock With Consumers?

Wed, 23 Jul 2025 19:37:01 GMT

Gound beef prices across the U.S. continue to reach new highs. Retail prices for ground beef hit its highest level in history in June climbing above $6 per pound, while steaks were up 8% at $11.49 per pound.

(Bureau of Labor Statistics )

“The record high retail beef price reported by the most recent Consumer Price Index (CPI) has prompted a lot of calls about why prices are record high and whether there is any relief in sight,” says David Anderson, Texas A&M Extension economist for livestock and food product marketing. “While we often write about the great cattle prices for producers who are selling, there is a flip side, and that is consumers who are buying beef.”

Anderson explains reduced slaughter and beef production, especially in the second quarter of the year, cut supplies just as grilling season heated up for seasonal beef demand. The combination led to a spike in wholesale prices and retail beef prices.

Don Close, Terrain senior animal protein analyst, says: “What we have seen so far is consumers have been incredibly loyal to protein collectively, but they have been especially loyal to beef, and beef is actually continuing to gain market there, even at the current prices at the expense of the other protein.”

Wages Are Keeping Pace With Beef Prices

Close says when he correlates the monthly all fresh beef price to hourly wages he found they are in lock step.

“Yes, beef prices have escalated, but beef prices have not risen any faster than the improvement in overall hourly wage,” he explains. “So from the consumer’s perspective, their share of their paycheck committed to beef is essentially the same as it’s been on a comparative basis for years.”

(Don Close, Terrain )

Other contributing factors to beef demand include consumers’ craze for protein and the impact of GLP-1 diets on protein consumption.

Scott Varilek, Kooima Kooima Varilek, says: “I think beef demand has just proven time and time again — hey, consumers want it. It’s a great healthy protein, and I think it’s got a lot of good traction here over the last year of being a good quality source of food.”

High Quality Attracts Consumer Spending

Plus, with 82% to 84% of the beef produced grading Choice or better, the high quality of beef is pushing demand.

“I don’t see any weakness really in the consumers or their spending habits,” says Mike Minor, professional ag marketing. “We actually are eating more Prime meat today than Choice for the first time ever. So, people like their expensive meat still.”

How Long Will High Cattle and Beef Prices Last?

Last week USDA reported average fed cash cattle prices hit the second-highest level in history at $237.78, up 57¢ from the average the prior week.

The high cattle and beef prices continue to be driven by tight cattle numbers, the Mexican boarder closing due to New World screwworm and looming import challenges.

Yet, Close says the role of strong demand can’t be ignored and is likely to continue.

“I think it’s certainly through 2026 and really more realistic somewhere deep into 2027,” he adds.

Anderson explains normal seasonal production and demand would suggest prices falling from recent highs. Evidence from the wholesale beef market over the last couple of weeks indicates lower prices.

“Seasonal price patterns would suggest that there is a chance for a little bit of relief from record high beef prices,” Anderson says. “But, only if we compare to the peak price this summer. Wholesale beef prices are already declining.”

He adds there is a time lag from lower wholesale prices showing up at retail, but lower wholesale prices combined with normal seasonality of various cut prices should lead to the expectation of falling prices in the coming months.

“But, it’s not likely that prices will decline below year-ago levels,” Anderson emphasizes.

Inventory Reports Release on July 25

Close says more will be known about supply levels after the USDA Cattle on Feed and Cattle Inventory reports on Friday.

“While market analysts expect lower placements, marketings and cattle in feedyards than a year ago, the really interesting number will be the number of heifers on feed on July 1,” Anderson summarizes. “The heifers on feed will provide some insight into heifer retention. Also, look for placements in Texas due to the ban on Mexican feeder cattle. The lack of spayed heifers coming from Mexico is important in evaluating the number of heifers on feed.”

Your Next Read: What Americans Won’t Give Up in 2025: Spending Priorities Revealed

Did the U.S. Cattle Inventory Shrink Even More in a Year? 60% of Ag Economists Think So

Fri, 31 Jan 2025 19:49:00 GMT

Last year’s USDA Cattle Inventory Report showed the smallest cattle herd in 73 years . And with no strong signs of rebuilding underway, along with strong prices providing no incentive to retain heifers, agricultural economists think the U.S. cattle inventory has shrunk even more since last year.

