USDA last week allocated over $170 million in emergency assistance available to agricultural producers suffering from Hurricane Katrina. In addition, USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is implementing immediate changes to its Marketing Assistance Loan Program. "We are doing everything we can to help our Gulf Coast producers recover from the affects of Hurricane Katrina," said Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns. "This assistance is an important component of USDA's efforts and our commitment to help farmers and ranchers rebuild their operations.” USDA is providing more than $20 million in Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) funds to help producers repair damage to their lands. ECP participants will receive cost-share assistance of up to 75% of the cost to implement approved emergency conservation practices such as debris removal and restoration of fences and conservation structures. ECP is administered at the county level under the guidance of USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) state offices. USDA has allocated $855,000 in ECP funding for Baldwin, Choctaw, Clarke, Greene, Marengo, Mobile, Sumter and Washington counties in Alabama. Another $12.45 million has been set aside for ECP efforts in the Louisiana counties of Acadia, Ascension, Assumption, Calcasieu, Cameron, East Baton Rouge, East Feliciana, Iberia, Iberville, Jefferson, Jefferson Davis, Lafayette, Lafourche, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, Pointe Coupee, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. Helena, St. James, St. John, St. Martin, St. Mary, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, Terrebonne, Vermilion, Washington, West Baton Rouge and West Feliciana, and Allen, Avoyelles, Beauregard, Concordia, Evangeline and St. Landry. The entire state of Mississippi has been allocated $7.1 million. Giles, Lawrence and Wayne counties in Tennessee will work with $25,000 in ECP monies. Emergency loans A total of $152 million in FSA's Emergency Loan Program is available to eligible producers who have suffered at least a 30% reduction in crop production or have sustained physical losses to buildings, chattel or livestock. Farmers and ranchers have eight months from the date of a presidential or secretarial disaster declaration to apply for low-interest agency loans. In addition, CCC is implementing changes to its Marketing Assistance Loan Program to allow producers to obtain loans for "on-farm" grain storage on the ground, in addition to grain bins and other normally approved structures. This action is designed to alleviate short-term logistical problems and support local cash prices above distressed levels as a result of the hurricane. Grain producers in the U.S. are facing logistical challenges as port operations in the central Gulf Coast and lower Mississippi River, which were already complicated by summer drought conditions in the upper Mississippi and Illinois River basins, have been hampered by Hurricane Katrina. The changes to the Marketing Assistance Loan Program are consistent with emergency storage provisions already available to commercial warehouses and remain consistent with the existing CCC mandate that ensures the orderly marketing of U.S. farm commodities. CCC has authorized outside, on-farm storage of commodities which have been offered as collateral on non-recourse marketing assistance loans as long as such storage meets CCC guidelines. Commodities stored outside must be protected from animals and located so that water drainage will not seriously affect the quality and quantity of the commodity. Producers are responsible for ensuring that the quality of the commodity pledged as marketing assistance loan collateral is maintained during the entire loan period. CCC is also reminding producers that its Farm Storage Facility Loan Program (FSFL) is available to provide low-interest financing for producers to build or upgrade on-farm grain or silage storage facilities. Eligible size of the structure is determined by the borrower's demonstrated need for additional on-farm storage capacity to store eligible commodities. An eligible borrower must have a satisfactory credit rating, as determined by CCC, and demonstrate the ability to repay the facility loan debt. Facilities built for commercial purposes and not for the sole use of the borrower(s) are not eligible for financing. The maximum amount a person is allowed to borrow through the FSFL program is 85% of the net cost of the eligible storage facility and handling equipment, not to exceed $100,000. Loans over $50,000 must be additionally secured with a real estate lien. Loans are repaid through seven annual, equal installments. Loan applications should be filed in the administrative FSA office that maintains the farm's records. Additional assistance FSA has other programs to help producers recover from losses resulting from natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. FSA's Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) provides financial assistance to producers of noninsurable crops when low yields, loss of inventory or prevented planting occur due to natural disasters. To be eligible for NAP assistance, crops must be noninsurable crops and agricultural commodities for which the catastrophic risk protection level of crop insurance is not available. Producers must meet other eligibility requirements to receive NAP payments. Also, FSA's Debt Set-Aside (DSA) Program is available to producers in primary or contiguous counties declared presidential or secretarial disaster areas. When borrowers affected by natural disasters are unable to make their scheduled payments on any debt, FSA is authorized to consider set-aside of some payments to allow the farming operation to continue. After disaster designation is made, FSA will notify borrowers of the availability of the DSA. Borrowers who are notified have eight months from the date of designation to apply. Also, to meet current operating and family living expenses, FSA borrowers may request a release of income proceeds to meet these essential needs or request special servicing provisions from their local FSA county offices to explore other options. Producers should attempt to contact state FSA offices if local FSA offices are temporarily closed due to hurricane considerations. The following telephone numbers cover Gulf Region state FSA offices: • Alabama, 334/279-3500; • Louisiana, 318/473-7721; • Arkansas, 501/301-3000; • Mississippi, 601/965-4300; and • Florida, 352/379-4562.

