PRESIDENT Trump’s claims that meat companies are raising beef prices through collusion and price fixing are without merit. So say observers who have followed the market closely in recent years. In fact Trump’s accusations are far more spurious that other claims and investigations against packers in the past 30 years, all of which found no evidence of any wrong-doing by any packer. Trump on November 7 called on the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate. Such an investigation would a waste of the government’s time and would only cause packers to spend a lot of money in having to defend themselves, say observers.
Trump said he had asked the DOJ to immediately begin an investigation into the Meat Packing Companies who are driving up the price of Beef through Illicit Collusion, Price Fixing, and Price Manipulation, he wrote on Truth Social. He added that “we will always protect our American Ranchers, and they are being blamed for what is being done by Majority Foreign Owned Meat Packers, who artificially inflate prices, and jeopardize the security of our Nation’s food supply.” Trump’s remarks are largely incorrect, say observers. No one has blamed ranchers for high beef prices. Second, two of the four largest beef packers, Tyson Foods and Cargill, are 100% U.S.-owned. JBS Beef North America is 100% owned by Brazil’s JBS SA and National Beef Packing is majority-owned by Brazil’s Marfrig Global Foods. Third, claims that these four companies control 85% of the fed steer and heifer slaughter are incorrect. CBW’s market data over the past decade has put the percentage at or below 80%.
Beef Packers Are Losing Money
The Meat Institute, which represents meat and poultry companies, immediately responded to Trump’s call for the DOJ to investigate the beef sector. Despite high consumer prices for beef, beef packers have been losing money because the price of cattle is at record highs, said Institute president and CEO Julie Anna Potts, For more than a year, beef packers have been operating at a loss due to a tight cattle supply and strong demand, she said. (Tyson Foods reported last Monday that its beef segment in fiscal 2025 ended September 27 had an adjusted operating loss of $426M). The beef industry is heavily regulated and market transactions are transparent, said Potts. The government’s own data from USDA confirms that the beef packing sector is experiencing catastrophic losses and experts predict this will continue into 2026. US beef processors welcome a fact-based discussion about beef affordability and how best to meet the needs of American consumers, who are the industry’s most important stakeholders, she said.
The Wall Street Journal in a November 12 editorial titled Beef Is Now Political Red Meat said its readers might want to know the real reasons sirloin prices have shot up. The US cattle herd has been shrinking for years owing to drought and rising costs for ranchers. Meat packers have turned to Mexican cattle to meet Americans’ growing demand for beef. But the Department of Agriculture this spring suspended Mexican cattle imports after the screwworm parasite was detected in herds south of the border. A winnowed cattle supply has driven up prices. Live cattle prices have soared 24% over the past year, which has compressed meat packers’ margins. Their profits have fallen, not increased, Mr. President. The Administration’s 50% tariff on Brazil and quotas on Argentinian beef imports also contribute to higher prices. The real beneficiaries of higher beef prices have been US ranchers, not meat packers. Ranchers have been pressing the Administration to continue its ban on Mexican cattle imports and to restrict beef imports, said the WSJ.
Article Also Cites Plummeting Cattle Supply
A November 10 article in the online publication “reason” written by Jack Nicastro also cites the shrinking cattle supply. Like many of Trump’s theories about the economy and affordability, a more plausible and nuanced explanation exists, he wrote. Since December 2020, the US has seen a plummeting supply of beef cattle in part due to drought and higher input costs. In July 2020, there were 32.1M beef cows; in July 2025, that number had decreased by 10.6% to 28.7M head. In August, the Agriculture Department revised its 2026 beef production forecast downward by 345M pounds, representing a 2% year-over-year decline, he wrote. Trump has expressed concern that American ranchers are being improperly blamed for high meat prices at the checkout counter. To ascribe blame for the recent uptick in meat prices to four-firm concentration in the meat packing industry is unconvincing at best and, at worst, a deliberate smokescreen for his restrictionist trade policies that have exacerbated the problem, wrote Nicastro.
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, says Oklahoma State University economist Derrell Peel. 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 of hundred dollars on every animal they process, certainly many millions of dollars. If beef packers had any significant ability to exercise market power, he is certain that the industry would not have record high cattle prices and packers would not be losing money, he says.
Having identified high beef prices as a political issue, the administration is desperate to find a scapegoat since current cattle market conditions ensure that beef prices are inevitably and unavoidably elevated until such time as the cattle industry can rebuild, another two to four years at least, says Peel. 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. These attitudes have been a factor in the beef industry for well over a century. 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. He guesses some cowboys just can’t stand prosperity, he says.