Last year, USDA’s Cattle Inventory report showed as of Jan. 1, 2024, the All Cattle and Calves inventory was 87.15 million head, a 2% reduction in just a year. Ahead of the 2025 report, the January Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked economists to project inventory as of Jan. 1, 2025.

50% said they expect inventory to fall to 86 to 86.9 million head.
20 percent expect inventory to remain similar to levels last year
An additional 20% think inventory will rise to 88 to 88.9 million head.
And 10% think cattle numbers could to 85 to 85.9 million head.

What would change a producer’s minds and give them confidence to grow their herds again? That’s exactly what we asked in the latest Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, which is an anonymous survey of nearly 70 ag economists from across the country. While some said it will just take time, others pointed to the economics of strong cow-calf returns, weaker fed cattle prices and lower prices at the sale barn.

Other economists said:

“Today’s high prices are certainly incentive, along with the expectation of moderate feed costs.”
“Government policies, global demand, price cycle”
“Better spring forage supplies could be the most important factor in growth. More quality labor could be critical, too.”
“Confidence that the general economy outlook is positive and that there are unlikely to be negative policy shocks. And, of course, there has to be adequate forage.”
“Improved weather pattern in the West, along with profitable margins.”

Record-High Prices

January Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound )

Cattle prices continued to hit records this week. And with no signs of those record prices slowing down, it’s a question of how high these prices will actually go.

Is it the supply side or the demand side driving prices? According to economists in the survey, it’s both. And that’s why out of the 10 major commodities, economists are most bullish on cattle in 2025.

January Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound )

Advice to Manage Risk
Even with no end in sight, the Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked economists, “What advice you would offer beef producers to consider to make sure they are in the right position to take advantage of high prices now and to be prepared for when the market changes?” Here’s what they had to say:

“Stay sold forward, and avoid over-leveraging.”
“To just keeping looking at their genetics, retaining those with the best traits to continually improve herd quality and meat marketability.”
“For those with adequate forage availability, the near-term outlook for cattle profitability is very positive. Remember, though, that all good things come to an end—those who wait too long may only have more animals to market when prices turn back down again.”
“Consider all options for their risk management strategy, including both insurance products, futures, options, or other strategies.”
“You must have something to sell.”
“Today, there is more downside price risk for cattle prices. Risk management against a significant decline in future cattle prices should be considered today.”
“Hedge sales and inputs both. Hedge the crush!”

A Possible Recession Still Hangs Over the Ag Economy, But Positive Shifts Are Starting to Surface

Fri, 01 Nov 2024 21:12:11 GMT

In September, 75 percent of ag economists warned of an impending agricultural recession. October brought slight optimism to the Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, attributed to rising U.S. corn export demand and forecasts about cattle herd rebuilding. Yet, economists remain cautious about the potential impact of the upcoming election.

Harvest is winding down across the Midwest, and some farmers saw a record harvest pace in 2024. Harvest is typically the time of year the market sets harvest lows, but this year, commodities, like corn and wheat, came to life.

“I think over the last month, we’ve seen a little bit of a rebound or stabilization of prices, if you will. Some of that’s simply been fund short covering that is supported, some of it is a little better long-term picture for wheat and for corn, although for soybeans, it’s still looking somewhat bleak long-term,” said Arlan Suderman, chief commodities economist with StoneX Group.

The latest Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, which is a survey of nearly 70 ag economists and conducted by Farm Jounal each month, reflected that with short-term sentiments among economists seeing a slight improvement, but a bigger jump when asked to compare them to last year.

“We could have told you two to three years ago that, after a period of high prices, eventually we were going to have a recovery in production and that was going to suppress prices probably more than input costs. We knew that. I think when you take into account expectations heading into the year, has it deteriorated more than expectations? Probably not. We just know that we’re worse off today than where we were,” said Ben Brown, an agricultural economist with the University of Missouri.

Each month, the Monthly Monitor asks economists to list the factors that could impact crop prices over the next six months. In the latest survey, economists said:

South American weather
U.S.-China trade relations
Election outcomes
Global geopolitical risks
Biofuel demand

The Biggest Wildcard: South America

“The biggest thing that will l impact the markets is going to be South American weather. What happens in Brazil and Argentina and what’s the size of the soybean crop they’re going to get? Right now, it is raining. The crop is being planted late. Our people on the ground in Brazil are expecting a big crop if these rains continue,” Suderman said.