September 13, 2004 Record Stockman Publisher Emeritus Harry E. Green, 81, of Lakewood, CO, died Sept. 5 of cancer and heart disease. Editor and Publisher Dan Green said, "Dad was tough and a real fighter, not giving in to the ravages of his diseases. He maintained an active interest in his beloved Record Stockman and livestock industry, his family, and Colorado sports teams, right up to the end." Green is survived by two sons, Dan, Lakewood, CO, and Gibb, Windsor, CO; stepson John D. Walker, Beaver, UT, stepdaughter Donna Gary, Artesia, NM; four grandchildren and two great-grandchildren; brother Ralph H. Green, Greeley, CO, and sister Louise Westover, Tucson, AZ. Green was born and raised in Greeley, and attended the University of Denver, and later the University of Colorado. While a student at CU he was also herdsman of the Painter Cattle Co. at Roggen, CO. Upon graduation he joined the Record Stockman as a fieldman and became publisher in 1963. Green was an innovator in both livestock publishing and the printing business. Green was a director of Denver's National Western Stock Show. He was especially proud of founding, The Livestock Marketeers, along with Ross H. Miller and Claud Willett. The Livestock Marketeers is a fraternity of livestock fieldmen, sales managers, and auctioneers that meet for dinner to honor two Marketeers of the Year, during the National Western Stockshow.

—Analysts encourage caution, expect near-term weakness. Live cattle trade began at mid-week last Wednesday with prices steady to higher than the previous week. Sales last week in the northern Plains trended steady from $95 to $95.50, with dressed sales steady at $150 in Nebraska and steady to $1 higher, from $150-151, in Colorado. Live sales in the southern Plains were fully steady from $95-95.50, with dressed sales reported in Kansas $1 higher at $152. Western Corn Belt fed cattle trades last week were steady from $94 to mostly $95 on the live side and steady to $2 lower from $148-150 dressed. Much of the credit for last week’s climb in the cash market was a result of a surge in boxed beef prices from the previous week as demand picked up and retailers began looking ahead to the holiday season. The likelihood of short supplies of product had Choice boxed beef prices pushed higher last Thursday. At mid-day, Choice was mostly steady at $150.93, while Select product moved at $136.62. Those prices were $2-3 higher than the previous week and an advance of $7 from two weeks earlier. Some of the bounce in boxed beef prices came as a result of a holiday-shortened production schedule two weeks ago and a production shortfall as a result of a fire at JBS-Swift’s Grand Island, NE, plant, which broke out Nov. 24. The reportedly minor electrical fire shuttered the plant for three days and lowered the week’s production farther than expected last week. For the week-to-date total slaughter through last Thursday, packers had harvested 505,000 head, well above the prior week total of 390,000 head and the 491,000 head total for the same period in 2006. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange last week was working against the cash market, moving lower for much of the early portion of the week. At the closing bell last Thursday, December contracts were 42 points lower than the prior day, ending at $94.57. February traded down 40 points to close at $96.65 and April lost 22 points to close the session at $97.70. However, despite the gains in the boxed beef market and steady live cattle trade last week, analysts were adding caution to the market last week, encouraging the timely sale of any market- ready supplies. The market needs to be on the lookout for a lower trend in the short-term, said Virginia Tech Commodity Marketing Agent Mike Roberts last week. “Prices were pressured by some hedge selling and concerns over how much higher cattle prices can go amid an abundance of meat protein in the supply chain,” Roberts said. He urged cattle feeders to be aggressive in their marketing efforts. “Cash sellers should definitely push market-ready cattle out of the door,” Roberts said. It will be important for cattle feeders to lock in any profits available going ahead into early 2008 when prices are expected to peak early in the year. Analysts are predicting that the spring high will come very early in the first quarter. Red ink has reportedly taken its toll in the feeding sector this fall, and Iowa State University agricultural economist Shane Ellis said recently that feeders could expect more of the same into next year despite high beef prices and a shortage of available fed cattle. “We know that cattle feeders have been seeing some red ink so far this fall and based on the futures market, this is likely to continue until the second quarter of 2008,” Ellis said. “Producers using a position on the futures market would have their best chance of locking in a profit margin from April to June.” He said their analysis also shows a positive year-over-year trend in the Iowa fed cattle market in 2008, however, that may not necessarily point toward better times for cattle feeders after mid-2008. “As for the breakeven points past next summer, uncertainty in the 2008 corn crop and supply have kept the forecasted breakevens for cattle finishing well above the range of expected sale values,” Ellis said. Feeder cattle Demand for nearly all classes of cattle at auctions around the country was good last week, with prices up across the board. As the fall run of calves dwindles, order buyers are able to find generally fewer ready-for-rail feeder cattle and are turning to calves, which some say may be the best value. Troy Applehans, analyst at Cattle-Fax, explained that even though the unweaned calves are generally of lesser quality, supply and price gaps have tightened enough to make them an attractive option. “I think if you take a look at what the calf market has done, you’d see that it has declined enough in price so that some people are beginning to realize that the unweaned calves may be the best buy,” said Applehans. Applehans said that while the gap between the prices being paid for calves and bigger feeders has been large in the past, unweaned calves