|
Oct
19
2016
|
|
Posted 2 years 124 days ago ago by Texas Department of Agriculture
|
|
Feeder cattle auction reported
prices steady to $5 higher; Futures lower.
Fed cattle cash trade active;
Formula trades higher; Futures lower; Beef prices lower.
Cotton futures lower.
Grains and soybeans higher.
Milk futures lower.
Crude oil higher; Natural gas lower.
Stock markets higher.
Texas feeder cattle
auctions quoted prices steady to $5 higher. October Feeder cattle futures were $3.00 lower, closing at $119.02 per
hundredweight (cwt). The Texas fed
cattle cash trade was active today, closing at $99.25 per cwt. October Fed cattle futures were $1.73 lower,
closing at $96.02 per cwt. Wholesale
boxed beef values were lower, with Choice grade losing $2.86 to close at $178.44
and Select grade losing $2.54 to close at $169.59. Estimated cattle harvest for the week totaled 345,000 head up 1,000
from last week’s total, and up 9,000 from a year ago. Year-to-date harvest is
up 2.6%.
Cotton prices were
uneven with cash prices remaining at 69.12 cents per pound and December futures
losing 0.05 cents to close at 71.10 cents per pound.
Corn prices were higher
with cash prices gaining $0.03 to close at $3.53 per bushel and December
futures gaining $0.04 to close at $3.58 per bushel. Grain Sorghum cash prices were higher, gaining $0.07 to close at
$5.27 per cwt.
Wheat prices were higher
with cash and December futures both gaining $0.03 to close at $3.17 per bushel
and $4.25 per bushel, respectively.
Milk prices were lower
with October Class III futures losing $0.03 to close at $14.70 per cwt.
Stock markets
closed higher today, after a rally in oil prices increased energy shares and
banks earnings reports showed better than expected results. November Crude oil futures were $1.31 higher,
closing at $51.60 per barrel. Oil prices rallied after it was reported that
stockpiles had continued to decline, convincing traders that the glut of crude
may be coming to an end.
Daily Market News Summary Data 10/19/16
If
you are interested in receiving this daily report, please subscribe here.
From
Agri-Pulse:
WASHINGTON,
Oct. 17, 2016 - Several leading U.S. farm groups are urging food companies to
think twice about their sustainability goals, saying they may actually be
causing more harm than good.
The
groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, are responding
specifically to Dannon's pledge to eliminate genetically modified ingredients
from its yogurt products, which they noted was just the latest such promise
from prominent food manufacturers and retailers in recent years.
In
a letter sent
today to Mariano Lozano, head of Dannon's U.S. operations, the farm groups said
the company's strategy to eliminate GMOs (genetically modified organisms)
"is the exact opposite of the sustainable agriculture that you claim to be
seeking,” adding: “Your pledge would force farmers to abandon safe, sustainable
farming practices that have enhanced farm productivity over the last 20 years
while greatly reducing the carbon footprint of American agriculture."
Other
groups signing on to the letter were the American Soybean Association, the
American Sugarbeet Growers Association, the National Corn Growers Association,
the National Milk Producers Federation, and the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers
Alliance. In a news
release, the groups say they agree that biotechnology plays an
important role in reducing the environmental footprint of agriculture, and
challenged as disingenuous the assertion that sustainability is enhanced by
stopping the use of GMO processes.
"This
is just marketing puffery, not any true innovation that improves the actual
product offered to consumers," said Randy Mooney, chairman of the National
Milk Producers Federation, and a dairy farmer from Rogersville, Missouri.
"What's worse is that removing GMOs from the equation is harmful to the
environment - the opposite of what these companies claim to be attempting
to achieve."
During
the last 20 years, advancements in agricultural technology have allowed farmers
to use less pesticides and herbicides, fossil fuels, and water, and prevent the
loss of soil to erosion. Taking away this technology is akin to turning back
the clock and using outdated 20th century technology to run a business, the
farm groups said.
"Farming
organizations are standing up for the technology that supports continuous
improvement in farm sustainability. Farmers and ranchers have grown GMO crops
over the past 20 years precisely because biotechnology helps farmers preserve
resources for the future," said Nancy Kavazanjian, chairwoman of U.S.
Farmers and Ranchers Alliance and a corn, soybean and wheat farmer in Beaver
Dam, Wisconsin. "When food companies are making sourcing decisions, farm
groups encourage them to recognize that modern, conventional agriculture is
sustainable."
The
groups pointed out that numerous studies have come out over the last 20 years
proving the safety of GMO food and the environmental benefits of growing GM
crops. Most recently, 109 Nobel laureates announced their support of GMO
technology, citing a study from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering
and Medicine saying, "the study committee found no substantiated evidence
of a difference in risks to human health between current commercially available
genetically engineered (GE) crops and conventionally bred crops, nor did it find
conclusive cause-and-effect evidence of environmental problems from the GE crops."
"Despite
overwhelming evidence supporting the safety of GMO crops and their benefits to
the environment, marketers of some major food brands, such as Dannon, have
aligned themselves against biotechnology," said Wesley Spurlock, president
of the National Corn Growers Association. "Farming organizations believe
in open and honest communication with consumers, and allowing people to make
informed choices in the market. But we cannot sit by while certain food
companies spread misinformation under the guise of a marketing campaign."
U.S.
Farmers & Ranchers Alliance CEO Randy Krotz also adds, "When food
companies directly mislead consumers, as has been done in this example with
Dannon, individual farmers as well as farm organizations will continue to assertively
defend our critical technologies."