While the soybean crop could see suppressed prices if Brazil grows a big crop this year, the later-planted crop could eat into the supplies of corn.

“Even where we’re at today could have an impact on that second-crop corn, given that I anticipate that we’re going to see a very robust corn export picture even without a shrinkage in that second-crop Brazilian corn. I still think there’s an upside potential for the corn market, and it’s going to be based on the size of that second-crop corn in Brazil,” said Brown.

A Recent Surge in Corn Sales

The corn export demand picture has been strong, which is thanks to a surge in sales to Mexico. T hat’s one significant factor currently fueling corn prices .

“If we didn’t have it, corn prices would be a lot lower today than where they are,” said Brown.

“When we look at the export pace that we’re on right now, it’s stronger than what we normally have at this time of year, and it’s largely been because of Mexico. Mexico has been a very aggressive buyer of U.S. corn here, at what they perceive to be the harvest lows,” Suderman said.

Outlook for Livestock and Dairy

The October Monthly Monitor asked economists to list the factors that could impact livestock and dairy prices over the next six months. Economists said:

Herd size and tight cattle supplies
Outcome of the election
Health of general economy in the U.S. and consumer demand changes
Disease issues (H5N1, etc.)
Developments in China and other major importers
Consumer demand given high meat and dairy prices
Weather in the Corn Belt and Great Plains

When Will Beef Producers Start to Rebuild Their Herds?

October Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

The October survey also asked economists when they think producers will start to rebuild their cow herds:

50 percent said in the first half of 2026
30 percent think it’ll happen the second half of 2025
20 percent said in the first half of next year.

“We’ve seen a slowdown of cow slaughter. That’s step one, but that’s not rebuilding,” said Suderman. “It really comes down to when do we turn this weather pattern around and start getting the pasture, the feed necessary in the West in order to incentivize rebuilding the cowherd? That is the problem right now.”

Other than weather, what else is preventing producers from starting to rebuild? Economists say it’s the average age of producers, replacement costs and heifer prices.

“I also think there is this economic pull on producers of ‘how can I justify retaining these heifers when they’re bringing the prices that they are?’” said Brown.

The Inflation Factor

When you look at what could impact both livestock and row crop producers over the next six months, a major wild card is interest rates. The October survey asked economists how much farm interest rates need to fall to find economic stability for farmers, and 46% said 2%.

Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound )

But even with the Fed cutting the benchmark interest rate last month, interest rates have actually gone up, not down.

“The two-year break-even inflation rate is what the market trades. It’s expectations of what inflation’s going to average over the next two years. And over the last six weeks or so, we have seen it jump a full percentage point. That is a significant short-term jump, saying that reinflation fears are coming back in a hurry,” Suderman said.

Suderman points out the Fed can influence mid- and longer-term rates, but the agency can’t control them. And it’s concerns about inflation that are pushing those rates back up again.

“That could all change over the next couple of weeks, or it could be reinvigorated. I think longer term, what I’m looking for is a return to the interest rates that we saw in the ‘90s and early 2000. But I think there’s going to be a lot of volatility in getting there,” Suderman said.

Election Impact on Ag

October Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

Ahead of the election, the Monthly Monitor asked economists which presidential candidate will be more effective at taming inflation. Fifty-three percent said Donald Trump.

When it comes to providing more certainty on farm policy and crop insurance, 61 percent of economists said Trump will provide more certainty.

However, when looking at policies that benefit biofuels, 53 percent of economists said Kamala Harris.

Today, there is no clarity on 45Z that’s causing soybean processors like Cargill and Bunge to possibly slow or even idle production by the end of the year.

“We have industry looking to shut down production of biofuel. If we don’t get the 45Z requirements here released soon, and that doesn’t look likely, unfortunately, that’s going to hurt demand for soybean crushing for soybeans per se,” Suderman said.

“The fact that we don’t have those today, I think, is impeding investment in the sector. And people are asking for that before they spend millions of dollars to do that. And I think that has been a hiccup,” said Brown.

Role of the Federal Government

Heading into a crucial election with not just the presidential race, but also the House and Senate, the October Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked, “What is the most important role of the federal government?”

