Commodity Classic

2024 U.S. Meat Exports Created 59¢ in Value for Corn, $1.46 for Soybeans

Wed, 05 Mar 2025 21:56:23 GMT

Pork exports smashed records last year and beef export value climbed 5% from 2023. With robust red meat exports to finish 2024, a new study by the U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) shows the economic impact that had on corn and soybean demand.

The study, which was conducted by the Juday Group, was unveiled during the live taping of U.S. Farm Report during Commodity Classic this week. The shows 30% of the pork produced in the U.S. is exported today. And exporting more than 14% of U.S. beef production is consumed outside the U.S. Exporting corn through U.S. beef and pork generated the following demand:

Beef and pork exports accounted for 525.1 million bushels of U.S. corn usage, which equated to a market value of $2.24 billion (at an average 2024 corn price of $4.27 per bushel).
Beef and pork exports accounted for 3.04 million tons of DDGS usage, equating to $525 million (at an average 2024 price of $172.56 per ton).
Beef and pork exports contributed an estimated total economic impact of 14%, or $0.59, of bushel value at an average price of $4.27 per bushel in 2024.
Pork exports accounted for 100.7 million bushels of U.S. soybean usage, which equated to a market value of $1.12 billion (at an average 2024 soybean price of $11.11 per bushel).
Pork exports contributed an estimated total economic impact of 13.2% of bushel value, or $1.46, at an average price of $11.11 per bushel in 2024.

“We send a lot of corn and soybeans out through us beef and pork and when you look at that, every hog that we export outside the United States, that’s 10 bushels of corn,” says John Hinners, Senior Vice President, Industry Relations, U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF). “The Dave Juday study shows the impact of that is 59 cents on a bushel of corn in 2024 on that impact and then $1.46 on a bushel of soybeans. So it has significant impact.”

Corn demand generated from meat exports.

(U.S. Meat Export Federation)

Hinners says bottom-line is the corn and soybean industry are critical in U.S. Meat Export Federations’ efforts to grow global demand for U.S. red meat.

“World demand for protein has never been better. And when you think about what we do as an organization, we’re trying to build profit opportunities in the agriculture business, not specifically one sector or another, but just red meat in total,” he says. “And it has an impact on everything we do in agriculture, whether that’s the corn grower, the soybean grower, and so forth.”

Soybean demand generated from meat exports in 2024.

(U.S. Meat Export Federation)

Hinners says the U.S. isn’t exporting the high-quality cuts of meat, like ribeyes or New York steaks. Most of those cuts are consumed here at home. What the U.S. does export, and provides value, is the cuts and parts of an animal that aren’t preferred by U.S. consumers.

“When you think about what we send outside of the United States, it’s not the ribeye steaks and New York strips. It’s the beef liver, it’s the tripe on that animal. It’s the pork tails, the feet, the snout. A lot of these good protein items are garnished and really welcome in different countries,” says Hinners. “We’re trying to add value to these items that we don’t traditionally consume here in the United States. And it’s great protein.

(U.S. Meat Export Federation)

Exploring the Tariff Impact on Red Meat Exports
According to the USMEF, total U.S. red meat exports in 2024 was $19.1 billion. Mexico, China and Canada add up to 8.4 billion of the total, about 40%. USMEF president and CEO Dan Halstrom told Farm Journal’s Clinton Griffiths the impact remains unknown as it remains a ‘fluid situation.’

“I think the important thing to remember is that just because there’s tariff doesn’t mean the trade stops,” says Halstrom. “What it does do is it opens the doors of some of our competitors. Use Mexico as example. If we have a retaliatory duty on our products, beef or pork, we are competing against Brazilian product, for example, coming into Mexico. So that’s a very big focus that we have. They were a competitor before this when we were all zero -duty, and it’ll even be more so with a duty.”

Halstrom says it’s key to think longer term about the situation and what it could mean for export potential in the future.

“I personally think that the Trump administration, one, had our back in agriculture. I don’t think there’s any reason to think that they won’t again, but it will be a bumpy ride.”

During the previous Trump administration, the president renegotiated the free trade agreement between Mexico and Canada, which is known as the U.S., Mexico, Canada agreement (USMCA).

