New import access is intended to increase lean beef supplies and ease consumer prices, but cattle groups are watching potential effects on domestic cow values, producer returns and herd rebuilding
Cattle futures markets trending higher
October live cattle on Tuesday fell $1.55 to $220.70 and hit a four-week high early on. November feeder cattle lost $3.875 to $328.90 and hit a five-week high early on. The live and feeder cattle futures markets saw routine profit-taking pressure from the shorter-term specs and corrective action following recent good prices gains. Solidly higher cash trade last week did limit selling in futures. USDA at midday Tuesday reported no cash cattle trading so far this week. The agency said cash cattle traded last week at higher money, averaging $222.82, up $3.76 from the week prior’s cash trade average of $219.06. The noon report today showed mixed boxed beef prices, with Choice grade up $1.15 at $376.46 and Select grade down $0.19 at $354.36. Movement at midday was 56 loads. The Choice-Select spread is presently plus $22.10.
Mexican cattle crossings continue as screwworm count holds steady
Douglas imports add feeder supplies, but broader reopening remains conditional
USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service estimated that 900 Mexican cattle crossed through Douglas, Arizona, Tuesday, Sept. 15, bringing the week’s total to 1,800 head. Steer calves and yearlings sold steady compared with Monday, with AMS describing trade as “active, demand good.” Supplies consisted of steers weighing 500 to 800 pounds; heifers were not tested.
Estimated FOB prices for Medium and Large 1–2 steers were $375–$385 per hundredweight for 500–600-pound animals, $335–$345 for 600–700 pounds and $305–$315 for 700–800 pounds. Medium and Large 2–3 steers were estimated at $355–$365, $315–$325 and $285–$295 per hundredweight, respectively, across those same weight categories.
The crossings continue the phased resumption of trade that began when Douglas reopened Aug. 24. Potential reopenings at Santa Teresa and Columbus, New Mexico, depend on the initial reopening’s performance, updated risk assessments and Mexico’s progress on agreed safeguards. The timetable remains flexible, and openings can be paused if animal-health risks increase.
Those safeguards include examinations and treatment before export, certification by Mexican veterinarians and APHIS inspections. Under the published protocol, suspected screwworm triggers a hold on the entire lot pending diagnostic results. A confirmed case removes the lot from export and subjects the affected facility to closure, disinfestation and a 90-day export prohibition.
Meanwhile, the reported US New World screwworm count remains 49 animal cases, with two active. APHIS defines active cases by whether the individual animal still requires mitigation, including treatment and wound management. An inactive designation does not automatically end an area’s infested-zone restrictions, which require additional conditions before release.
Perspective: Steady prices alongside active trade suggest buyers are absorbing the current flow without an immediate price concession at Douglas. That indicates demand for these cattle, although two days of trading at one crossing cannot establish the direction of the broader US feeder market. For stocker operators and feedlots, continued imports expand procurement options. If volumes grow reliably, they could ease competition for comparable domestic cattle and moderate feeder prices relative to what they otherwise would be. The effect depends on sustained weekly arrivals and the eventual availability of additional crossings. The benefit to beef availability comes later. These 500- to 800-pound steers require additional growing and finishing before slaughter, so their arrival offers little immediate relief at the meat counter. Steer imports also do not directly replenish the breeding cow herd.
The critical market indicators are weekly import volume, additional port decisions and the location of new screwworm detections. A stable national case count is encouraging, but continued access depends on managing risk along export routes as well as treating individual animals.
Meanwhile, the latest APHIS update reported no additional New World screwworm confirmations, leaving the cumulative total at 49 cases, with two still active: a dog confirmed Aug. 31 and a horse confirmed Sept. 9. The horse case involved a working ranch animal in Presidio County, Texas.
The distinction between active animal cases and broader outbreak restrictions remains significant. APHIS says an animal’s case can become inactive while the surrounding infested zone remains subject to controls. Consequently, fewer active cases do not automatically establish that an area is ready for unrestricted livestock movement.
Perspective: Steady prices alongside active trading suggest buyers are absorbing the additional cattle without requiring lower offers at Douglas. That supports the view that the reopened crossing is meeting existing demand. However, one day’s trade at one port provides limited evidence about the direction of the national feeder cattle market.
