Beef Checkoff Group Wants
To Increase Checkoff To $2

By Chris Clayton
DTN Ag Policy Editor

Omaha (DTN) – Cattle producers would get to vote on whether to increase the beef checkoff before it would go into effect under the latest proposal to double the $1-per-head fee to $2. Members of the eight organizations comprising the Beef Checkoff Enhancement Working Group were sent a proposal in the latest effort to reach industry agreement on ways to increase beef checkoff revenues.

The latest proposal would require going to Congress to change the 1985 Beef Promotion and Research Act and Order. If Congress adopts legislation, then a national referendum by beef producers would vote on whether to increase the fee. Under the plan, producers would be able to request a refund of that additional fee, but not the current $1 fee, the memorandum of understanding (MOU) states.

This latest effort comes after an acrimonious fall during which Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack attempted to push for a second, separate beef checkoff program only to see those efforts blocked by Congress. Members of the Cattlemen’s Beef Board, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and American National Cattlewomen also will gather in early February at the 2015 Cattle Industry Convention in San Antonio.

The MOU would seek to allow the secretary of agriculture to issue a 30-day window every five years in which beef checkoff payers could request a referendum. If 10% or more of checkoff payers requested such a referendum, then a vote would be held to continue or change the fee.

Scott Stuart, CEO of the National Livestock Producers Association, serves as co-facilitator of the Beef Checkoff Enhancement Working Group along with Forrest Roberts, CEO of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. National Livestock’s board of directors has voted unanimously to support the MOU as it is, Stuart said. “We’ve been at this for three solid years in trying to find some solutions to an enhancement, and I think really what we arrived at is something that should be palatable to the beef industry,” Stuart said.

The $1-per-head fee is losing its effectiveness on a lot of fronts. For one, $1 has the same buying power as 48 cents in 1987. A steadily declining national cattle herd has reduced revenue as well. Half of the $1 fee in most states goes to the state beef council. The other half goes to the Cattlemen’s Beef Board, which then contracts to spend about $40 million a year.

A sticking point, however, remains when it comes down to control of checkoff dollars and how are they distributed. The latest MOU structures the Beef Promotion Operating Committee with 20 members, including the chairman of the Cattlemen’s Beef Board and chairman of the Federation of State Beef Councils. The 18 remaining voting members of the operating committee will come from a nominating committee, but the operating committee members from members of the CBB and the Federation.

So critics of the proposal say the MOU makes changes to who can be on the nominating committee, but the operating committee will still come from the same set of people as it does now. NCBA is the dominate contractor chosen by the operating committee annually for funds for promotion, research and information. According to the checkoff board’s fiscal 2013 annual report, NCBA was contracted for $33.66 million out of $34.49 million in contracts, a ratio of 97%. For FY 2015, NCBA will be contracted for $27.8 million. The next highest contractor was the U.S. Meat Export Federation, which received about $7.7 million. http://beefboardmeeting.com/beef-promotion-operating-committee/

Stuart said there was significant change to the nomination process for the operating committee. “It, does give some outside groups some involvement in that process, so hopefully that can ensure maybe a complete support of what the operating committee is and what it does,” Stuart said.

Stuart also noted the MOU right now is still a draft. The goal is to bring the working group back together in March and see what the level of support is from the various associations.

The MOU also doesn’t address a major grievance from some policy organizations that resent the role the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association plays as the overarching administrative staff for the Federation of State Beef Councils. “Yeah, there are changes, but at the end of the day, it is still NCBA and the Federation that control everything,” said Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union. “As long as that’s the case, what’s the difference? Until they separate like every other checkoff group has separated, they are going to always face this scrutiny.”

Yet, unlike the secretary’s proposal that would have created a referendum three years after a new checkoff is started, the MOU does put the checkoff increase to a vote before it would begin. So producers would have a final say in whether they support a change in the fee or not. “There would be a vote before it goes into effect and the assessment begins,” Stuart said.