“We were on schedule for a review of USMC anyway in 2026, so there is an effort I think to move it up quicker, which might actually work to our advantage. We’ll have to wait and see,” Halstrom says. “This is sort of the concern when you start putting bilateral, unilateral duties on countries that you are kind of outside the confines of the free trade agreement structure. But like I said, it’s a very fluid situation. I do think the other thing that we have that’s definitely in our favor is that demand for our products globally is record breaking. I mean, it’s as good as I’ve ever seen it in 40-plus years. We have a very unique product. We’ve got to kind of keep that in mind because that’s a big leverage point.”

Can Mexico Afford to Retaliate Against the U.S.?

Wed, 05 Mar 2025 19:46:40 GMT

President Donald Trump followed through on his threats of imposing a 25% tariff on most imports from Canada and Mexico, along with an additional 10% on goods from China. While China and Canada released their list of retaliatory tariffs the same day, Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, says they won’t release their list until the weekend.

Sheinbaum said the country will also respond with a 25% tariff on U.S. goods but will announce the products it will target on Sunday.

But can Mexico afford to retaliate? That was one of the questions asked by USDA chief economist Seth Meyer during Commodity Classic this week. The reason is Mexico’s economy is struggling, due to a number of factors, which includes a large informal sector, high budget deficit and unstable infrastructure.

According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Mexico’s GDP grew only 0.9% year over year in fourth quarter 2024, after expanding 2.% in 2023 and 4.6% in 2022. Economic growth slowed, mainly due to lower investment, slowing consumption and a contracting energy sector.

(Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas)

The Dallas Fed says lower investment and consumption was the main driver behind the slow growth.

“Investment contributed three percentage points less to GDP growth in 2024 compared with 2023,” the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas said in a recent report. “The major drop was in nonresidential construction investment, while purchases of imported machinery and equipment also slowed noticeably as the Mexican peso continued to weaken against the dollar. In addition, consumption was impacted by sluggish growth in remittances, high interest rates and flat employment. However, net exports boosted growth in 2024 after dragging it down the previous two years.”

Extremely Reliant Upon Exports
The other issue? Mexico is extremely reliant upon demand from the U.S., exporting $41.9 billion worth of agricultural products to the U.S.

In 2023, Mexico accounted for 16.3% of U.S. agricultural exports and 23.3% of U.S. agricultural imports.

By the numbers:

Mexico is the largest source of horticultural imports to the U.S., supplying 63% of vegetables and 47% of fruit and nuts in 2023.
The top agricultural exports from Mexico to the U.S. in 2024 included beer, tomatoes, tequila, avocados, strawberries, raspberries and peppers.

Mexico is the Biggest Customer of U.S. Ag Exports

The other important piece is Mexico is now the U.S.'s top ag export destination.

According to Krista Swanson, chief economist for National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), Mexico is a huge destination for U.S. corn. More than 40% of U.S. corn exported last year went to Mexico. Not only does that mean the U.S. relies on Mexico, but Mexico is also reliant upon the U.S. do to the strong demand.

“That’s the other key piece here when we think about a Mexico situation, you know, will they retaliate on corn because it’s so important to the consumers in their country,” Swanson told Farm Journal during Commodity Classic this week. “And it’s such a big part of their diets and consumption. It’s a commodity that they consume way more of than what they produce. So they’re going to have to get it from somewhere.”

Bigger Picture
According to USDA’s Economic Research Service , between 1993 (the year before NAFTA’s implementation) and 2023, U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico expanded at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7%, while agricultural imports from Mexico grew at a rate of 9.7%.

“With the economic recovery in the United States and Mexico that followed the pandemic, U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico increased at a CAGR of 15.7% between 2020 and 2023, and U.S. agricultural imports from Mexico grew at a CAGR of 11.3%,” the USDA report said. “In 2023, however, U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico decreased by 0.3% compared with the previous year, as the prices of major agricultural exports (such as corn and soybeans) declined.”

USDA Prepares to Protect Farmers in a Trade War

Wed, 05 Mar 2025 01:44:43 GMT

As the clock struck midnight on March 4, President Donald Trump’s new tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico and China went into effect. Almost immediately, global markets started to react, and trading partners retaliated.