have nearly caught up to the larger cattle and are now the best bargain. “What we look at pretty closely a lot of the time, the calf-to-feeder spread, which recently has gone down to about 105 percent or so, meaning that for the past month or so, calf prices are only about 5 percent away from feeders,” explained Applehans. “There’s no doubt that most feed yards would probably prefer to feed yearlings, but they are in very short supply, and with the calves being cheap enough to take the risk on lesser quality cattle, the demand for them is high.” Applehans also says that the price spread has allowed more people to get into the calf market than would normally be the case. “There’s more calf users out there right now that are more willing to just background the calves, which has kept the demand higher than it would be otherwise,” said Applehans. “Definitely, folks will have to put some money into the calves to get them healthy and doing well, but there is definite value in them. Most guys probably have a situation where they can feed a high amount of roughage or even just put them in a dry lot for the winter and will come out better on the calves in the end than they would on yearlings.” In Oklahoma City last week at the Oklahoma National Stockyards, there were a total 7,350 receipts with most cattle going higher. Feeder steers and heifers were lightly tested, at steady to $1 higher. Steer and heifer calves were $2-4 higher, with the most advance on the steer calves. There were 5,100 cattle available for sale last week at the Joplin Regional Stockyards in Joplin, MO, where compared to the week previous, steers under 700 lbs. were steady to $2 higher, with weights over 700 lbs. going $2-4 higher. Heifers were steady compared to a light test at the previous sale. Demand was moderate to good for the moderate supply. Buyers had the opportunity to purchase several loads of yearling cattle. Higher fed cattle trade and feeder cattle futures added to the positive side. Feeder steers weighing 626 lbs. went for an average of $109.71 at this sale, with heifers weighing 624 lbs. coming in over 10 lower at $97.36. At the La Junta Livestock Commission Company in La Junta, CO, last week, steer and heifer calves under 600 lbs. were $2-4 higher, with weights over 600 lbs. at $2-3 higher. There were 2,961 head available at this sale, with active trade and good demand. Previous sale weeks did not see enough yearling feeder steers and heifers to produce an accurate comparison. Steer calves weighing between 600-630 lbs. were selling from $107.50-$113.75, with heifer calves weighing 615-625 lbs. going between $102-104. In Torrington, WY, last week, there was a good run of 6,850 head, with steer calves under 650 lbs. going $1-3 higher compared to the previous week. Heifer calves under 600 lbs. were $3-6 higher, with instances of $7-10 higher. There were not enough comparable sales on yearling steers and heifers for a good price comparison, however, there was a higher undertone noted. Demand was called good. — WLJ  

—California red legged frog, Arroyo toad among animals to be reviewed.   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) officials announced late last month that it would reverse course on seven of eight recent endangered species decisions which were impacted by former Deputy Assistant Interior Secretary Julie MacDonald who resigned in May. The decision could have significant impacts on ranchers whose land is inhabited by the animals. The news means that earlier victories on the part of ranchers could be overturned as part of the review. According to a letter which was sent to House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee Chair Nick Rahall, D-WV, FWS officials said they will reverse the original rulings after finding that they had been “inappropriately influenced” and that “revising the seven identified decisions is supported by scientific evidence and the proper legal standards.” Acting Fish and Wildlife Director Kenneth Stansell wrote the letter to Rahall, saying that the cases were reviewed “after questions were raised about the integrity of scientific information used and whether the decisions were made consistent with the appropriate legal standards.” The decisions included a decision to prevent Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection for the white-tailed prairie dog. However during the FWS review of species rulings during MacDonald’s tenure, the agency determined that it “believes this decision should be reconsidered.” The white-tail prairie dog is now subject to a 12-month review on the status of the population which will be responsible for determining whether the animal warrants protection. FWS also revised the ruling on the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse in Colorado and Wyoming, as well as a separate ruling on the mouse’s habitat in the two states. The mouse will lose protection in Wyoming, while remaining a protected species in Colorado where FWS officials found development threatens its habitat. Four other cases which will receive reconsideration involve critical habitat declarations for the Canada lynx, 12 species of the Hawaiian picture-wing fly, the Arroyo toad and the California red-legged frog. The single case which will remain intact after FWS review is the southwestern willow flycatcher. The agency found after its review that the decision to prevent a critical habitat declaration was “scientifically supportable.” In a statement on the issue, Rahall criticized MacDonald, saying she “should never have been allowed near the endangered species program.” Referring to Stansell’s letter, Rahall also took a shot at the Bush administration, saying that FWS’s “announcement is the latest illustration of the depth of incompetence at the highest levels of management within the Interior Department and breadth of this administration’s penchant for torpedoing science.” Environmental activists at the Center for Biological Diversity took their criticism of the agency and MacDonald’s impact even farther, filing suit in federal court last month seeking the protection of an additional 55 species, many in California, Arizona and New Mexico. “To quell the