|
|
Direct Receipts
Direct Receipts: 32,500. Texas 14,200. 98 pct over 600 lbs. 24 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 FOB Price 650 lbs 105.50; 750-800 lbs 100.50-105.00; 800-825 lbs 100.85-105.25; 850-900 lbs 98.00-101.00; 550-600 lbs 109.00 Jun; 750-800 lbs 103.00-108.75 May-Jun; 800-825 lbs 104.00-105.65 Jun-Jul; 650 lbs 112.75-114.90 Jul-Aug; 750 lbs 107.50-108.00 Aug; Delivered Price 750-790 lbs 104.50-106.00; 800 lbs 103.00; 850-875 lbs 100.00-101.00. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 FOB Price 700-725 lbs 101.00-101.25; Delivered Price 625-675 lbs 102.00; 700-750 lbs 101.00-103.00; 550 lbs 102.00 Jun; 675 lbs 98.00-102.00 May-Jun; 650 lbs 101.10-102.75 Jul-Aug; Delivered Price 700 lbs 108.70 Jul. Oklahoma 4800. 100 pct over 600 lbs. 23 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 Current several loads 750 lbs 105.00; 800-850 lbs (820) 100.68; 850-900 lbs (854) 101.65; 900-950 lbs (920) 96.31; Jul few loads 850 lbs 101.00 Del. Medium and Large 1-2 Current load 675 lbs 107.00; 750-800 lbs (758) 102.65; 800-850 lbs (811) 97.89; few loads 955 lbs 88.00. Medium and Large 2 Current load 775 lbs 98.00; Jun load 650 lbs 98.00; load 700 lbs 96.00. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 Current 650-700 lbs (662) 99.89; 700-750 lbs (720) 102.92; few loads 750 lbs 94.00; load 800 lbs 92.00. Medium and Large 1-2 Current load 625 lbs 99.00; few loads 675 lbs 98.00; few loads 740 lbs 96.50; load 800 lbs 93.00; Aug load 650 lbs 95.00. Kansas 3100. 87 pct over 600 lbs. 50 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 700-750 lbs 106.00-108.50; 800 lbs 105.00. Medium and Large 2 Delivered basis 750-800 lbs 102.32-102.50. Medium 2 450 lbs 107.00; 700 lbs 100.00. Medium 2-3 Contracts June 700 lbs 99.00. Holsteins: Large 3 Delivered basis 585 lbs 75.00; 900 lbs 72.00. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 700-750 lbs 95.00-101.50. Medium and Large 1-2 750 lbs 92.00. Medium 1-2 Contracts June 700 lbs 96.47. Medium 1-2 Delivered basis 675 lbs 100.00; 800 lbs 95.50. Medium 2 575 lbs 109.00; 650 lbs 101.00. |
Don’t Forget The Tag When You Move Dairy Cattle In Texas!
Congress Targets Ethanol
Renderers Pan New Feed Rule
Card: Ethanol Lowers Gas Cost
Feeders Mostly $1-3 Higher
-
Don’t Forget The Tag When You Move Dairy Cattle In Texas!
Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) cattle tuberculosis (TB) regulations went into effect April 1, 2008, requiring an approved identification device on dairy cattle being moved within the state.
If a calf, steer, heifer, bull or cow looks like a dairy animal, make sure it has an official identification device before it’s moved within the state, stresses Dr. Bob Hillman, Texas‚ state veterinarian and head of the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC), the state’s livestock and poultry health regulatory agency.
“Dairy producers, calf raisers, feeders, or beef cattle owners who have a few dairy animals must comply with this cattle tuberculosis regulation that will aid in tracing cattle TB, if it is introduced into Texas,” said Dr. Hillman. In October 2007, the TAHC enhanced cattle TB and ID regulations for dairy animals entering from other states.
