I am writing this the morning following the election of 2024. I always enjoy watching the pundits from both sides analyze the results and do their best to conduct the postmortem to garner what message was being sent. Of course, before all the votes are even counted, they begin to try and discern what these results mean for the next election, as well.

I can’t help thinking this morning about the similarities between the cattle industry and our overall political system. Despite whatever the agendas of the various political parties might be, or what direction they want to take the country, the ultimate arbitrator is the voter or the electorate. The cattle industry is similar. We have a lot of people with ideas of where they think the industry should be going, but the consumer is the one who ultimately decides.

For the cattle industry, it ultimately comes down to three big factors: quality, efficiency, and people’s perception of our industry and the people who take care of the land and the animals. Similarly, in this election it came down to the big issues of the economy, immigration and people’s opinion of the candidates themselves.

Quality in the beef market, and the economy are similar in that they are always paramount. We have made the mistake in the cattle industry of not focusing on quality, and we paid the price with decades of declining beef demand and profitability.

Immigration is an issue that became paramount and may or may not be a key factor in elections in the future. Sustainability is that type of issue today. It has come to the forefront because of the demands being placed on sustainability by governments and Wall Street.

We have a lot of people with ideas of where they think the industry should be going, but the consumer is the one who ultimately decides.

The likability and respectability of the candidates can be compared to the trust consumers put in producers. This is always a driver, and it is difficult to replace if ever lost.

In many respects when we are making breeding decisions today, we are being asked to prognosticate what consumers will be voting for down the road. Wars, epidemics, recessions, etc., have a way of altering things, but ultimately most elections come down to the fundamental truth that people select the candidate that most likely reflects their values. In the market, it is the product that most reflects the demands/needs of the consumer.

There will be a lot of outside factors affecting consumer demands in the future, but the primary goals are well-understood. Can we deliver on providing a high-quality product? Can we produce it efficiently? And can we tell our story effectively? We know buyers will want healthy calves, uniform offerings, cattle that have been managed in a way that allows their genetic merit to be expressed. We know we must remain competitive with other proteins. We know buyers want maximum market access and market flexibility. And we know information and data will drive decisions and a total systems approach will be used to determine value. We know that successful operations will be relational vs. transactional in their mindsets, and that they will be strategic vs. opportunistic in their decision-making.

Ultimately, the targets are not difficult to define. As is always the case, there are legitimate disagreements on how to get there. The real risk is not the differences in potential strategies as much as it is in losing sight of the key demands of one’s constituency or customer base. The marketplace will reward you for successfully delivering on your promises, just like the electorate will provide victories for politicians who do the same. Conversely, politicians and political parties pay the price when they lose sight of the big drivers.

Angus Beef Bulletin EXTRA, Vol. 16, No. 11-A