National Farmers Union chose to leave the beef working group last summer because NFU members didn’t believe the working group was going to come to an agreement on structural changes to shift funds away from NCBA.

Chuck Kiker, who represents the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association on the working committee, said his group continues to participate in the talks. He said his USCA members are disappointed there aren’t going to be some other elements changed in the checkoff under this latest proposal. “We voiced those concerns in those meetings,” Kiker said. “Our board will vote on the final document – whatever’s finalized.”

Kiker said NFU’s decision to drop out of the working group has led to fewer voices in the room trying to push for more structural changes. “That’s what’s so disappointing about NFU dropping out,” he said.

The American Farm Bureau Federation won’t have a position on the new proposal until its board meets in mid-March. However, Farm Bureau delegates made it clear at the group’s annual meeting that AFBF supports the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 and the Federation of State Beef Councils. The policy language also opposed any other changes in the selection process for the Cattlemen’s Beef Board.

Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA, is also on the outside looking in. R-CALF was never allowed to participate in the working group discussions, though Bullard closely monitors them. The structure would continue to provide checkoff funds to advocacy groups such as NCBA, which is frequently on the opposite of policy debates from groups such as R-CALF. “From our perspective, it locks in the conflicts of interest, and that is that it still allows the Federation to make decisions as to who is awarded contracts and the Federation continues to be housed, controlled and owned by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association,” Bullard said. “We think this is fundamentally flawed, and clearly we do not support it,” Bullard said.

Bullard said Vilsack has failed to enforce prohibitions against conflicts of interest. That, in turn, has fueled the confidence of NCBA. Meanwhile, R-CALF feels marginalized in the process.

Members of the Beef Checkoff Enhancement Working Group include: American Farm Bureau Federation, American National Cattlewomen Inc., Livestock Marketing Association, Meat Import Council of America, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Livestock Producers Association, National Milk Producers Federation and the United States Cattlemen’s Association.

Prices For Imported Cattle Were Not Discriminated Against

By Chris Clayton
DTN Ag Policy Editor

Omaha (DTN) – Canadian and Mexican cattle were not discriminated against because of country-of-origin labels, according to a new study contracted by the National Farmers Union looking at USDA mandatory price reporting data for cattle.

National Farmers Union is one of the biggest defenders of mandatory country-of-origin labeling for meat. The group argues USDA should continue to pursue a rewrite of the rules that would allow COOL to remain in effect.

The U.S. faces potential retaliatory actions from Canada and Mexico after the two countries have won multiple rulings from the World Trade Organization. A WTO panel ruled last October that changes made to COOL in 2013 by USDA actually made livestock trade between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico more difficult. The panel argued the U.S. still discriminates against foreign livestock.

The study contracted by National Farmers Union highlights arguments showing the economic downturn in 2008-09 had a great deal to do with reducing demand for meat products. Data from mandatory price reports that meatpackers must submit to USDA shows little difference between domestic and imported livestock prices, the study stated. “This is not a surprise to me at all or people in the industry,” said Roger Johnson president of the National Farmers Union. “COOL had virtually zero impact on all of this.”

Robert Taylor, an agricultural economist at Auburn University who conducted the study, said the argument made by a Canadian study was largely based on statements from packers and Canadian industry officials who lamented the costs of segregating cattle.

The economic argument made by Canadians and Mexicans was that the basis widened because of segregation costs for cattle. Taylor said numbers don’t bear that out. The basis has largely narrowed for most classes of cattle and grades, according to USDA’s data. “Their own data goes against the argument that there are high segregation costs, and that has a big impact on the Canadian cattle industry,” Taylor said. “That holds for every class and grade of cattle as well as purchase arrangements. “The data packers submitted for mandatory price reporting contradicts the argument that COOL widened the basis,” Taylor said. “There is just no compelling argument or evidence that Canada has been negatively impacted by COOL,” he said.