The immediate benefit is greater purchasing flexibility for stocker operators and feedlots. A sustained increase in imports could ease competition for replacement cattle and restrain acquisition costs, while adding competitive pressure for US producers selling comparable feeders. Any increase in beef production would follow months later, after the animals gain weight and finish. Steer imports also do not directly expand the US breeding herd.
The next consequential development is a broader reopening. APHIS continues to list Santa Teresa and Columbus, New Mexico, reopening dates as “to be determined.” Its published policy makes those decisions dependent on the Douglas operation’s performance, Mexico’s progress under the joint action plan and updated risk assessments. Openings can be paused if risk increases in Sonora or Chihuahua.
For cattle markets, a confirmed timetable and sustained expansion in weekly crossings would carry more weight than another solid daily entry count. Until then, Douglas offers incremental supply relief, with the pace of further recovery dependent on disease containment and inspection performance.
FDA’s UPF review draws wider food and farm industry scrutiny
Fifteen OMB meetings highlight stakes for food policy and farm demand
The Food and Drug Administration’s proposed definition of ultra-processed foods (UPF) is drawing broader attention from farmers, food manufacturers, retailers and consumer advocates, with 15 meetings scheduled or completed at the Office of Management and Budget. The expanding meeting calendar underscores the potential for a federal definition to influence food purchasing, product formulation and agricultural demand, even before any binding requirements emerge.
Newly added sessions include The Grain Chain on Sept. 22, followed by separate meetings involving the National Fisheries Institute and American Farm Bureau Federation on Sept. 25. This week’s schedule includes the International Food Additives Council on Sept. 15 and Pennsylvania Food Merchants Association on Sept. 17.
The calendar also includes the Center for Science in the Public Interest on Sept. 22, illustrating that consumer advocates are seeking to shape the outcome alongside industry. Participation signals interest in the definition; it does not establish agreement on what that definition should contain.
Background: OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs received the document, titled “White Paper: Proposed Definition of Ultra-Processed Food,” on Aug. 3. Its review record identifies the submission as a notice, lists no legal deadline and marks it not economically significant, a term in rulemaking which applies to a rule that has a total annual cost on the US economy (without regard to estimated benefits) of $100 million or more; or a total net loss of at least 75,000 full-time jobs in the US over the five years following the effective date of the rule (does not include any estimated job losses from subsequent new regulatory compliance). The white paper itself would not impose mandatory warning labels, ingredient bans or product reformulation requirements. Such measures would require additional government action and applicable procedures.
A common federal definition could become an influential reference point. FDA says its joint effort with USDA is intended to support consistency in research, policies and programs addressing ultra-processed foods. HHS said in August that the proposal incorporates feedback from thousands of stakeholders.
For agriculture, the potential consequences extend through the ingredients market. Depending on the eventual criteria, manufacturers could reconsider particular sweeteners, starches, oils, proteins or additives. That could shift demand among ingredients and suppliers without necessarily reducing total food consumption. Grain producers therefore have an interest in how the definition treats finished products such as breads and cereals, while livestock and seafood interests face similar questions about prepared protein products.
The central dispute concerns how much weight to give processing methods, ingredient functions and nutritional composition. The Institute of Food Technologists has urged regulators to emphasize nutritional quality and recognize processing’s contributions to food safety, shelf life and accessibility. It warns that broad classifications can capture nutrient-dense products, including some whole-grain breads and yogurts.
Agricultural groups have raised related concerns. In comments released last October, the National Pork Producers Council urged FDA to protect processing methods and ingredients that improve safety, nutrient availability and shelf stability. Those arguments illustrate why the debate reaches beyond snack foods and sugary beverages.
Public health researchers offer a different approach. An expert panel convened by Healthy Eating Research recommends identifying UPFs through specified ingredient markers, while allowing exemptions from certain policies for products meeting nutritional criteria. That distinction—between defining a category and deciding which products warrant restrictions—could become consequential as federal policy develops.
