Feedstuffs is part of the Informa Markets Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Sitemap


Articles from 2014 In October


Ingredient market prices, 11/3/14

Ingredient market prices, 11/3/14

The following prices, which include delivery, were obtained Oct. 29 from feed and grain vendors in the U.S. and Canada. The prices represent current trading values but are not guaranteed. Second column shows the amount of change since the previous week. Prices of certain products can vary depending on the processing method used. N-Nominal. N/A-Price not available.

OILSEED PRODUCTS

 

 

(dollars per ton)

 

 

Soybean meal

 

 

(high-protein)

 

 

Atlanta

480.00

43.00

Boston

398.00

-

Buffalo

485.00

72.00

Chicago

457.00

74.00

Delmarva

N/A

-

Fayetteville NC

490.00

43.00

Ft. Worth

463.00

-

Kansas City

420.00

50.00

Los Angeles

466.00

38.00

Memphis

N/A

-

Minneapolis

384.00

49.00

Okeechobee

510.00

43.00

Portland

461.50

42.10

San Francisco

466.00

38.00

Twin Falls

485.00

136.00

Soybean meal

 

 

(low-protein)

 

 

Atlanta

480.00

44.00

Boston

393.00

-

Buffalo

481.00

72.00

Chicago

445.00

74.00

Delmarva

N/A

-

Fayetteville NC

480.00

43.00

Ft. Worth

N/A

-

Kansas City

420.00

50.00

Los Angeles

439.00

36.00

Memphis

N/A

-

Minneapolis

N/A

-

Okeechobee

500.00

43.00

Portland

N/A

-

San Francisco

439.00

36.00

Soybean hulls

 

 

Atlanta

N/A

-

Buffalo*

175.00

10.00

Chicago

140.00

2.00

Fayetteville, NC

N/A

-

Ft. Worth*

185.00

-

Los Angeles

195.00

-5.00

Minneapolis

220.00

-

Okeechobee

N/A

-

San Francisco

195.00

-5.00

Twin Falls

205.00

-10.00

* unpelleted

 

 

Whole cottonseed

 

 

Atlanta

N/A

-

Buffalo

270.00

-5.00

Chicago

250.00

2.00

Delmarva

N/A

-

Fayetteville NC

N/A

-

Ft. Worth

250.00

-10.00

Los Angeles

406.00

-6.00

Lubbock

280.00

-40.00

Memphis

230.00

10.00

Okeechobee

N/A

-

Portland

387.50

-

San Francisco

406.00

-6.00

Twin Falls

345.00

-

Cottonseed meal

 

 

Atlanta

310.00

-60.00

Chicago

338.00

-5.00

Delmarva

310.00

-60.00

Fayetteville NC

310.00

-60.00

Ft. Worth

375.00

-25.00

Kansas City

340.00

-40.00

Los Angeles

N/A

-

Lubbock

375.00

-15.00

Memphis

295.00

-5.00

Okeechobee

344.00

-60.00

San Francisco

318.00

4.00

Cottonseed hulls

 

 

Atlanta

170.00

5.00

Chicago

190.00

-

Fayetteville NC

170.00

5.00

Ft. Worth

205.00

5.00

Okeechobee

207.00

5.00

Los Angeles

N/A

-

Lubbock

230.00

-

San Francisco

N/A

-

Canola meal

 

 

Buffalo

372.00

44.00

Minneapolis

344.90

44.30

Los Angeles

370.00

55.00

Montreal

358.00

73.00

Portland

341.05

46.10

San Francisco

370.00

55.00

Twin Falls

378.00

49.00

Vancouver

295.00

35.00

Sunflower seed meal

 

 

Fargo

185.00

20.00

Minneapolis

190.00

25.00

Linseed  meal

 

 

Atlanta

N/A

-

Chicago

255.00

20.00

Fargo

N/A

-

Fayetteville NC

N/A

-

Ft. Worth

N/A

-

Kansas City

315.00

5.00

Minneapolis

230.00

20.00

Safflower meal

 

 

Los Angeles

N/A

-

San Francisco

200.00

-10.00

ANIMAL BYPRODUCTS

 

