👤 There is NO quick fix to the US supply. Ranching is TIME and CAPITAL intensive; based on current land values, feed, interest and cattle prices there is little chance for a positive ROI from ranching/cattle. A cow's gestation is 9 months and a calf grows for at least 17 months before it is slaughtered--that's >2 years before the "supply" is ready for consumers. There's a 50% chance the calf is a female (heifer). The rancher must decide whether to retain her in the herd or sell for consumer consumption. If the heifer is sold for consumption, there is NO increase in the herd. If the heifer is retained, the rancher must invest an additional 2+ years (feed/labor/infrastructure/etc) before the opportunity to sell that heifer's offspring.

👤 With the current price of cattle, ranchers are finally being adequately compensated for their hard work in producing quality beef. Current policies from this administration, increasing costs of fertilizer, fuel, equipment and importing cheap beef from third world countries can only accomplish one thing---HURT OUR OWN RANCHERS WHO WORK HARD IN PRODUCING A QUALITY PRODUCT AND TRY TO MAKE A REASONABLE PROFIT.

👤 Oppose it until they also reduce all input costs. Then my focus is on rebuilding the US Supply.

👤 Leave the market alone it will take care of of itself.

👤 this sort of thing will slow down heard rebuilding!

👤 As a rancher, we don't want imported animals carrying diseases brought into our country. We are working on rebuilding our herds ourselves. If people want crab, lobster or Colby beef they spend the money without complaint! No one is forcing the price of those down or bringing more in from other countries!

👤 Nothing but "knee-jerk" reaction to garner votes for GOP candidates -- that hurts cattlemen!! This is what happens when we have a low IQ President that surrounds himself with yes-men and women!!!

👤 I think it’s going to be a low grade of beef and we are already having issues with contamination

👤 is it being labeled as not American or produced in USA....should have waited until cold weather because of the screwworm problem....real simple do not open border

👤 The price put on the beef at the market place creates the credits in the economy to consume it. Importing beef to drive down prices does nothing but cause the need to increase debt to consume it which in the long run makes it more unaffordable. I suggest that everyone American should read a book called Unforgiven by Charles Walter’s Junior.

👤 Our beef industry has spent a lot of money to ensure we provide a quality product. If people want lower priced hamburger, watch for sales. A store I get emails from all the time advertised 80-20 hamburger for $2.99/#. That’s a long ways from $6/#.

👤 STUPIDITY REIGNS SUPREME. BULLSHIT HAS IMPERILED THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND REALLY ADVERSELY AFFECTED DOMESTIC CATTLE SUPPLY FOR ADDITIONAL YEARS.

👤 Need a long plan instead of a quit fix just before the election.

👤 The very thought of the US government making deal with a foreign country to undercut US free market prices by 25% is ludicrous .Obviously this president knows nothing about the cattle business!

👤 Need to keep more replacements and get the US numbers up, along with allowing more grazing AUM’s on state and federal land! Sure don’t want the cattle industry ending up as did the sheep industry! The industry has to maintain the cattle market as it has been recently, with the high cost of production!!

👤 Build more freedom in processing for US producers.