scandal, the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pledged to review eight decisions illegally reversed by MacDonald. This cynical effort at damage control flamed the controversy, however, because MacDonald is implicated in more than 100 cases of overruling science,” the group said in announcing their lawsuit. “In response to a congressional request, the Government Accountability Office is currently investigating additional instances of science manipulation by MacDonald.” The lawsuits challenge the FWS’s refusal to list the Montana fluvial arctic grayling in Montana and Mexican garter snake in Arizona and New Mexico as endangered species, along with the elimination of 109,382 acres of protected critical habitat from the Santa Ana sucker in California, loach minnow in Arizona and New Mexico, and the spikedace, also found in Arizona and New Mexico, and its refusal to provide any critical habitat at all for the Mississippi gopher frog in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. “These are some of the most endangered species in the United States,” said Michael Senatore, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s outrageous that federal scientists were blocked from protecting them by political appointees in Washington, D.C. The depth of corruption within the Department of the Interior goes way beyond Julie MacDonald and eight decisions. It impacts hundreds of endangered species and millions of acres of wetlands and wildlife habitat.” However, the impact of additional lawsuits, combined with the effects of the additional reviews announced two weeks ago, will only add to the over-worked status of FWS officials who are already struggling to deal with the requirements of the ESA. Speaking about the additional reviews now required in California, FWS spokeswoman Valerie Fellows said, “These are a top priority, but we are already working with a limited staff and limited resources, and facing a number of court-ordered deadlines.” — John Robinson, WLJ Editor  

—Nov. 1 on feed numbers down 1.7 percent from 2006. —Fed cattle marketings rise.   There was little in the Nov. 1 cattle on feed report to cause shockwaves in the market last week as numbers were in line with pre-report expectations. On Nov. 16, USDA reported that in feedlots with more than 1,000 head capacity, there were 11.76 million head of cattle on feed. The number was down 1.7 percent from 2006, but it remained 4 percent ahead of the five-year average. The number of cattle on feed remains supportive of the market through the end of the year and into the first quarter of 2007 as tight supplies are expected to continue to boost fed cattle sale prices. “Predictions about the latest U.S. cattle inventory and October marketing numbers were generally right on the money. While there are no big surprises in USDA’s report, it’s reasonable to conclude that supplies of fed cattle will be tight at least through the first quarter of 2008, especially when you look at current activity in the futures markets,” said Jim Sartwelle, American Farm Bureau Federation livestock economist. “We’re tacking back toward the placement patterns that existed before the ethanol boom. Cattle feeders this October returned to the longer-term trend of Octobers past.” According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service report, net placements last month totaled 2.669 million head. That figure is 13.6 percent above last year and more than 2 percent higher than market analysts expected. A sizeable increase in heavyweight placements illustrated the preference by feedlots to hold cattle on feed a shorter number of days in an effort to minimize cost of gain due to expensive grain and hay. Placements of feeder cattle weighing more than 800 pounds were up 23.1 percent from last year. The number of cattle in the 600-800 pound range was also up from last year, rising 15 percent. Lightweight placement numbers increased just 1.8 percent from year ago figures. Sartwelle said the increase in October corn prices led to the preference for heavier placements as feedlots, nervous about the rise, showed a preference for the heavier cattle. However, he said he didn’t expect to see that trend continue as feedlot managers adjust to the more expensive feeding costs. “More and more, we’re hopeful the industry is adjusting to higher feed costs and that the fall of 2006 was an anomaly in cattle feeding,” he said. “I expected to see signs of lighter-weight feeder cattle heading to feed yards due to short supplies of wheat pasture available for grazing this winter. We haven’t seen that flow of light-weight feeder cattle to the yards yet.” Sartwelle said that is a shift away from October 2006, when more than one-third of newly placed feeders weighed less than 600 pounds. He said the issue going forward will be a very limited availability for heavier feeder cattle, which have mostly been accounted for. “Supplies of heavier-weight feeder steers and heifers are still pretty tight, as evidenced by nearly 60 percent of all placements weighing in at less than 700 pounds despite the crystal-clear preference by the market for heavier calves,” he said. Placements it Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado, partially due to the lack of available wheat pasture this winter, were steady to slightly above last year. Feedlot placements in Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota showed 11 percent more cattle in feed yards compared to last year’s numbers. The battle between packers to gain market share by purchasing fed cattle, despite expected losses in that sector over the past several months, led to a sharp rise in fed cattle marketings last month. For October, total marketings reached 1.876 million head, 6.3 percent higher than 2006. However, there was one less marketing day in October 2006, so the actual increase was just 1.7 percent from last year. According to University of Nebraska agricultural economist Darrell Mark, marketings as a percentage of the on feed inventory jumped to 17.1 percent, compared to 15.5 percent last year. Those figures show feedlot marketings over the course of the month enabled feeders to maintain their current state, tightening the supply of market-ready cattle even farther. “This suggests that the on feed inventory became more current this past month, which is supported by the spike in cattle slaughter and dressed weights in October,” Mark said. “As slaughter numbers and weights have begun to decline in the past couple of weeks, the front-end supply of cattle in feed yards has decreased. The number of cattle on feed for more than 120 days was 7.2 percent lower on Nov. 1, 2007, compared to last year.” — John Robinson, WLJ Editor  

