Why the U.S. Is Considering Buying Beef from Argentina

1. 85

   Sharlee01posted 10 days ago

   
   
   
   I’ve been reading and listening carefully to the reports about the United States possibly buying beef from Argentina, and I think it’s important to sort through what’s actually true. From everything I can find in official sources and reputable reporting, there is no finalized deal yet. What’s being discussed right now is simply a possibility,  a short-term step that might help relieve pressure on beef prices here at home.
   
   President Trump said recently that the U.S. “would buy some beef from Argentina,” explaining that doing so could help bring beef prices down for American consumers. That single comment set off a storm of speculation, but when I looked deeper, it became clear that the administration hasn’t signed any contract or entered a binding agreement. The Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, confirmed that the idea is still in discussion and emphasized that any imports “will not be very much.” In other words, this is not a large-scale trade deal or a long-term shift in where America gets its beef,  at least not right now.
   
   To put this into perspective, the U.S. has already been importing small amounts of beef from Argentina for the past few years. For a long time, Argentina wasn’t allowed to sell fresh beef here because of livestock disease concerns, but the ban was lifted after Argentina proved certain regions were disease-free. Even with that, the amount we import from Argentina is minimal,  roughly one percent of total U.S. beef imports, which is tiny compared to what we get from Canada, Mexico, or Australia.
   
   The main reason the U.S. is even considering buying more beef from Argentina is because of supply and demand. Our domestic cattle herd is at one of its lowest points in decades due to drought and high feed costs. When the supply of cattle drops, beef prices rise; that’s simple economics. Importing some beef from Argentina could temporarily increase supply and help stabilize prices for consumers.
   
   Officials have also made it clear this would be a temporary measure, not a long-term change in trade policy. The administration hasn’t announced any tariff changes, new quotas, or multi-year agreements with Argentina. There’s no official paperwork showing that the U.S. has committed to a certain number of tons or years of beef purchases. From what I can tell, this move is best described as an exploratory step, not a new standing agreement.
   
   That makes sense to me. When there’s a supply problem, you look for practical, short-term solutions until the domestic market recovers. It’s the same approach most of us would take in our own households or businesses. If you can’t meet a need immediately with what you have, you find a responsible, temporary way to fill the gap.
   
   Argentina is a logical partner for that. They’re one of the top beef-producing nations in the world, and the U.S. already has a framework for inspecting and approving beef from regions that meet our health and safety standards. So the beef that makes it here will still be subject to the same USDA requirements as American beef.
   
   To me, this shows a reasonable and measured approach. It’s not about replacing American ranchers or flooding the market with foreign beef; in fact, both the administration and trade officials have said that won’t happen. It’s simply a way to give consumers some price relief while protecting domestic producers and keeping America’s beef market steady.
   
   What This Could Mean for American Ranchers
   
   I understand why some ranchers are cautious about this idea. They’ve seen foreign imports affect their markets before, and they worry that even a small increase could put downward pressure on cattle prices. But in this case, I think the impact will likely be minimal. The USDA has been clear that these imports would be small, temporary, and closely monitored. The goal isn’t to undercut American ranchers; it’s to make sure store shelves stay stocked and that families can afford to buy beef while domestic herds rebuild.
   
   In the long run, ranchers could actually benefit from this approach if it helps stabilize prices and prevents a sharp drop in consumer demand. Nobody wins when beef becomes unaffordable. This short-term adjustment might just keep the balance until U.S. production recovers to normal levels.
   
   From my perspective, this looks like a careful middle ground,  one that supports American consumers without abandoning American producers. It’s a short-term tool meant to ease a temporary strain, not a new trade direction or permanent reliance on foreign beef.
   
   So, in plain truth: no deal has been signed, no major tariff changes have been made, and the plan remains under discussion. If it moves forward, it will be limited and closely watched. That’s a common-sense way to address the problem,  using temporary measures to steady prices while keeping America’s ranchers and farmers strong for the long haul.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Willowarborposted 10 days agoin reply to this

      "The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), which advocates for ranchers and promotes beef consumption, warned that expanding Argentina’s access to the U.S. market "harms American cattlemen and women, while also interfering with the free market"
      
      NCBA’s family farmers and ranchers have numerous concerns with importing more Argentine beef to lower prices for consumers," said NCBA CEO Colin Woodall. "This plan only creates chaos at a critical time of the year for American cattle producers, while doing nothing to lower grocery store prices."
      
      Justin Tupper, president of the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA), said that artificially increasing the already growing reliance on foreign beef "weakens our industry’s foundation and undermines rural America."
      
      We raise some of the safest, best protein on the planet," he said. "And a lot of those countries, Brazil, Argentina, they don't have the same safety protocols as we do."
      
      Tupper added that the move would only serve to benefit the "Big Four" meatpackers, who "buy it way cheaper in those countries and bring it over here and sell it to our consumers for a lot more money."
      
      Literally no one thinks this is a good idea...
      
      And this little tirade was sickening..
      https://x.com/TheMaineWonk/status/1980093082281619611
      
      I agree with Maga on this one.. I don't give a shit what's going on in Argentina...

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Credence2posted 9 days agoin reply to this

         Literally no one thinks this is a good idea...
         
         I will tell you something, I don’t either…..

         replyreport
         1. 99

            DrMark1961posted 9 days agoin reply to this

            No one? I think those people that have to eat might think it is a good idea. Have you bought any beef at your local grocery store lately?
            It does not sound like something American ranchers would be in favor of, that I agree, but they are not diseased like one person on this page claims, and it is good for some people.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Credence2posted 9 days agoin reply to this

               SO,why is it a good idea to cripple your own beef industry to supplant it with one from another country? Yes, beef is always expensive, but as the NCBA says the big producers will buy from Argentina low and raise prices higher, increasing their profits and the consumer risks at our expense. Is that not how capitalism works?

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  Sharlee01posted 9 days agoin reply to this

                  Cred, we are not crippling our beef industry. Right now, a cattle disease has reduced supply, which is why there isn’t enough beef to meet demand and why prices have gone up. This deal with Argentina is just a band-aid—it may help lower prices temporarily, but it’s not a permanent fix. In fact, there’s a time limit on how much beef we’ll be importing from Argentina.
                  
                  This is an issue the media has jumped on to batter Trump with. I feel that after doing lots of research, this is a good solution for a period of time. But, have fun, not sure most Americans will come when beef prices come down a bit.  The ranchers need time to replenish their herds. I hope you took the time to read my OP, and not just what is being posted.

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     Credence2posted 9 days agoin reply to this

                     What you are saying, Sharlee is neither supported by the Cattle people in this country or the myriad of media discussing it:
                     
                     “The NCBA says the American cattle industry is not suffering reduced demand, but rather a large trade imbalance where Argentina ships far more beef to the U.S. than the U.S. exports to Argentina.
                     
                     The association argues that buying more beef from Argentina would disrupt the market and that the industry's health is determined by factors like market conditions and weather, not the amount of imports from a specific country.
                     
                     The NCBA is concerned that the suggestion to increase imports to lower prices will negatively impact American ranchers.
                     
                     NCBA's key points
                     
                     Trade imbalance: The NCBA highlights a significant trade imbalance, citing that Argentina has sent over $800 million in beef to the U.S. over the past five years, while purchasing only $7 million of U.S. beef.
                     
                     Market self-regulation: The association emphasizes that the cattle market should be allowed to work on its own. They believe that market forces, rather than government intervention, should determine prices.
                     
                     Industry health: The NCBA attributes the health of the U.S. cattle industry to factors like the size of the herd, which is influenced by weather and feed availability, and argues that the industry's problems are not a result of a lack of demand.
                     
                     Concerns over imports: The NCBA is concerned that importing more beef from Argentina will create market chaos, especially at a critical time of year for the industry.
                     
                     Animal health concerns: The association also raises concerns about potential animal health risks associated with importing beef from Argentina, citing a long history of foot-and-mouth disease in that country.
                     