“USDA ear tags, which have been used in the Brucellosis and cattle TB programs for years, are available from the TAHC area offices at no charge for dairy cattle,” said Dr. Hillman. Cattle owners who use these tags are to maintain a simple log of the animals tagged. Information is to include the date a tag is applied to the animal, the tag number, and the animal’s breed, sex and age. The record keeping can be as simple as listing the tag number, date and the animal’s description, he said. Tag pliers are not provided, but they are available for purchase at most agricultural supply stores. Once applied, the identification is to remain on the animal. Producers not familiar with their TAHC area office can call the agency headquarters in Austin at 800-550-8242 for information.
Alternatively, cattle owners may purchase and use any of the following approved identification devices for dairy cattle:
• Electronic official AIN tags, differentiated by the first three digits of the fifteen-digit number:
• Manufacturer code “900” series RFID (radio frequency identification devices) tags, available from many feed or supply stores.
• USA prefix RFID tags
• Country code “840” series RFID tags. (To use these, producers need to register their premises in the National Animal Identification System. This can be accomplished easily and at no charge by calling the TAHC at 800-550-8242.)
• A commercially produced cattle-style clip, flap or button tag that identifies owner and includes a unique animal number in the herd.
Although dairy animals are no more susceptible to cattle TB than beef cattle, their close confinement and movement between herds presents a greater risk of exposure to the bacterial disease, if an infected animal is introduced into the herd.
Dr. Hillman explained that cattle TB has not been eradicated in the U.S. At least 12 infected beef herds have been detected in Minnesota since 2006, a state where infection had not been found since 1971. On April 9, Minnesota was downgraded to modified accredited status, the third lowest rung on the five-tiered cattle TB ranking system. In February, TB infection was detected in a large California dairy, and in 2007, infection was detected in New Mexico, Colorado and Oklahoma. For years, Michigan has battled the disease both in cattle and free-ranging deer. Texas lost cattle TB-free status in 2002, but regained it in fall 2006 after employing a strategic plan that included TB testing of dairies and purebred beef herds, and enhancing slaughter surveillance.
“Preventing the introduction of cattle TB is crucial,” said Dr. Hillman. “But, we must be prepared to deal with infection, if it does slip through. Identifying dairy and dairy-cross animals will enable us to complete epidemiological investigations more quickly, so infection can be eliminated before it spreads to more herds.”
Congress Targets Ethanol
By Chris Clayton
DTN Staff Reporter
Washington (DTN) - The chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee is asking the Environmental Protection Agency to uphold the renewable fuels standard passed by Congress last year as Republican senators from ethanol-deficit states seek rules for state waivers on the requirements.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said attempts by critics to make biofuels production the chief reason for high food and commodity prices are an “oversimplification of the problem.”
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, spearheaded the letter signed by herself and 23 other Republican senators. The letter raises questions about the “food-to-fuel mandates” that the EPA is implementing and pushes EPA to begin implementing a rule-making process that would allow the agency to waive all or portions of the 15-billion-gallon ethanol mandate for corn-based ethanol or the larger 36-billion-gallon mandate for all ethanol production.
To waive any requirements, however, the EPA must first complete the rule-making process that would define how such waivers would be allowed and implemented in the first place. The EPA has not begun issuing such rules.
The co-signors of Hutchinson’s letter, including presidential candidate John McCain, reflect some of the regional and policy differences in the Senate. The 24 Republican senators who signed the letter represent 19 states, but those states account for just 4.6 percent of the nation’s current estimated 8.5 billion gallons of current ethanol production, according to production statistics on the Renewable Fuels Association website. Only two of the 24 senators, Mike Crapo of Idaho and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, serve on the Senate Agriculture Committee.
Hutchinson and others are asking the EPA to consider freezing the ethanol mandate at the 2008 mandated level of 9 billion gallons a year.
The Senate letter follows similar requests by Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell.
Harkin criticized the effort by Republicans, claiming the senators were attempting to single out ethanol as the main culprit for high food prices when the situation is more complicated. Harkin cited the increased demand for food in Asian countries as well as the weak value of the dollar and poor harvests in some key exporting countries as the reasons behind high commodity and food prices.