 

(dollars per ton)

 

 

Meat and bone meal

 

 

(ruminant)

 

 

Buffalo

N/A

-

Chicago

395.00

-

Delmarva

465.00

-

Fayetteville NC

425.00

-

Ft. Worth

365.00

-

Kansas City

355.00

-5.00

Los Angeles

405.00

-

Memphis

400.00

-

Minneapolis

365.00

-10.00

Portland

337.50

-5.00

San Francisco

415.00

-

Meat and bone meal

 

 

(porcine)

 

 

Fayetteville NC

440.00

-

Los Angeles

451.20

-

Memphis

430.00

-

Minneapolis

375.00

-10.00

Flash-dried blood meal

 

 

(ruminant)

 

 

Fayetteville NC

1350.00

-100.00

Los Angeles

1475.00

-75.00

Memphis

1300.00

-100.00

Minneapolis

1375.00

-25.00

Flash-dried blood meal

 

 

(porcine)

 

 

Fayetteville NC

1400.00

-100.00

Memphis

1375.00

-100.00

Minneapolis

1400.00

-25.00

Poultry byproduct meal

 

 

(feed grade)

 

 

Atlanta

395.00

-

Fayetteville NC

500.00

-25.00

Ft. Worth

320.00

-

Kansas City

N/A

-

Los Angeles

543.00

-

Memphis

500.00

-25.00

Poultry byproduct meal

 

 

(pet food grade)

 

 

Memphis

750.00

-

Fayetteville NC

750.00

-

Hydrolized feather meal

 

 

Atlanta

650.00

-

Delmarva

680.00

-10.00

Fayetteville NC

625.00

115.00

Ft. Worth

710.00

-10.00

Kansas City

830.00

10.00

Los Angeles

N/A

-

Memphis

625.00

-

Minneapolis

750.00

-25.00

Menhaden fish meal

 

 

Atlanta

1125.00

-

Buffalo

N/A

-

Chicago

1625.00

-

Fayetteville NC

1085.00

-

Ft. Worth

N/A

-

Kansas City

N/A

-

Memphis

1675.00

-

Minneapolis

1690.00

-

Twin Falls

N/A

-

Blended tuna meal

 

 

Los Angeles

N/A

-

San Francisco

N/A

-

Anchovy  meal

 

 

Los Angeles

N/A

-

San Francisco

N/A

-

ANIMAL FAT, GREASE

 

 

(cents per pound)

 

 

Prime Tallow

 

 

Chicago

29.00

-2.00

Ft. Worth

N/A

-2.00

Los Angeles

27.50

-

San Francisco

25.00

-0.50

Yellow grease

 

 

Buffalo

N/A

-

Chicago

28.00

-1.00

Delmarva

N/A

-

Fayetteville NC

29.00

-

Ft. Worth

26.50

-2.50

Kansas City

34.75

-

Los Angeles

26.50

-

Memphis

29.00

-

Minneapolis

27.50

0.50

San Francisco

24.00

-0.50

Choice white grease

 

 

Chicago

33.00

-2.00

Minneapolis

29.00

0.50

Bleachable fancy tallow

 

 

Buffalo

N/A

-

Chicago

34.00

-2.00

Ft. Worth

30.00

-

Los Angeles

N/A

-

Minneapolis

30.00

0.50

San Francisco

N/A

-

Vegetable-animal blend

 

 

Ft. Worth

27.00

-0.50

Los Angeles

25.50

-

Minneapolis

27.75

0.50

San Francisco

25.50

-

Poultry grease

 

 

(feed grade)

 

 

Delmarva

25.00

-

Fayetteville NC

28.00

-

Memphis

28.00

-

Poultry grease

 

 

(pet food grade)

 

 

Memphis

34.00

-

Fayetteville NC

34.00

-

GLUTEN, HOMINY

 

 

(dollars per ton)

 

 

Corn gluten meal

 

 

Buffalo

673.00

-

Chicago

568.00

8.00

Kansas City

660.00

-20.00

Los Angeles

650.00

10.00

Corn gluten feed

 

 

