USDA Falls Short On Regulating Genetically Engineered Crops

By Todd Neeley
DTN Staff Reporter

Omaha (DTN) – USDA needs to determine how to regulate new genetic engineering technologies and do a better job of monitoring pollen from crop fields containing transgenic crops, according to a new report from U.S. Government Accountability Office.
“Until a rule is finalized, USDA will continue to lack regulatory authority to assess the potential risks, if any, posed by GE crops created with alternative technologies,” the GAO said in its report. The question is whether organisms produced by gene-editing, gene-silencing and other new genetic engineering (GE) techniques should be regulated in the same way as existing transgenic plants.
As of November 2015, USDA had received 44 letters of inquiry from GE crop developers asking if their GE crops are subject to current USDA regulations, according to the report.
“As of that date, according to agency officials and USDA’s website, USDA had determined that 30 of these GE crops are not subject to USDA regulations and one GE crop is subject to USDA regulations; the agency’s responses to the remaining 13 letters were pending,” GAO said.
USDA officials said they expect the number of GE crops developed with alternative technologies to increase because the technologies are generally more efficient and precise.
USDA took steps to update its regulations in 2008 in an attempt to account for GE crops developed with alternative technologies.
“However, in February 2015, USDA withdrew its proposed rule because, in part, the scope of this rule was not clear,” the GAO said. “USDA still intends to update its regulations, but has not established a timeline for doing so.”
CROP MIXING
Also of concern is the extent of unintentional mixing of pollen between GE and traditional crops.
“USDA has limited data on the extent and impact of unintended mixing of GE and non-GE crops (including unintended cross-pollination with GE products that may occur in crops such as corn), according to USDA officials and stakeholders. USDA officials said that the agency has generally not collected information on unintended mixing in past farmer surveys because no specific request had been made to obtain this information.”
The GAO cited a 2012 report from the USDA Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture. At the time, the committee recommended USDA fund or conduct research to include examining potential economic losses incurred by farmers as a result of unintended GE crop mixing.
A 2014 USDA survey of organic farmers found there to be economic losses from “unintended GE presence in their crops offered for sale.” However, the survey found economic losses from unintended GE material in organic crops to be at “very small levels.”
The GAO found USDA does not have similar data for farmers using non-GE seed and marketing their crops as a specific genetic variety of a crop.
“USDA officials said identity-preserved crop acreage is significantly greater than organic crop acreage,” GAO said. “Without including farmers growing identity-preserved crops in addition to those growing organic crops in its survey efforts, USDA is missing key information on the potential economic impacts of unintended mixing.”
USDA, EPA and FDA provide varying degrees of information about their oversight of GE crops to the public, according to the report. USDA and industry groups estimate at least 90% of many major commercial crops including corn and soybeans are GE varieties.
The GAO recommends USDA set a timeline for updating its regulations and “include farmers growing identity-preserved crops in its survey efforts to better understand the impacts of unintended mixing. USDA generally agreed with these recommendations.”
Chances of finalizing updated rules during the final months of the Obama administration are not good, the GAO said.
“Although publishing the notice, impact statement and proposed rule in the coming months are good first steps, without setting a timeline, with milestones and interim steps, for updating its GE crop regulations,” GAO said, “it will be difficult for the agency to set priorities, use resources efficiently, measure progress, and provide management a means to monitor the agency’s progress in promulgating a new rule.
“In addition, until a rule is finalized, USDA will not be able to fully assess the potential risks to plant and environmental health posed by GE crops created with alternative technologies.”
Read the full GAO report here: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-241.