“There is no question that rising food prices are turning into a global concern, but the call for EPA to halt the growth in U.S. ethanol use and cut short the promise of biofuels for our nation’s energy security is without merit,” Harkin stated.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said on a Sunday morning talk show that more effort is needed to shift away from using actual corn in ethanol to using biomass materials such as farm wastes, corn cobs and stalks.
“Let’s figure out what other food, you know, waste we can use,” Clinton said. “In the short run, we’ve got to work with our farmers and with like-minded people around the world to find out how this increasing use in biofuels, which is part of our answer to dependence on foreign oil, does not undermine food production and really accelerate the prices.’’
The farm bill, which should be completed later this month, emphasizes a policy effort to shift toward cellulosic ethanol production. The bill would lower the ethanol blenders’ credit from 51 cents a gallon to 45 cents a gallon while providing credits that would ensure cellulosic ethanol plants generate $1 a gallon in credits for production and blending cellulosic ethanol. The bill also provides loan guarantees for cellulosic ethanol facilities.
Staffers on the House side said they knew of no similar letter being circulated among their caucus, though ethanol production is increasingly being examined. Ethanol and the RFS will be the focus of a hearing by the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality. The subcommittee will examine the renewable fuels standard with a witness list that includes a mix of pro-ethanol forces such as the Renewable Fuels Association and the National Corn Growers Association, along with critics such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Grocery-Manufacturers Association.
Renderers Pan New Feed Rule
Washington (Dow Jones) — Renderers take cattle carcasses unfit for human consumption and turn them into animal feed, but the industry is threatened by a new federal rule that could generate more waste and less feed by making the rendering process just too expensive for some U.S. companies.
The new rule, published by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on April 25 and scheduled for implementation one year from then, would require a costly procedure of removing the brain and spinal cord from carcasses of older cattle before they could be rendered — something National Renderers Association President Thomas Cook said might dissuade companies from using the dead cattle at all.
And that, the association estimates, would throw into question the disposition of hundreds of millions of pounds cattle material once useful for its protein content. Instead of going to commerce, much of it would have to go into landfills.
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad-cow disease, can be spread among cattle if they are fed ground up material from infected cattle. That’s how the disease originally spread so rapidly in England and it’s why the FDA banned feeding bovine material to cattle in 1997. That 1997 feed ban is not enough, though, according to the FDA, because other non-livestock feed could be infected and could get mixed up with cattle feed.
The U.S. discovered its first case of BSE in December 2003 and has since reported two other cases of the disease. BSE is a degenerative disease affecting the central nervous system of cattle and is always fatal. Humans who eat contaminated beef can contract variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.
All bovine material is not prohibited from non-cattle livestock feed, though. Just the brains and spinal cord — where most BSE infectivity is believed to be found — will be banned and only from older cattle that are believed to be most prone to infection. Cattle under 30 months old are believed by the FDA and U.S. Agriculture Department to be too young to contract BSE.
The FDA estimates the cost of the rule at over $100 million for the first year and as much as $81 million in following years. Most of that cost would be born by renderers, but a large chunk — up to $35.7 billion — would be generated by new costs for disposal.
Millions of Pounds of Brains
One problem will be the disposal of old cattle that die on the farm. If renderers no longer see profit in picking those dead animals up for processing, it would be up to the livestock producer to get rid of the carcass.
That would add new expenses for farmers and likely put some rendering companies out of business, according to the FDA.
But there are also large slaughter operations that solely process old cattle, like dairy cows that no longer produce milk. Animals rejected by these operations are a large source of material for renderers and the new FDA rule is expected to generate a large-scale stream of brains and spinal cord that will have to be dealt with.
By the FDA’s reckoning, the amount of “cattle materials prohibited in animal feed” after the rule is implemented, “would range from 610 million to 733 million” pounds.
That’s actually small compared to an earlier analysis.
The new FDA feed rule only requires that brains and spinal cord be removed from cattle over 30 months old, but several years ago an earlier proposal considered forcing the removal of that material from all cattle. A 2004 analysis predicted such a rule would result in 2.1 billion pounds of bovine material that would have to be destroyed.
Why Now?