The study looked only at cattle and did not analyze the pricing of imported hogs. Johnson said Taylor’s study looks at several variables that another study from Canada did not examine. Also, Johnson questioned the quality of the Canadian study on COOL because it used proprietary data that isn’t publicly available. “That ought to make it extraordinarily suspect right out of the gate,” Johnson said. “Nobody else can go out and independently get those numbers. The fact that Dr. Taylor used publicly-reported numbers makes this study really credible.”

Johnson said he thinks contracted marketing arrangements between feeders and packers have more influence on price than COOL. “The marketing arrangements probably had a much larger impact on this than anything else,” Johnson said.

Even if the WTO were to arrive at the same conclusion that U.S. buyers and segregation rules discriminated against Canadian and Mexican cattle, the study could help minimize what the WTO allows as possible sanctions. Johnson and Taylor plan to take the study to the U.S. Trade Representative’s office and talk with staff there about it. “They are relying on information the Canadians gave them,” Johnson said.

Johnson said he thinks the study might be helpful on several fronts as the U.S. tries to push Canada to offer more open access to various markets in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. “With respect to the COOL appeal, we think this data would be very helpful,” Johnson said.

Canada exported nearly 1.2 million cattle to the U.S. in 2014, compared to slightly more than 1 million head in 2013. In 2012, Canada exported 805,000 cattle to the U.S. In 2009 when COOL was implemented, the U.S. imported 996,000 Canadian cattle and in 2010 imported 1 million cattle from Canada.

Mexico exported slightly more than 1 million feeder and slaughter cattle to the U.S. in 2014, up from 974,600 in 2013. In 2009, the first full year of COOL, Mexico exported 933,000 cattle to the U.S., a figure that increased to 1.2 million head in 2010.

Taylor’s study concludes COOL did not alter the ratio of imported slaughter cattle compared to domestic slaughter numbers. The ratio of imported slaughter cattle, though, has shifted from 2.4% to 1.7%. Taylor said that shift was triggered more by uncertain demand and a weakening of both the Canadian dollar and peso to the U.S. dollar as financial markets collapsed.

John Masswohl, director of government and international relations for the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, largely dismissed the NFU study. Though Masswohl hadn’t seen the study, he noted the arguments over basis, prices and imports had all been made before. “All of those arguments have been made by USTR and USDA at the WTO with more complete and more fulsome information I suppose than what they are presenting now,” Masswohl said.

The main Canadian study in 2012 on COOL’s impacts showed a $639-million-per-year market impact for Canadian cattle producers and a $500-million impact for pork producers. (The dollar figures are in U.S., but the exchange rate in 2012 was nearly par.)

That Canadian Cattlemen’s Association report concluded there was “significant evidence that Canadian cattle producers faced a widening of the price basis and a decline in the ratio of imports to total domestic use for both fed and feeder cattle.”

Taylor concluded the price basis between U.S. and Canadian cattle is actually narrower in the six years since COOL than the four years before COOL went into effect. Yet, Taylor’s study does show the average domestic price for slaughter steers and heifers widened compared to imported cattle throughout 2014. Taylor said that had more do to with purchasing arrangements for domestic cattle versus imported slaughter cattle buys.

Masswohl argues there hasn’t been a study since USDA changed the rule for COOL and, in the view of Canadians, made the segregation costs even worse for their producers. “That data doesn’t show that the basis has narrowed,” Masswohl said. “The real data shows the basis has widened. The cost discrepancy between U.S. and Canadian cattle has gotten wider.”

USTR made the argument before the World Trade Organization that the 2008-09 economic downturn had a bigger impact on imported livestock and meat than COOL. “That argument could not explain why the price impact on Canadian and Mexican cattle was more severe than the price impact on U.S. cattle,” Masswohl said. “The major difference was COOL, the price of segregation.”

Masswohl also said the National Farmers Union study would have little impact on the appeal because the WTO appeals panel won’t be accepting new studies or evidence during the Feb. 16-17 appeals hearing. The hearing is more about procedures than argument over new facts.

The NFU study can be read at http://www.nfu.org/images/COOLReport1132015Final.pdf.