Buffalo

148.00

-

Chicago

108.00

15.00

Fayetteville NC

145.00

5.00

Kansas City

160.00

-

Okeechobee

165.00

5.00

Twin Falls

205.00

10.00

Wahpeton

N/A

-

Hominy feed

 

 

Atlanta

180.00

-

Boston

115.00

-

Buffalo

146.00

-5.00

Chicago

70.00

-4.00

Fayetteville NC

292.00

-

Kansas City

105.00

-5.00

Los Angeles

178.00

3.00

Okeechobee

285.00

-

San Francisco

178.00

3.00

Twin Falls

198.00

3.00

BREWERS, DISTILLERS

 

 

(dollars per ton)

 

 

Brewers dried grains

 

 

Chicago

N/A

-

Kansas City

N/A

-

Malt Sprouts

 

 

Chicago

170.00

-

Milwaukee

170.00

-

Winona, Minn

170.00

-

Distillers dried grains

 

 

Atlanta

165.00

-

Boston

162.00

-

Buffalo

135.00

-40.00

Chicago

92.00

-8.00

Fayetteville NC

165.00

-

Kansas City

135.00

5.00

Los Angeles

197.00

20.00

Minneapolis

95.00

10.00

Okeechobee

175.00

-

Portland

190.00

11.00

San Francisco

197.00

20.00

Twin Falls

205.00

17.00

Brewers yeast

 

 

(dollars per pound, sacked)

 

 

Chicago

0.75

-

Milwaukee

0.75

-

Minneapolis

0.75

-

ALFALFA

 

 

(dollars per ton)

 

 

Dehydrated pellets

 

 

(17% protein)

 

 

Alfalfa Center

275.00

-

Buffalo

375.00

-

Chicago

355.00

-

Kansas City

300.00

-

Los Angeles

N/A

-

Minneapolis

265.00

-

Toledo

385.00

-

San Francisco

N/A

-

Suncured pellets

 

 

(15% protein)

 

 

Atlanta

N/A

-

Ft. Worth

260.00

-

Kansas City

260.00

-

Los Angeles

N/A

-

Portland

310.00

-

San Francisco

N/A

-

WHEAT MILLFEEDS

 

 

Shorts

 

 

Chicago

150.00

-

Ft. Worth

N/A

-

Los Angeles

163.00

10.00

Millrun

 

 

Los Angeles

154.00

10.00

Portland

165.00

-

San Francisco

N/A

-

Twin Falls

140.00

-15.00

Bran

 

 

Buffalo

132.00

15.00

Chicago

140.00

-

Los Angeles

158.00

10.00

Minneapolis

N/A

-

Middlings

 

 

Buffalo

102.00

15.00

Chicago

135.00

-

Fayetteville NC

N/A

-

Ft. Worth

N/A

-

Kansas City

120.00

-

Los Angeles

161.00

10.00

Memphis

160.00

-

Minneapolis

95.00

-10.00

Okeechobee

N/A

-

DAIRY BYPRODUCTS

 

 

(dollars per hundredweight)

 

 

Dried skim milk

 

 

Ft. Worth

141.25

-1.50

Minneapolis

141.25

-1.50

Dried buttermilk

 

 

Ft. Worth

117.50

-4.00

Minneapolis

117.50

-4.00

Whole whey

 

 

Chicago

61.00

-

Ft. Worth

59.75

-1.25

Kansas City

57.50

-

Minneapolis

59.75

-1.25

Whey protein concentrate

 

 

Ft. Worth

131.63

-1.63

Milwaukee

131.63

-1.63

Lactose

 

 

Ft. Worth

41.50

-

Minneapolis

41.50

-

OATS, RICE PRODUCTS

 

 

(dollars per ton)

 

 

Rolled oats

 

 

Chicago

520.00

-20.00

Kansas City

510.00

-

Minneapolis

517.00

-

Crimped oats

 

 

Chicago

440.00

-10.00

Kansas City

365.00

-

Minneapolis

440.00

-

Pulverized oats

 

 

Chicago

155.00

-

Minneapolis

102.00

-

Reground oat feed

 

 

Chicago

85.00

-5.00

Kansas City

65.00

-

Minneapolis

57.00

-

Oats

 

 

(dollars per bushel)

 

 

Buffalo

4.25

-

Minneapolis

3.86

-

Portland*

275.00

-

(*per ton)

 

 

Rice bran

 

 

Atlanta

N/A

-

Ft. Worth

180.00

5.00

Freeport

N/A

-

Kansas City

150.00

-

Memphis

N/A

-

San Francisco

170.00

-

Stuttgart, Ark.