—Shipments began to trickle south on Nov. 19.   USDA moved forward with its planned opening of the border to Canadian imports of live cattle born after March 1, 1999, and beef from cattle of any age last week. However, despite attempts to fight the proposal, analysts said there would likely be little market impact. The number of cattle expected to flow south will be limited by a lack of proper documentation, excess slaughter capacity in Canada, the cost of shipping cattle south, and a surge in the value of the Canadian dollar. Those factors combine to create a financial barrier which will be difficult for cattle owners to hurdle while remaining profitable. Despite attempts by R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America to prevent the border from opening, which included filing for an emergency restraining order on Nov. 16, the courts failed to step into the fray in time to prevent the opening. As of Nov. 19, no action had been recorded on either the emergency restraining order or the group’s lawsuit aimed at preventing over-thirty- month (OTM) cattle and beef shipments. Despite the open border, very few shipments actually occurred, according to USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) which is responsible for examining cattle shipments from Canada. APHIS spokesman Ed Curlett said the agency had recorded very few cattle crossing into the U.S. from Canada on the day the border opened last week. Curlett said Monday’s tally of cattle entering the U.S. as a result of the new regulation was 514 head, through seven ports of entry. Curlett said Monday’s reported totals included 35 head at Dunseith, ND; 174 head through the port of entry at Niagra Falls, NY; 37 head at Pembina, ND; 33 head at Port Huron, MI; 77 head at Sumas, WA; 85 head at Raymond, MT; and 78 head at Highgate, VT. However, concern remains among U.S. cattle producers who fear that the Canadian ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban has not been in place long enough, or been enforced stringently enough, to prevent future cases of the disease from being imported. In addition, U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) officials said last week that the potential losses from lost export markets were an additional consideration. “U.S. Cattlemen’s Association has consistently contended that USDA’s priority should be regaining lost U.S. export markets,” stated Chuck Kiker, USDA director and Animal Health Committee chairman from Beaumont, TX. “It is perplexing that USDA fails to recognize this discrepancy in the Final Rule. This issue continues to serve as a roadblock for regaining lost export markets, a situation exacerbated by quality control issues that have occurred in recent months when export markets received shipments of beef containing banned materials. It’s time for USDA to explain to producers how the decision was made to set an effective feed ban date for Canada well before the feed ban was effectively implemented.” “The March 1, 1999, feed ban implementation date effectively compromises two of these fire walls,” noted Kiker. “Unfortunately, USDA’s decision appears to be politically driven rather than based on the best available science and data.” One possible political motivation often cited by USDA is their ongoing effort to improve international markets for U.S. beef. Those efforts have been frustratingly slow and the move to allow older Canadian imports into the U.S. is considered a key to improving trade. For example, by paving the way for expanded trade, there may be reciprocal benefits in the future for U.S. beef producers, including more relaxed restrictions for breeding stock headed for Mexico. For more than a year, U.S. states bordering Mexico have been pushing the Mexican government to allow shipments of U.S. cattle south. Mexican bull buyers have long been an important source of customers for U.S. cattlemen in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. However, Mexican officials have reportedly tied expanded trade to restoring trade between the U.S. and Canada. But USCA said last week those concerns aren’t enough to override the concerns that beef producers and consumers have on the subject of allowing OTM cattle in from Canada. “Consumer confidence, both domestically and internationally, is something U.S. cattle producers take very seriously,” noted Danni Beer, USCA Region X director from South Dakota. “The U.S. produces the safest beef in the world. Mitigation measures have been implemented and extensive testing has been conducted to ensure the U.S. feed ban has been effective. In the wake of numerous food recalls as well, as consumers’ growing concern about the safety of foreign produced food and goods, this is no time for the U.S. to lower its import standards and risk a negative outcome.” Although there will continue to be concerned cattle producers here in the U.S. as long as the border remains open, producers and government officials from north of the border say they are relived to get the issue put behind them. “This government and our industry partners have worked closely with the American industry and with the USDA to achieve this goal,” said Canadian Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz. “It’s great to see our work pay off with the USDA Final Rule normalizing trade for all cattle born after March 1, 1999.” — John Robinson, WLJ Editor  