Court Finds Manure To Be “Solid Waste”

By Todd Neeley
DTN Staff Reporter

Omaha (DTN) – Manure from dairy operations could be deemed solid waste if it is not managed properly, a federal judge has ruled in a Washington state case that has drawn the attention of national agriculture groups.

A federal district court earlier this month issued a first-of-its-kind ruling finding that nitrate levels exceeding federal limits in drinking wells downstream from Washington state dairy operations are enough to trigger a violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, based on the dairies’ alleged improper management of manure.

Questions remain as to whether the ruling will have a wider effect on how livestock operations manage manure across the country. A handful of agriculture interest groups pointed out in a December amicus brief filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, that the dairy and thousands like it across the country already are regulated by the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Additionally, Cow Palace, LLC, in Granger, Wash., already was working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to correct problems related to manure management and drinking water. The court ruled manure from dairies owned by Cow Palace may be a hazardous waste according to RCRA standards, endangering nearby residents. RCRA gives EPA authority to control hazardous waste from generation through transportation, treatment, storage and disposal. Never before has a court ruled, however, that manure becomes a hazardous waste when it is managed improperly.

The lawsuit was the latest in a series of legal actions taken against the dairies by two Washington, D.C.-based non-profit groups – Community Association for Restoration of the Environment, Inc., and Center for Food Safety, Inc.

Charlie Tebbutt, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in the case, told DTN he believes the court’s ruling sets legal precedent on a number of fronts. An attorney for a national farm group told DTN on background the industry is watching the lawsuit closely, but declined to comment on the record because the evidence in the case remains sealed by the court ahead of a possible trial.
“As for its precedent-setting value, among other things, the court found that lagoons, even if built to NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) guidelines, cause substantial leakage of manure,” Tebbutt said. “This decision is the first of its kind in the country that finds that manure from industrial dairies, when mishandled as it is at Cow Palace, is a solid waste that is causing an immediate threat to human health.
“This facility is no different from the thousands of other animal factories across the country that are causing the same harms to the people around them. It is long past time for local, state and federal health protectors to take up the mantle and protect human health over corporate profits.” DTN’s attempts to reach attorneys for the defendants were unsuccessful.

OTHER LAWSUITS
Other lawsuits have unsuccessfully attempted to convince courts to deem mismanaged manure as a solid waste; the courts declined because dairies and other livestock operations already are regulated.

There is concern in the agriculture industry that if a higher court was to at some point side with the Washington court, dairies and other livestock operations across the country could face manure management restrictions that would be unmanageable.

The court in this case issued a scathing indictment of the way lagoons are designed across the country. Lagoons generally are designed to have at least some level of permeability – meaning all lagoons have at least some leakage not necessarily considered to be dangerous to public water supplies. In the case of Cow Palace, the court said in its ruling that the plaintiffs offered evidence of nitrate soil contamination up to 47 feet below ground near lagoons, “evidencing horizontal seepage between the lagoons.” “...Here, the manure leaking from defendants’ lagoons is not a natural, expected consequence of the manure’s use or intended use but rather a consequence of the poorly designed temporary storage features of the lagoons,” the court wrote in its opinion.

“The consequence of such permeable storage techniques, thus, converts what would otherwise be a beneficial product (the stored manure) into a solid waste (the discarded, leaching constituents of manure) under RCRA because the manure is knowingly abandoned to the underlying soil. Save for one lagoon, defendants possess limited documentation to evidence that lagoons were actually constructed to meet NRCS standards. “However, even assuming the lagoons were constructed pursuant to NRCS standards, these standards specifically allow for permeability and, thus, the lagoons are designed to leak.”

AG AMICUS BRIEF
An amicus brief filed with the Washington court in December on behalf of the dairy by National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, Washington Cattlemen’s Association and the Washington Cattle Feeders Association, stated that the case should have been dismissed based on an “anti-duplication provision” of the RCRA statute because the Washington dairy already is regulated by other federal statutes.

The Washington court, however, cited a Ninth Circuit of Appeals opinion that there could be circumstances in which a material accumulates in the environment long enough after it serves its intended purposes, meeting RCRA’s definition of solid waste.