Corn Earworm Targeted With STD

By Emily Unglesbee
DTN Staff Reporter

Rockville, MD. (DTN) – The corn earworm populations in your cornfield have a dirty little secret.
Many of them may be carrying a damaging sexually transmitted disease (STD) caused by a nudivirus. In its wild form, the virus is capable of sterilizing one-third of the moths who carry it.
Now researchers from the University of Kentucky and a biotechnology firm called ParaTechs have succeeded in developing and testing a mutant version of the nudivirus that sterilizes 100% of the corn earworms it infects.
The scientists behind this discovery believe it could be a game-changing bio-insecticide that could greatly reduce the amount of chemicals required to control the earworm. However, many hurdles stand between them and this vision, including biological concerns, regulatory requirements and an urgent need for funding.
THE VISION
Depending on the crop, the corn earworm is mostly controlled with Bt proteins and insecticides. The mutated nudivirus could ease the reliance on chemicals, said Bruce Webb, an entomologist with the University of Kentucky, co-founder of Paratechs and the scientist who initiated the research project.
ParaTechs research scientist Kendra Steele did the work to hunt down the more damaging mutant version of the nudivirus. She exposed the wild virus repeatedly to chemicals and examined the aftermath for promising genetic mutations, a process known as chemical mutagenesis.
Webb’s student, Alonna Wright, then worked with Steele to infect corn earworm moths carrying the wild version of the STD with the mutant version. The results were exciting – 100% of the moths were sterilized and a vision of an extremely effective bio-insecticide was born.
Much research lies ahead, but past studies on the nudivirus have allowed Webb and his fellow researchers to craft a theory on how the virus could be deployed in commercial agriculture.
“We could release adult insects infected with the mutant virus, and they would sterilize both males and females they mated with,” Webb explained. Like a poisonous gift that keeps on giving, the virus could also infect a portion of the eggs carried by female moths, Webb added. “The larvae will survive and have a low dose of viral infection that amplifies as they grow,” he explained.
Once they were adults, those moths would be totally sterile but could still infect any adult they mated with – the benefit of working with a sexually transmitted virus.
“It’s like throwing a bomb into a field, but after the initial damage, then the next generation of earworm will have an echo of that bomb,” Webb said. “That echo generation could be as big or even bigger than the number initially released into the field,” he posited.
The corn earworm is a fairly prolific pest. In good conditions, it can crank out anywhere from two to seven generations. “If we knock out an early generation, that could have a tremendous impact,” Webb said.
DODGING RESISTANCE
A common problem with current insecticides, both chemicals and Bt traits, is that insects can develop resistance to them.
But viruses are also living, changing organisms that could likewise evolve to combat insect resistance, Webb pointed out. Fighting resistance is in their DNA.
“That’s why viruses are able to persist in populations – they’re in a sort of evolutionary arms race, competing to out-compete the resistance their host might develop,” he explained. “We could manipulate the virus by selecting for viral resistance variants.”
SAFETY CONCERNS
In order for the mutant STD virus to be used safely, more research is needed to understand how it affects other insects, Webb said. Beneficial insects such as honeybees and monarchs don’t appear to be susceptible, but some fellow noctuid moths might be.
Being able to target very close relatives of the earworm could be a bonus.
The corn earworm’s cousin – Helicoverpa armigera or the Old World Bollworm – is an aggressive and far more damaging global pest that was recently found in the U.S. The bollworm is known for rapidly developing resistance to insecticides used against it, so growers around the world would welcome a new control method, Webb noted.
However, in order to convince regulatory authorities that the virus is safe to release in the wild, its effects need to be very narrow and targeted, Webb conceded. He believes the virus is unlikely to harm species beyond the earworm and the Old World Bollworm, which have been known to mate with each other.
“There are multiple barriers to transmission between species – even within the noctuids,” he said. “The first is that the virus is transmitted sexually, and insects of different species very rarely mate.”
One past study showed that the virus could replicate within closely related noctuid moth species, but it did not show that the earworm could pass the virus on to them or that the other noctuid moths could transmit it within their own species.
“This is something we plan to test but it is not high on our priority list right now,” Webb said.
THE SEARCH FOR FUNDING
The virus’s potential regulatory pathway – the bane of many developing pesticides – actually appears fairly smooth. Because chemical mutagenesis is not considered a genetically modified (GM) technique, the virus wouldn’t have to overcome biotech regulatory hurdles.
Early discussions with a USDA regulatory assistance group suggests that registering the virus as a bio-insecticide would require a five-year timeframe once it was submitted, Webb said.
However, before they can tackle these additional studies and regulatory requirements, the team must secure funding, Webb said.
Their initial study was funded by a National Science Foundation Phase I grant. However, an NSF advisory panel declined to continue their funding, citing the dangers and difficulties of releasing a mutant virus into the wild as well as the scientists’ lack of business experience.
Webb has been in contact with agricultural companies that have expressed interest, but the team needs more studies before they can prove the value of the virus to them.
He hopes the virus’s potential will speak for itself in future funding bids.
“This will be a reduced risk virus, with no biological consequences beyond its target pests,” he said. “A lot of features about it have tremendous appeal.”