N/A

-

Rice millfeeds

 

 

Atlanta

N/A

-

Ft. Worth

110.00

-

Freeport

N/A

-

Kansas City

110.00

-

Memphis

N/A

-

Stuttgart, Ark.

N/A

-

Rice hulls

 

 

Ft. Worth

75.00

5.00

Kansas City

75.00

-

DRIED PULP

 

 

(dollars per ton)

 

 

Citrus pulp pellets

 

 

Atlanta

180.00

-60.00

Fayetteville NC

190.00

-60.00

Okeechobee

195.00

-

Los Angeles*

N/A

-

*(sold wet)

 

 

Beet pulp pellets

 

 

Atlanta

N/A

-

Boise

N/A

-

Chicago

220.00

-20.00

Fayetteville NC

N/A

-

Kansas City

470.00

-

Minneapolis

160.00

-

Portland

215.00

-

Saginaw

175.00

-

Beet pulp shreds

 

 

Mpls (sacked)

340.00

-

Los Angeles*

201.00

3.00

San Francisco

N/A

-

Twin Falls

N/A

-

*bulk, wet

 

 

GRAINS

 

 

Barley feed

 

 

Kansas City (bu.)

4.40

-

Los Angeles (cwt)

9.85

-

Portland (ton)

192.50

7.50

San Francisco (cwt)

9.85

-

Feed wheat

 

 

Atlanta (bu.)

10.31

-

Fayetteville NC (bu.)

10.31

-

Kansas City (bu)

5.00

0.10

Los Angeles (cwt)

N/A

-

San Francisco (cwt)

N/A

-

Corn

 

 

(dollars per bushel)

 

 

Atlanta

5.42

0.30

Boston

3.56

-

Buffalo (per ton)

166.00

6.00

Chicago

3.57

0.26

Delmarva

4.12

0.32

Fayetteville NC

5.22

0.30

Ft. Worth

N/A

-

Kansas City

3.25

0.22

Los Angeles*

10.21

-0.22

San Fran (rail)*

10.21

-0.22

San Fran (truck)*

N/A

-

Memphis

3.75

-1.08

Minneapolis

3.10

-

Okeechobee

5.67

0.30

Portland (per ton)

N/A

-

(*per cwt)

 

 

Milo

 

 

(dollars per bushel)

 

 

Atlanta

N/A

-

Fayetteville NC

N/A

-

Ft. Worth

N/A

-

Kansas City

3.65

0.32

Los Angeles*

10.44

0.14

Memphis

3.95

-0.02

*(per cwt.)

 

 

Ground grain screenings

 

 

(dollars per ton)

 

 

Ft.  Worth

149.00

5.00

Kansas City

75.00

-

OTHER

 

 

(dollars per ton)

 

 

Almond hulls

 

 

Los Angeles

181.00

9.00

San Francisco

150.00

-5.00

Bakery feed

 

 

Atlanta

170.00

-5.00

Buffalo

150.00

4.00

Fayetteville NC

175.00

-5.00

Memphis

165.00

-5.00

Minneapolis

170.00

65.00

Feed urea

 

 

Buffalo

N/A

-

Ft. Worth

N/A

-

Los Angeles

N/A

-

Minneapolis

N/A

-

Salt

 

 

Kansas City

48.50

-

Los Angeles

50.00

-

Cane molasses

 

 

Ft. Worth

N/A

-

Houston

150.00

-

Kansas City

187.50

-

Los Angeles

N/A

-

Memphis

N/A

-

Minneapolis

197.50

-

New Orleans

152.50

-

San Francisco

N/A

-

 

Volume:86 Issue:45

DMI announces partnerships to ignite fluid milk innovation

Igniting innovation in fluid milk and milk based beverages to meet the growing demands of both foreign and U.S. consumers is the objective of seven wide-ranging partnerships announced by Dairy Management, Inc. (DMI).