While the full economic consequences of the trade war remain to be seen, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins has promised to have a plan, such as the Market Facilitation Program (MFP), ready for farmers, if needed. In 2019, MFP provided direct payments to producers impacted by retaliatory tariffs, resulting in the loss of traditional exports.

“Everything is on the table right now. Everything. I know that President Trump, whom I speak with regularly, realizes the state of the farm economy in this country,” Rollins said on Sunday at Commodity Classic . “The last time, I know, he pushed Secretary Perdue to ensure we were able to make whole–as best as we could–some of those, and hopefully most of those, if not all, who had been hurt. We’re building the team at USDA to ensure we have the structure and the plan in place to allow us to move very quickly.”

In an interview with Farm Journal at Commodity Classic, USDA Economist Seth Meyer says he has been instructed by Secretary Rollins to be ready for a relief program, and he’s started calculating what possible relief could look like.

“Calculating something right today would not be helpful because we don’t know where we’re going to be, but absolutely, the Secretary instructs: ‘You need to be ready, have your pencil sharpened and have your tools available. Think about how you would proceed,’” Meyer says. “We are ready in that backstop. It won’t be easy. We’ve talked a lot about different countries. We’ve talked about reciprocal trade, but we are indeed sharpening our pencils to be able to do what she’s asked us to do.”

Here are the key details of the U.S. tariffs and retaliation from Canada, Mexico and China.

(Farm Journal)

Canada responded swiftly with plans to impose 25% tariffs on nearly $100 billion of U.S. imports over two tranches. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum plans to announce retaliatory tariff and non-tariff measures against the U.S. at an upcoming rally in Mexico City’s central square.

Meyer’s question is, “Can Mexico afford to retaliate?”

(Farm Journal)

As President Trump’s tariffs drew swift retaliation from trading partners, the ag industry was quick to react.

Impact on Farm Machinery
Equipment makers are concerned about the additional duties, especially after a rough year for the industry.

“We have spent decades laying down supply chains across the world. Our industry is global — 30% of all equipment made in the U.S. is destined for export. Canada is our largest market outside of the U.S.,” says Johan “Kip” Eideberg, senior vice president – government and industry relations, Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM). “If we want to create more jobs here in America, we need to sell more equipment and that means selling to customers outside of the U.S.”

As detailed in From the Factory to Your Fields: Where Farm Equipment Is Made , the ag equipment manufacturing industry is fully integrated across the three North American allies involved in the so-called “trade wars.”

“Anytime you disrupt those tightly connected supply chains — and tariffs would be a direct disruption — it’s going to have a serious impact on equipment manufacturers and on our farmers,” Eineberg says. “Given that Canada is our largest export market, we’re sending almost $10 billion worth of goods to Canada every year, there’s a lot at stake here.”

In 2018, Eineberg estimates, tariffs on steel, aluminum and farm inputs from China drove up the cost of making equipment in the U.S. by about 9 percentage points.

“Obviously, manufacturers will try to absorb as much of that as they can, but inevitably some of it will be passed down to the consumer, which in this case is our farmers and ranchers,” he adds.

AEM is also sounding the alarm on the compounding effect of tariffs, specifically due to the tight integration of manufacturing cycles on both sides of the border. There are often cases, Eineberg says, where components and raw materials are shuttled three to five times across the border between different factories in the manufacturing process. That means each time a piece of steel or other raw material being manufactured into a component for a tractor crosses the border, the tariffs multiply.

An example of the cross-border journey of one piece of agriculture equipment from raw material to delivery on the farm.

(AEM)

Impact on Rural America and Fertilizer
American Farm Bureau President Zippy Duvall expressed alarm about potential harm to farmers resulting from imposing stiff tariffs on the top three agricultural markets by value for the U.S.

“Farm Bureau members support the goals of security and ensuring fair trade with our North American neighbors and China, but, unfortunately, we know from experience that farmers and rural communities will bear the brunt of retaliation.” Duvall says.

Of note, more than 80% of the U.S. supply of potash , a key fertilizer product, comes from Canada.