—Choice boxed beef prices gain $4.28 in first three days of last week. The fed cattle market rally looked like it was getting underway last week with some limited higher cash trade reported early in the week, including some grid trade in Texas at the $150 level. Last Thursday, there were a few reports of live cattle moving in Texas at $92.50 and reports of bids at $145-146 live basis by packers. However, upward surging boxed beef prices early in the week, along with strength on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), had feedlots holding out for better offers. Analysts last week said they expected trade to come in at $93-94 live and $144-146 dressed, compared to the previous week’s trade at the $92 to $93.50 level in the south and $92-93 live, $142-145 dressed paid in the north. Prior week Corn Belt sales were $90-91 live and $142 dressed. Packers have been relying heavily on contract and formula cattle and cash market purchases have been on the light side for several weeks, leading to reports of short bought packers. However, kill levels have also been on the high side, so it was expected last week that packers would have to come to the table and close up the gap between feedlot asking prices and packer offers last week to get cattle bought. Despite expectations of higher cash and continued reports of tight supplies of available, market- ready fed cattle, serious trade wasn’t expected until late in the week, perhaps being delayed until after the release of USDA’s Nov. 1 cattle on feed report due last Friday. That report was expected to show inventory numbers to be below year ago levels. The average of analysts’ expectations was reported by Dow Jones to be 2.1 percent below year ago levels. Placements of cattle into feedlots were expected 11 percent above November 2006 levels as a result of light placements a year earlier and a lack of available wheat pasture in the south, which has led some stocker operators to place cattle directly into feedlots. Marketings were estimated at a robust 7.3 percent above year ago levels, mostly a result of packers vying for market share as they continued heavy slaughter volume despite negative market fundamentals. Although those estimates are positive in terms of on feed and marketing numbers, the expectations of higher placements and strength in the corn market weighed on deferred futures in contract trade on the CME last week. As of last Thursday however, contract trade had firmed up and settling prices were firm, with December closing at $95.32. February live cattle contracts pulled back 10 points, to settle at $97.95, and April ended the day 2 points lower at $98.10. Ehedger.com analyst Troy Vetterkind said the midweek pull back was caused by a combination of factors, including the on feed report expectations. “Apparently the 11 percent increase in placements spooked the market, however I think a lot of us are expecting that, if not more, due to the end of the grass run of yearlings and the fall calf run,” he said. “One thing that we are probably going to see is a pretty sharp increase in lightweight placements due to less cattle going on wheat pasture this year.” He said the contract trade played right into the pre-report expectations, while supporting the case for higher cash cattle trade last week. “Packer interest should start to pick up today (Nov. 15) as many of them are getting short bought, especially on the southern Plains, and I think they could be getting a little short on contract cattle,” Vetterkind said. “They do have this week’s kill back, however, I also think they are also getting pretty good inquiry for beef this week for both spot and forward contract.” That was especially evident in the boxed beef markets last week. The Choice cutout jumped early in the week, adding $4.28 in the first three days of last week before softening Thursday. At the close of business last Thursday, Choice boxed beef was trading at $144.18, while Select was steady at $133.13. Harvest levels fell back as a result of a reduced schedule on Veteran’s Day last Monday. For the week through Thursday, harvest was estimated at 489,000 head, well below week and year earlier numbers of 511,000 head. In the cow beef markets last week, the fall run of culls had increased and pressure was evident in carcass and cutout values as a result of the increased volume. Cash prices paid for culls at auction markets in most areas was $2-3 below the previous week across the board, with prices in areas still affected by drought even lower. The cow beef cutout value was at $103.03 last Thursday, with 90 percent lean selling at $123.16 and the 50 percent trim moving at an average price of $64.73. Despite the slight dip from week earlier levels in all three products, the prices remain near year earlier levels, largely as a result of consumer demand for cow beef products. For the same date in 2006, cow cutout values stood at $100.92, while the 90 percent lean was selling at $124.23. The year-earlier prices for 50 percent trim were sharply lower at $35.19. The continued heavy numbers of cull cows being processed by packers and the number of heifers being placed on feed are a good indicator that herd growth this year will likely be minimal. In fact, a number of analysts have started predicting flat numbers will be reported in the Jan. 1, 2008, U.S. cattle inventory report, paving the way for another good year ahead for cow/calf producers. Feeder cattle Prices paid last week for feeder steers and heifers continue to show strength in more northerly auction markets, as uneven corn markets have some farmers deciding to take advantage of strong cattle prices and market a portion of their harvest through feeder cattle. Harvest has been delayed in some areas due to moisture and as farmers finish up corn and bean harvests, they are starting to show up in the auction barns. USDA Market Reporter Greg Harrison explains that the market remained solid for feeder cattle which were healthy and ready to be put on feed. “The markets here in northern Missouri showed that people were really looking for quality yearling-type feeders and younger calves which have been weaned and have had their shots,” said Harrison. “We are starting to see more yearlings and calves weighing in the 600-700 lb. range, and there is a lot more farmer-feeder activity with the harvest season winding down.” Harrison said that as long as fed prices continue to encourage strong demand from feed yards, it’s likely the recent cash trends