The seven partners, supported by DMI which represents America’s dairy farm families and importers, are committing an unprecedented investment to unlock innovation and put milk back in the center of the rapidly growing health and wellness beverage market. They include Dairy Farmers of America (DFA); Darigold/Northwest Dairy Assn.; The Kroger Co.; Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative Assn., Inc.; Shamrock Farms; Southeast Milk, Inc. and The Coca-Cola Co.

“These dairy partners are making an unprecedented investment over the next few years – more than half a billion dollars in capital and other resources,” said Tom Gallagher, CEO of DMI. “With our check-off resources and dedication to fluid milk innovation, we’re excited to see how unique partnerships will help us drive ingenuity and generate new offerings and sales in the fluid milk category.”

DMI’s fluid milk partnerships represent marketplace leaders chosen for their anticipated catalytic effect in causing others in the business to follow with innovation and investment.

The companies bring strong financial, technological and marketing capabilities to the partnerships; DMI’s commitment is assisting in product development, consumer insights, nutritional consulting, technical and formulation support, and introductions to perspective marketplace partners.

Neil Hoff, Texas dairy farmer and United Dairy Industry Assn. chairman, said, “We know that growing the fluid milk business won’t be quick or easy but we believe these seven partners put us on the right footing. We see health and wellness and demand for protein as a consistent need for U.S. consumers, and also for consumers around the world.”

“As a farmer, I am proud to see to see farmer-led organizations and other leaders committed to revitalizing fluid milk,” said Paul Rovey, Arizona dairy farmer, chairman of DMI and chairman of United Dairymen of Arizona, a regional dairy cooperative.

The seven partnerships will work to meet consumer needs through a variety of efforts including new products, new channels, enhanced distribution, merchandising and more. The long-term investment shows the dedication of America’s dairy farmers and importers to work with and through marketplace partners to create lasting category change.

U.N. platform aims to curb food loss

U.N. platform aims to curb food loss

U.N. agencies launch online community of practice to help reduce global food loss.

U.N. platform aims to curb food loss
ATTEMPTS to reduce food loss and waste, which account for one-third of food produced for human consumption, have received a boost through a new online platform that brings together a range of resources for the first time and allows stakeholders to share experiences and best practices.

The Global Community of Practice (CoP) on Food Loss Reduction was launched jointly by three U.N. agencies: the Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the World Food Programme (WFP).

The platform is part of "Mainstreaming Food Loss Reduction for Smallholders in Food Deficit Areas," an ongoing project by FAO, IFAD and WFP that's funded by the Swiss Agency for Development & Cooperation.

The Food Loss Reduction CoP aims to become a global reference point that facilitates the sharing of information and linkages between stakeholders, including public entities, civil society and the private sector.

The platform allows stakeholders to stay informed on relevant news and events and access links to online libraries, databases, repositories with relevant materials and also social networks. A number of online training and e-learning modules on post-harvest management will also be available on the CoP platform.

"When food is saved, the resources used to produce it are saved. Reducing waste and losses by not creating these in the first place should be a priority for all," Maria Helena Semedo, FAO deputy director general, natural resources, said in reference to the initiative.

Semedo emphasized that more than 800 million people in the world still suffer from hunger.

It is estimated that roughly 30% of global food production is either lost or wasted, which includes 45% of root crops, fruits and vegetables, 20% of oilseeds, meat and dairy products and 30% of cereals, fish and seafood (Infographic). This amounts to some 1.3 billion tons, or enough food to feed 2 billion people.

WFP assistant executive director Ramiro Lopes da Silva welcomed the launch of the new platform and noted how WFP's own Post-Harvest Loss Reduction Initiative currently reaches 16,000 smallholder farm families in Uganda with the aim of reducing post-harvest losses by 70% among the participating farmers.