Producers Worry About Plant Closures
The majority of cattle producers, on the other hand, understand that the cattle and beef industry is extremely complex and that all segments of the industry are critical and essential, says Peel. Most of his ongoing discussions with cattlemen include questions and concerns about the potential loss of vital infrastructure (plant closures) due to the losses currently faced by packers. Proposals to bulldoze the packing industry will negatively impact cattle producers and beef consumers and cripple the cattle and beef industry for many years.
Concentration in any industry leads to the potential for market power, says Peel. The ability of concentrated firms to utilize market power depends on controlling supply. Large firms do not control demand and can only influence price by controlling supply relative to demand. Beef packers’ ability to manipulate cattle or beef prices is severely limited owing to the fact that they do not control supply. Packers do not own cows. Packers inevitably purchase and process all available cattle at any point in time, whether too many or not enough cattle. The beef packing industry has been the subject of repeated and intense scrutiny for many years, says Peel. Agricultural economists recognize the potential for market power to be expressed in highly concentrated industries. The beef packing industry in particular has been researched in multiple studies to understand the impacts of market concentration. The evidence shows 1) market power does negatively impact fed cattle prices, but the impact is small, and 2) the cost savings due to size economies are at least ten times greater than the negative market power impacts. Cattle producers and beef consumers receive net benefits from the cost efficiencies of the current market structure in the form of higher cattle prices and lower beef prices than would exist in a less efficient industry, he says.
TYSON BEEF REPORTS RECORD LOSS
TYSON Foods’ beef segment suffered its worst annual loss in fiscal 2025 in company history and the coming year might be even worse. For the 52 weeks ended September 27, the segment had an operating loss of $1.135 billion, versus a $381M loss (the previous largest) in 2024. Its adjusted operating loss was $426M versus a $291M loss in 2024. Its operating margin was a negative 5.2% or a negative 1.9% on an adjusted basis. Tyson anticipates an adjusted operating loss for beef in 2026 between $600M and $400M, it says.
The beef segment in fiscal 2025 had sales of $21.623 billion, versus $20.479 billion in 2025. Sales volume was down 1.9% but the average sales price was up 9.0%. The fourth quarter saw sales of $5.389 billion, versus $5.261 billion in 2025. Sales volume was down 8.4% but the average sales price was up 17.0%. Tyson in a securities filing said its cattle costs in 2025 were $1.840 billion higher than in 2024. Its hog costs were $295M higher, its prepared foods costs were $345M higher but its chicken costs were $340M lower. It also said its weekly beef processing capacity was 155,000 head. This was unchanged from the year before.
The beef segment remains Tyson’s only soft spot, Tyson president and CEO Donnie King told analysts. He cited record low cattle supplies and market disruptions but stressed a focus on efficiency and cost reduction. In terms of heifer retention, this is obviously something Tyson has talked about for a while but there are potential signs that there is retention, he said. What is a little bit different, as Tyson has a little better picture, is that it sees regional disparity. For example, out West, it is not seeing anything meaningful. In the South, nothing there. But in the North and upper Midwest, it is seeing some retention. So if he looks at data and what Tyson sees, it’s a lower percentage of heifers either being harvested in feedyards and then fewer feeder calves. Heifer numbers at harvest will need to remain lower for Tyson to be able to say that heifer retention is sustainable. And remember, more heifer retention implies less beef in the near-term, he said.
Herd rebuilding, which everyone is looking for, means the supply of market-ready cattle will fall before it increases in future years, said King. Tyson continues to focus on the controllables and optimizing its business. The macro question on the table is the continuing challenge of inadequate cattle availability that has been further impacted by cattle inflows from Mexico associated with the border closure related to New World screwworm. Tyson’s sales volume was down 8.4% for the quarter and down 1.9% for the full year. So less cattle is certainly having an impact. Heavier animals have helped but they’ve only partially offset the lack of cattle availability, he said.
Chicken Was The Standout Segment
King reported solid progress and performance overall for the quarter and the full year, highlighting increases in sales, adjusted operating income, and adjusted earnings per share. Annual growth in adjusted operating income was driven by the Chicken, Pork and Prepared Foods segments, along with notable contributions from its international business. King called out the Chicken segment as a standout with $457M in adjusted operating income in the fourth quarter. This was attributed to higher volumes, improved operational execution, and lower feed costs, although partially offset by increased marketing and promotional expenses. Adjusted operating income for the year was $1.482 billion, versus $1.015 billion in 2024. Chicken sales in 2025 totaled $16.837 billion versus$16.425 billion in 202. Volume was up 2.6% and the average sales price was down 0.1%.
