Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Wednesday Closing Livestock Market Summary - Lean Hog Futures Settle Moderately in the Green, Pushing 2018 Issues to New Contract Highs

GENERAL COMMENTS
Cash cattle traders essentially put in another doing-nothing session. A few bids were noted in parts of the South at $111, $4-$5 below area asking prices. Beyond that, cash potential remain as dead as the city morgue at midnight. According to the closing report, the national hog base is $.31 higher ($59.00-$66.50, weighted average $65.52). Most corn contracts closed just shy of 2 cents lower, drifting south in lackluster volume for no apparent reason. The stock market closed lower with the Dow off 112 points and the Nasdaq down by 34.
LIVE CATTLE
After chopping around in a fairly wide range through the morning, live contracts settled on a mixed basis, up 27 to off 60. Soon-to-be-spot December closed at its highest point since July 19 (i.e., 119.512). Beef cut-outs: mixed, up $.08 (choice: $200.21) to off $.30 (select: $192.39) with light to moderate demand and moderate offerings (83 loads of choice cuts, 30 loads of select cuts, 20 loads of trimmings, 31 loads of ground beef).
THURSDAY'S CASH CATTLE CALL:
Steady to $2 higher. We should at least see more bids on the table sometime tomorrow, though significant trade volume could easily be delayed until Friday.
FEEDER CATTLE:
For the most part, feeder issues closed 32 to 67 higher, supported by follow-through buying and short covering. Only spot October closed in the red (i.e., off 27), limited by the proximity of expiration and slight discount of the cash index. January and March set new contract highs. CME cash feeder index: 10/24: 154.58, off .01.
LEAN HOGS:
Spot December through next May settled moderately higher while the far deferreds finished generally flat. February through June managed to notch new contract highs. The carcass value slipped modestly lower with lower processing items overshadowing higher loins and picnics. Pork cut-out: $76.35, off $.11. CME cash lean index for 10/23: 66.10, up .87 (DTN Projected lean index for 10/24: 67.32, up 1.22).
THURSDAY'S CASH HOG CALL:
Steady to $1 higher. Look for another round of steady/firm bids in the morning as packer work to fund another larger Saturday klll.

U.S. beef production revised slightly lower on cattle marketings

Drought conditions in the Northern Plains and Hurricanes Harvey and Irma have likely affected regional U.S. cattle production. While much of the effects from the drought in the Northern Plains has likely already played out, it is too early to estimate the impacts of the two hurricanes.
The forecast for 2017 commercial beef production was lowered by 140 million pounds to 26.6 billion pounds, on slower expected marketing pace for fed cattle through the remainder of the year, despite heavier cattle dressed weights and higher cow slaughter.

For 2018, the commercial beef production forecast is lowered from the previous month as a slower rate of placements during the second half of 2017 is likely to result in reduced steer and heifer slaughter in the first half of 2018.

Forage opportunities could expand for backgrounding feeder cattle

Favorable weather in the Southern Plains has improved pasture conditions on par with this time last year. Although improved forage conditions in the Southern Plains may increase incentives to background calves, placements in feedlots during the fourth quarter are expected to remain relatively large given the availability of cattle outside feedlots.
However, expected declines in cattle feeding margins will likely encourage feedlots to bid down the price of calves in the coming months.
Prices reported by AMS for medium-frame feeder steers weighing 750 to 800 pounds in August declined about $7 per hundredweight (cwt) from July.
Prices in early September moved higher, as improvements in forage conditions have likely provided cow-calf producers and backgrounders with the ability to hold off selling at less favorable prices. The price forecast for feeder steers in the fourth quarter is in the range of $140 to $146 per cwt, turning lower in the first quarter of 2018 to $132 to $140 per cwt.

Fed steer prices steady after large summer drops

Fed steer prices have seen little support over the past month as the price reported for the week ending Sept. 10 for 5-area fed steers was $104.92 per cwt, down sharply from this year’s high of $144.60 per cwt during the first week of May.
According to the August NASS Cattle on Feed report, the number of cattle on feed on Aug. 1 was up 4 percent year over year, and the number of cattle on feed over 120 days on Aug. 1 was up 8.6 percent from July, both in feedlots with 1,000-head-or-greater capacity. This likely implies that feedlots will have sufficient cattle to sell going into the fourth quarter, which could depress fed cattle prices.
Fed steer prices may possibly be pressured in the short term as ample supplies of cattle are available to be marketed in the fourth quarter. In addition, an abundant supply of competing meats are also available. The price forecast for the 5-area fed steers in the fourth quarter is $107 to $113 per cwt.