                     ————
                     So what happened to idea of free-markets that conservative always harp about?
                     
                     I did read your intro, I question the where and why of your sources and why the industry itself did not admit to any of the concerns supporting the Trump move in your comments? Even if i wanted to dismiss the safety concerns, it is much harder to eliminate the economic sense ones.

                     replyreport
                     1. 85

                        Sharlee01posted 9 days agoin reply to this

                        Thank you for sharing your perspective; it reflects what the media is currently presenting. I decided to take a closer look at the other side of the issue, and honestly, it made a lot of sense to me. I noticed that the cattle industry is quite upset about this potential deal, but, realistically, would we expect anything different?
                        
                        I get where the NCBA is coming from, and yes, Argentina has exported far more beef to the U.S. than we’ve sent there, but that’s exactly why a temporary increase in imports makes sense right now. Our domestic supply is tight due to disease and rising production costs, which is driving prices up for American consumers. This isn’t about permanently flooding the market; it’s about supplementing supply temporarily so the market can function efficiently while domestic production catches up.
                        
                        As for the idea of market self-regulation, I agree that markets work best when they can operate freely, but a market needs enough supply to actually work. Right now, U.S. beef exports are strong, yet the domestic supply can’t meet demand. Allowing a small, controlled import from Argentina doesn’t override the market, it helps it function properly, which I would call pragmatic, market-friendly intervention rather than price-fixing.
                        
                        I also understand concerns about herd size, weather, and feed availability, these are real challenges that ranchers face every day. But a temporary import doesn’t harm the long-term health of the industry; it just keeps beef available and prices reasonable until domestic production rebounds. And on the safety front, all Argentine beef comes from USDA-approved, FMD-free facilities and is inspected at multiple points, so the risk is extremely low.
                        
                        At the end of the day, this isn’t anti-free-market; it’s actually helping the market work efficiently. I see this as common-sense leadership: supporting American consumers while keeping our domestic industry stable. It’s a temporary solution to a real problem, and that’s something I can fully get behind.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           Willowarborposted 9 days agoin reply to this

                           You do realize that the Trump regime has gutted the usda?

                           replyreport
                  2. 61

                     Willowarborposted 9 days agoin reply to this

                     Why argentina? Why not one of the many other countries that have clean, quality beef.  Why so much Argentina- centered policy???  This is a nation that would have been labeled a shithole by Trump not very long ago... And now we just can't get enough of them huh?  Prop up their failing economy and by their disease to beef...why?

                     replyreport
                     1. 85

                        Sharlee01posted 9 days agoin reply to this

                        Do your own research...

                        replyreport
               2. 85

                  Sharlee01posted 9 days agoin reply to this

                  Cred,  “Crippling” the U.S. beef industry really misses what’s happening. No one is replacing American beef with Argentine beef; this is about temporarily supplementing supply during a shortage. The U.S. cattle herd is at its lowest level in decades due to drought, disease, and higher feed costs. The result is skyrocketing prices that hit consumers hard. Importing a limited amount of beef from Argentina simply helps fill the gap and stabilize the market; it doesn’t “supplant” our industry.
                  
                  The USDA and FSIS have very strict regulations in place. Argentine beef can only come from FMD-free zones and is inspected both before export and again at U.S. ports. So the “consumer risk” angle doesn’t hold up; the same agencies that protect our food supply will oversee these imports.
                  
                  As for the NCBA’s position, I respect that ranchers are protective of their livelihoods, and rightly so. But let’s be honest: they represent producer interests, not consumer prices. The U.S. beef industry exported over $10 billion worth of beef in 2024, and production in 2025 is forecast around 26.7 billion pounds. Clearly, we’re not talking about a weak or failing industry. They’re still selling record amounts overseas while struggling to keep up with domestic demand.
                  
                  And yes, capitalism does allow for profit,  that’s the point. But a functioning capitalist market also relies on supply and demand. If the domestic supply can’t meet demand, prices spike. Allowing temporary imports doesn’t cripple capitalism; it keeps it working properly by preventing artificial scarcity.
                  
                  If we truly believe in market economics, we shouldn’t fear competition or supplemental imports that stabilize prices for everyone. This deal isn’t anti-American; it’s smart economics that protects both consumers and the long-term stability of the beef market.

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     Credence2posted 9 days agoin reply to this

                     OK, I come back with this:
                     
                     https://www.newsweek.com/trump-admin-wa … t-10917370
                     ————-
                     President Donald Trump’s administration has warned that disease issues facing Argentina’s cattle industry could impede its plan to import the country's beef to help lower domestic prices.
                     
                     On Tuesday, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said on CNBC that Trump is “in discussions with Argentina” regarding the proposal, but said that the country is facing a “foot-and-mouth disease issue.”
                     ————
                     It certainly does not give one confidence that our
                     Dept of Agriculture or FDA are on top of this as the administration itself expressed concerns about contaminated meat.
                     ———
                     
                     How can I ignore this from the article? So where do Trump’s assurances come from? So, he knows that domestic beef prices are going to fall, How?
                     
                     “Trump’s plan to import Argentine beef—framed as an effort to lower U.S. prices while supporting the country’s ailing economy—has faced significant criticism from farmers, agricultural groups and a handful of Republican lawmakers.”
                     
                     “Experts also doubt that even substantial imports from Argentina would be able to address domestic supply issues or meaningfully lower record-high beef prices.”
                     ———————
                     
                     “In her interview with CNBC on Tuesday, Agriculture Secretary Rollins noted that over 80 percent of the beef consumed in America is domestically produced. She said Argentina’s own production capacity would likely limit the impact of their imports on America’s overall supply, before adding that the Department of Agriculture (USDA) is monitoring the potential risks of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD).”
                     
                     Based on that statement, I could presume that Argentine beef production is considerably less and would not have much effect on the supply of beef in the United States and  would have little if any effect on the cost of beef here.
                     ———-
                     “Agricultural economist David P. Anderson told Newsweek: "Reducing tariffs or allowing more market access for Argentine beef would not likely have much impact at all on US prices. So far in 2025 imports from Argentina have amounted to 2.1 percent of total US beef imports. They don’t really have the supplies to send much beef this way. And with increased tariffs on Brazilian beef likely reducing those imports they won’t make up for that.”
                     
                     That is not very much, 2.1 percent. I think that this is more a political hand-up to a Trump clone in Argentina than something to benefit the U.S beef consumer here or the industry at large.

                     replyreport
                     1. 85

                        Sharlee01posted 9 days agoin reply to this

                        I think many people are getting upset without fully understanding the rigorous inspections that all beef imports undergo before entering the U.S. I’ve shared this information, but I have to ask—do you really believe that the agencies responsible for food safety, such as the USDA, FDA, and FSIS, would not do their jobs to ensure that everything reaching our tables is safe?
                        
                        I’ve shared pretty much all the information I can offer, including why our OWN beef is not imported to many major nations due to concerns they see—some of which should actually concern Americans.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           Willowarborposted 9 days agoin reply to this

                           Americans just aren't as stupid as this bunch thinks .  We can all see and hear  Trump cozying up to Milei...
                           
                           It's all right here from the horse's mouth...
                           https://x.com/highbrow_nobrow/status/19 … 7287922806
                           
                           IF ONLY HE HAD THAT KIND OF INTEREST IN THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY....
                           
                           It's all very anti-maga...

                           replyreport
                           1. 85

                              Sharlee01posted 9 days agoin reply to this

                              Subject --- Why the U.S. Is Considering Buying Beef from Argentina
                              
                              Your diversion doesn't interest me.

                              replyreport
                        2. 80

                           Credence2posted 9 days agoin reply to this

                           It is because these agencies doing their jobs properly would have to carefully consider the safety of Argentine beef products. And if they voiced concerns about that safety already, it might well impede the imports.