The Washington court said the plaintiffs in this case showed Cow Palace had been applying manure in crop fields at rates beyond what could benefit plants – meaning the manure would fit the definition of a solid waste. In addition, the court points to the storage of manure in composting bins as a problem. “Here, this court finds that the manure in the unlined composting area is both knowingly abandoned and accumulating in dangerous quantities and thus a solid waste,” the court said. “...The consequence of such unlined composting surfaces converts what would otherwise be a beneficial product (the composted manure) into a solid waste (the discarded, leaching constituents of manure) under RCRA because the manure is knowingly abandoned to the underlying soil.

“...In conclusion, this court finds no genuine issue of material fact that defendants’ application, storage and management of manure at Cow Palace dairy violated RCRA’s substantial and imminent endangerment and open dumping provisions and that all defendants are responsible parties under RCRA. This court reserves remedial issues, as well as the other remaining issues as discussed above, for trial.”

In March 2013, EPA reached an agreement with Cow Palace and several other dairies in the region now operated by Cow Palace, to reduce nitrate levels in groundwater. According to an EPA news release, the dairies agreed to provide alternate drinking water sources for neighbors within a mile radius whose wells were found to have nitrate levels above EPA’s drinking water standard of 10 parts per million.

In addition, the dairies agreed to take steps to control nitrogen sources such as manure and commercial fertilizer used at their facilities, and to conduct soil and groundwater testing at each dairy to determine whether nitrogen sources were being controlled.

Direct Receipts

Direct Receipts: 29,700

Texas 13,200. 93 pct over 600 lbs. 33 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 FOB Current 745 lbs 220.50; 750-775 lbs 211.80; 825 lbs 203.50; Apr 650 lbs 217.00; May 750 lbs 206.30; July 750 lbs 207.50; Del Current 760-775 lbs 218.71; 800-825 lbs 215.02; Apr 750 lbs 204.50. Medium and Large 1-2 FOB Current 725 lbs 223.59; 750-775 lbs 208.31; 800-825 lbs 208.73; 850 lbs 194.64; Del Current 775-790 lbs 215.57; 830-845 lbs 207.50; 850 lbs 207.00; Mar 750 lbs 212.00; 850 lbs 203.25; Sept 750 lbs 210.00. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 FOB Current 650-675 lbs 207.92; 700 lbs 207.55; 800 lbs 190.40; Mar 650 lbs 206.35; 725 lbs 197.50; Apr 650 lbs 206.35; 750 lbs 193.00; May 700 lbs 199.30; June 725 lbs 199.50; Del Current 725 lbs 213.43; Apr 700 lbs 197.00; July 700 lbs 199.30. Medium and Large 1-2 FOB Current 670-675 lbs 204.81; 750 lbs 207.85; Apr 725 lbs 207.85; Apr 725 lbs 196.80; Del Current 780 lbs 197.00; Apr 650 lbs 207.35; 725 lbs 205.50.

Oklahoma 1500. 100 pct over 600 lbs. 10 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 FOB Current 660 lbs 220.00; 750-775 lbs 211.08; 800-830 lbs 207.81; 875 lbs 197.75; 910 lbs 199.81; Del Current 775 lbs 210.50. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 FOB Current 725 lbs 211.00; 780 lbs 194.03; Jul 700 lbs 196.30; Del Current 800 lbs 191.00.

New Mexico 600. 100 pct over 600 lbs. No heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1-2 Current 775 lbs 214.42; 850 lbs 205.76; Feb-Mar 850 lbs 202.01; Mar 750 lbs 210.76.

Kansas 2800. 100 pct over 600 lbs. 13 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 FOB Current 775 lbs 206.00; 800-825 lbs 207.79; 850-865 lbs 202.01; Del Current 825 lbs 204.00; 850 lbs 200.94. Medium and Large 1-2 FOB Current 725 lbs 222.00; 800 lbs 195.00; Del Apr-May 800 lbs 190.50. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 FOB Current 750-775 lbs 193.62.