for feeder cattle will stay healthy. “There’s some oomph in the fat cattle [market] right now and it’s keeping things going on the feeder side,” said Harrison. “There’s quite a few people right now who feel like we may see prices for feeders on the rise until at least the end of the year, especially as the marketings on the quality cattle become fewer and fewer.” “Overall, things seemed pretty unsteady with more strength in the northern markets,” added Harrison. “I think some of the southern markets have quality issues with leftovers from calves shipped out of the southeast due to drought. To the north, where there were some late harvests, buyers are going to town and keeping demand and prices better there, with the emphasis on quality.” At the Oklahoma National Stockyards in Oklahoma City, OK, last week, there were 10,884 head sold and compared to the previous sale, steers were steady to $1 higher, with heifers mostly steady. Steer and heifer calves of lesser quality were steady to $2 lower except for steers under 500 lbs. which were $2-4 higher. Demand was good for true yearling cattle and light weight steer calves, and moderate for other classes of feeder cattle. Buyers were noted as being very selective, with heavy discounts noted on No. 2, fleshy, full and plainer cattle. Feeder steers at 580 lbs. brought an average of $112.80 at this sale, with 578 lb. heifers following behind at $102.26. In Joplin, MO, last week at the Joplin Regional Stockyards, there were 6,000 head sold with steers and heifers under 600 lbs. steady to $2 lower, with feeders over 600 lbs. $1-3 lower compared to the previous sale. Demand and supply were both moderate, with most weigh-ups average to full. Steers weighing 570 lbs. were worth $110.56 at this sale, with heifers weighing 575 lbs. bringing $99.35. The Winter Livestock feeder cattle auction in Dodge City, KS, saw 5,197 head sell with steers weighing 350-700 lbs. steady to $4 lower, except steers weighing 500-550 lbs. which were steady to $5 higher. Steers weighing 700-750 lbs. were not well tested, but those weighing 750-795 lbs. were steady to $3 lower. Heifers weighing 350-600 lbs. were also steady to $4 lower, with the same exception coming at weights of 500-550 lbs., where they were steady to $1 higher. Examples include fleshy steers weighing 597 lbs. which brought $111, and fleshy heifers weighing 571 lbs. worth $101.74. To the north in Bassett, NE, approximately 2,800 head sold last week with the bulk of the feeder cattle trending steady, the exception being 500 and 550 weight heifers, which advanced $2-3. Overall cattle quality and buyer demand were both good. Steers weighing 605 lbs. were good for $121 at this sale, with lighter heifers weighing 568 lbs. worth $112.03. The Wednesday sale in Torrington, WY, last week saw 5,700 cattle sell, with steer and heifer calves selling $2-4 higher compared to the previous sale, though there were not enough comparable sales on yearling steers and heifers for a good price comparison.  Demand was moderate to good with several long strings of preconditioned and weaned calves, while overall quality was good to fancy. Value-added steer calves weighing 565 lbs. brought $126.25, with heifers of regular quality weighing 577 lbs. bringing $108.25. Last week in La Junta, CO, there were 3,886 head put up for sale, with steer calves under 550 lbs. steady to $1 lower, while steers over 550 lbs. were steady and, in instances, $1-2 higher. Heifer calves under 500 lbs. were $3 higher, with weights over 500 lbs. steady to $1 higher. Yearling feeder steers and heifers were scarce, though there was good demand. Five hundred fifty to 590 weight steers went for $109-115.50, with 615-640 weight heifers bringing around $101. — WLJ  

Darrell Wood of Pete’s Creek Partnership, one of the founding ranches of Panorama Meats, Inc., the Angus grass-fed beef company based in Vina, CA, last week received one of three 2006 National Wetlands Conservation Awards from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Department of the Interior. Wood received the award at a ceremony in Oklahoma City, OK, for his management of the Pete’s Creek Wetland and Riparian Restoration Project on 1,262 acres of the partnership’s ranch located in Lassen County just north of Susanville, CA. This land was also certified as organic grazing land for Panorama Grass-Fed Beef cattle in July 2006. Wood is a fifth-generation California cattle rancher whose family has been grazing cattle on this land almost continually since the 1930s. He is president of Panorama Meats, Inc. and is one of 43 family ranchers who raise Panorama Grass-Fed Beef, which is sold at Whole Foods Markets in northern California, Oregon and Washington, at many HEB stores in Texas, and at 188 Trader Joe’s stores in the western U.S. More information about Panorama Meats can be found at www.panoramameats.com. The annual award recognizes the contributions by private-sector individuals and organizations to the development, restoration and enhancement of wetlands. Wetlands are biologically diverse and dynamic ecosystems that support diverse populations of fish, wildlife and plants. According to USFWS, “wetlands provide habitat for more than 40 percent of the nation’s endangered and threatened species. They also help protect water quality by filtering out pollutants, provide natural flood control by absorbing excess water, buffer coastal areas from erosion, and offer scenic and recreational opportunities.” A special panel of national and regional Fish and Wildlife Service officials and nongovernmental personnel recognizes one individual every year for having made worthy contributions to wetlands conservation. Two additional awards go to a “group-assisted individual” and a “group.” In addition to his work to preserve wetlands, Wood is a leader in the preservation of California’s rangelands. He is board chairman for the California Rangeland Trust and past president of the Lassen County Cattleman’s Association. Both groups work closely with rangeland owners to protect and enhance the environmental and economic quality of the land. He has also been honored for grassland stewardship by the Society for Range Management.