"Through the CoP, we look forward to sharing these experiences and best practices with other organizations involved in similar efforts, Lopes da Silva said.

By accessing the platform, it is possible to stay informed of projects and programs on food loss reduction and post-harvest management, including FAO's SAVE FOOD: Global Initiative on Food Loss & Waste Reduction.

Stakeholders will also be able to participate in moderated discussion forums online. The first of these runs until Jan. 13, 2015, and covers the topic of "Losses occurring along maize supply chains: Levels, causes and solutions promoted." The CoP platform is currently available in English, French and Spanish.

The "Mainstreaming Food Loss Reduction for Smallholders in Food Deficit Areas" project envisages a number of other outcomes besides the CoP platform. These include improved handling and storage options within pulses and grain value chains for smallholder farmers in several pilot countries, including Burkina Faso, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda.

Volume:86 Issue:45

Steadfast demand drives record sales growth for CAB

Steadfast demand drives record sales growth for CAB

Steadfast demand drives record sales growth for CAB
SINCE its establishment in 1978, six of the Certified Angus Beef (CAB) brand's 10 record sales months have occurred in fiscal 2014, which ended Sept. 30.

Record global beef prices in fiscal 2014 translated into the eighth consecutive year of record sales and 10 straight years of positive growth for the brand.

Furthermore, CAB and its 17,000 brand partners in 47 countries reached a new annual record of 882 million lb. of sales, 2% higher than last year's record of 865 million lb. (Figure).

For nine months of the year, CAB sales surpassed 70 million lb., with August sales exceeding 80 million lb. for only the second time in the 36-year history of the company.

"The brand's value proposition has increased, as has consumer demand, even in the current climate of tighter supply and higher beef prices," CAB president John Stika said. "As consumers evaluate price in relation to value, they favor a premium product like the Certified Angus Beef brand, which consistently delivers a great eating experience for their hard-earned dollars. Our partners, the community that brings it to the table, are leaders of the quality beef movement, and their efforts have fueled this momentum."

Looking at individual CAB cuts, premium steak cuts recorded the largest growth, increasing 3 million lb. this fiscal year. In similar fashion, sales of end meats climbed 2%, while sales of ground beef — driven by the popularity of premium burgers — increased 4%. In addition, sales of the brand's Prime and Natural labels advanced 29% and 3%, respectively.

As more restaurants feature branded steak on the menu, CAB foodservice sales grew by 26 million lb. What's more, foodservice sales exceeded 300 million lb. for the first time.

Retailers accounted for 43% of CAB sales in fiscal 2014, at 380 million lb.

International demand for premium beef drove sales to a fresh high of 120 million lb., with the largest growth occurring in Canada, Asia and the Middle East.

 

Record acceptance

This year was not without challenges for CAB as 400,000 fewer head of Angus-influenced cattle were available at the brand's 30 licensed processing plants in North America.

Despite this shortfall, the largest percentage of Angus-influenced cattle met the 10 CAB carcass qualifications. As a result, an additional 80,000 head were accepted this year, CAB reported.

The CAB annual report pointed out that the cattle acceptance rate reached a record-breaking high of 29.5%. Meanwhile, packers certified an average of 67,800 carcasses weekly for a total of 3.52 million this year.

The demand for CAB has risen 78.7% since 2009, according to a study by Kansas State University.

Value, loyalty and trust in the brand are as high as they've ever been, Stika said, noting that CAB aligns passions and ultimately connects people to people. "None of us are in this by ourselves," he said.

Volume:86 Issue:45

Livestock & poultry cash market comparisons, 11/3/14

Livestock & poultry cash market comparisons, 11/3/14

Livestock and meat ($)

Oct. 29

Oct. 22

6 months ago

Year ago

Steers, Choice, carcass, 550-700 lb., cwt., Omaha

253.63

251.00

233.10

205.68

Steers, Choice, 1,050-1,200 lb., cwt. Okla/Texas

170.00

164.00

145.25A

132.00

Feeder Steers, 600-700 lb., cwt., Oklahoma City

244.00A

248.75A

199.00A

173.00A

Lean Hogs, Carcass, Iowa-Minn. 167-187 lb.(1)

90.78

99.41

110.45

86.79

Feeder Pigs, 40 lb. National Direct Delivered(2)

81.75

87.92

129.14

72.54

SEW Pigs, 10 lb., National direct delivered (per head)

67.65

69.10

80.10

56.00

Choice Beef, cutout, cwt.