“Tariffs that increase fertilizer prices threaten to deliver another blow to the finances of farm families already grappling with inflation and high supply costs,” Duvall adds. “The uncertainty hits just as operating loans are being secured and spring planting approaches, leaving farmers in a tough spot.”

(Farm Journal)

Read: Fertilizer Manufacturers and Retailers React to Trade Tariffs

Impact on Soybeans
During the 2018 trade war with China, U.S. agriculture experienced more than $27 billion in losses, with soybeans accounting for 71% of those losses, according to the American Soybean Association (ASA). Unlike in 2018, farmers are in a more tentative financial situation in 2025. Commodity prices are down nearly 50% from three years ago, while the costs for land and inputs, such as seed, pesticides and fertilizer, are high.

In an ASA statement, it says for years the organization’s farmer-members have consistently maintained their position that they do not support the use of tariffs, which threaten important markets and raise input costs for farmers, as a negotiation tactic.

“Farmers are frustrated. Tariffs are not something to take lightly and ‘have fun’ with. Not only do they hit our family businesses squarely in the wallet, but they rock a core tenet on which our trading relationships are built, and that is reliability. Being able to reliably supply a quality product to them consistently,” says Caleb Ragland, ASA president and soybean farmer from Magnolia, Ky.

Soybeans by far make up the largest volume of ag products exported to China. In 2024, U.S. exporters sent 27 million metric tons of soybeans to China valued at $12.76 billion, according to USDA. Mexico is the second-largest customer for whole soybeans, soybean meal and soybean oil. Canada is the fourth-largest customer for soybean meal.

“Soybean producers face huge, disproportionate impacts from trade flow disruptions, particularly to China,” Ragland says. “And we know foreign soybean producers in Brazil and other countries are expecting abundant crops this year and are primed to meet any demand stemming from a renewed U.S.-China trade war.”

Impact on Corn and Ethanol Demand
Market analysis shows tariffs won’t solve the U.S. trade deficit and instead will just shift business to other countries, says Neil Caskey, CEO, National Corn Growers Association (NCGA).

“We issued a study back in the fall that documented the implications of tariffs and specifically retaliation in a trade war — it’s not good for corn farmers, farmers in general,” he says. “We did that in conjunction with the American Soybean Association, and it concluded a trade war is really only good for Brazil, and we hope to avoid that.”

The top two destinations for corn and ethanol are Mexico and Canada. According to Krista Swanson, chief economist, NCGA, 40% of U.S. corn exports go to Mexico and more than 40% of U.S. ethanol exports are shipped to Canada.

“[Corn] is a commodity [those countries] consume way more than what they produce, so they’re going to have to get it from somewhere,” she says. “There’s definitely some concern about losing corn [exports], but how much is lost is left to be seen because it depends on what happens with shifting trade flows.”

Impact on Beef and Pork Sectors
U.S. meat export could be impacted by the tariff war as well, with China singling out pork and beef for a 10% counter tariff. Mexico, China and Canada accounted for 8.4 billion in U.S. red meat exports last year, according to the U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF).

USMEF is disappointed no agreements were reached to avoid or postpone the tariffs, but president and CEO Dan Halstrom says just because there are tariffs, doesn’t mean trade will stop.

“I do think the thing that we have definitely in our favor is that demand for our products globally is record breaking. I mean, it’s as good as I’ve ever seen it in 40-plus years,” he says. “I think that we have a very unique product. We got to keep that in mind because that’s a big leverage point.”

Halstrom says it could be a bumpy ride for a while, but it’s not something exporters can’t overcome.

Read: Industry Comments on Retaliatory Tariffs on U.S. Pork and Beef

Commodities Supporting Commodities, USMEF Shares Value Impacts

Thu, 16 Mar 2023 20:35:37 GMT

As the commodity groups recently wrapped up the Commodity Classic event in Orlando, Fla., U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) leaders share the importance of supporting fellow producers and other key partners at the industry meeting.

“If it wasn’t for the checkoff dollars from corn, soybean, beef and pork, we wouldn’t be able to do the activities we do in in the various countries,” says Dean Meyer, USMEF chair. “That’s certainly important for us to be here and to support them also, like they support us, and show our appreciation.”