                           replyreport
                           1. 85

                              Sharlee01posted 8 days agoin reply to this

                              Cred, I have done my research, and it appears that the United States has been importing beef from Argentina following the USDA's reinstatement of Argentina's eligibility to export beef after a 17-year ban due to foot-and-mouth disease concerns. In 2024, Argentina exported approximately 98.9 million pounds of beef to the U.S., accounting for about 2% of total U.S. beef imports.
                              
                              Under the Biden administration, the U.S. has continued to import beef from Argentina. In 2024, Argentina exported approximately 98.9 million pounds of beef to the U.S., and in 2025, the USDA projected a record 860,000 metric tons of beef exports from Argentina.
                              Euromeat News
                              
                              The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) continues to list Argentina as an eligible country for beef exports to the U.S., indicating that the imports meet U.S. safety standards.
                              
                              This media coverage seems completely aimed at trashing Trump. And yes, it apparently served as a good talking point for those with TDS.
                              
                              Was your guy Joe buying poison meat?  Anyone else seeing how ridiculous this looks for those who have bought into the hype?

                              replyreport
                              1. 80

                                 Credence2posted 8 days agoin reply to this

                                 We are just trying to determine if TDS is not actually TBS and I am not speaking about Turner Broadcasting.
                                 
                                 I was just saying that the Department representatives express concerns about the contamination issues.
                                 
                                 Why are we not going to Brazil a far larger beef producer and exporter that would have a better chance allowing us to import competitive quantities?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 85

                                    Sharlee01posted 8 days agoin reply to this

                                    I could not find any officials who were USDA reps concerned about the beef. We have been buying Argentinian beef for some time now, and only now are some citizens showing concern.
                                    
                                    U.S. beef imports from Brazil more than doubled in the first five months of 2025 compared to the same period in 2024 (214,540 mt Jan–May 2025) despite existing tariffs. Trump is attempting to get more beef from the nations we import beef.  Brazil has had repeated issues with foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) over the years, though the country has made major progress in controlling it.
                                    
                                    I think this issue is being blown out of proportion. Trump is working on trade adjustments and trying to temporarily stabilize beef prices while our own beef industry gets back on solid footing. That’s why the Argentine deal isn’t meant to be a long-term arrangement. As a rule, the U.S. supplies over 95% of its own beef.
                                    
                                    I think it’s a pretty good temporary fix. One thing Trump does well is juggle multiple problems at once. He’s managed to maintain a relatively stable economy even through a tariff war, and the beef deal could help bring prices down a bit. I tend to see the glass as half full; even a small improvement is better than none at all.  I mean, I appreciate a president who does work on problems and does not ignore them.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 99

                                       DrMark1961posted 7 days agoin reply to this

                                       If Trump ignored this he would be criticized. Since he offers a potential solution he is criticized. You seem one of the few here that does look at this optimistically.

                                       report
                                       1. 61

                                          Willowarborposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                                          It's not a solution. Argentina cannot supply the millions of tons of beef required to affect price in any way.

                                          report
                                          1. 99

                                             DrMark1961posted 7 days agoin reply to this

                                             He is trying to offer a potential solution. Neither of us thinks it will work, but at least he at least he is trying. It is much more than I see the Dems doing.

                                             report
                                             1. 61

                                                Willowarborposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                                                The Democrats do not control any branch of the government...

                                                report
                                                1. 99

                                                   DrMark1961posted 7 days agoin reply to this

                                                   Therefore all they can do is complain about Trumps attempts to do things? Opposition parties have managed to get things done in the past, even without shutting the government down.

                                                   report
                                                   1. 80

                                                      Credence2posted 7 days agoin reply to this

                                                      Well, Doc, what did the Republicans do when either Obama or Biden attempted to “do things”?

                                                      report
                                                      1. 99

                                                         DrMark1961posted 7 days agoin reply to this

                                                         A lot of times the same thing, I will admit. I do remember leaders like Tip O´Neil though that was an effective opposition leader and was capable of doing more than just tearing up his opponents state of the union speech. Is it any wonder that the majority of the American voters no longer have any respect for the opposition?

                                                         report
                                                         1. 80

                                                            Credence2posted 7 days agoin reply to this

                                                            Yep, but the 1980s just as well be the 1880s when we speak of today’s political climate……

                                                            report
                                                         2. 85

                                                            GA Andersonposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                                                            Here's an 'It's a small world ... chuckle for you.
                                                            
                                                            Years ago, in my early forum days, I sent Cred a copy of Tip O'Neil's book by snail mail. Had to send it twice.  ;-)
                                                            
                                                            GA

                                                            report
                                                            1. 80

                                                               Credence2posted 7 days agoin reply to this

                                                               And i read it through and thanked you for sharing it. But, it speaks of a time of conciliation and bi-partisanship that is long gone.

                                                               report
                                                               1. 72

                                                                  Ken Burgessposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                                                                  Agreed.
                                                                  
                                                                  Nationally... internationally... those times are long gone.
                                                                  
                                                                  In the 1990s Russians became allies... China was on the rise, as we celebrated all things cheap 'made in China' in Walmart...
                                                                  
                                                                  Everything seemed possible... there were no enemies to fear... no Nuclear Wars to dread...
                                                                  
                                                                  For a brief moment... a decade perhaps... the skies were blue and the world was becoming a better place for all (or so it seemed).
                                                                  
                                                                  Today the Russia - China (BRICS) alliance poses a bigger threat than any America has seen since the Civil War.  The weapons and economic power arraying against us today dwarfs the threat Japan and Germany posed.
                                                                  
                                                                  And internally not in our lifetimes has there been such a divisive break in the direction the two factions of power in the country want to take the country.

                                                                  report
                                       2. 85

                                          Sharlee01posted 7 days agoin reply to this

                                          Doc,  What really stands out to me is that by January 2024, the U.S. cattle and calf inventory dropped to just 87.2 million head,  the lowest level since 1951. That kind of number tells you something was seriously wrong in the cattle industry. The Biden administration did announce several programs through the USDA to supposedly help ranchers and strengthen the meat supply chain — things like grants for smaller processors, new rules for the “Product of USA” label, and investments meant to promote competition. But when you look closer, those programs didn’t actually get to the people who needed them most. The funds were tied up in studies, infrastructure projects, and long-term goals, not immediate relief. Meanwhile, the herd continued shrinking, feed costs stayed high, and many ranchers were forced to sell off cattle just to survive. Beef prices never really came down either — consumers kept paying record highs at the grocery store. What’s even more frustrating is that Biden didn’t take any short-term steps to bring in more beef from other nations to help ease supply and lower costs for consumers. So even though his plans sounded good on paper, they didn’t deliver real results for farmers, ranchers, or families trying to afford beef. The programs were bureaucratic and slow, and in the end, they failed to provide the kind of immediate help that could have stabilized both the cattle industry and beef prices.
                                          
                                          Trump is working on solutions...
                                          
                                          What really impresses me about Trump’s approach to the beef shortage is that he’s tackling the problem from multiple angles, and he’s doing it in a way that could actually help both ranchers and consumers. First, he’s looking to increase beef imports from Argentina by quadrupling the tariff-rate quota to 80,000 metric tons. That’s designed to bring more supply into the U.S. and help lower retail beef prices, something that Biden didn’t attempt during his term. At the same time, Trump is using trade tools to protect U.S. ranchers, he’s opened more export markets, like Australia, while keeping tariffs on certain foreign beef to maintain domestic competitiveness.
                                          
                                          He’s also focused on strengthening domestic production. That means incentivizing new ranchers, boosting processing capacity, and removing some federal grazing restrictions to give producers more room to grow their herds. It’s a mix of short-term relief through imports and long-term structural changes to make the beef industry stronger.
                                          
                                          On top of that, Trump has publicly encouraged ranchers to consider lowering prices so consumers aren’t crushed by record beef costs, while still defending policies that protect producers’ livelihoods. I know some ranchers are cautious about imports under these plans, and economists warn that beef prices won’t drop overnight, but at least there’s a multi-pronged, practical approach happening. Compared to Biden’s term, where programs were slow, bureaucratic, and didn’t meaningfully relieve costs, Trump’s proposals are clear, action-oriented, and aimed at helping ranchers survive while keeping beef affordable for families like mine.
                                          
                                          My sources
                                          https://www.agriculture.com/what-s-in-u … hatgpt.com
                                          https://www.skyhinews.com/news/secretar … hatgpt.com
                                          https://www.newsfromthestates.com/artic … hatgpt.com

                                          report
                                          1. 61

                                             Willowarborposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                                             Not sure why the fact that even a quadrupled shipment of Argentinian beef will not dent American demand and therefore price,  continues to be ignored...

