The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service released the October Cattle on Feed report Friday, Oct. 19. Marketings and placements were below the prior year while the end-of-the-month inventory was larger. Marketings during the month of September were 1.7 million head and this is 3.6 percent below the prior year.
Placements during September were 2.1 million head and this is 4.6 percent below the prior year. These flow measures result in the October 1 Cattle on Feed inventory being estimated at 11.4 million head in greater than 1,000-head capacity feedlots. This is 5.4 percent above the prior year.
From an expectations perspective, the report is long-term bullish but short-term bearish. Pre-report estimates were very close for on-feed numbers. But placements could be classified a surprise. Pre-report expectations suggested placements similar to last year and, as reported above, placements are close to 5 percent lower than the prior year.
Marketings are not as big of a surprise but the argument could be made. Pre-report expectations suggested a drop in marketings but the drop was on the end of the range and not as large most analysts expected.
The report is reasonably troubling. The drop off in marketings, regardless of placements, suggests the need for strong slaughter volumes the next two months. Cattle on feed numbers are nothing short of enormous. And placements in July and August were close to 7 percent above the prior year.
The availability of market-ready cattle come the end of this year and the first of next will be substantial. However, the marketplace has handled the large volume of beef so far this year, and much of last, perfectly. Saturday slaughter volumes have been strong, packer and retailer margins have been excellent, slaughter weight increases are typical for the season but not excessive, and domestic demand is appearing to favor beef while exports have been excellent.
A lot has gone right for fed cattle, and calf, prices to remain strong and even improve. But, in the end, there remains considerable potential downside risk. — Stephen Koontz, professor of agricultural and resource economics, Colorado State University