The “not economically significant” designation should not be interpreted as a finding that future UPF policies would have little commercial impact. It applies to the action currently under review. The general OMB framework considers annual economic effects of $100 million or more and specified material adverse effects; it does not use the blanket 75,000-job-loss threshold described in the supplied background. Executive Order 12866
The immediate business risk is that retailers, manufacturers and institutional buyers could begin changing purchasing standards or recipes once a federal definition is published. Whether that produces meaningful nutritional improvements, higher costs or shifts in farm demand will depend on the definition’s details and how it is subsequently used. The meeting schedule shows stakeholders are seeking influence now, while those choices remain unsettled.
China’s trade barriers cloud US beef export recovery
Tariffs, plant approvals and new quotas threaten a once-booming market
US beef exports to China face a difficult recovery after trade tensions largely erased years of market growth, Andrew Muhammad writes in the Sept. 10 edition of Southern Ag Today. Higher tariffs, lapses in export plant registrations and new import restrictions have sharply reduced shipments, even as China continues to need imported beef.
After reopening to US beef in 2017, China became the industry’s third-largest export destination, behind Japan and South Korea, with annual sales reaching approximately $2.1 billion in 2022. That expansion unraveled in 2025. Chinese quarterly imports of US beef and beef products fell from more than $330 million in the first quarter of 2025 to less than $5 million in the second quarter of 2026.
China’s new tariff-rate quota system, effective Jan. 1, adds another obstacle. The US allocation totals 164,000 metric tons in 2026, increasing to 168,000 tons in 2027—both below average annual Chinese purchases of approximately 169,500 tons during 2022–24. Shipments exceeding the allocation face an additional 55% tariff, making expansion beyond the quota substantially more expensive.
Other barriers complicate even a modest rebound. Muhammad reports that most US beef products face an additional 10% reciprocal tariff on top of normal duties. Exporters also confront uncertainty over plant eligibility, customs clearance and residue testing, while US beef remains more expensive than competing supplies, particularly from Brazil.
The near-term challenge is restoring reliable market access. With shipments already depressed, plant approvals, existing tariffs and price competitiveness are the immediate hurdles. The quota would become more consequential as sales recover toward historical volumes. Muhammad’s outlook suggests that easing diplomatic tensions alone would be insufficient to recreate the rapid growth of earlier years; a sustained recovery also requires dependable commercial access and competitive pricing.
Consumer price report: US beef, eggs, dairy data
US beef prices declined, although annual increases remained substantial. Beef and veal fell 1.0% monthly, leaving prices 5.9% above a year earlier, compared with July’s 9.4% annual increase. Beef roasts declined 1.7% and steaks fell 1.5%. Ground beef was unchanged monthly but remained 7.2% more expensive annually. Ground beef prices averaged $7.158 a pound in August, rising 0.6% from the prior month to a new all-time high.
Eggs rebounded, while pork and chicken also increased. Egg prices rose 2.9% monthly, although they remained 23.0% below a year earlier. Pork increased 0.4% monthly and 0.6% annually. Chicken rose 0.4% monthly but was still 2.3% cheaper than a year earlier. The broader meats, poultry, fish and eggs category increased just 0.1% monthly and 1.1% annually.
Dairy prices moved in different directions. The overall dairy category increased 0.3% monthly but remained 0.3% below a year earlier. Milk declined 1.2% for the month while remaining 4.1% higher annually. Cheese increased 0.7% monthly but was down 3.8% annually.
Trump beef import plan draws Florida backlash, GOP turnout warning
Ranchers question price relief as lawmakers press for herd rebuilding support
President Donald Trump’s effort to lower beef prices through expanded imports is drawing resistance in Florida’s cattle country, where producers say the policy threatens returns already pressured by rising operating costs. Politico reports that the dispute has prompted pushback from agricultural organizations and lawmakers from both parties, while Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) is warning about diminished enthusiasm among Republican farm voters.
Cammack, Florida’s only House Agriculture Committee member, said she does not expect those voters to embrace Democrats. “But I think we do risk them staying home, and that is a problem,” she told Politico. Her comments describe a turnout concern; the reporting does not establish a measurable electoral effect.