                                             report
                                          2. 61

                                             Willowarborposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                                             Trump opened export markets lol? This makes absolutely no sense...

                                             report
                                 2. 99

                                    DrMark1961posted 7 days agoin reply to this

                                    The quality difference has aleady been discussed. Quantity does not equal quality. I am not sure if you only eat ground beef but for those Americans that want a steak they can eat off of a grill beef from Brazil and Australia are not adequate substitutes. Argentinian beef is.
                                    edit: the comment about you eating ground beef came out kind of nasty. It was not meant to be. I usually eat MLT sandwiches instead of beef or pork (mutton, lettuce, and tomato!) so many of us choose something different on our grill. My father was a big beef eater but I am not.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 85

                                       Sharlee01posted 7 days agoin reply to this

                                       I find it strange that people are suddenly so concerned about the safety and quality of Argentina’s beef. There were no such worries over the past seven years as imports steadily increased,  not even under Biden. I’ve shared plenty of facts showing both the safety and high quality of the beef, but it all seems to fall on deaf ears. Honestly, it’s getting discouraging to even bother responding to some folks. You can pile on facts until the cows come home (LOL), yet some people just can’t seem to process them.

                                       report
                                    2. 80

                                       Credence2posted 7 days agoin reply to this

                                       No, offense taken, we eat plenty of ground beef. You live in Brazil and i would suspect that you could speak to the quality of beef produced there.

                                       report
               3. 99

                  DrMark1961posted 9 days agoin reply to this

                  No, it is not a good idea if you are a rancher in the US. Many are getting out now since prices are so high.
                  It is good for the consumers, however.

                  replyreport
            2. 85

               Sharlee01posted 9 days agoin reply to this

               Hi Doc, hope you're doing well--- The U.S. frequently has its own issues with beef that isn’t fit for export—disease in cattle is not uncommon. Honestly, I’m not sure the concern about “bad beef” coming into the U.S. even warrants a response. It’s really aggravating to see so little research done before people post claims like that.
               
               When beef is imported into the U.S., it doesn’t just casually stroll across the border, it goes through a very strict inspection and approval process before it’s ever allowed to hit store shelves or restaurants.
               
               Approval of Foreign Inspection Systems
               
               The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) first reviews the exporting country’s inspection system.
               
               Only countries with equivalent food safety standards to the U.S. are allowed to export beef.
               
               Facilities (slaughterhouses, processing plants) in the exporting country must be pre-approved.
               
               2. Certification by the Exporting Country
               
               Each shipment must come with official documentation from the foreign government confirming:
               
               The beef was processed under approved conditions
               
               It meets U.S. safety standards (no banned additives, no diseases like foot-and-mouth, etc.)
               
               3. Inspection at U.S. Ports of Entry
               
               Every shipment is reinspected by FSIS personnel upon arrival.
               
               Checks include:
               
               Visual inspections for labeling, packaging, and signs of contamination
               
               Sampling for pathogens like Salmonella, E. coli, or chemical residues
               
               Verification that the shipment matches the export certificates
               
               4. Approval for Sale
               
               Only after passing all inspections is the beef allowed to enter the commercial market in the U.S.
               
               Hey, see why that concern if not worth the energy to even consider?
               
               Hey Doc, to each their own.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Willowarborposted 9 days agoin reply to this

                  Wondering if the claims posted from the USDA are current? 
                  
                  Not sure what is even left of the USDA at this point LOL

                  replyreport
               2. 99

                  DrMark1961posted 9 days agoin reply to this

                  All of those comments from that person about diseased beef takes none of those points into consideration.

                  replyreport
                  1. 85

                     Sharlee01posted 9 days agoin reply to this

                     Doc, I agree — those one-liners with no real substance usually feel like nothing more than bait.

                     replyreport
         2. 81

            Readmikenowposted 8 days agoin reply to this

            Cred,
            
            Economically it makes sense.
            
            More competition will require beef producers to provide better products as a lower price.  This will improve the American beef market for consumers.  It could cause the price to go down and be more competitive.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Credence2posted 8 days agoin reply to this

               Brazil, the European Union and even India produces and exports more beef than Argentina. If there is this grave shortage why not go to Brazil with the second largest level of beef available?

               replyreport
2. 61

   Willowarborposted 9 days ago

   I think the original posting is missing the deficit between America and Argentina in terms of how much of our beef they buy.....
   
   Can you address that issue. 
   
   Why are we looking to make a deal to buy their  diseased beef when they're taking almost nothing of ours????
   
   Trump is screwing American ranchers  royally.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      wildernessposted 9 days agoin reply to this

      Why do you call it diseased?  What disease are the cows we would buy carrying?
      
      Is there something there or is this just a knee jerk reaction to anything Trump does?

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Credence2posted 9 days agoin reply to this

         Ever read “The Jungle”, Wilderness? An expose of the meat packing industry, which prompted politicians early in the last century to mandate standards which were absent before. Would our concern about the Argentine standard regarding its beef industry regarding safety of its product be considered just regulatory inconvenience and overreach by the Trump people?We need safety protocols in place as products like this are consumed by millions. Trump is oblivious to these principles, so yes, Trump is guilty. The NCBA is in a better position to understand these concerns more than you.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Willowarborposted 9 days agoin reply to this

            He's looking at buying potentially diseased beef from a country that has a long history of such and I haven't even begun to look into all of the USDA regulations this regime has most likely slashed.... Regulations meant to protect us from just this scenario.
            
            You have to really wonder why this would even be considered?

            replyreport
            1. 79

               wildernessposted 9 days agoin reply to this

               Every cow on the planet is "potentially diseased".
               
               I love it when imagination takes over ("... all of the USDA regulations this regime has most likely slashed") without a shred if evidence and it is then used as a talking point.
               
               It is being considered because greedy people want lower prices.  For the same reason we shipped such vast quantities of manufacturing overseas.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Willowarborposted 9 days agoin reply to this

                  Enjoy...
                  
                  LMFAO... "GREEDY PEOPLE WANT LOWER PRICES? "
                  
                  OH THAT'S RICH.
                  
                  Did you not realize that Trump ran on lowering prices????

                  replyreport
               2. 99

                  DrMark1961posted 9 days agoin reply to this

                  It sounds more like someone is having a knee-jerk reaction in opposition to anything that Trump suggests.

                  replyreport
      2. 61

         Willowarborposted 9 days agoin reply to this

         You haven't researched Argentina's long problem with foot and mouth disease,???
         
         It's nothing I'd be interested in buying but hey to each his own

         replyreport
         1. 79

            wildernessposted 9 days agoin reply to this

            Suggest you re-read the OP, which addressed that question.

            replyreport
3. 61

   Willowarborposted 9 days ago

   LET THEM EAT.. DISEASED BEEF
   
   
   NCBA: President Trump undercuts America’s cattle producers...
   
   The United States 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....
   