At the event, USMEF released new impact numbers of red meat exports on corn and soybean values in the U.S.

“Every bushel of corn that we market, there’s a little over $1 of that attributed to red meat exports,” Meyer notes. This value has grown significantly in recent years, he adds, with 12% of value being attributed to red meat in 2021 and 15% in 2022.

Likewise, red meat exports can be attributed to $1.94 for every bushel of soybeans, or 13% of the price of every bushel, Meyer says.

While red meat exports bring value to U.S. commodities, USMEF Chair-elect Randy Spronk voiced his concerns over inflationary impacts on profitability for all grain and livestock producers.

Spronk says, “I think everybody’s genuinely concerned about increasing input costs. They’re very conscientious of their breakeven and their cost of production. It’s true of all farmers here. I mean, that’s just what’s happened with our economy coming out of COVID—inflationary pressures and higher interest rates.”
Additionally, Spronk wonders how this will have an impact on the consumer and their ability to buy meat products at the store.

“Are they going to buy up when we’re buying our products at the grocery store? Are they going to limit the value of that dollar that they have when they go to the grocery store?” Spronk questions.

There’s some uncertainty around the return to profitability, Spronk says, though he believes there is a silver lining.

“That’s what’s the great thing about having a diversified portfolio when we talked about exports. We’re so thankful for Latin America, Central America and Colombia, with the reduced exports that we’ve had to China on some of the fresh meat products. We need to continue down that path and continue to be able to develop those markets,” he says.

How Should the Animal Feed Industry Value Soy Protein?

Fri, 05 Mar 2021 15:01:23 GMT

When it comes to livestock diets, soy is traditionally evaluated on one metric: crude protein. However, recent research shows that crude protein is not the best indicator for meeting the nutritional needs of livestock. The U.S. Soybean Export Council (USSEC) shared why soybeans aren’t all created equal and how buyers can discern how those differences impact profitability during the Commodity Classic on March 3.

Is U.S. Soy Really Better?
2020 data revealed that U.S. soy was lower in crude protein content compared to 2019, said Maria Mayorga, a livestock nutritionist and a USSEC regional poultry technical expert. So, USSEC took a deeper look into the differences.

“We saw actually that we were providing 12 more kCals of net energy for grower pigs and sows, which is pretty interesting, because we found out that the composition between the soybean meals from the U.S. in 2020 and 2019 were different,” Mayorga said. “In 2020, we got more total sugars and more starch, which are readily available energy sources. Also, we got more sucrose in 2020 compared to 2019.”

Despite the decrease in crude protein U.S. soy saw in 2020, U.S. soy was providing more energy and more amino acids for the animal to grow efficiently, Mayorga said.

In addition to evaluating processing indicators, USSEC evaluated soy from different origins and saw a similar trend. U.S. soy had a lower crude protein content than competitors Brazil and Bolivia. But Mayorga noted U.S. soy had a higher content of sugars than Brazil and Bolivia and similar content to Argentina.

“We also analyzed the amino acid profile of different origins and found that we get advantages compared to Argentina and Bolivia. Sometimes this profile is highly dynamic and sometimes we get advantages over other origins. Depending on the time of the year and the season, we are able to detect those differences regarding relative abundance of amino acids,” Mayorga said. “However, if we analyze the digestibility, which represented what is really available for the animals to grow, and to absorb efficiently, we can see that U.S. soy exhibited higher levels of digestibility regarding essential and non-essential amino acids.”

She noted the research shows U.S. soy provides more kCals per kilo of soybean meal than Argentina, Brazil and Bolivia.

“That’s very interesting, because regardless of protein content, we are providing more energy for the animals to grow and to maintain vital functions,” Mayorga said. “Remember, energy cannot be manufactured, so we have to provide that through the diet.”

Show Me the Money
Although this may sound appealing, people are more interested in how it pencils out financially, said Jim Sutter, USSEC CEO.

“People want to know, ‘What are the economics of all this? Sure, you’ve told me there are more kCals or there’s more lysine, but how do you turn that into dollars and cents? And what does it mean for someone who is raising chickens or pigs somewhere around the world and is deciding which type of soybean meal to use?’” Sutter said.