National Feeder Cattle Summary

St. Joseph, MO — January 23
National feeder cattle receipts: 302,500

The downtrend continues in the feeder cattle markets as feeder cattle and calves traded $5-15 lower this week. CME cattle futures over the last couple of weeks have latched onto a lead balloon and have weighed heavily on the feeder cattle markets. The wide spread massive long liquidation selling has just swamped cattle futures. Overall demand remains good for lightweight stockers under 550 lbs to make yearlings of, but the overall availability of these lightweight feeders normally gets tighter as we roll into spring; with thoughts that these lightweight calves can achieve cheap gains when pasture develops. Heavier weight feeders, of which the supply is more readily available, felt the full pressure of price declines this week. Many major salebarns in the Northern and Southern Plains are seeing some of their heaviest receipts of the year with the unfortunate timing of the volatile feeder cattle and futures market. Cattle buyers have paid high premiums for feeder cattle and now break evens are much higher than the futures with the June Live Cattle board closing near $143 as contacts continued their free-fall on Friday. Cattle contracts closed limit down on Friday finding only bearish friends. Keep in mind that the record highs in the cattle future prices last year were supported from fund buying and now the funds are pulling back looking like they have had their belly full of the cattle markets. At some point this break will be deemed overdone, but when is the question. However, there were some impressive sales of hardened winter proof feeders around the auction circuit, in Bassett, NE on Wednesday feeder steers under 650 lbs sold with very good demand for summer grazing. Near 550 head of steers averaging 577 lbs sold with an weighted average prices of $299.22 and over 200 head of thin steers averaging 624 lbs sold with a weighted average prices of $291.35. Summer grazing will likely take these kinds of cattle to unprecedentedly large weights on pasture to avoid any kind high feed costs. Beef demand has worries over rising meat supplies of pork and chicken and at this time is taking presence over tight cattle supplies. The feeder and fed cattle markets along with the futures seem to be tiring of news about tight supplies. Friday’s afternoon Cattle on Feed Report had January 1 inventory at 101 percent; placements at 92 percent; marketing’s came in at 95 percent. Inventory was slightly lighter than expected, with marketing’s slightly smaller than expected. This week’s auction volume consisted of 58 percent over 600 lbs and 38 percent heifers.

Texas 1800. 47 pct over 600 lbs. 42 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 500-550 lbs (517) 275.85; 600-650 lbs (616) 233.72; 700-750 lbs (724) 208.35; pkg 775 lbs 210.00. Medium and Large 1-2 500-550 lbs (536) 244.73; 550-600 lbs (569) 230.85; 600-650 lbs (617) 215.19; 650-700 lbs (668) 207.12; 700-750 lbs (726) 206.28. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 700-750 lbs (712) 190.66. Medium and Large 1-2 450-500 lbs (475) 239.41; 500-550 lbs (522) 222.10; 550-600 lbs (573) 213.83; 600-650 lbs (625) 194.63; 650-700 lbs (658) 202.39; 700-750 lbs (720) 196.71.