Forty-six percent of economists ranked financial aid as the top priority. Nearly 43 percent said it’s passing a farm bill.

October Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

“There’s all this discussion that the safety net is inadequate relative to commodity programs, and there’s the potential for some rather large ARC and PLC payments to come,” said Brown. “But are they too late? That’s the question. Is it too late in the cycle? Does any type of ad hoc support through a farm financial package bridge that gap?”

The October survey of economists also asked them to weigh in on the fate of the farm bill. The majority of economists think Congress will pass a new farm bill in 2025, but 21 percent think it could be 2026 before it crosses the finish line.

Farm Bill Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound )

Conclusion

The October Monthly Monitor reflects cautious optimism in certain areas of agriculture, marked by export strengths and potential price recoveries. But the optimism is shadowed by long-term rebuilding challenges, weather dependencies and the impact of the upcoming election.

Ag Economists Weigh In On the Biggest Opportunities for the Ag Economy in the Months Ahead

Tue, 02 Jul 2024 13:10:31 GMT

Ag economists are growing more negative regarding the financial health of the crops sector of agriculture, but their views on livestock is becoming more positive. The latest Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor , a survey of nearly 70 ag economists from across the U.S., shows the lack of exports, as well as the current crop prices, are eroding outlooks on the crops side. While strong beef demand and cheaper feed prices are creating more optimism in cattle.

The June Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, which is a joint survey between the University of Missouri and Farm Journal, continues to track the volatility in ag economists’ views of not only what’s impacting agriculture today, but what to watch on the horizon. The June survey marked the one-year anniversary for the monthly survey, and it showed the risks to agriculture remain a major concern.

Even though economists’ views on the ag economy eroded slightly in June, their projection for net farm income in 2024 actually increased to $113.9 billion, which is up from the $110 billion in projected by economists in May.

Ag economists’ project a slight increase in net farm income, compared to the previous month. The June projection rose to $113.9 billion, up from the $110 billion in May.

(Lindsey Pound)

Weighing in on the Most Negative and Positive Aspects of the Ag Economy

When asked what economists view as the most negative aspect of their outlook of the ag economy, economists said:

Crop output prices retreating more rapidly than input costs
Commodity prices below economic break-even production costs
Export outlook from the U.S., specifically the lack of Chinese demand
U.S. trade policy regardless of party affiliation with more international trade competition
Constant challenges to demand and policy that adds barriers to existing and potential new demand streams

“Some farmers made production and investment decisions assuming that earlier wider margins would persist,” noted one economist.

While the negativity seems to outweigh the positives of the ag economy right now, the June Ag Economists’’ Monthly Monitor also asked economist to weigh in on the most positive aspect regarding the outlook of U.S. agriculture. Economists said:

Over the next couple of years, cow-calf operators should have good profitability, especially in areas of the country with good forage conditions
Adverse world weather boosting U.S. exports
The possibility of good yields that will help farmers hit their financial goals
Discipline by producers to keep acreage expansion in check and U.S. prices being more competitive in the global market.
Farmers eager to make adaptations necessary to stay in business

“There are some really bright producers that are positioned for some quick growth in the next 5 to pp10 years,” said one economist in the anonymous survey. “They will be positioned to buy farmland as older producers transition.”

Ag economy outlook in the June Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor.

(Lindsey Pound)

The outlook for the U.S. production picture is anybody’s guess right now, but Scott Brown, interim director, Rural and Farm Finance Policy Analysis Center (RaFF), University of Missouri who helps author the Monthly Monitor, says weather continues to be one of the biggest variables in what happens with commodity prices in the months ahead.

“Number one, at the top of the list of almost all of these commodities, of course, is weather,” says Brown. “I think some are seeing some demand weakness as a big factor with soybean prices in particular, and seeing some other vegetable oil substitutes entering the picture. What’s maybe even a bigger factor on the soybean side is Brazilian supplies. A strong dollar continues to be important, in terms of our ability to move product out of the United States.”

Brown says one prime example of this is with cotton where the lack of Chinese trade has had an impact on prices.

“As we look at this month’s Monitor, and when you look at the survey results that comes through with almost all of these commodities with the exception of cattle, survey respondents are saying we’re slightly more pessimistic this month than we were last month,” Brown adds.