Pigs Pose Problems For Producers Around The State

Overton – Wild pigs continue to plague farmers and ranchers in much of the state.
They are a year-round nuisance to producers, said Dr. Billy Higginbotham, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service wildlife specialist in Overton, but farrowing, the birth of new litters of pigs, typically peaks in the spring.
Higginbotham said farmers and ranchers in 253 of 254 Texas counties face a constant battle to prevent or reduce damages by wild pigs. The statewide population estimate is around 2.6 million wild pigs, and limited ways of controlling their numbers means they are here to stay, he said.
“Given the population numbers, there’s no way to eradicate them but you can reduce exposure to damage by managing their numbers,” Higginbotham said.
It costs producers time and money to repair damages and deal with the wild pig population, he said. Higginbotham said 71 percent of landowners with pastureland who responded to an AgriLife Extension survey reported damages by wild pigs.
A conservative estimate of statewide damages based on a decade-old study puts the annual cost to farmers and ranchers at $52 million. Producers spent an additional $7 million each year to repair damages and deal with wild pig populations, according to the same estimate.
Wild pigs are omnivores and will seek any food source for calories, Higginbotham said. They cause much of the damages to crops when they dig, or root, for food sources, such as grub worms, planted seed and plant roots.
Higginbotham said the wild pigs are especially damaging to hay pastures in East Texas. Pastures are rooted up and must be smoothed by farmers to allow hay equipment to access the land. Disturbed soil also creates weed control problems, he said.
Landowners should monitor for signs of wild pig activity, such as tracks, rubs against fence posts and trees, well-used trails and hair stuck on barbed-wire fences where they cross, he said.
“If you see the signs of hogs it’s best to take a proactive approach and try to reduce their numbers,” he said. “They may just be moving through your land but eventually they will cause problems. The more you reduce their numbers the more you reduce the damage they cause.”
Higginbotham said there are four legal ways to address wild hogs in Texas – trapping, snaring, shooting and catch dogs.
Hiring professional shooters to reduce wild pig numbers from helicopters represents a cost-effective way for farmers and ranchers in parts of the state with less tree canopy, but in East Texas trapping is advised, Higginbotham said. Corral-type traps work best, especially when a landowner can catch an entire family or sounder of pigs, he said.
But Higginbotham said it takes a process to trap effectively. Pigs must be “hooked” on the bait before placement of the trap, he said. The trap should then be baited to allow the pigs to get comfortable.
“It could take a week, it could take several weeks depending on how much trapping pressure they’ve experienced,” he said.
Higginbotham suggested landowners speak to their local AgriLife Extension agents for tips on what works best in their area to trap wild pigs.

Direct Receipts

Direct Receipts: 35,500

Texas 21,300. 97 pct over 600 lbs. 32 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 FOB Current 775 lbs 153.03; 850-875 lbs 140.44; May 775 lbs 147.95; June 775 lbs 146.95; Aug 750 lbs 147.35; Del Current 810 lbs 144.00; June 800 lbs 147.47; July 725 lbs 154.00; 800 lbs 146.01; Aug 700 lbs 157.67; 750 lbs 152.00; 800 lbs 146.28; Sept 800 lbs 141.50. Medium and Large 1-2 FOB Current 650 lbs 140.00; 725 lbs 150.10; 750-800 lbs 146.03; 800-840 lbs 140.73; 900-925 lbs 135.72; May 750 lbs 151.50; 800 lbs 140.46; Del Current 600 lbs 148.00 Mex; 700 lbs 138.00 Mex; 750-785 lbs 153.84; 800-825 lbs 148.10; 970 lbs 135.00; May 775 lbs 148.95; June 750 lbs 153.40; 850 lbs 144.64; July 650 lbs 157.10; Aug 565 lbs 169.00; 625 lbs 159.00; 775 lbs 149.00; Sept 725 lbs 147.00. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 FOB Current 725 lbs 142.44; 750 lbs 140.00; May 675 lbs 142.95; July 725 lbs 135.75; Del Current 700 lbs 141.50; June 700 lbs 145.00; July 700-725 lbs 140.26; Aug 700-725 lbs 140.80. Medium and Large 1-2 FOB Current 690 lbs 137.50; 700 lbs 146.77; 825 lbs 132.65; Del Current 750-775 lbs 135.88; July 625 lbs 147.10; 650 lbs 152.20; Aug 600 lbs 150.00; Sept 700 lbs 138.90.