Oklahoma 38,600. 67 pct over 600 lbs. 33 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (323) 370.64; 350-400 lbs (368) 341.52; 400-450 lbs (416) 313.65; 450-500 lbs (462) 293.20; 500-550 lbs (528) 273.05; 550-600 lbs (573) 256.74; 600-650 lbs (625) 245.74; 650-700 lbs (674) 229.49; 700-750 lbs (726) 219.52; 750-800 lbs (774) 212.36; 800-850 lbs (821) 207.13; 850-900 lbs (870) 201.88; 900-950 lbs (910) 198.51; 950-1000 lbs (956) 194.64; 1000-1050 lbs (1014) 192.01. Medium and Large 1-2 300-350 lbs (334) 329.65; 350-400 lbs (378) 328.17; 400-450 lbs (433) 300.80; 450-500 lbs (475) 273.37; 500-550 lbs (521) 273.36; 550-600 lbs (572) 251.61; 600-650 lbs (633) 231.59; 650-700 lbs (677) 220.29; 700-750 lbs (725) 209.14; 750-800 lbs (771) 204.36; 800-850 lbs (815) 204.38; 850-900 lbs (873) 195.37; 900-950 lbs (929) 193.49; half load 990 lbs 186.75. Holsteins: Large 3 half load 585 lbs 189.00; half load 695 lbs 168.00; load 785 lbs 175.00; load 810 lbs 170.75. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (323) 297.21; 350-400 lbs (373) 279.28; 400-450 lbs (427) 269.69; 450-500 lbs (470) 258.10; 500-550 lbs (525) 238.22; 550-600 lbs (573) 227.40; 600-650 lbs (631) 218.62; 650-700 lbs (661) 211.28; 700-750 lbs (725) 205.06; 750-800 lbs (778) 197.63; 800-850 lbs (812) 191.21; 900-950 lbs (928) 178.64; 950-1000 lbs (968) 172.81. Medium and Large 1-2 350-400 lbs (386) 273.03; 400-450 lbs (422) 258.18; 450-500 lbs (479) 243.66; 500-550 lbs (527) 235.87; 550-600 lbs (581) 219.32; 600-650 lbs (636) 216.77; 650-700 lbs (675) 203.53; 700-750 lbs (729) 198.07; 750-800 lbs (777) 190.65; 800-850 lbs (823) 183.36; 850-900 lbs (886) 179.50.

New Mexico 5400. 42 pct over 600 lbs. 33 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 250-300 lbs (292) 356.48; 300-350 lbs (331) 336.88; 350-400 lbs (372) 330.24; 400-450 lbs (427) 300.23; 450-500 lbs (466) 279.64; 500-550 lbs (531) 257.23; 550-600 lbs (563) 248.67; 600-650 lbs (625) 226.83; 650-700 lbs (676) 212.04; 700-750 lbs (715) 208.55; 750-800 lbs (771) 204.72; 800-850 lbs (825) 196.96. Medium and Large 1-2 400-450 lbs (413) 284.65; 450-500 lbs (477) 262.38; 500-550 lbs (515) 248.58; 550-600 lbs (581) 233.10; 600-650 lbs (620) 223.64; 650-700 lbs (666) 211.78. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 350-400 lbs (369) 286.72; 400-450 lbs (432) 260.01; 450-500 lbs (480) 246.25; 500-550 lbs (516) 225.57; 550-600 lbs (564) 216.11; 600-650 lbs (624) 206.49; 700-750 lbs (721) 195.84; 750-800 lbs (766) 190.42. Medium and Large 1-2 300-350 lbs (331) 283.37; 350-400 lbs (387) 257.38; 400-450 lbs (427) 259.74; 450-500 lbs (476) 227.91; 500-550 lbs (512) 219.29; 550-600 lbs (573) 208.45; 650-700 lbs (690) 197.62.

Kansas 12,600. 91 pct over 600 lbs. 30 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 450-500 lbs (470) 309.96; 500-550 lbs (523) 286.24; 550-600 lbs (556) 278.77; 600-650 lbs (621) 249.19; 650-700 lbs (672) 236.46; 700-750 lbs (723) 215.55; 750-800 lbs (773) 211.13; 800-850 lbs (823) 206.93; 850-900 lbs (866) 204.29; 900-950 lbs (922) 197.45; 950-1000 lbs (981) 193.86; 1000-1050 lbs (1006) 190.53; load 1080 lbs 184.00. Medium and Large 1-2 500-550 lbs (523) 273.56; 550-600 lbs (568) 247.42; 600-650 lbs (636) 239.53; 650-700 lbs (674) 222.99; 700-750 lbs (731) 210.99; 750-800 lbs (777) 206.92; 800-850 lbs (830) 201.26; 850-900 lbs (875) 198.49; 900-950 lbs (932) 194.38; 950-1000 lbs (966) 192.07. Holsteins: Large 3 half load 620 lbs 185.00; part load 795 lbs 165.50. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 450-500 lbs (478) 270.33; 500-550 lbs (505) 242.73; 550-600 lbs (557) 243.47; 600-650 lbs (616) 221.58; 650-700 lbs (685) 207.91; 700-750 lbs (716) 202.81; 750-800 lbs (773) 193.18; 800-850 lbs (816) 188.13; 850-900 lbs (869) 186.82; 900-950 lbs (922) 183.34. Medium and Large 12 450-500 lbs (479) 257.79; 500-550 lbs (541) 239.22; 550-600 lbs (541) 239.22; 600-650 lbs (621) 217.14; 650-700 lbs (683) 204.40; 700-750 lbs (721) 198.52; 750-800 lbs (781) 192.57; 800-850 lbs (814) 190.96; 850-900 lbs (878) 181.49.