   SEEMS LIKE THEY SHOULD BE BUYING OUR BEEF AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
   
   NCBA: President Trump undercuts America’s cattle producers | The Mighty 790 KFGO | KFGO https://share.google/vbnLOWB4EaDxRnBAz

   replyreport
4. 85

   Sharlee01posted 9 days ago

   Let's look at some facts---
   
   Oh, where to begin? So, apparently, this “move” was absolutely necessary because, believe it or not, U.S. cattle have had documented disease issues over the last year or two. Shocking, I know. Naturally, this didn’t just stay on paper—it cut production and sent prices soaring for American consumers, because who doesn’t love paying more for dinner? Take, for example, the Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) A(H5N1) that showed up in dairy herds across multiple states starting March 2024. A real problem, indeed. And of course, the media swooped in to turn it into their latest “feed,” serving up drama to anyone in need of a daily scandal with their morning coffee.
   
   Meanwhile, we’ve been buying beef from Argentina off and on since the early 1900s—yes, that’s over a century of occasional trade, and anytime a disease broke out in our herds, guess what? We didn’t export. Surprised? You shouldn’t be. It happens more often than people think: U.S. beef has been deemed unfit for export multiple times due to cattle diseases. Case in point, in 2024 several countries temporarily restricted or suspended imports of U.S. beef thanks to outbreaks. And before anyone jumps to accusations about buying “diseased” beef, let’s be clear—such claims are, frankly, absurd.
   
   Today, U.S. imports from Argentina continue under strict USDA and FSIS inspection requirements, and only from facilities in foot-and-mouth disease (FMD)-free zones. The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), for those playing at home, is the agency responsible for meat, poultry, and certain egg products, including imported beef. They don’t mess around: FSIS inspects and approves all imports before they can enter the U.S., ensures foreign plants meet the same safety and sanitation standards as U.S. facilities, and requires each shipment to carry certification from the foreign government, all subject to reinspection at U.S. ports. So yes, if beef comes from Argentina—or Australia—the USDA first approves the inspection system, then reinspects every shipment upon arrival. In other words, buying unsafe beef? Not happening.
   
   So, my suggestion for anyone that is worried: why not give the USDA or FSIS a call? Maybe they could offer some valuable facts to relieve concerns—or at least confirm that your steak isn’t secretly plotting against you.
   
   Oh and just another fact, that might just burst some bubble ---
   
   Countries That Do Not Import U.S. Beef
   
   European Union (EU) and United Kingdom (UK)
   Both the EU and UK have maintained bans on U.S. beef since 1989. These bans are due to the use of growth hormones such as estradiol 17β and testosterone in U.S. livestock, which are considered potentially carcinogenic by European authorities. Additionally, the EU prohibits imports of U.S. poultry treated with chlorine, a common American practice used to eliminate harmful bacteria.
   garrainternational.com
   
   Australia
   Australia had restricted U.S. beef imports since 2003 due to concerns about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as mad cow disease. While some restrictions were eased in 2019 for beef from cattle born, raised, and slaughtered in the U.S., a full lifting of the ban has not occurred. As of July 2025, major Australian retailers and fast-food chains, including Aldi, Coles, Woolworths, and McDonald's, have reaffirmed their commitment to sourcing 100% Australian beef, with no plans to offer U.S. imports.
   News.com.au
   
   China
   In March 2025, China suspended beef imports from several companies in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Mongolia. This move was possibly due to an oversupply and significant losses experienced at farms after record import levels in the previous year. The affected companies included major exporters from these countries, indicating that trade restrictions can be applied selectively based on specific suppliers rather than entire countries.
   Reuters

   replyreport
5. 61

   Willowarborposted 9 days ago

   Get rid of the tariffs and let our companies, farmers, and ranchers compete on the free market.  Hedging capitalism so it works for the wealthy and not the common people is criminal....

   replyreport
6. 85

   GA Andersonposted 9 days ago

   It feels like there is something wrong with the obvious logic of the opposition's arguments.
   
   It appears our beef imports and exports have been trending up for the last ten years — incrementally, and that the increased consumer beef prices have risen disproportionately to slight import increases. Generally speaking.
   
   It also appears that U.S. production costs (feed, land, climate, etc.) have risen disproportionately to increased imports.
   
   So it is a supply and demand thing. The U.S. beef industry exports billions of pounds for profit, yet is unable to supply the balance of the market. The 'why' should be the determining factor.
   
   Artificial manipulation, in this case, can only benefit one side: the producer or the consumer. A market reaction can benefit both.
   
   Which action is more manipulative, artificial supply restrictions or artificial price controls? The Argentina beef deal doesn't look to be as bad as the headlines say. History tells us how bad artificial price controls are.
   
   Of course, I say this from the comfort of a desk chair, not a hot saddle in the blazing sun, staring at another dead $1600 on the ground due to drought  Or signing a second mortgage for winter feed, etc. etc.
   
   Still, the beef industry trend for the last decade makes these import arguments look like protectionism that will hurt the industry itself.
   
   Damn, what a Hard Right thought. I hope I can spot the line when I get closer to idiot level   ;-)
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 9 days agoin reply to this

      GA,  Exactly — you brought up a good point. The real issue isn’t imports; it’s supply and production costs that have been climbing for years. U.S. producers export billions of pounds of beef, yet we still can’t meet domestic demand.
      
      Trump’s deal with Argentina, in my view,  is a smart, temporary solution to help fill that gap and stabilize prices without harming the industry. Critics act like importing beef is some radical move, but it’s really just common-sense market management. Protecting consumers while keeping the supply chain safe and inspected? Hey, that’s the kind of leadership we need.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Willowarborposted 9 days agoin reply to this

      Why Argentina of all places? With their long history of foot and mouth diseased cattle?  There are many other nations that actually produce quality beef... Why Argentina

      replyreport
      1. 85

         GA Andersonposted 9 days agoin reply to this

         In following this exchange, it looks kike the "diseased beef" criticism is overblown—relative to almost all other beef-producing nations. In that context, it reads more like slander than substance.
         
         If that is fair, the answer to your question is 'Why not?' It's a win-win: a win for us and a win for a struggling ally that can use the business. Win - Win. Ignore Argentina, and the import increase is only a win for us and a production uptick for the already established major players. A Win - $$$ instead of win-win.
         
         So, beyond political objections, why not Argentina?
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Ken Burgessposted 9 days agoin reply to this

            Exactly right.
            
            Another example is the deal made with Australia, regarding rare earth materials.
            
            Win-Win ... win for Australia that was pent up by China and the UK until this deal with America... win for America that is too reliant on China.
            
            Critical to create new allies and new trade deals ... as former trading partners become hostile and pursue their own interests to the detriment of America.

            replyreport
            1. 99

               DrMark1961posted 9 days agoin reply to this

               The opposition here is from the same leftist that was so concerned about the price of eggs. I would think the price of beef was also important but I guess not as Trump is involved.

               replyreport
            2. 85

               GA Andersonposted 9 days agoin reply to this

               You shouldn't be too critical of those "former trading partners." The majority of 'them' have, and are, paying a heavy price for compliance/cooperation. They have national interests too. They also have to put their nation first.
               
               *(I'm worried about crossing that Hard Right line. Maybe this will get me a couple of brownie points. Plus, it comes with a bonus — I think it's true).
               
               GA

               replyreport
         2. 61

            Willowarborposted 9 days agoin reply to this

            Aside from their cattle health problems, it's tough to ignore Trump's recent penchant for Milei and Argentina.

            replyreport
            1. 85

               GA Andersonposted 9 days agoin reply to this

               That objection seems more political than a concern about the beef industry. Any other producer nation would be fine, just not Argentina because ...
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 99

                  DrMark1961posted 8 days agoin reply to this

                  Brazil is the largest beef exporter in the world but the quality is not the same as Argentine beef, which is from the same types of cows you raise in the US.
                  The consumers in your country will buy beef from here but anyone that cares about quality, and is interested in a nice steak, is going to want meat produced in the US, Argentinia, or Japan.

                  replyreport
                  1. 85

                     GA Andersonposted 8 days agoin reply to this

                     Your comment sparked recollections of Argentine beef being talked about as prime beef. I also recall hearing thoughts similar to yours about Brazilian beef. Sort of like a hamburger to steaks comparison.
                     