The FDA first announced its intentions to strengthen the feed ban in 2004 and then published the first rule proposal in 2005. In 2006, the FDA said it had severely underestimated the cost of its proposal on U.S. companies and indefinitely postponed publishing a final rule.
Steve Sundlof, who was then director of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine, told Dow Jones Newswires in a 2006 interview the proposed rule was not workable. Most companies, he said, would not be able to comply.
Only a minority of companies, Sundlof said, “would be willing to separate the brain and spinal cord out.”
Since then, the U.S. and South Korea negotiated a free trade agreement that would substantially cut tariffs and boost trade of a wide range of goods. U.S. lawmakers, though, balked at approving the FTA while South Korea continued to place BSE-based restrictions on U.S. beef.
South Korea agreed during negotiations this year to lift those import restrictions, but demanded the U.S. strengthen its livestock feed restrictions, according to U.S. and South Korean government officials speaking on terms of anonymity.
The U.S. Trade Representative announced on April 18 that South Korea had agreed to lift its import restrictions a decision that is expected to facilitate hundreds of millions of dollars of renewed beef exports there yearly. The new FDA feed rule was published the following week.
Card: Ethanol Lowers Gas Cost
By Todd Neeley
DTN Staff Reporter
Omaha (DTN) — A new study from the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University backs up what ethanol industry officials have been saying for the past month: Increased ethanol production has helped keep down what are already high gasoline prices.
Ethanol has been taking a lot of the heat for rising food prices lately, but the CARD study found that increased ethanol production is saving consumers money at the pump — and has been for the past 12 years.
The full study is available at http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/08wp467.pdf.
Between 1995 and 2007 ethanol production has had a “significant negative effect” on the price of gasoline, keeping retail gasoline prices between 29 cents and 40 cents per gallon lower than they would have been otherwise.
“The results suggest that this reduction in gasoline prices came at the expense of refiners’ profits,” the study said. “These results are statistically significant across a range of model specifications and across all regions.”
Brian Milne, DTN refined fuels editor and product manager, said ethanol is having a major effect on gasoline prices at a time when gasoline demand is easing because of higher prices.
“This has allowed supply levels to build, which depresses prices, and we are seeing that now,” he said. “You will not see a new gasoline producing unit built in this country because this trend will continue. Refiners are not happy about ethanol at all, and some still call for a full repeal of the mandate.”
Milne said refiners are able to cash in on the 51-cent blenders’ tax credit and suppliers are transitioning to E10 in markets where ethanol blending never occurred, in order to meet the renewable fuel standard and to collect the tax subsidy.
“What’s really eating refiners’ profits this year is the cost of crude,” he said. “The high supply levels, lower demand and ethanol are all weighing on gasoline asking prices and they can’t simply pass on the cost of crude. It was a completely different story last year at this time.”
The CARD study found that ethanol production has had the most significant effect on gas prices in the Midwest where the bulk of U.S. ethanol production occurs.
In the Midwest gas prices were reduced by an average of nearly 40 cents per gallon. The Gulf Coast region experienced a reduction of nearly 25 cents per gallon while the average on the East and West Coasts was around 23 cents per gallon.
The study found that the Rocky Mountain region experienced the smallest reduction from ethanol use at around 17 cents per gallon because of its “comparatively low” gasoline consumption.
“These reductions in retail gasoline prices are surprisingly large,” according to the study.
The availability of ethanol increased the capacity of the U.S. refinery industry, “and in so doing prevented some of the dramatic price increases often associated with an industry operating at close to capacity.”
CARD said that because the study results are based on capacity, it would be wrong to project the results to today’s markets.
“Had we not had ethanol, it seems likely that the crude oil refining industry would be slightly larger today than it actually is,” the study found, “and in the absence of this additional crude oil refining capacity the impact of eliminating ethanol would be extreme.”
The CARD study supports the findings of an April analysis by John Urbanchuck, director of LECG LLC, a global expert services firm. This study found that increased ethanol blending in Missouri saved consumers money at the pump in 2007.
The full study is available at http://www.mocorn.org/news/2008/LECG_MO_E10_Analysis.pdf.