Missouri 47,900. 53 pct over 600 lbs. 38 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (324) 332.00; 350-400 lbs (372) 321.18; 400-450 lbs (426) 299.55; 450-500 lbs (476) 291.74; 500-550 lbs (526) 276.63; 550-600 lbs (575) 260.98; 600-650 lbs (621) 248.57; 650-700 lbs (676) 231.41; 700-750 lbs (723) 222.01; 750-800 lbs (770) 215.49; 800-850 lbs (824) 201.87; 850-900 lbs (874) 194.54; 900-950 lbs (923) 196.06; 950-1000 lbs (964) 181.29. Medium and Large 1-2 300-350 lbs (328) 304.17; 350-400 lbs (375) 304.90; 400-450 lbs (426) 280.48; 450-500 lbs (479) 269.49; 500-550 lbs (527) 258.27; 550-600 lbs (573) 244.69; 600-650 lbs (628) 228.04; 650-700 lbs (674) 217.89; 700-750 lbs (725) 212.74; 750-800 lbs (771) 201.11; 800-850 lbs (826) 195.75; 850-900 lbs (875) 183.46; 900-950 lbs (916) 182.74; 950-1000 lbs (961) 178.23; half load 1020 lbs 180.50. Holsteins: Large 3 half load 560 lbs 191.00; 850-900 lbs (888) 160.20. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (324) 299.07; 350-400 lbs (374) 282.86; 400-450 lbs (425) 264.53; 450-500 lbs (475) 250.40; 500-550 lbs (524) 242.94; 550-600 lbs (574) 229.07; 600-650 lbs (623) 218.93; 650-700 lbs (670) 211.40; 700-750 lbs (724) 199.18; 750-800 lbs (768) 194.23; 800-850 lbs (813) 190.34. Medium and Large 1-2 250-300 lbs (275) 309.27; 300-350 lbs (332) 293.45; 350-400 lbs (374) 266.05; 400-450 lbs (419) 251.58; 450-500 lbs (477) 238.90; 500-550 lbs (524) 228.75; 550-600 lbs (572) 219.90; 600-650 lbs (625) 209.49; 650-700 lbs (673) 197.97; 700-750 lbs (723) 193.30; 750-800 lbs (783) 191.27; 800-850 lbs (824) 176.42; 850-900 lbs (881) 184.98.

Arkansas 6700. 23 pct over 600 lbs. 40 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (323) 325.65; 350-400 lbs (370) 305.74; 400-450 lbs (420) 287.38; 450-500 lbs (472) 274.41; 500-550 lbs (523) 254.27; 550-600 lbs (574) 241.28; 600-650 lbs (619) 230.62; 650-700 lbs (666) 222.64; 700-750 lbs (732) 210.25; 800-850 lbs (820) 197.31. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (326) 286.77; 350-400 lbs (373) 269.36; 400-450 lbs (424) 258.79; 450-500 lbs (472) 243.64; 500-550 lbs (525) 227.49; 550-600 lbs (574) 216.45; 600-650 lbs (617) 210.30; 650-700 lbs (667) 201.24; 750-800 lbs (782) 192.79.

 

 

logo
Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:15 PM