                     This thread's argument reads as pure politics, so I only looked around enough to offer what I did. 
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 99

                        DrMark1961posted 8 days agoin reply to this

                        Yeah, I think Trump might of heard of Argentine beef somewhere along the line. He probably does not look at it like those on this forum that just tell us that it is diseased.

                        replyreport
                        1. 85

                           Sharlee01posted 8 days agoin reply to this

                           Doc,  No problem — it looks like the Foot-and-Mouth disease concern has now been spun into a narrative that Trump doesn’t respect American farmers and is cozying up to Argentina’s president. I guess once it became clear that Biden has been buying tons of beef from Argentina, suddenly the issue of Foot-and-Mouth disease with Trump’s purchases isn’t a problem anymore.

                           replyreport
                     2. 61

                        Willowarborposted 8 days agoin reply to this

                        It is highly unlikely that importing more beef from Argentina will significantly address supply problems in the United States. Though the U.S. is attempting to increase its beef import quota from Argentina, market experts suggest that the volume of imports will be too small to have a meaningful impact on domestic prices or supply.... No one is answering or speaking to the issue of why our supply is down

                        replyreport
                        1. 99

                           DrMark1961posted 8 days agoin reply to this

                           That is a reasonable point and certainly a lot more lucid than stating it is wrong to do this becuase it was proposed by Trump.
                           The supply is down because US ranchers are getting older and it has never been a profitable business. Many of the older ranchers are taking this opportunity to get out of the business for good, so supplies are not going to improve without more imports.
                           Your comment about the free market was spot on, as this is not going to go away with just the imports from one place.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              Willowarborposted 8 days agoin reply to this

                              The supply is down because US ranchers are getting older and it has never been a profitable business.
                              
                              This is not true and is not supported in any way... Just a quick look at AI tells us what's happening...
                              
                              "Beef supply is down in the United States primarily due to a historic DROUGHT that has reduced cattle herds, coupled with high input costs for ranchers and other factors like supply chain issues and labor shortages. The shrinking U.S. cattle herd has been exacerbated by ranchers selling off animals during prolonged drought, making it difficult to rebuild herds "
                              
                              LMFAO... High input cost? That's Tariff related.  And labor  shortages? Well we're trying to scoop up and eject brown people from this country is the fast as we can...
                              
                              Republicans don't believe in anything climate related such as drought though so here we are.... Looking to import beef that by all accounts will not even dent the supply issue while ignoring the real issue... That's how stupid this government thinks Americans are...

                              replyreport
                              1. 85

                                 GA Andersonposted 8 days agoin reply to this

                                 Wait, wait, somebody lied to me. First Grok, and then Gemini. What the hell!
                                 
                                 A summary of the industry told me that drought has hit the beef industry hard since 2012, and really hard in the last 5 years. Same with input costs in the last 5 years.
                                 
                                 Pres. Trump's tariffs and immigration efforts are less than a year old. Yet it's Pres. Trump's fault because ...
                                 
                                 GA

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    Willowarborposted 8 days agoin reply to this

                                    Are you implying that tariffs haven't already made an impact? And that immigration policies haven't impacted ranchers?  Because that's what grok and chat told me...
                                    
                                    for one..."U.S. tariffs on imported beef from countries like Brazil, Canada, and Mexico increase the cost for American processors and suppliers. This reduces the total available supply on the market, especially for lean trim beef, which is heavily imported and used in ground beef."
                                    
                                    And..."High input costs: Ranchers are facing continuously high costs for other inputs like equipment, fertilizer, and fuel, which also discourages herd expansion."
                                    
                                    And yes climate issues need to be  acknowledged and addressed where possible.  Importing beef from Argentina isn't going to dent the problem we have going on.
                                    
                                    Argentina is not the answer because Argentina's supply is too small to affect U.S. prices...

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 85

                                       GA Andersonposted 8 days agoin reply to this

                                       I said what I was implying. Pres. Trump's actions may have exacerbated a problem in the last nine months, but he wasn't the cause of it. The 'cause' is the point I addressed.
                                       
                                       The details of prime sources, supply quotas, and tariffs are needed to talk about what to do. I was only talking about the supply and demand aspect, which is where all the other details come from. Trump didn't cause it. There may be an argument about the political aspects, but there shouldn't be any about the truth of basic market mechanisms.
                                       
                                       GA

                                       report
                              2. 99

                                 DrMark1961posted 8 days agoin reply to this

                                 It is true. I guess we are expected to bow down to your superior knowledge of the cattle industry though, somethig I am sure you are familiar with. Why do you think AI knows everything?
                                 The average rancher is almost 60. I am not sure how many beef cattle you have worked with in your life, but a body that is almost 60 does not do well with beef cattle.
                                 You should be LYFAO. You have made a stunning statement about something you do not understand that once again proves your intelligence.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    Willowarborposted 8 days agoin reply to this

                                    Instead of relying on personal attack, maybe make a case with some sources to back it up

                                    replyreport
                                 2. 61

                                    Willowarborposted 8 days agoin reply to this

                                    "You have made a stunning statement about something you do not understand that once again proves your intelligence.'
                                    
                                    Oh are you calling me stupid? Of limited intelligence? What exactly are you saying?

                                    replyreport
                        2. 85

                           Sharlee01posted 8 days agoin reply to this

                           "No one is answering or speaking to the issue of why our supply is down" Willow
                           
                           All of this was posted on this thread page one.
                           https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/369 … ost4387666
                           So I wanted to put the facts forward once again. In 2024, U.S. cattle production faced challenges, but these were limited to dairy herds due to the emergence of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) A(H5N1). This was the first time this strain of bird flu was detected in cows in the United States. The outbreak began in March 2024 in Texas and by April had spread to multiple states, including California, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, affecting over 700 dairy herds across 15 states.
                           
                           Infected cows showed reduced milk production, fever, and abnormal milk quality, and some herds experienced higher mortality and early culling.
                           
                           U.S. beef cattle in 2023. There were no reports of Foot-and-Mouth Disease, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), or other highly contagious diseases impacting beef production.
                           
                           Some minor issues occurred in livestock, mostly localized or in specific regions, such as Vesicular Stomatitis Virus (VSV) cases in parts of the West.
                           
                           The cattle ranchers had two bad years in a row with stock health.  -- Declining Beef Production
                           https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/ahfss/Animal_He … hatgpt.com
                           
                           The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) projects a 4% year-over-year decrease in beef production for 2025, estimating a total of 25.93 billion pounds, down from 27.0 billion pounds in 2024
                           https://ahdb.org.uk/news/us-prices-clim … hatgpt.com
                           
                           This decline is attributed to: --- Reduced cattle slaughter: A slower pace of cattle slaughter and lower carcass weights in the second half of the year contribute to the overall decrease in beef production   https://www.progressivepublish.com/down … hatgpt.com
                           
                           Economic Research Service -- Lower cattle inventory: The U.S. beef cow inventory has fallen to 27.9 million head, the lowest since 1962, marking the sixth consecutive year of decline.
                           https://www.houstonchronicle.com/food-r … hatgpt.com
                           .
                           We need to import or pay outrageous prices.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              Willowarborposted 8 days agoin reply to this

                              No. It's drought.

                              replyreport
                              1. 85

                                 Sharlee01posted 8 days agoin reply to this

                                 I have offered you facts, and drought was mentioned several times as part of the equation.  I have nothing further to add... Hopefully, others will have a look at what my research has provided. Drought was a part of the cattle ranchers' problems.
                                 