On Jan. 1, 2008, Missouri became the third state to require all gasoline sold in the state to be blended with 10 percent ethanol. The Missouri Department of Agriculture said that ethanol was voluntarily blended in about 70 percent of gasoline sold in the state.
Using E10 saved Missouri drivers an estimated 7.7 cents per gallon in 2007, the LECG study said, for a total savings of $158.2 million, or $40 for each of Missouri’s 3.9 million licensed drivers.
“Reflecting current gasoline and ethanol price movements, the savings are expected to average 9.8 cents per gallon, or $72.80 per driver, this year as 10 percent ethanol is used statewide in 2008,” the LEGG study said.
Feeders Mostly $1-3 Higher
St. Joseph, MO — May 2 (F-S) National feeder cattle receipts: 212,500. Feeder calves and yearlings sold mostly $1-3 higher, with several auctions $2-4 higher than last week. Demand was good for all classes of feeders with aggressive bidding as in most cases this week weighing and flesh conditions were attractive. Several auctions reported heavier than expected runs this week the result of good demand and higher prices. We are several weeks into spring; the grass is here with fields too wet to plant corn, has resulted in good interest from farmer buyers. Much this spring is riding on the size of the corn and soybean crop and forage this summer as weather unfolds. Demand remains good on feeder cattle despite the cattle industry adjusting to the realities of higher feed cost, lingering drought in the southwest and feeding cattle in the biofuels era. The Commerce Department reported Thursday that consumer spending was up 0.4 percent in March, double the increase that economists had forecast. Higher food prices were in the news this week as Congress held hearings on soaring cost of food products, this along with record gasoline prices has consumer spending being carefully watched. The Federal Reserve on Wednesday cut a key interest rate for the seventh time in the past eight months. There are signals of reduced consumer spending at restaurants and forcing more consumers to eat at home. With the grilling season upon us and more consumers choosing to stay home for meals it becomes more important to promote the grilling season as consumer eating habits change in a slumping economy. Feedlot trade occurred in the Southern Plains on Thursday on mostly steady money at $92, with dressed sales at $145.50. Nebraska traded on Friday at $149 on dressed sales, a $1 lower than last week. Live sales traded fully steady at $93.00-93.50. Boxed beef weekly average for Friday closed at $154.85 up 0.36 cents from a week ago. Corn planting remains 2-3 weeks behind schedule as wet weather still persist through the corn-belt. There seems to be enough clearing to create uncertainty on how much has been planted. Corn still had a strong week with May, July and December all gaining. December corn hit all-time highs this week when it hit 6.37 3/4 briefly. This week’s reported volume included 48 percent over 600 lbs and 44 percent heifers.
Texas 17,000. 40 pct over 600 lbs. 40 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (330) 132.13; 350-400 lbs (375) 124.18; 400-450 lbs (426) 120.72; 450-500 lbs (476) 117.46; 500-550 lbs (523) 112.78; 550-600 lbs (585) 113.28; 600-650 lbs (627) 104.30; 650-700 lbs (680) 106.94; 700-750 lbs (718) 105.00; 750-800 lbs (782) 105.23; 800-850 lbs (826) 101.75; 850-900 lbs (882) 95.20. Medium and Large 1-2 500-550 lbs (530) 114.78; 550-600 lbs (552) 112.49; 650-700 lbs (672) 106.75; 750-800 lbs (786) 102.76; pkg 840 lbs 96.23; 850-900 lbs (888) 92.06. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (332) 113.52; 350-400 lbs (366) 112.62; 400-450 lbs (425) 108.01; 450-500 lbs (469) 105.12; 500-550 lbs (519) 100.70; 550-600 lbs (571) 98.08; 600-650 lbs (623) 100.24; 700-750 lbs (710) 97.79; 750-800 lbs (751) 96.22. Medium and Large 1-2 400-450 lbs (430) 102.86; 450-500 lbs (456) 102.03; 500-550 lbs (517) 100.75; 550-600 lbs (587) 95.88; 600-650 lbs (637) 96.66; 650-700 lbs (661) 97.09; 700-750 lbs (736) 92.86; 700-750 lbs (736) 92.86; 750-800 lbs (784) 90.57.