👤 The Beef Market: Is There a Long-Term Strategy Behind the Import Plan? The current debate over imported beef needs to be viewed as more than a simple question of whether foreign beef is good or bad for American cattle producers. President Trump’s plan to temporarily increase beef imports comes at a difficult time for the U.S. cattle industry: the American cattle herd is at roughly a 75-year low, beef prices at the grocery store remain very high, cattle prices have recently weakened, and several major beef-packing plants have closed or are scaling back operations. At first glance, bringing in foreign beef—particularly beef intended to be sold approximately 25% below prevailing market prices—appears harmful to American ranchers. More supply normally puts downward pressure on prices. If ranchers receive less for their cattle, they have less incentive to retain replacement heifers, expand herds, and make the substantial investment required to rebuild the nation’s cattle supply. However, there is another way to view the administration’s strategy. The United States currently does not have enough cattle to meet domestic beef demand at today’s consumption levels. Rebuilding the herd cannot happen quickly. A cow must be retained, bred, produce a calf, and raise that calf before additional beef reaches the market. The process takes several years. Imported beef can therefore serve as a temporary bridge. Much of the beef imported into the United States is lean beef that is blended with domestic beef trimmings to produce hamburger. In that sense, some imports complement rather than directly replace American fed cattle. The administration’s argument appears to be that temporary imports can keep beef available and prevent retail prices from becoming so high that consumers permanently switch to cheaper proteins such as chicken and pork. Maintaining consumer demand for beef could ultimately benefit American cattle producers. There is another important piece to the strategy: Mexican feeder cattle. The United States has been reopening cattle crossings from Mexico under enhanced inspections following the screwworm problem. Mexican feeder cattle can enter the U.S., go to American feedlots, and ultimately be processed in American packing plants. That is fundamentally different from importing finished beef because it puts additional cattle through the American production and processing system. Then there is the packing industry. Several major beef-packing facilities have recently closed or are being consolidated. Tyson, for example, has announced closures and restructuring of its beef operations. The reason is straightforward: the United States has too few cattle to keep all existing slaughter capacity operating efficiently. Packers are paying historically high prices for cattle while struggling to recover those costs from the beef they sell. That creates a complicated situation. There may currently be too much packing capacity for the number of cattle available, but eventually there could be too little capacity if the American herd successfully expands. A long-term strategy could therefore involve allowing inefficient plants to close while concentrating production in efficient facilities capable of handling greater volumes when cattle supplies recover. However, this creates a serious concern for ranchers: fewer packing plants can mean fewer buyers and less competition for cattle. Any successful long-term policy would therefore need to encourage independent and regional processors, not simply strengthen the largest packers. Viewed together, the administration’s actions could potentially represent a much broader strategy: Temporary beef imports → keep consumers supplied and prices from becoming excessive. Reopen Mexican feeder-cattle trade → increase cattle available to the American production system. Allow inefficient packing capacity to leave → improve utilization and financial health of surviving plants. Encourage regional and independent processors → preserve competition for ranchers’ cattle. Allow American ranchers to rebuild herds → increase domestic beef production over several years. Eventually reduce dependence on imported beef → leave the United States with a stronger domestic cattle and beef industry. That is a coherent strategy, and it makes the short-term import policy look considerably different from simply trying to hurt American ranchers. But there is a major risk. If cheap imported beef remains in the market long enough to push American cattle prices down so far that ranchers stop retaining heifers, the policy could defeat its own purpose. The country could enter a cycle of declining domestic production, increasing imports, and greater dependence on foreign beef. Therefore, the real test of the policy is not what happens to hamburger prices over the next 90 days. The real test is what happens over the next two to five years. The key measurements should be: • U.S. beef-cow numbers • Replacement-heifer retention • Calf production • Rancher profitability • Mexican feeder-cattle availability • Packing-plant utilization • Number and strength of independent and regional processors • The amount of beef imported after the temporary program ends If the American cow herd begins expanding, heifer retention increases, cattle remain profitable enough for ranchers to continue rebuilding, packing capacity becomes financially healthier, and imports eventually decline, then President Trump’s strategy may prove to have been a deliberate effort to reset and rebuild the entire American beef industry. If instead imports remain high, cattle prices continue falling, ranchers sell replacement heifers, the cow herd fails to recover, and packing becomes increasingly concentrated in fewer companies, the strategy would have accomplished the opposite. The central question, therefore, is not simply whether foreign beef helps or hurts the rancher today. It is whether temporary foreign supply can stabilize consumers and the beef-processing system without destroying the economic incentive for American ranchers to rebuild the herd. That is the high-stakes balancing act at the center of the current beef-policy debate. 

👤 Timing is bad. Will hurt fall calf prices. Doubt that any price reduction will be passed on to the consumer.

👤 need to get rid of excess tallow from over fat cattle