Fed steer prices are forecast to make a seasonal rebound in the first quarter of 2018 to $110 to $120 per cwt.

Wholesale prices present buying opportunity for retailers

The ERS-calculated retail price for Choice beef dropped from June ($620.70 per cwt) to July ($610 per cwt), relatively unchanged from 2016 price levels for the same period. At the same time, AMS reported the Choice beef cutout value (negotiated sales) averaged $192.35 per cwt for the week ending Sept. 8.
That cutout value was down sharply ($59.21) from this year’s high of $250.86 per cwt, and $2.86 lower than the same week last year. Moreover, the Choice-Select spread tumbled from historic levels of above $30 to about $2 on lower demand for the most expensive cuts (i.e., the middle meats).
However, the drop in wholesale Choice beef prices may have spurred boxed beef sales; since mid-August, beef loads have sold for delivery in 0 to 21 days and 22 to 60 days out.

Beef exports increase steadily in July

Year-over-year July U.S. beef exports increased by 10 percent to 239 million pounds. The 22 million-pound increase was contributed mostly by Japan (+13.5 million pounds), Hong Kong (+5.4 million pounds) and Canada (+1.4 million pounds). Japan was the highest U.S. export destination, receiving 31 percent of total shipments in July 2017.
The Foreign Agricultural Service weekly Exports Sales report shows year over year, larger U.S. exports to Japan in August, despite the Aug. 1 implementation of the Japanese safeguard that raises the tariff on U.S. frozen beef. Increased tariffs were likely partially offset by lower U.S. domestic prices and the relative weakening of the U.S. dollar against the Japanese yen.

Beef imports up in July 2017

U.S. beef imports increased in July 2017 by 11 percent (+31 million pounds) from the same month a year ago to 301 million pounds. This is the second consecutive month of year-over-year increases in imports in 2017. Mexico (+57 percent) and Canada (+18 percent) together shipped 30 million pounds more beef into the U.S. in July 2017 than in July 2016.
U.S. beef imports from Brazil declined by 31 percent (-5 million pounds) compared to July 2016 and 32 percent less than June 2017. This decline stems mostly from the June 22 U.S. ban imposed on imports of fresh or chilled Brazilian beef (Perdue USDA halting import fresh brazilian beef). However, increased imports from Nicaragua and Uruguay together (+5 million pounds) were about equal to the decline in imports from Brazil.

July 2017 U.S. cattle imports up from a year ago

U.S. cattle imports in July 2017 were 118,000 head, an increase of 36,000 head (+44 percent) from year-earlier levels, largely due to a 30,000-head increase from Mexico. July 2017 saw the first year-over-year increase in live cattle imports from Canada for 2017.
On a year-to-date basis, the sharp decline in imports from Canada (-87,000 head) was more than offset by increased imports from Mexico (+131,000 head). Mexico likely took advantage of higher feeder cattle prices in the U.S. by increasing shipments during late spring and summer.
Of the 2017 cattle imports from Canada, the proportion of slaughter animals relative to feeder cattle increased compared with year-earlier levels. However, this may change as Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has reported poor pasture conditions and tighter supplies of feed in Canada due to drought conditions that may contribute to increased shipments of Canadian feeder cattle to the U.S.
The AMS weekly trade report since mid-August has shown a slight uptick on feeder cattle from Canada. Based on the year-to-date pace of import growth from Mexico and anticipation of the potential impact of the Canadian drought, U.S. cattle import forecasts for 2017 and 2018 have been revised upwards from the previous month to 1.715 million head and 1.740 million head, respectively. Live export forecasts were left unchanged.

Livestock Nutrition: Are mineral supplements in your stocker program this winter?