Oklahoma 26,800. 74 pct over 600 lbs. 34 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (333) 130.19; 350-400 lbs (376) 131.72; 400-450 lbs (427) 127.48; 450-500 lbs (473) 121.91; 500-550 lbs (516) 121.44; 550-600 lbs (573) 116.19; 600-650 lbs (621) 111.32; 650-700 lbs (670) 110.19; 700-750 lbs (730) 108.39; 750-800 lbs (778) 106.04; 800-850 lbs (825) 103.65; 850-900 lbs (870) 100.33. Medium and Large 1-2 400-450 lbs (425) 122.05; 450-500 lbs (480) 119.31; 500-550 lbs (518) 117.94; 550-600 lbs (567) 114.26; 600-650 lbs (636) 111.15; 650-700 lbs (680) 107.67; 700-750 lbs (721) 108.14; 750-800 lbs (788) 104.27; 800-850 lbs (829) 101.86; 850-900 lbs (877) 96.21. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (329) 111.82; 350-400 lbs (372) 111.61; 400-450 lbs (424) 109.71; 450-500 lbs (478) 109.50; 500-550 lbs (523) 106.85; 550-600 lbs (576) 105.54; 600-650 lbs (625) 103.94; 650-700 lbs (670) 102.84; 700-750 lbs (724) 99.70; 750-800 lbs (770) 96.65; 800-850 lbs (813) 93.70; 850-900 lbs (867) 92.30. Medium and Large 1-2 pkg 375 lbs 114.00; 400-450 lbs (422) 107.23; 450-500 lbs (464) 106.41; 500-550 lbs (535) 107.75; 550-600 lbs (560) 104.96; 600-650 lbs (638) 102.46; 650-700 lbs (673) 99.26; 700-750 lbs (723) 95.08; 750-800 lbs (752) 95.43; 800-850 lbs (834) 85.07; pkg 850 lbs 91.00.
New Mexico 3900. 21 pct over 600 lbs. 48 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (322) 137.24; 350-400 lbs (377) 130.98; 400-450 lbs (423) 124.91; 450-500 lbs (466) 117.24; 500-550 lbs (525) 117.46; 600-650 lbs (626) 106.18; 750-800 lbs (790) 101.45. Medium and Large 1-2 550-600 lbs (581) 109.66; 650-700 lbs (680) 100.94. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (334) 110.58; 350-400 lbs (378) 100.38; 400-450 lbs (424) 105.04; 450-500 lbs (470) 102.37; 550-600 lbs (574) 100.46; 600-650 lbs (631) 94.44; 650-700 lbs (676) 93.78. Medium and Large 1-2 450-500 lbs (483) 106.71.
Kansas 11,800. 83 pct over 600 lbs. 42 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 400-450 lbs (419) 127.36; 450-500 lbs (463) 128.05; 500-550 lbs (521) 124.16; 550-600 lbs (588) 124.69; 600-650 lbs (623) 114.92; 650-700 lbs (681) 113.15; 700-750 lbs (723) 109.26; 750-800 lbs (776) 106.76; 800-850 lbs (826) 104.22; 850-900 lbs (871) 102.34. Medium and Large 1-2 550-600 lbs (572) 117.17; 600-650 lbs (622) 114.08; 650-700 lbs (689) 109.65; 700-750 lbs (742) 107.31; 750-800 lbs (779) 104.77; 800-850 lbs (829) 102.14; 850-900 lbs (886) 98.24. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (333) 116.03; 400-450 lbs (422) 111.59; 450-500 lbs (479) 111.75; 500-550 lbs (530) 113.99; 550-600 lbs (568) 110.80; 600-650 lbs (621) 106.46; 650-700 lbs (678) 103.10; 700-750 lbs (719) 101.60; 750-800 lbs (779) 96.99; 800-850 lbs (822) 96.50; 850-900 lbs (872) 92.06. Medium and Large 1-2 400-450 lbs (424) 108.52; 500-550 lbs (525) 108.92; 550-600 lbs (578) 107.09; 600-650 lbs (626) 101.49; 650-700 lbs (674) 99.31; pkg 780 lbs 97.25; 800-850 lbs (819) 91.70; 850-900 lbs (889) 89.23.