—Rural communities shown to benefit from renewable fuel boom. A new study has identified the required private capital investment necessary for the renewable fuels industry to achieve the production goals established in the proposed Energy Bill. “The capital cost to meet the 36 billion gallon renewable fuels target by 2022 amounts to $105.5 billion (2007 dollars),” the study completed by John Urbanchuk, a leading analyst of the biofuels industry and a director for LECG, LLC, a global expert services consulting firm, concludes. “Providing the Farm Credit System with greater flexibility to support the financial requirements of the biofuels industry by enabling them to provide financing to a wider range of borrowers will facilitate ethanol and biodiesel industry expansion,” the study said. The Farm Credit System has been a major source of financing for the ethanol industry for well over a decade and reported, at June 30, 2007, $1.668 billion in loans outstanding relating to biofuels products and another $2.238 billion in loan commitments to extend credit to the industry. These outstanding loans represented 1.3 percent of the Farm Credit System’s total loan portfolio. Urbanchuk’s analysis shows that the Farm Credit System’s support for the ethanol industry over the years has helped provide $23.2 billion in gross economic output, $5.5 billion in household income, and 136,345 new jobs in the construction of ethanol plants; $317 million in annual transportation revenue to ship ethanol; $24.8 billion in gross economic output, $3.6 billion in household income, and 99,188 new jobs in the operation of the plants; as well as $4.3 billion in annual farm revenue for corn to make ethanol. “This study shows directly how the rural economy benefits from the Farm Credit System’s support of agricultural-based business and farmers. Farm Credit was there fifteen years ago, taking the risk to finance the early ethanol plants when others would not. Now that Congress is looking to agriculture and the renewable fuels industry to make a major contribution to our nation’s energy independence, it is important that this experienced lender be able to continue to support the industry going forward,” said Ken Auer, president & CEO of The Farm Credit Council, the national trade association representing the Farm Credit System. The study identifies how a 50-million-gallon per year ethanol facility employs 40 people with about a $1.9 million annual payroll. Such a plant will create nearly $89 million in demand for local business and an additional $31.5 million in household income. These “Main Street” business activities largely will benefit local community banks with increased deposits of payrolls and lending as local business activity increases. The Urbanchuk study also reviews the capacity of community banks to support the industry, noting that: “the debt cost for a new ethanol plant can easily exceed $130 million. If a typical community bank has a lending limit of $2 million, it would require a syndicate of 65 community banks to fund one new plant.” It would take another 290 plants, each with 100 million gallons of capacity, to achieve the production capacity recommended in the Senate version of the energy bill (H.R. 6). The study also highlights how the rising cost of new ethanol facilities has changed the composition of the equity partners. A typical plant today requires investors to come up with about $95 million before going to the credit markets for the other $130 million in debt necessary to construct a plant, the study said. These higher equity threshold levels mean farmers are no longer in the position to be the major equity providers for the ethanol industry and that other non- farmer investors must play a role if the industry is to continue to grow. The ability of the Farm Credit System to provide financing to this broader base of owners that include more non-farmers will be crucial to the ability of the industry to expand to meet the legislated target of 36 billion gallons by 2022, the Urbanchuk study points out. — WLJ  

—Industry advocates blast report, calling it anti-meat. An alarming study published last week by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) pointed to a potential link between red meat consumption and cancer development. The report, which was an update to a study conducted a decade earlier, caused ripples of concern in many consumer media outlets and rankled meat and beef industry experts who called the report alarmist, unfounded and biased against meat consumption. The WCRF study focused on a vast number of outside research on the possible cancer-causing effects of an array of different foods, including meat, vegetables and fish, as well as individual vitamins and minerals, in their study. The findings, according to the group, indicate that the evidence linking meat consumption to certain types of cancer is “stronger than it was in the mid-1990s.” The panel of researchers concluded that: “There is limited evidence suggesting that red meat is a cause of cancers of the oesophagus, lung, pancreas and endometrium; that processed meat is a cause of cancers of the oesophagus, lung, stomach and prostate; and that foods containing iron are a cause of colorectal cancer. There is also limited, inconsistent evidence, mostly from case-control studies, that animal foods that are grilled, barbequed, or smoked, are a cause of stomach cancer.” The study’s authors concluded that the evidence of cancer caused by poultry, fish and eggs is insubstantial. Following the release of the report, several cattle and meat industry groups, including the Cattlemen’s Beef Board and American Meat Institute (AMI), labeled the study biased and dismissed its finding as a tactic meant to scare consumers away from meat consumption. “WCRF’s conclusions are extreme, unfounded and out of step with dietary guidelines,” said AMI Foundation Vice President of Scientific Affairs Randy Huffman, Ph.D. “Headlines associated with this report may give consumers another case of nutrition whiplash. The consistent finding in diet and cancer research is inconsistency,” he added. “No health groups should be dispensing clear-cut recommendations on specific foods when studies continue to contradict each other time after time.” Huffman stressed that the recommendations stand in sharp contrast to mainstream advice in the U.S. Dietary Guidelines. “The causes of cancer are extremely complex and involve factors like genetics, the environment, lifestyle and a host of other issues, Huffman noted. “Given the complexities and conflicting research findings, it is inconceivable that WCRF could draw definitive conclusions and make such precise recommendations about specific food categories.” He also stressed that he was extremely concerned that some contrary studies were left out of the WCRF review. In particular, Huffman said that the largest study ever done on red meat consumption and its impact on colon cancer, conducted in 2004 by the Harvard School of Public Health, was left out of the report. The Harvard analysis involved 725,000 men and women and was presented at the 2004 American Association for Cancer Research Conference. That study showed no relationship between red meat consumption and colon cancer. The Harvard study, titled, “Meat and fat intake and colorectal cancer risk: A pooled analysis of 14 prospective studies,” was not included in the WCRF findings, Huffman said. “This study uses what is considered perhaps the most reliable approach to analyzing relationships: pooling original data together and analyzing it,” Huffman said. “Given the study’s size, approach and very important finding, we’d like to know why it hasn’t published. WCRF and consumers deserve access to this federally-funded data which shows that red meat and processed meat were not associated with colon cancer.” “When this Harvard data showing no relationship between red meat and cancer is coupled with studies that found no association or only weak associations between red meat and cancer, we must absolutely dispute WCRF’s conclusions,” Huffman said.—John Robinson, WLJ Editor.