Oklahoma 4100. 100 pct over 600 lbs. 30 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 Current 875 lbs 140.99; June 800 lbs 140.90; July 725 lbs 150.50. Medium and Large 1-2 Current 750 lbs 144.85; 825 lbs 140.06; 850-880 lbs 136.57; Aug 700 lbs 154.50; 750 lbs 148.50. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 Current 675 lbs 150.50; July 700 lbs 140.20; Aug 700 lbs 140.50. Medium and Large 1-2 Aug 700 lbs 136.13.

New Mexico 300. 100 pct over 600 lbs. 100 pct heifers. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 Current 700 lbs 140.50.

Kansas 2600. 100 pct over 600 lbs. 58 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 FOB Current 850-890 lbs 140.40; Del 750 lbs 147.00; 825 lbs 143.75. Medium and Large 1-2 Del Current 800-840 lbs 138.29; July 800 lbs 141.00. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 FOB Current 750-775 lbs 141.13; May 625 lbs 149.31; June lbs 146.21; July 700 lbs 137.10.

National Feeder Cattle Summary

St. Joseph, MO — April 22
National feeder cattle receipts: 164,700

Steers and heifers traded mostly $5-10 lower with some major auction barns reporting as much as $12-15 lower. Monday’s limit losses in the cattle complex at the CME really set the tone for the week and it was a big hole to dig out of. Such extreme losses early for Live Cattle contracts especially were hard to figure after three weeks of active mid-week fat trade (at steady to higher money) and the fact that boxed beef cutouts moved about $10 higher just last week. Cattle futures took losses pretty much all week, managing to stay just either side of steady a couple days but for the most part the losses were severe. Order buyers were also watching a tremendous grain rally early in the week, and a volatile corn market never has a positive impact on cash feeder cattle trade. A well timed rain throughout the Corn Belt midweek did settle grain contracts somewhat, just as corn and beans were at or near some psychological prices of $4/bu and $10/bu respectively. Dry weather has been near ideal for corn planting but looking forward long term, many areas in the Midwest are already abnormally dry which is a major concern this early in the spring. Light and middle weight calves were victims of the sharpest losses this week, while their heavy yearling counterparts mostly traded steady to $5 lower. Those lightweights still have a lot of growing to do before they are ready to market and the heavier cattle still have a (slim) chance to make a profit in a quick turnaround. As volatility prevails buyers become more hesitant to take ownership of anything that they can’t lock in somewhere and there aren’t many attractive options for light cattle at the time being. Basic principles of economics weigh heavily against a rally as inventories are on the rise and meat movement will have to improve to keep pace. Pretty light fat trade as of midday Friday, not enough to truly establish a market with feedlots and packers alike waiting for USDA’s Cattle on Feed report to release later in the afternoon. Some trade did break open in Kansas around midday at $127, $7 lower than a week ago and some dressed sales in Nebraska coming in at the $200 mark, a whopping $14-16 lower. All signs point to a bearish report and if that is accurate, any remaining trade will likely take even sharper losses to finish out the week.