King also emphasized Prepared Foods’ growth in both sales and adjusted operating income and pointed to innovation and targeted marketing as drivers of market share gains. The segment achieved a 3% sales increase for the quarter (to $2.546 billion), or 5.7% when excluding the impact of a product recall. Total 2025 sales were $9.930 billion versus $9.851 billion in 2024. Operating income for the year was $898M versus $79M. Adjusted operating income was $913N versus $905M. Pork segment sales for the quarter were $1.414 billion versus $1.438 billion in 2024. Annual sales were $5.781 billion versus $5.903 billion. Operating income was a negative $199M versus a negative $40M. But adjusted operating income was $181M versus $142M in 2024. Tyson’s international segment had adjusted operating income of $137M for the year, versus $49M in 2024.
Tyson’s total sales in the fourth quarter were $13.860 billion, a 4.8% increase compared to the prior year, excluding a $355M legal contingency reserve. Full year 2025 sales reached $54.441 billion, up 3.3% year-over-year, excluding legal contingencies. Fourth quarter adjusted operating income was $608M, up 19% from the prior year. Full year adjusted operating income was $2.287 billion, up 26%. Adjusted EPS for the quarter was $1.15, up 25% versus last year, while adjusted EPS for the full year was $4.12, up 33%
CATTLE ON FEED FORECASTS
David Anderson, Texas A&M University: COF 97.7%, placed 90.08%, marketed 92.0%; Tyler Cozzens, Livestock Marketing Information Center: COF 97.8%, placed 92.0%, marketed 92.1%; Andrew Gottschalk, HedgersEdge.com: COF 97.6%, placed 92.7%, marketed 93.1%; Caleb Hurst, S&P Global Commodity Insights: COF 97.4%, placed 90.0%, marketed 92.0%; Rich Nelson, Allendale Inc: COF 98.2%, placed 92.5%, marketed 92.5%; Lori Porter, Allegiant Commodity Group: COF 98.0%, placed 92.5%, marketed 92.4%; Mike Sands, MBS Research: COF 97.5%, placed 91%, marketed 92%
COF TOTAL IS DOWN 2-3%
THE November 1 Cattle on Feed total was down 2-3% versus a year earlier, as this Friday’s COF report will show. USDA was also expected to release its October COF report. It did not last month because of the federal government shutdown which ended last Thursday. October placements were down 8-9% on last year while October marketings were down 8%. Feedlot placements over recent months have averaged 8-9% lower than a year earlier but the decline in feedlot inventories is much smaller, says Mike Sands, MBS Research. This is related to the chronically slow marketing/fed slaughter pace which has continued deep into the fall. Many of the incentives for the cattle feeder to extend days on feed and add weight are still in place. So the marketing pace has plummeted and feedlot inventories have been supported by a growing front-end supply, he says.
Marketings as a percent of previous placements or of feedlot inventories has been historically small for months, says Sands. Because of the slow marketing pace, record small again for October, the number of long-day cattle on feed November 1 was larger than a month earlier. It is estimated to be more than 500,000 head or 20% larger than a year earlier and is record large for the date. The combination of a strong basis, a large front-end supply and record heavy carcass weights may weigh on the cattle feeder’s marketing flexibility and the leverage he has enjoyed in recent months. The risk of lower beef prices following the October bounce, along with the usual late-year retail featuring of competing meats, may further impair marketing flexibility and leverage. The smaller feedlot placements in recent months reinforces the notion of smaller fed cattle supplies heading into next year. As the large front-end supply of market-ready cattle diminishes, albeit slowly, the reality of smaller fed cattle supplies during the first half of 2026 will become increasingly apparent, he says.
Cash live cattle prices the week before last averaged $228.70 per cwt live or $358.33 per cwt dressed. These were down $2.16 per cwt and $0.21 per cwt, respectively, from the prior week. Prices went lower last week after the December live cattle contract gained 720 points Monday but closed down 627 points Thursday at $219.00 per cwt live. Trade was light Wednesday in the Corn Belt, with prices at $225 per cwt live or $355-356 per cwt dressed. Trade was more active Thursday at lower prices up north and at $228 per cwt live down south.
The comprehensive cutout the week before last averaged $377.86 per cwt, up $1.60 per cwt from the week before. The Choice cutout averaged $374.34, up $2.45 per cwt, while the Select cutout averaged $358.91 per cwt, up $2.83 per cwt. Formula-priced sales accounted for 57.6% of the total volume of 6644 loads. Spot market sales accounted for 30.3%, forward sales accounted for 12.1% and export sales accounted for 10.2%. The Choice cutout the first four days of last week declined by $2.83 per cwt to $373.57 per cwt.