The Florida Farm Bureau Federation and Florida Cattlemen’s Association have opposed the import expansion, while Florida lawmakers have sent Trump letters outlining their concerns. Central Florida rancher and Trump supporter Scott Ramsey acknowledged that imports serve a necessary role but described this particular action as “a slap in the face to us as a producer.”
The policy expands access to lower tariff rates. Trump’s Aug. 26 proclamation added 300,000 metric tons — approximately 661 million pounds — to the quantity of lean beef trimmings eligible for the lower, in-quota duty. Access opens in three 100,000-ton installments beginning Sept. 1, Oct. 1 and Oct. 31, with the final installment closing by Nov. 30. The action is separate from the additional 80,000-ton allocation for Argentina announced in February.
The White House argues that additional supplies are needed to address elevated consumer prices. In the statement quoted by Politico, a spokesperson also defended Trump’s broader agricultural record, citing trade agreements, expanded export access and efforts to reduce production costs.
The economic effects differ across the cattle supply chain. Imported lean beef is commonly blended with fattier trimmings from US grain-fed cattle to make hamburger. Research by agricultural economists Glynn Tonsor and Derrell Peel explains that this blending adds value to domestic trimmings that otherwise could face less valuable uses. Imports therefore can support some domestic beef products while competing with others. Tonsor/Peel beef trade analysis
Domestic slaughter cows also supply lean beef. That creates a potential channel through which cheaper imported trimmings could pressure cow values, although the magnitude cannot be established from the announced quota alone. Actual shipments, product specifications and demand all matter. USDA identifies both domestic cow slaughter and imported trimmings as sources of lean beef for grinding. USDA cattle and beef overview
A 25% import discount does not guarantee a 25% retail price cut. The proclamation directs USDA and USTR to monitor whether qualifying imports sell 25% below the market price for lean trimmings and notify Trump if they do not. That provision concerns an ingredient price. Its effect on packaged hamburger depends on the blend, other production and distribution costs, and how savings reach customers. The proclamation does not promise an equivalent percentage reduction across supermarket beef prices.
The administration has also announced measures addressing local meat processing, livestock protection and country-of-origin labeling as part of its response to ranchers’ concerns. Those initiatives operate alongside the temporary import expansion.
For herd rebuilding, USDA’s analysis identifies competing pressures. Retaining cows and heifers reduces near-term slaughter supplies and can increase demand for imported lean beef. But expansion also depends on expected cattle revenues, input costs and pasture conditions; substantially weaker expected returns can encourage producers to retain fewer breeding animals. Imports can help fill the immediate supply gap, while producers’ expectations about future profitability determine whether domestic production expands.
Domestic pork offers another path to lower burger costs
Beef-pork blends could stretch US supplies, but lean content matters
Domestic pork deserves a closer look to offer lower-cost burgers while keeping more meat purchases tied to American farms. The product already exists: Walmart and Kroger both list ground beef-and-pork blends containing 80% lean meat and 20% fat. Their availability establishes that processors can make the product and retailers can market it. Expanding that business could provide another outlet for US pork while reducing the beef required for some meals.
The opportunity is real, but three factors shape its potential: (1) what the product can be called, (2) whether the pork supplies the needed lean meat, and (3) whether consumers will buy it repeatedly.
Labeling creates a commercial hurdle. Federal standards define “ground beef” and “hamburger” as beef products. Adding pork requires a product identity that accurately describes the mixture, such as a ground beef-and-pork blend. Existing retail products demonstrate a legal route to market; processors cannot simply substitute pork while retaining an unqualified hamburger or ground-beef label.
That distinction matters for restaurant chains built around an all-beef promise. McDonald’s, for example, explicitly markets its patties as 100% beef. Introducing pork would require a separate offering or a change in that commitment. Commercially, retailers also would need to establish that savings outweigh differences in flavor, texture and customer expectations. Consumers who avoid pork would be outside the market for the blend.
The key processing issue is pork leanness. Ground-beef manufacturers blend lean meat with fattier trimmings to reach a target fat level. USDA notes that processors use roughly 90%-lean cow beef and 50%-lean fed-cattle trimmings, with imported lean beef helping meet blending needs. Domestic pork could serve part of that lean-meat role in a properly labeled mixed product, provided it meets the required specifications.