Texas 4200. 79 pct heifers. 35 pct over 600 lbs. Steers: Medium and Large 1 pkg 347 lbs 210.00; pkg 375 lbs 215.00; pkg 435 lbs 198.00; 450-500 lbs (470) 204.60; 500-550 lbs (526) 175.63; 550-600 lbs (569) 152.53; 600-650 lbs (614) 156.95; 650-700 lbs (671) 154.50; pkg 722 lbs 144.00; 750-800 lbs (773) 145.92; 800-850 lbs (814) 141.09; 850-900 lbs (856) 135.80; load 935 lbs 133.10. Medium and Large 1-2 pkg 315 lbs 200.00; pkg 350 lbs 186.00; pkg 418 lbs 176.00; pkg 508 lbs 163.00; 550-600 lbs (572) 166.56; pkg 648 lbs 145.00; 650-700 lbs (695) 145.37; 700-750 lbs (714) 145.76; part load 791 lbs 142.50; 800-850 lbs (818) 138.85; 850-900 lbs (865) 138.59; pkg 900 lbs 129.00; pkg 955 lbs 127.00. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 pkg 308 lbs 180.00; pkg 350 lbs 195.00; pkg 470 lbs 153.00; 500-550 lbs (518) 146.66; 550-600 lbs (587) 145.27; 600-650 lbs (620) 138.43; 650-700 lbs (684) 135.14; 700-750 lbs (732) 128.10; 750-800 lbs (765) 128.68; 800-850 lbs (809) 120.27; part load 942 lbs 118.50. Medium and Large 1-2 300-350 lbs (326) 180.45; pkg 428 lbs 149.50; 450-500 lbs (466) 146.61; 500-550 lbs (516) 146.18; 550-600 lbs (577) 129.91; 600-650 lbs (626) 132.69; 650-700 lbs (672) 133.48; 700-750 lbs (721) 127.69; 750-800 lbs (776) 126.77; 800-850 lbs (804) 120.95.

Oklahoma 17,200. 79 pct over 600 lbs. 30 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 450-500 lbs (473) 191.07; 500-550 lbs (531) 180.33; 550-600 lbs (576) 170.83; 600-650 lbs (633) 162.84; 650-700 lbs (677) 157.60; 700-750 lbs (733) 152.32; 750-800 lbs (777) 144.79; 800-850 lbs (820) 141.42; 850-900 lbs (875) 135.44; 900-950 lbs (914) 132.21; 950-1000 lbs (988) 127.35; 1000-1050 lbs (1024) 125.72. Medium and Large 1-2 450-500 lbs (466) 182.99; 500-550 lbs (531) 169.67; 550-600 lbs (574) 163.54; 600-650 lbs (632) 154.71; 650-700 lbs (676) 151.81; 700-750 lbs (722) 146.95; 750-800 lbs (783) 142.46; 800-850 lbs (827) 136.19; 850-900 lbs (877) 134.88. Holsteins: Large 3 load 730 lbs 104.50; load 875 lbs 91.50. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 500-550 lbs (507) 148.44; 550-600 lbs (580) 154.61; 600-650 lbs (626) 147.52; 650-700 lbs (675) 141.45; 700-750 lbs (725) 137.33; 750-800 lbs (772) 133.33; 800-850 lbs (830) 128.89; 850-900 lbs (877) 127.64. Medium and Large 1-2 450-500 lbs (473) 160.52; 500-550 lbs (520) 152.47; 550-600 lbs (570) 153.53; 600-650 lbs (627) 142.44; 650-700 lbs (675) 137.70; 700-750 lbs (733) 128.51; 750-800 lbs (774) 132.46; 800-850 lbs (839) 117.56.

New Mexico 3900. 56 pct over 600 lbs. 36 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 450-500 lbs (459) 180.02; 500-550 lbs (519) 174.39; 550-600 lbs (576) 167.60; 600-650 lbs (618) 159.02; 750-800 lbs (777) 144.64; 900-950 lbs (917) 127.76; load 975 lbs 122.25. Medium and Large 1-2 400-450 lbs (436) 187.24; 500-550 lbs (538) 167.03; 550-600 lbs (580) 168.51; 600-650 lbs (632) 160.13; 650-700 lbs (668) 152.53; 950-1000 lbs (981) 123.45. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 400-450 lbs (415) 175.53; 450-500 lbs (467) 167.70; 500-550 lbs (517) 155.51; 600-650 lbs (625) 145.09; 700-750 lbs (731) 131.57; 750-800 lbs (763) 129.46. Medium and Large 1-2 450-500 lbs (480) 168.11; 500-550 lbs (523) 156.93; 550-600 lbs (558) 151.90; 800-850 lbs (845) 122.98.