A new tool created by Genesis Feed Technologies, in collaboration with USSEC, will help people answer that question, he said.

“It’s a very elaborate tool that does feed formulation and allows whoever the feeder is, the person producing the feed or feeding the livestock, to put their own formulation parameters in,” Sutter said. “They can put in their own data about the quality of the product and their own pricing information in, but then it gives them a financial result for the dollars-and-cents impact of using one origin of soy versus another origin of soy.”

In essence, the nutrient value calculator demonstrates the value of U.S. soy products in practical diets.

“With these very high commodity prices, people are looking for alternative ingredients,” said Matthew Clark of Genesis Feed Technologies. “We all say the alternative ingredient is a better soybean meal, that’s the best one to go for to find the money.”

Clark said the nutrient value calculator gives commercial people a vision into the formulation process to make commercial decisions. This platform expresses the technical side of soybeans in a very commercial language, so people can see what nutrients and characteristics will make a difference to the profitability of the companies.

“Like my grandchildren, the soybean is small and complicated when we look at what’s inside a soybean,” Clark said. “Over the years we’ve thought of soybeans as a protein source and an oil source. But it’s more than that.”

He stressed the importance of amino acid digestibility and pointed out the higher level of sucrose in U.S. soy than most other destinations.

“Our challenge is to look at the full profile of the soybean meal, take account of every single component and turn those technical details into a profit figure,” Clark said.

Through a commercial formulation system, the nutrient value calculator can show the profit-and-loss situation so buyers can see where money is being made by making a particular choice.

“The nutrient value calculator is exciting because it uses the full nutrient profile evaluation,” Clark said. “Every little detail that goes into a soybean in America is captured in this tool for promotional purposes. The way it works, we look for the lowest cost of goods in the feed mill, we are helping our customer seek profits. We are really thrilled to be working with the USSEC team on a global basis to show off how we can generate and understand the value of a better soybean meal.”

More from Farm Journal’s PORK:

China is Just Part of the Demand Story Sparking a Surge in Pork Prices

How Do the Profitability Puzzle Pieces Align for 2021?

When Cheap Diets Fail

Ag Secretary Vilsack Outlines Strategy for Rural America

Thu, 19 Nov 2020 03:23:32 GMT

It’s important for the entire nation to understand and appreciate the condition and state of rural America, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told more than 1,000 farmers attending the Commodity Classic in Anaheim, Calif. “We need America to understand why trade agreements are important, why the biofuels industry is important, why farm programs are important and why necessary for us to be concerned about the future of farming,” Vilsack said.

In looking at the conditions of rural America, Vilsack said it mirrors the challenges of farm families. “We see farm families struggle with income that is so dependent on jobs outside of the farm,” Vilsack explained. “Today less than 1% of population farming. That creates challenges for agriculture to have the kind of political support it needs to have the environment it needs to succeed.”

Part of Vilsack’s strategy for rebuilding rural communities is based on trade. Every billion of ag trade is 9,000 jobs, he said, and agricultural trade has been one of the success stories. Yet trade is more sophisticated, today, and will require a multi-facted approach. If the U.S. is dealing with a fragile state, like Afghanistan, we know we are building relationships for trade in the future, for the longterm.

“If we are trying to export into a restricted access market, the focus on a strategy that will tear those barriers down,” he said. Vilsack pointed to the announcement this week of Russia opening up to American pork exports, which was facilitated by a trade team. He said the team is staying over the weekend to try and negotiate market access for U.S. poultry, as well.

“Exports can’t be all we do,” Vilsack added. Domestically, building up the biofuels industry is important. Vilsack pointed to funds through the energy title in the farm bill and also the Obama administration’s support of green initiatives, including biofuels. “We are going to make sure that biofuels is a national industry,” he said.

When asked about the Environmental Protection Agency decision to hold approval of E15, Vilsack said he supported the decision based on the need for more testing. “We want to get it right and not have consumers frustrated with ethanol products,” he said.

An important part of rebuilding rural America is making sure the playing field is level for all producers, Vilsack said. That’s why he’ll be following the upcoming USDA/Department of Justice competition in agriculture hearings closely.

“I’m not sure where that journey is going to end, but it’s important to begin the journey,” he said.