                                 That was taken from my OP --- "The main reason the U.S. is even considering buying more beef from Argentina is because of supply and demand. Our domestic cattle herd is at one of its lowest points in decades due to drought and high feed costs. When the supply of cattle drops, beef prices rise; that’s simple economics. Importing some beef from Argentina could temporarily increase supply and help stabilize prices for consumers."
                                 
                                 
                                 Cred,  “Crippling” the U.S. beef industry really misses what’s happening. No one is replacing American beef with Argentine beef; this is about temporarily supplementing supply during a shortage. The U.S. cattle herd is at its lowest level in decades due to drought, disease, and higher feed costs. The result is skyrocketing prices that hit consumers hard. Importing a limited amount of beef from Argentina simply helps fill the gap and stabilize the market; it doesn’t “supplant” our industry."
                                 
                                 I wish you would stop replying to my comments. It is obvious you do not follow the thread's conversation, and you just add a one-liner,  as you did here, which shows you have not followed the conversation.

                                 replyreport
                        3. 85

                           GA Andersonposted 8 days agoin reply to this

                           Someone is speaking to the issue. Most of the sources I browsed made a point of the reasons for the industry's woes: climate change-caused drought topped the list, followed by increased production costs (feed, etc.), and land limitations.
                           
                           All of the primary reasons are natural events. So it's a natural part of the supply and demand market reality. The specifics of the source being Argentina are nearly irrelevant.
                           
                           As for the volume being too small to help ... considering how few details are known, that's probably a premature opinion.
                           
                           GA

                           replyreport
7. 85

   Sharlee01posted 9 days ago

   Why don’t we just buy more beef from Australia or Canada,?  It’s not that simple. There are strict import quotas, and once those are filled, tariffs make any extra beef far too expensive. Plus, the USDA only allows shipments from approved plants, so the supply is limited. Flooding the market could also crash prices for U.S. ranchers. It’s not reluctance — it’s about safety, rules, and keeping the market balanced..  Argentina has looser quotas, lower tariffs
   
   Countries with Known or Recent FMD Outbreaks
   
   (Based on data from the World Organisation for Animal Health – WOAH, formerly OIE, and USDA reports)
   
   South America
   
   Argentina – Experienced repeated FMD outbreaks in the 20th century; last major outbreak in 2006. Now maintains FMD-free zones, both with and without vaccination, recognized by WOAH.
   
   Brazil – Had numerous outbreaks historically; the last confirmed case was in 2006. Most states are now FMD-free (many with vaccination).
   
   Venezuela – Still reports FMD in some regions; not yet recognized as FMD-free.
   
   Colombia – Experienced an outbreak in 2018 and again in 2020, but has since regained FMD-free status for most zones.
   
   Asia
   
   China – Continues to report FMD cases periodically, particularly in livestock-intensive provinces.
   
   India – Endemic FMD; frequent outbreaks due to large cattle populations and vaccination gaps.
   
   Pakistan – Endemic, with regular outbreaks.
   
   Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, Mongolia – Experience intermittent outbreaks, though vaccination programs have reduced cases.
   
   South Korea – Experienced significant outbreaks in 2010–2011 and smaller flare-ups in later years.
   
   Indonesia – Declared FMD-free in 1986, but saw a major resurgence in 2022 that affected millions of animals.
   
   Middle East & Africa
   
   Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, South Africa, and Namibia – Have reported outbreaks at various times. Control measures and vaccination vary widely.
   
   South Africa had FMD outbreaks as recently as 2022, prompting temporary export bans on beef.
   
   Europe
   
   United Kingdom – Suffered a devastating FMD outbreak in 2001, leading to the culling of over six million animals and billions in economic losses.
   
   France, Netherlands, Ireland, and Portugal – Also had outbreaks in the past but have been FMD-free for decades now.
   
   Russia – Still reports occasional outbreaks in border regions.
   
   North America
   
   United States, Canada, and Mexico – Have been FMD-free since 1929. The U.S. maintains strict import controls and surveillance to keep it that way.
   
   
   
   The United States currently imports beef from:
   
   Australia
   
   New Zealand
   
   Canada
   
   Mexico
   
   Uruguay
   
   Brazil (select states only)
   
   Argentina (FMD-free zones only)

   replyreport
8. 61

   Willowarborposted 9 days ago

   Other countries, such as Australia and Canada, which already supply the US market, are better partners due to their closer alignment with US food safety standards....
   
   But NO..Trump has publicly stated that Argentina is "fighting for its life" economically, and he wants to help it survive.... Very MAGA of him...
   
   So why argentina? Because trump likes this goof ass...
   
   

   replyreport
9. 61

   Willowarborposted 9 days ago

   Sorry I don't  think we should be setting a foreign beef deal....we should be investing in our own  ranchers.... And thus far? There is absolutely no plan and nothing on the table to do so.  And they're likely never will be other than welfare to bail them out of their bankruptcies... This regime is completely incompetent and corrupt

   replyreport
10. 85

    Sharlee01posted 9 days ago

    Why don’t we just buy more beef from Australia or Canada,?  It’s not that simple. There are strict import quotas, and once those are filled, tariffs make any extra beef far too expensive. Plus, the USDA only allows shipments from approved plants, so the supply is limited. Flooding the market could also crash prices for U.S. ranchers. It’s not reluctance — it’s about safety, rules, and keeping the market balanced..  Argentina has looser quotas, lower tariffs.
    
    My research has led me down many avenues. I found this is a complex issue, and it’s important to consider all sides before forming an opinion.

    replyreport
11. 61

    Willowarborposted 9 days ago

    Get rid of the tariffs and let our companies, farmers, and ranchers compete on the free market.  Hedging capitalism so it works for the wealthy and not the common people is criminal....plain and simple.
    
    VERY FEW SUPPORT THE REGIME ON THIS... Not even the usual bootlickers

    replyreport
12. 61

    Willowarborposted 8 days ago

    Trump is bailing out Argentina as they take sales directly away from farmers… a set of circumstances almost beyond parody for the so-called ‘America first’ president.”
    
    Since May, China has responded to our tariffs by not purchasing a SINGLE soybean from this country. They are turning to other countries...countries like, yes you guessed it, ARGENTINA , which, get this, LOWERED its own export tariffs on the crop LAST MONTH in order to make things more lucrative for Chinese buyers....
    
    Trump's bailout of Argentina means that US taxpayers are now effectively subsidizing Argentinian soybean exports to China... the very market American farmers have been shut out of....
    
    and our solution is to import Argentinian beef.... SOMETHING'S WRONG HERE.

    replyreport
13. 61

    Willowarborposted 8 days ago

    Main factors contributing to us beef shortage... None of which are being addressed.
    
    Drought: Multi-year droughts in major cattle-producing states have made grazing pasture and forage scarce, significantly increasing the cost of feed. To cope, many ranchers were forced to sell off cattle and reduce their breeding herds.
    
    High costs of production: Persistent high costs for feed, fuel, and labor, coupled with rising interest rates, have made it difficult for ranchers to expand their herds, even with record-high cattle prices. The high value of cattle for slaughter has incentivized ranchers to sell rather than retain them for breeding.....
    
    And Yes, labor shortages are a significant factor affecting the beef shortage and persistently high prices in the United States. The labor deficit impacts the entire supply chain, from the ranch to the grocery store. ...
    
    AI....

    replyreport
    1. 80

       Credence2posted 8 days agoin reply to this

       Instead of bringing jobs home and keeping them there, are we now “offshoring” our beef industry as well as rising prices and the cost associated with providing the product may just be on the cusp of being prohibitive. While it is not around the corner because we produce so much beef relative to rest of the planet, it could well be a beginning, bypassing our domestic industry.

       replyreport
14. 61

    Willowarborposted 8 days ago

    Still no one is addressing the following....Argentina is a relatively small supplier of beef to the U.S., accounting for only around 2% of total imports. Even quadrupling the import quota,, would likely have a "negligible impact" on total U.S. beef supply and would not significantly lower prices at the grocery store.....
    
