May 6, 2017

NAFTA Trade is Important for Meat Industry

The 2016 election cycle created a lot of confusion about the importance and benefits of trade in general. In particular, a good bit of the election year rhetoric focused on trade within the NAFTA trade bloc (U.S., Canada and Mexico). In a recent farmdoc article, Schnitkey, Baylis and Coppess highlighted the importance of trade with Canada and Mexico for U.S. corn and soybean farmers, focusing specifically on imports of corn and soybeans by those two countries. However, in addition to examining feedgrain and oilseed trade, it’s important to examine meat trade as well.

Growth in trade of animal products has been quite dramatic over the last three decades and U.S. agricultural producers, those engaged in animal agriculture and those engaged in feedgrain and oilseed production, have benefitted. In particular, U.S. crop producers have benefitted because the increase in U.S. meat exports has encouraged expansion of U.S. animal agriculture and thereby boosted demand for U.S. produced feedgrains and oilseeds.

To see this more clearly, it’s helpful to examine how dramatic the shift has been in U.S. meat exports. In the mid-1980s U.S. beef exports to all destinations totaled less than 500 million pounds. In 2016, U.S. beef exports were 2.55 billion pounds and are projected to hit 2.7 billion pounds in 2017. Looking at the individual country data from USDA indicates that about 12 percent (308 million pounds) of all U.S. beef exports were shipped to Canada in 2016. The U.S. shipped even more beef to Mexico than Canada as beef exports to Mexico totaled 394 million pounds, about 15 percent of all U.S. beef exports, in 2016. Combined, the two NAFTA trading partners absorbed 27 percent of all U.S. beef exports in 2016. Looking at rankings of U.S. beef export customers, Japan (26 percent) was the largest beef export customer and South Korea (18 percent) was the second largest. Mexico and Canada were the third and fourth largest U.S. beef export customers, respectively, in 2016.

In the mid-1980s U.S. pork exports were even smaller than U.S. beef exports, totaling just 129 million pounds. By 2016 U.S. pork exports were more than 40 times as large as in 1985, reaching a total of 5.2 billion pounds (Figure 1). In 2016, approximately one out of five pounds of pork produced in the U.S. was exported. And the U.S. pork industry was much larger than it was in 1985. U.S. pork production in 1985 totaled 14.7 billion pounds compared to 26.1 billion pounds in 2016, so pork exports were absorbing a much, much larger share of a much larger industry.

Figure 1. Annual U.S. Pork Exports

Figure 1. Annual U.S. Pork Exports

Looking at the individual country data, the largest single customer for U.S. pork in 2016 was Mexico. U.S. pork exports to Mexico totaled 1.6 billion pounds during 2016, which was almost 31 percent of U.S. pork exports. Pork exports to Canada in 2016 totaled 537 million pounds, approximately 10 percent of U.S pork exports. On a combined basis, Mexico and Canada absorbed approximately 41 percent of U.S. pork exports. In comparison, the next largest U.S. pork customer, Japan, received 23 percent of U.S. pork shipments in 2016.

Growth in poultry exports as a source of demand for an expanding poultry industry has been phenomenal as well. In 1985, ready-to-cook exports of poultry (chicken and turkeys) as a percentage of production was less than 3 percent. By 2016 poultry exports were 7.4 billion pounds, approaching 15 percent of total production (Figure 2). And, like pork, this represented an increasing percentage of an industry that had grown much larger over the course of three decades. In 1985 chicken and turkey production, combined, totaled 16.9 billion pounds. By 2016, combined chicken and turkey production was nearly three times as large as it was in 1985, totaling 47.2 billion pounds.

Figure 2. Annual U.S. Poultry Exports

Figure 2. Annual U.S. Poultry Exports

Examining the individual country trade data reveals that the largest single customer for U.S. poultry exports in 2016 was Mexico followed by Canada. Mexico was the recipient of 21 percent of all U.S. poultry exports in 2016 while Canada was the destination for over 5 percent of U.S. poultry exports. Combined, the two NAFTA trading partners purchased over one-quarter of all U.S. poultry exports in 2016.

Trade benefits both importers and exporters. This cursory examination of recent U.S. meat trade patterns focused on exports alone, but that is not intended to downplay the value to consumers of increased product choices provided by imports. However, this review does make clear how important meat trade has become to U.S. animal agriculture producers and the potential impact a disruption in trade with NAFTA partners Canada and Mexico would have on the U.S. animal agriculture sector and, in turn, producers of feedgrains and oilseeds.

 

Reference

Schnitkey, G., K. Baylies, and J. Coppess. “A Reminder on NAFTA and Agriculture.” farmdoc daily(7): 78, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, April 28, 2017.​

TAGS:

TEAM LINKS:

RELATED RESOURCES

Inside the Federal Reserve: A Conversation with Nate Kaufman

July 18, 2025

Nate Kaufman, Omaha Branch Executive of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, joins hosts Todd Kuethe and Chad Fiechter in this episode of the Purdue Commercial AgCast. Kaufman explains the structure and function of the Federal Reserve System, including the roles of the Board of Governors, the 12 regional reserve banks, and their respective branch offices, and shares how monetary policy is set and the importance of regional input in policy decisions.

READ MORE

Prospects for Swine Feed Costs in the Second Half of 2025

June 13, 2025

This article discussed recent trends in feed costs for farrow-to-finish and swine finishing enterprises, and provided projections for the second half of 2025. Average feed costs in 2024 were substantially lower than feed costs in 2022 and 2023. Moreover, a further reduction in feed costs is expected for the upcoming year.

READ MORE

Indiana Farm Income Outlook Report, Spring 2025

May 14, 2025

The Spring 2025 Indiana Farm Income Outlook, published by the Rural and Farm Finance Policy Analysis Center (RaFF),  provides updated projections for Indiana farm profitability through 2026. The report highlights a projected 40% increase in Indiana net farm income in 2025—driven largely by higher government payments—and offers insight into trends in crop and livestock markets, production expenses, and policy impacts.

READ MORE

UPCOMING EVENTS

Purdue Flexible Lease Workshop

September 16 at 7 pm or September 23 at 9 am

The Flexible Lease virtual Workshop, presented by the Purdue Extension Land Lease Team, will include a presentation and discussion to help you decide if a flexible land lease arrangement is right for your farm.

Read More

2026 Crop Cost and Return Guide

September 16, 2025

The 2026 Purdue Crop Cost and Return Guide provides estimated costs and net returns for planting, growing, and harvesting corn, soybeans, and wheat in the upcoming year. Cost and return information presents information for low, average, and high productivity soils. Early projections point to slightly higher breakeven prices.

READ MORE

2025 Farmland Values & Market Trends

September 9, 2025

Purdue ag economists Todd Kuethe and Michael Langemeier as they discuss Indiana farmland values on this, the first of two episodes reviewing the 2025 Purdue Farmland Values and Cash Rental Rates survey results. The survey shows Indiana land prices continue to rise and are anticipated to continue a modest increase for the rest of 2025 for most of the state.

READ MORE

Farmland Prices Increase Despite Downward Pressure, Purdue Ag Econ Report August 2025

August 19, 2025

Indiana farmland prices have continued the trend of record highs in 2025, according to the latest Purdue Farmland Value and Cash Rents Survey results. The average price of top-quality farmland reached $14,826 per acre, a 3.0% increase from June 2024. Statewide, cash rents increased from 1.5 to 1.7% for poor-, average-, and top-quality land.

READ MORE