The price incentive is substantial, but comparisons need care. USDA’s Sept. 8 reports put national fresh 90%-lean boneless beef at $438.37 per hundredweight, while 72%-lean pork trimmings in bulk containers averaged $86.11. Those figures illustrate the cost gap between these ingredients, but they do not measure the savings from an equivalent lean-meat substitution: the pork contains considerably more fat.
Combining 72%-lean pork with 50%-lean beef cannot produce an 80%-lean blend. A processor would need leaner pork, leaner beef or both. As an illustrative formulation, 25 pounds of 50%-lean beef plus 75 pounds of 90%-lean pork would produce 100 pounds of an 80/20 blend—but pork would supply three-fourths of the meat. Other formulations could use much less pork by starting with leaner beef. The “80/20” designation describes lean and fat content, not the beef-to-pork ratio.
Pork production can respond faster than cattle production, but substantial expansion still takes months. The National Pork Board puts gestation at about 114 days and birth-to-market time at roughly six to seven months. Consequently, additional production beginning with breeding generally requires about 10 to 11 months, before allowing for any expansion of facilities or breeding-stock development.
The quickest supply response would therefore come from redirecting existing pork into blends. Larger sustained growth would depend on profitable demand, available barns and processing capacity. More hogs also produce additional bellies, ribs and other cuts, whose markets help determine whether expansion pays. Stronger demand for lean pork could itself raise ingredient prices and narrow the initial savings.
Keeping the product domestic requires verified sourcing of both meats. USDA’s voluntary “Product of USA” standard provides a framework: qualifying meat must come from animals born, raised, slaughtered and processed in the United States. A beef-pork blend sold by an American retailer does not establish that origin by itself.
For agriculture, the effects would be mixed. Successful domestic blends could increase pork demand, support feed use and retain a market for US beef ingredients. However, pork substitution could also reduce demand for domestic lean beef. The benefit to cattle producers would depend partly on whether pork displaced imported trimmings, domestic beef or purchases consumers otherwise would forgo.
A stronger industry push could begin with retailer trials offering clearly identified blends, verified US sourcing and visible price savings. Repeat purchases, processor margins and the availability of suitably lean domestic pork would show how far the opportunity can grow.
USDA Secretary Rollins to visit New Mexico border crossing
USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins is scheduled to visit the Santa Teresa, New Mexico, livestock crossing Thursday, Sept. 17, as officials prepare for a possible resumption of Mexican cattle imports. New Mexico Agriculture Secretary Jeff Witte told DTN’s Jake Zajkowski that the visit will include a facility inspection and a roundtable with industry representatives.
Sept. 24 is the conditional reopening target. Witte emphasized that Thursday’s visit is “just an initial inspection,” with reopening dependent on preparations coming together. He said the facility is installing cattle identification technology and would initially handle about 750 cattle daily. USDA had not formally confirmed the reopening date when DTN published its report Tuesday evening
Weekly USDA dairy report
CME GROUP CASH MARKETS (9/11) BUTTER: Grade AA closed at $1.3700. The weekly average for Grade AA is $ 1.3806 (-0.0454). CHEESE: Barrels closed at $1.4625 and 40# blocks at $1.4600. The weekly average for barrels is $1.4975 (-0.0415) and blocks $1.4631 ( 0.0119). NONFAT DRY MILK: Grade A closed at $1.9700. The weekly average for Grade A is $1.9294 (+0.0474). DRY WHEY: Extra grade dry whey closed at $0.7600. The weekly average for dry whey is $0.7575 (+0.0135).
BUTTER HIGHLIGHTS: The national market tone for butter is mixed, with the East and Central regions holding steady while contacts in the West report a weaker market tone. Milk and cream supplies show variation across the regions. Production in the East is trending higher, with private label butter manufacturers reporting six day a week schedules. In contrast, Western contacts note that some plants are producing only enough to meet contractual needs. Demand for bulk butter is lower, contributing to building storage inventories. Seasonal holiday baking demand, which typically increases butter purchases during this period, is lower than expected at this time. Shifting international market dynamics and geopolitical uncertainties are being monitored for potential effects on the dairy sector.