Kansas 6600. 79 pct over 600 lbs. 52 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 400-450 lbs (421) 197.75; 450-500 lbs (474) 190.94; 500-550 lbs (521) 187.26; 550-600 lbs (567) 184.51; 600-650 lbs (626) 171.60; 650-700 lbs (670) 157.50; 700-750 lbs (720) 150.25; 750-800 lbs (780) 145.72; 800-850 lbs (825) 142.46; 850-900 lbs (878) 138.78; 900-950 lbs (928) 134.65; 950-1000 lbs (978) 129.03; 1000-1050 lbs (1021) 129.03; 1050-1100 lbs (1067) 121.38. Medium and Large 1-2 500-550 lbs (524) 177.71; 550-600 lbs (583) 167.67; 600-650 lbs (629) 169.32; 650-700 lbs (672) 157.25; 850-900 lbs (865) 132.60; load 990 lbs 128.00. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 400-450 lbs (438) 166.45; 450-500 lbs (483) 159.05; 500-550 lbs (516) 160.75; 550-600 lbs (573) 149.96; 600-650 lbs (623) 146.96; 650-700 lbs (683) 143.99; 700-750 lbs (730) 138.41; 750-800 lbs (775) 135.24; 800-850 lbs (818) 129.92; 850-900 lbs (871) 128.88; 900-950 lbs (911) 126.18. Medium and Large 1-2 400-450 lbs (426) 159.18; 450-500 lbs (484) 160.53; 500-550 lbs (533) 149.59; 600-650 lbs (628) 143.05; 650-700 lbs (673) 137.20; 700-750 lbs (721) 134.88; 800-850 lbs (833) 126.73; 850-900 lbs (870) 126.64.

Missouri 30,900. 36 pct over 600 lbs. 44 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (331) 206.60; 350-400 lbs (374) 192.71; 400-450 lbs (427) 188.85; 450-500 lbs (474) 182.28; 500-550 lbs (521) 176.35; 550-600 lbs (576) 165.99; 600-650 lbs (622) 165.19; 650-700 lbs (674) 159.70; 700-750 lbs (729) 149.27; 750-800 lbs (767) 148.83; 800-850 lbs (824) 142.90; 850-900 lbs (867) 142.11; 900-950 lbs (910) 139.28; 950-1000 lbs (964) 129.98; half load 1005 lbs 129.00. Medium and Large 1-2 300-350 lbs (334) 187.41; 350-400 lbs (376) 185.09; 400-450 lbs (422) 179.08; 450-500 lbs (475) 169.75; 500-550 lbs (524) 167.46; 550-600 lbs (571) 161.97; 600-650 lbs (624) 157.98; 650-700 lbs (671) 157.07; 700-750 lbs (726) 148.11; 750-800 lbs (772) 144.52; 800-850 lbs (813) 136.15; 850-900 lbs (882) 132.48. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (327) 175.61; 350-400 lbs (373) 170.46; 400-450 lbs (428) 165.02; 450-500 lbs (476) 160.54; 500-550 lbs (524) 155.84; 550-600 lbs (574) 151.40; 600-650 lbs (622) 146.94; 650-700 lbs (675) 144.65; 700-750 lbs (719) 137.73; 750-800 lbs (779) 134.97; 800-850 lbs (827) 129.62. Medium and Large 1-2 300-350 lbs (327) 171.19; 350-400 lbs (368) 165.54; 400-450 lbs (428) 158.56; 450-500 lbs (481) 151.28; 500-550 lbs (530) 150.25; 550-600 lbs (574) 143.60; 600-650 lbs (626) 143.67; 650-700 lbs (678) 140.98; 700-750 lbs (713) 137.09; 750-800 lbs (767) 135.05; 800-850 lbs (824) 123.21; 850-900 lbs (880) 125.51.

Arkansas 3800. 21 pct over 600 lbs. 41 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (320) 209.03; 350-400 lbs (372) 192.71; 400-450 lbs (424) 185.54; 450-500 lbs (476) 176.16; 500-550 lbs (521) 167.64; 550-600 lbs (569) 160.94; 600-650 lbs (620) 157.67; 650-700 lbs (667) 148.71. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (323) 177.68; 350-400 lbs (371) 172.79; 400-450 lbs (424) 167.05; 450-500 lbs (475) 157.72; 500-550 lbs (522) 150.40; 550-600 lbs (571) 143.95; 600-650 lbs (615) 138.91.

 

logo
Tuesday, May 3, 2016 12:39 PM