Cargill To Shutter Plainview, TX, Beef Plant

The economic impact of the Cargill decision ripples far beyond the feedyard gate.

Read about how Cargill's announcement impacted cattle markets here.

“I wouldn’t want to own a house in Plainview, TX.” That was just one of many reactions to the news that Cargill will shutter its Plainview, TX, beef plant on Feb. 1.

According to Cargill, the decision was made based primarily on tight cattle numbers brought about by years of drought in Texas and other Southern Plains states. “The decision to idle our Plainview beef processing plant was a difficult and painful one to make and was made only after we conducted an exhaustive analysis of the regional cattle supply and processing capacity situation in North America,” says John Keating, Cargill Beef president.

Increased feed costs resulting from the prolonged drought, combined with herd liquidation by cattle ranchers, are severely and adversely contributing to the challenging business conditions we face as an industry,” he says. “Our preference would have been not to idle a plant.”

Industry Outlook: Market Conditions Will Shrink U.S. Packing Sector

Ross Wilson, Texas Cattle Feeders Association (TCFA) president & CEO, says he’s concerned about the effect this closing will have on TCFA members who have supplied cattle to the Plainview Cargill plant.

“The plant has been an important market for cattle feeders, especially those on the High Plains. Anytime we lose packing plant capacity in our region, it means TCFA members could see increases in freight and other costs as cattle are redistributed to other packing facilities. However, as cattle are redistributed to the remaining packing facilities, those facilities should be able to operate more efficiently and reduce the overcapacity in the packing industry.

“Many of the reasons for the closing of this plant are the same reasons that we’ve seen decreases in cattle feeding numbers at many of our feedlots. While we have a more productive cowherd producing more pounds of beef per head, severe drought across the U.S., as well as other factors, have caused a decrease in the overall size of the U.S. cowherd and decreases in the feeder cattle supply, which heavily impact our members.

“Most importantly, we recognize the negative impact the closing will have on Cargill employees, their families and the Plainview community,” Wilson says.

Those impacts will be profound, according to Steve Amosson, Texas AgriLife Extension Service Extension economist in Amarillo.  He estimates the annual payroll for the plant’s roughly 2,000 employees to be $60 million. “By the time you look at the indirect induced effects, we’re not talking 2,000 employees, we’re talking close to 3,000 people who are going to lose their jobs,” he says. “That accounts for more than 15% of the employment in Hale County” where Plainview is located.

Overall, Amosson says the total economic impact will be close to $1.1 billion. “And that’s 38% of all industry output in the county,” he says.

Keating says Cargill will help affected employees find jobs at other Cargill locations or with other companies, so the economic impacts will be softened somewhat. And he says they will mothball the plant in such a way that it could be reopened should the need for additional processing be necessary. “However, Cargill does not expect the U.S. cattle herd to significantly increase in size for a number of years,” he adds.

Amosson agrees. “It will be five to 10 years, if they ever reopen that plant again,” he says.

Industry At A Glance: Feedlot, Packing Overcapacity

The news came as a surprise to many in the area, although rumors of an infrastructure change have circulated for a while. Keating says that idling the Plainview plant will allow Cargill to operate its remaining beef plants in Friona, TX, Dodge City, KS, and Fort Morgan, CO, more consistently on a five-day-a-week basis, and that cattle that would have been processed in the Plainview plant will be redirected to the remaining three plants.

The Plainview plant has a capacity of around 4,000/day, which represents 16% of the capacity in the Texas Panhandle. In addition to Cargill’s Friona plant, two other fed cattle plants are located in the Texas Panhandle – Tyson in Amarillo and JBS-Swift in Cactus.

“We delayed the decision to idle Plainview as long as possible, due in part to our outstanding team and ongoing excellent support from the community. We were also hoping the drought would break, pasturelands would be restored, cattle ranchers would retain heifers, and the national herd trend of declining numbers over the past few years would be reversed,” Keating says. 