Missouri 31,000. 42 pct over 600 lbs. 42 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (323) 129.04; 350-400 lbs (376) 125.42; 400-450 lbs (426) 123.84; 450-500 lbs (476) 121.67; 500-550 lbs (525) 117.36; 550-600 lbs (574) 115.95; 600-650 lbs (622) 113.25; 650-700 lbs (674) 108.98; 700-750 lbs (721) 110.00; 750-800 lbs (774) 105.68; 800-850 lbs (821) 103.15; 850-900 lbs (876) 97.51. Medium and Large 1-2 300-350 lbs (322) 120.20; 350-400 lbs (374) 120.74; 400-450 lbs (425) 117.89; 450-500 lbs (476) 115.67; 500-550 lbs (523) 112.55; 550-600 lbs (571) 111.26; 600-650 lbs (625) 109.70; 650-700 lbs (673) 107.19; 700-750 lbs (724) 103.93; 750-800 lbs (771) 101.74; 800-850 lbs (817) 98.87; 850-900 lbs (874) 96.35. Holsteins: Large 3 300-350 lbs (331) 82.64; 350-400 lbs (371) 78.48; 400-450 lbs (417) 71.89; 450-500 lbs (467) 73.85; 500-550 lbs (528) 75.76; 550-600 lbs (571) 71.28; 600-650 lbs (614) 63.90; 650-700 lbs (684) 68.21; 700-750 lbs (724) 69.21; 800-850 lbs (829) 69.08. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (329) 113.35; 350-400 lbs (379) 110.32; 400-450 lbs (428) 107.72; 450-500 lbs (478) 106.19; 500-550 lbs (525) 106.78; 550-600 lbs (574) 104.75; 600-650 lbs (620) 103.83; 650-700 lbs (673) 100.52; 700-750 lbs (721) 98.62; 750-800 lbs (785) 93.12; 800-850 lbs (821) 92.96; 850-900 lbs (873) 92.24. Medium and Large 1-2 300-350 lbs (333) 108.31; 350-400 lbs (378) 105.27; 400-450 lbs (426) 103.60; 450-500 lbs (473) 102.41; 500-550 lbs (525) 101.66; 550-600 lbs (573) 101.10; 600-650 lbs (622) 96.21; 650-700 lbs (671) 97.17; 700-750 lbs (725) 96.01; 750-800 lbs (787) 91.71; 800-850 lbs (826) 87.30; 850-900 lbs (875) 87.16.
Arkansas 6300. 26 pct over 600 lbs. 45 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (322) 122.47; 350-400 lbs (374) 120.31; 400-450 lbs (425) 118.77; 450-500 lbs (474) 114.58; 500-550 lbs (521) 112.51; 550-600 lbs (573) 108.40; 600-650 lbs (620) 104.94; 650-700 lbs (673) 100.49; 700-750 lbs (728) 100.68. Medium and Large 2 300-350 lbs (321) 118.20; 350-400 lbs (375) 112.17; 400-450 lbs (424) 109.09; 450-500 lbs (472) 106.30; 500-550 lbs (525) 101.09. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (321) 108.21; 350-400 lbs (373) 106.54; 400-450 lbs (422) 103.99; 450-500 lbs (476) 101.89; 500-550 lbs (524) 99.22; 550-600 lbs (575) 97.03; 600-650 lbs (623) 95.43; 650-700 lbs (671) 91.83. Medium and Large 2 300-350 lbs (326) 103.55; 350-400 lbs (375) 100.45; 400-450 lbs (423) 95.60; 450-500 lbs (476) 93.04; 500-550 lbs (525) 90.46; 550-600 lbs (574) 92.01; 600-650 lbs (627) 89.18.
|