The June Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor showed economists think the following factors will have the biggest impact on the outlook for corn prices:

U.S. and world weather
Better precipitation across the Corn Belt compared to the previous growing season
Growing end stocks continuing to a burden on prices

As for soybeans, economists say U.S. and world weather will also play a significant role in the direction of soybean prices, but other factors that are impacting outlooks on soybean prices include:

Demand is soft and imports of cheaper vegetable oil substitutes is creating more competition
Biofuel and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) developments will have a bigger impact on prices in the months and years ahead
Expectation for larger soybean supplies in Brazil
Strong U.S. Dollar

The bright spot in the ag economy continues to be cattle prices. According to ag economists, the outlook for prices in the months ahead really hinges on three main factors:

If record beef demand can continue
Growing crop supplies creating lower feed costs
Strong U.S. Dollar

“It‘s hard to keep suggesting higher prices when we’re already at record levels, but when you look at where we’re at in terms of cattle inventory, we’re only going to get tighter,” says Brown. “USDA’s 2025 estimate for beef production is a decline of more than 1 billion pounds. That tells me we’re not done getting tighter.”

Brown says the one wild card for beef prices is demand. So far, demand has seem unfazed, despite record prices. Export demand remains strong, but so does demand for beef within the U.S. Those are underlying factors that are also supporting cattle prices. keep saying I’m not sure we’re done with record prices. So I think all hinges on demand staying strong for us beef, especially here in the United States.

The “Why” Behind a Growing Ag Trade Deficit in the U.S.

While meat exports have been strong, other commodities continue to struggle and at the same time, the U.S. is importing more ag products and goods. USDA’s Ag Economic Research Service (ERS) now projects the agricultural trade deficit to climb once again to $32 billion in fiscal year 2024, an increase of $1.5 billion from the February projection.

What factors are most important to the increase in the trade deficit? The June Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked economists that exact question. Nearly every ag economist noted the strong U.S. dollar as one reason the trade deficit continues to grow, but other factors, according to the economists, include:

Increased used cooking oil imports for renewable diesel
Increased imports of horticulture products
Softer U.S. ag exports

ERS also projects Mexico to beat out China as the top buyer, with China projected to fall to third biggest importer of U.S. ag goods at $27.7 billion. ERS expects Canada to claim the number two spot and Mexico to reach number one at $28.7 billion, an increase of $300 million.

The rise of Mexico’s imports have come in spite of the ongoing GMO corn battle between the U.S. and China. In 2023, Mexico officially banned GM corn for human consumption. That same year, Mexico also made its largest corn purchase from the U.S. of 15.3 million metric tons.

Some economists say Mexico is treating U.S. corn as a threat, and while exports are up, it’s having a big hit on GM corn demand.

“It has impacted white corn demand specifically, and the reason that when we look at overall corn demand and we still see Mexico as being a big buyer, is because white corn is such a small percentage of our total corn,” says Krista Swanson, lead economist for National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) who also participates in the Monthly Monitor survey. “So, if you look specifically at white corn exports, you do see that impact. When we talk about the total corn complex, though, Mexico’s had a drought that has reduced their production. They already consume quite a bit more than they produce, so they tend to be an importer. But this year they’ve had to import more than normal. And so that’s where we’re seeing those big buys coming in from, from Mexico and where that’s really boosted U.S. corn exports this year.”

Future of Interest Rates

Higher interest rates are impacting farmers and major equipment manufacturers. On the heels of the Federal Reserve deciding to leave interest rates unchanged during their June meeting, the June Ag Economists Monthly Monitor asked the economists how many rate cuts, if any, we will see this year. 73% said one. 18% think two rate cuts this year. And 9% say there will be no rate cuts in 2024.

73% of ag economists think the Federal Reserve will make one interest rate cut this year, according to the Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor.

(Lindsey Pound)

With the expectation for higher-for-longer interest rates, farmers are scaling back on big-ticket item purchases, which includes buying equipment.

The May Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked economists to rank where they think farmers will look to cut costs. While all economists said scaling back on equipment purchases is either most likely or somewhat likely, 65% of economists think farmers will look for lower operating interest rates and 17% think it’s most likely.

Purchase changes

(Lindsey Pound )