    All reports to Argentina not even being capable of supplying to that level so what are we doing?
    
    Cattle ranchers oppose Trump's plan to import more beef from Argentina to lower consumer prices | AP News https://share.google/U0dFOM6T6fWvGwDLr

    replyreport
15. 61

    Willowarborposted 8 days ago

    Fact check...
    
    The U.S. would have to become the largest buyer of Argentine beef to put a dent in beef prices paid by American consumers.
    
    Fact Check: Can Argentine Beef Really Lower U.S. Prices? https://share.google/2gFkhu1eAxCQTuiSg

    replyreport
16. 61

    Willowarborposted 8 days ago

    On 2024, total U.S. beef supply (production + imports) was 32.324 billion pounds, the second-highest in history, just behind 2022.
    
    For 2025, supply is projected to drop to 31.859 billion pounds, down 465 million pounds from 2024.
    
    That’s even with a record-high export forecast of 5.274 billion pounds, up from 4.635 billion in 2024.
    
    In 2026, supply is projected to fall another 762 million pounds, down 1.227 billion pounds from 2024.
    
    Meanwhile, demand has only grown stronger, even as prices climbed in 2024 — again, during the second-largest supply year ever.
    
    Some have estimated Argentina could double its exports to the U.S., hitting 200 million pounds annually. But the U.S. produces 500 million pounds of beef per week. Argentina’s total annual contribution would barely cover two days of production, spread across the entire year.
    
    For perspective, WASDE routinely adjusts U.S. beef supply by more than 200 million pounds each month. That makes Argentina’s potential exports a rounding error in USDA’s books.
    
    Bottom line: we have more demand than supply, and even if Argentina doubled or tripled its shipments to us, it won’t move the needle.
    
    National Beef Wire | U.S. Cattle Report https://share.google/SK4z98FCAYR2AvCTP

    replyreport
    1. 80

       Credence2posted 8 days agoin reply to this

       Some have estimated Argentina could double its exports to the U.S., hitting 200 million pounds annually. But the U.S. produces 500 million pounds of beef per week. Argentina’s total annual contribution would barely cover two days of production, spread across the entire year.
       ————
       That is an interesting point…….i see nothing more than what amounts to a drop in the bucket. So, why Argentina?

       replyreport
       1. 61

          Willowarborposted 8 days agoin reply to this

          Trump is fascinated with all things Argentina.  Looks like he has found a South American soulmate  in Javier  Milei.  Birds of a feather.

          replyreport
          1. 80

             Credence2posted 8 days agoin reply to this

             So, he has broken his bromance with Putin!!!

             replyreport
17. 61

    Willowarborposted 8 days ago

    I literally can't find any one notable or any agency that thinks this Argentina meat deal will do anything at all...
    
    I mean when are people going to admit that Trump is just pushing this because he supports Milei

    replyreport
18. 61

    Willowarborposted 8 days ago

    Argentina does not have the excess beef to make any meaningful impact on price. Even if they could spare an extra 100,000 mt, the 220 mil lbs would be just 0.77% of US annual consumption of 28.6 bil lbs...
    
    Maybe this bunch should be pushing veganism...LMAO

    replyreport
    1. 85

       Sharlee01posted 8 days agoin reply to this

       Maybe you should read the comments; all of your concerns have been addressed--- over and over.

       replyreport
19. 61

    Willowarborposted 7 days ago

    what really gets me? Trump bails out Argentina to the tune of 40 billion dollars and they turn around and sell soybeans to China while U.S. farmers, blocked by tariffs, drown in their  unsold crops....

    replyreport
20. 61

    Willowarborposted 7 days ago

    Why is no one from this regime listening to the ranchers?... Seems like they don't really care  or more likely that they just really don't care.

    replyreport
21. 61

    Willowarborposted 7 days ago

    Fox has this take....
    
    The frustration extends beyond farm country – Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., says the dominance of multinational meatpackers is hurting both producers and consumers.
    
    "Four corporations control 85% of the meat sold in the United States. One of these corporations is Chinese-owned and one is Brazilian-owned. American farmers are being squeezed and American consumers are being gouged," Massie told Fox News Digital.
    
    Massie, who raises cattle on his Kentucky ranch, warned that expanding beef imports from Argentina would only worsen those structural problems.
    
    "Flooding the market with Argentinian beef is not the answer to these problems. An America First solution to rising beef prices is to pass my PRIME Act, which would empower American farmers to sell directly to consumers without interference from global corporate middlemen," Massie said."
    
    Glynn Tonsor, a professor of agricultural economics at Kansas State University, told Fox News Digital that strong consumer demand continues to drive beef prices higher, regardless of supply fluctuations.
    
    Derrell Peel, a professor of agricultural economics at Oklahoma State University, said that even if U.S. imports from Argentina increase, the impact on overall prices would be negligible.
    
    "Most of what we import is lean, processed beef trimmings used for ground beef," said Peel, who specializes in livestock marketing. "We’re not talking about the kind of beef that affects steak prices. Even if we doubled imports, it would be such a small share of the total supply that we wouldn’t detect any real impact."
    
    Trump apparently isn't listening to any of this.... He just likes Javier.
    
    Argentina beef imports won't fix corporate concentration, ranchers say | Fox News https://share.google/EX8JZFqgUqxcfATdF

    replyreport
22. 85

    Sharlee01posted 7 days ago

    What really gets me is how quickly people jump to conclusions without checking the facts. I keep seeing posts claiming that Trump “bailed out Argentina for $40 billion,” and that Argentina then turned around and sold soybeans to China while American farmers were left drowning in unsold crops. But when you actually look at what’s happening, that statement doesn’t hold up.
    
    For one thing, there hasn’t been any $40 billion bailout. What’s real is a $20 billion currency swap line between the U.S. Treasury and Argentina’s central bank, meant to help stabilize Argentina’s peso. The administration has talked about working toward another $20 billion through private lenders and international funds, but that’s not finalized. Saying Trump “bailed them out for $40 billion” is jumping the gun — half of that isn’t even committed yet.
    
    Then there’s the part about soybeans. It’s true that U.S. farmers are struggling. China imported no U.S. soybeans this September, which is a serious hit, and Argentina’s soybean exports to China have increased. But that isn’t because of the U.S. deal with Argentina. It’s mainly the result of China’s tariffs on American soybeans and Argentina’s own decision to cut export taxes so they could sell cheaper. In other words, Argentina is taking advantage of market conditions, not U.S. bailout money.
    
    I understand why people are upset — it looks bad when the U.S. helps a country that’s competing with our own farmers — but it’s misleading to suggest we funded Argentina so they could sell soybeans to China. The $20 billion that’s been approved is a financial lifeline tied to currency stability, not agricultural exports. And while our farmers are absolutely feeling the pain, blaming that on a deal that isn’t even fully in place distracts from the real issue — the lasting effects of the trade war and global market shifts.
    
    In short, there’s a mix of truth and exaggeration here: Argentina is indeed selling more soybeans to China, and U.S. farmers are struggling, but Trump hasn’t handed them $40 billion, and no direct trade deal has been made. It’s important we stick to the facts before repeating claims that sound like they’re already carved in stone.
    
    My sources
    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/ … hatgpt.com
    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/t … hatgpt.com
    https://www.cfr.org/article/will-trumps … hatgpt.com
    https://soygrowers.com/news-releases/as … hatgpt.com

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Willowarborposted 7 days agoin reply to this

       Maybe Argentina should have chosen not to sell soybeans to china after our bailout....just a radical thought.

       replyreport
       1. 99

          DrMark1961posted 7 days agoin reply to this

          I am sure if they had a government like North Korea, Cuba, or Venezeuela they could have just stopped that. The have a relatively free economy, just like the US, and if a farmer arranges a sale of his product the government does not usually step in to stop it.

          replyreport