“Unfortunately, the drought has not broken, feed costs remain higher than historical averages and the herd continues to shrink. The industry has experienced this cycle in the past, although this one is longer and more severe than most. Nevertheless, we are optimistic about the long-term prospects for U.S. beef demand from American and international consumers, and that the drought in Texas and the Southern Plains will become a memory.”

Discuss this Article 14

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jan 18, 2013

The effects of our country's wrongheaded corn ethanol policy in action!

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jan 18, 2013

Couldn't agree more!!!!!!

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jan 18, 2013

Pretty narrow minded ,the corn byproduct is still viable feed source

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jan 18, 2013

Could't agree more with the above statement!!!!!!

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jan 18, 2013

you people do realize that ethanol plants provide a lot of the feedstock in the form of dried distiller grain, a byproduct of ethanol to raise the beef?

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jan 21, 2013

In Missouri where I live a pound of DDG costs more than a pound of corn. Less feed value at a higher price. Stop with all the propaganda about ethanol byproducts. They are useful but not a boon to cattle feeders.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jan 24, 2013

Im sorry but you have no idea what youre talking about! Less feed value is crazy it has more protien which is alot greater value to feeders, if they know how to use it.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Feb 3, 2013

protein has no value to feeders mr. wizard it's energy and amino acids feeders want and DDG is a poor provider of both

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jan 18, 2013

The global picture is defined by much more than one impact, policy or commodity. Packer consolidation has been a looming monster for decades, JBS will never be your friend and continued ethanol production is a negative energy source regardless of byproducts. With world protein production controled by fewer and fewer corporations the competetion for product will create financial stress. The marketing corporations will break the commodity markets to ensure their profits. Small market example: look at market lambs 2011-2012, close one processing facility and loose 50% lamb market value. Does anyone really want $80/cwt beef calves?

Jerry (not verified)
on Jan 18, 2013

yes, their are ethanol plants, but you must not be anyone that puts pounds on beef. Corn is essential, not DDG. Without ethanol subsidy the price of corn comes down, the other grains come down and the cost of food comes down. Don't burn what we eat. We can make ethanol out of other products we don't eat.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jan 18, 2013

Lets not forget that the idiots making the ethanol want as much for the by products as they paid for the corn and the feed is only a protein feed when they get through with it and you still have to buy corn. Ethanol is being pushed by big oil so they can free up refining capability for refined gas and diesel to be shipped overseas for even larger profits ! Its all a ploy for them to sell more gasoline and let America foot the bill

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jan 23, 2013

Lets be real about the whole damn thing. If you smart geniuses have such great opinions then why arent you opening or running your own damn plants

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jan 23, 2013

The diversion of the formerly "free feed" (IBP's Bob Peterson, cir. 1999) turning corn into ethanol was a savior to ranchers everywhere. Without subsidized excess corn on the market, ranchland feed values have risen by 1/3 or more -- a long overdue rise. Feeders and packers benefit from "free" or cheap feed and ranchers profoundly do not. For those ranchers who's ire I just raised, please think it through: Of course in the short term, cheaper corn prices mean immediate rises in feeder steer prices, and vice versa. But in the long term, it works the opposite. Too much corn makes for too much beef, pork and poultry. With corn diverted to ethanol, beef and less of it becomes far more competitive with the other meats. Pork and poulty are comprised mostly of digested grains, while a pound of beef is comprised of about 70-80% digested grass. Oh, the consumers might complain, now that meat prices at the grocery better reflect true cost, but everybody in this society is overdue for a nice, solid reality check.

The only truly bad thing conveyed in this article is that processing plants have become so large as to have such an impact when closed and to be beyond the reach of others to try their hand at managing for competing in a growingly non-competitive industry.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Feb 11, 2013

Will all of you rich famers stop worrying about your own cattle. Start worrying about those who have just lost their jobs. This affects peoples lives and the economy. I was there when Tyson in Norfolk Nebraska closed down and they were put on Mothballs. So this is very important to me. You need to start getting a heart. For those who have just lost their jobs and for their families!

Post new comment
Sign In or register to use your BEEF Magazine ID
(optional)

BEEF Newsletter Sign Up

Search 2.5+ million listings