  • F.T. McCollum III

  • Beef Cattle Production Specialist
  • Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service

Gazing across lush, green wheat or rye or triticale pasture, one might assume the nutrient needs of stocker cattle are well supplied. However, concentrations of macro- and trace minerals can range from adequate to deficient in these forages.
Deficiencies can slow growth and impair immune function. Deficiencies may also play a role in small-grain bloat.
Mineral concentrations in fresh samples of wheat and triticale forages submitted to the Dairy One Lab over a 16-year period demonstrate that relative to the daily requirements of 400- to 600-pound stocker calves:
  • Calcium concentration in forages ranges from adequate to very deficient.
  • Phosphorus ranges from slightly deficient to adequate.
  • Magnesium ranges from marginally adequate to adequate.
  • Copper and zinc also range from very deficient to adequate.
  • Heavier calves are at less risk of a deficiency than are lighter calves.
Based on these comparisons, calcium is a primary concern in a mineral supplement for small grains, and calcium concentration required in the supplements (greater than 12 percent) will be greater than those normally included in range or warm-season pasture supplements.
Phosphorus may be of some concern, but the concentration required in a supplement (less than 5 percent) would be about half or less of that normally included in range or warm-season pasture supplements.
A low concentration of supplemental magnesium may be desirable but not the concentrations used in high-magnesium tetany minerals for cows. Research has shown stocker cattle grazing small-grains pastures will respond efficiently to a complete mineral supplement.
“Complete” meaning a supplement containing salt, macro-minerals and trace minerals in appropriate concentrations. These supplements are also a means of delivering ionophores (monensin, lasalocid) that enhance weight gain.
An Oklahoma State University study found stockers provided a complete mineral without an ionophore gained 0.24 pound per day more than stockers grazing with no mineral supplement.
Adding an ionophore into the mineral supplement increased gain another 0.23 pound per day. Compared to the unsupplemented cattle, the mineral+ionophore combination increased gain 0.46 pound per day.
Stocker cattle grazing small-grains forages will respond efficiently to mineral supplements and ionophores. Be sure to consider these tools for your management program.

Livestock Nutrition: Supplementing forage diets

Colder weather means it is time to start thinking about supplementation strategies for spring-calving herds. The change in forage availability and quality may require an energy or protein supplement to meet cow nutrient requirements.
However, supplementation can be expensive, and thus the decision should be carefully analyzed to ensure the most cost-effective program is in place. Since supplementation is typically the biggest operational expense, yet an important part in maintaining good body condition prior to calving, here are a couple of considerations to help improve your bottom line.
1. Consider what is needed:
Determining whether forage is providing adequate nutrition to meet the cow’s nutrient requirements is the first step. Many factors can influence this dynamic (i.e., season, stage of production, intake, etc.). Even if forage supply is adequate, protein may be limited.
Start by estimating forage quality (i.e., records, observation, or sample analysis) to determine the amount of nutrients cows will obtain. Once forage analysis has been collected and cow nutrient requirements have been established, simply compare to determine if a deficiency exists.
2. Consider delivery method and frequency:
A number of options are available when designing a supplementation program. Selecting the right method and frequency of supplementation delivery is vital to employing the most cost-effective program. Hand-feeding provides a tool for gathering cows and decreases intake variability but will likely increase labor cost associated with delivery.
Interval feeding can reduce fuel expense and labor. A 30-percent-or-greater crude protein (CP) supplement can be fed as few as one to two times per week, and a 20- percent-or-less CP supplement should be fed at least every other day.
3. Consider evaluating the alternatives:
An effective program will factor in the cost of available supplements. Hand-fed supplements (i.e., cubes or cake) allow more flexibility for least-cost formulation. Consider evaluating available supplements on a cost per unit of nutrient provided.
An example cost calculation:
30 percent CP supplement at $250 per ton = (2,000 pounds x 30 percent CP = 600 pounds CP) (600 pounds CP / $250 per ton) = 42 cents per pound CP.
Cost per pound of nutrient simplifies choosing the most economical supplement. The goal of minimizing supplemental feed cost is the common link among each consideration. It is often a challenge to decide which supplementation system best fits your operation.
There are a range of solutions; pick the system that provides the targeted amount of nutrients and minimizes costs.