Texas Daily Ag Market News Summary 10/19/16

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."