CHEESE HIGHLIGHTS: The cheese market tone remains steady to weak across all regions. Milk is reported as readily available in the East and West, with tightening in the Central region due to warmer weather. Spot milk prices range from $2.00 under to flat Class. Cheese production across all regions remains stable and well supported. Domestic and food service demand is below expectations. Domestic demand is steady to weak, with the East reporting an expected seasonal improvement and increased focus on smaller packaged cheese varieties. Contacts in the West report exports to key international markets remain the primary destination for export activity. Shifting global trade dynamics continue to present potential market impacts for some manufacturers and traders, including those navigating evolving export requirements affecting cheese movement.
FLUID MILK HIGHLIGHTS: Milk production is mixed nationally. Output is healthy in the East, slightly tighter supply in the Central region due to warmer conditions, and steady in the West despite brief heat in California. Class I demand is steady to firm in the East as school bottling expands. Central processors continue procuring spot loads, and Western demand remains stable. Class II demand in the East follows seasonal trends as ice cream output slows and yogurt production stays strong. Western and Central Class II and III demand reflect early preparation for holiday baking. Class III milk, used primarily for cheese production, supports steady cheese runs in the East and Central regions. Class IV demand is seasonally firm in the East, supported by robust butter production, but has eased in the West, with prices trending lower. Cream markets show regional variation: Eastern contract prices have retracted after the Labor Day holiday, Central cream clears to Class II and III users with limited Class IV availability, and Western cream is mostly available. Condensed skim is tight in both the East, where UF pulls constrain spot supplies, and the West. Overall, the market tone is steady. Cream multiples for all Classes: East 1.20 1.50, Central 1.18–1.35, and West 1.15–1.24.
DRY PRODUCTS HIGHLIGHTS: Nonfat dry milk (NDM) prices increased in the West this week, while the Central and East regions saw price gains at the lower end of the range and at the bottom of the mostly series. High-heat NDM prices held steady in the Central and East but rose at both ends of the range in the West. Dry buttermilk prices increased at both ends of the range in the Central and East, whereas prices declined at both ends in the West. Dry whey prices moved higher at both ends of the range in the West. In the Central region, prices rose at the top of the range and remained steady at the bottom. In the East, prices increased at the bottom of the range and held steady at the top. The mostly series was unchanged in both the Central and West regions. Dry whole milk prices advanced at both ends of the range this week. Whey protein concentrate (WPC) 34% prices increased at both ends of the range as well. Regular WPC 80% is mostly trading in the low to mid-$11s to the mid-$12s. Instant WPC 80% prices have also weakened and are now in the mid-$11s to low to mid-$12s. Whey protein isolate (WPI) remains tight with prices holding from $14 to the mid to upper-$14s. Lactose prices, including the mostly range, remain unchanged from last week. Acid casein and rennet casein prices held steady this week.
WEST EUROPE: In the European Union, the production of dairy products was up from January to June 2026, compared to the first half of 2025. The largest increases were for butter and skim milk powder. Milk consumption grew and cheese production increased.
EAST EUROPE: Prices for raw milk increased for September 2026. Strong export demand is the largest factor pushing milk prices higher.
OCEANIA: AUSTRALIA: The global boom in milk protein demand is reshaping Australia's dairy sector, driving major investments by processors. With protein now central to products from sports drinks to snacks, companies are upgrading plants and shifting strategies.
NEW ZEALAND: For July, New Zealand dairy exports increased in volume and value year-over-year (YoY). Following Global Dairy Trade (GDT) Event 411, a group in New Zealand that forecasts milk prices increased their 2026/2027 season milk price outlook.
SOUTH AMERICA: In South America milk output remains seasonally lighter. Demand is strong and continues to give support to milk prices. Although milk supply is seasonally more limited, handlers indicate volumes are more comfortable than this time last year. Manufacturers indicate milk volumes are sufficient. Production of dairy commodities is steady. Demand for dairy commodities is stronger.