253.35

249.43

230.34

205.17

Pork Loin, 185 lb. 51-52% lean, cutout, cwt.(3)

104.51

110.45

119.94

97.23

Hog Corn Ratio

26.15

28.16

22.76

19.7

Steer Corn Ratio

51.36

50.85

27.64

31.3

Poultry and eggs (cents)

 

 

 

 

Chickens, Grade A, Fresh lb. Chicago

100.71a

101.69a

107.65a

84.97a

Hen Turkeys, Grade A, Frozen, lb., Chicago

116.50Aa

118.50Aa

105.00Aa

150.50Aa

Young Tom Turkeys, Grade A. Frozen lb. Chicago

118.00Aa

118.00Aa

105.00Aa

105.00Aa

Eggs, Grade A, Large, doz., Chicago

117.50

117.50

110.50

110.50

N/A: not available

A: average

 

 

 

(1) Replaces live hogs; live hogs are 0.755 of quote.
(2) Replaces Sioux Falls, 50-60 lbs. (2/26/07)
(3) National FOB plant, replaces national daily carlot.
Livestock, meat, poultry and egg prices from USDA.

 

Volume:86 Issue:45

EPA board backs WOTUS rule

EPA board backs WOTUS rule

EPA board backs WOTUS rule
THE Environmental Protection Agency's water rule cleared another hurdle, gaining the approval of the agency's internal review board.

EPA is proposing to expand its jurisdiction to include small rivers and streams that flow into larger sources of water. The anticipated report, "Connectivity of Streams & Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review & Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence," reviews and synthesizes hydrology literature and is largely the scientific basis for the proposed EPA and Army Corps of Engineers rule to define "waters of the U.S." (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA).

The panel reviewed EPA's draft report on the connectivity of the nation's waterways.

"Relatively low levels of connectivity can be meaningful in terms of impacts on the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream waters," the scientific advisory board wrote.

Environmental groups say the WOTUS rule is needed to protect the nation's water sources from contamination, but those opposed say it would be unduly expensive to comply with, particularly for farmers.

EPA proposed the rule in April. The advisory board said it is "grounded in current science" but offered several recommendations to clarify the rule and improve transparency.

In its review, the advisory board recommended that EPA modify its connectivity report to:

* Provide a greater emphasis on biological and groundwater-mediated connectivity of streams, wetlands and downstream waters, as well as more analysis of human alterations to the hydrological landscape;

* Include more discussion — perhaps represented through case studies — of connectivity on a gradient and understanding connectivity from a watershed or landscape perspective;

* Increase the consistency and clarity of terminology used throughout the report, particularly related to terms like "floodplain wetlands," and

* Provide further analysis and more specificity regarding cumulative or aggregate effects of similarly situated waters (e.g., groups of headwater tributaries).

 

Comment period

The public has until Nov. 14 to comment on the proposed WOTUS rule. One of the reasons EPA allowed for an extension of the comment period was because the connectivity report had not yet been completed.

The National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) filed comments Oct. 30 expressing concerns and requesting additional clarification on the definitions of tributaries, adjacency, other waters and significant nexus.

NACD said the proposed rule, as drafted, would substantially expand CWA jurisdiction, granting EPA and the Corps broad authority and discretion to regulate wetlands and other water bodies remote from traditionally navigable waters.

After completing an economic analysis, EPA and the Corps estimated that the WOTUS rule would result in a 3% increase in CWA jurisdiction.

The amount of expansion is difficult to predict with any meaningful precision; however, if the rule were to encompass all adjacent waters and most isolated wetlands and ditches, NACD estimates that it would be significantly greater than 3%. Regardless, even a 3% increase in jurisdictional areas would be substantial considering the total number of acres affected and the associated potential economic impacts, NACD said.

NACD supports the Supreme Court's decisions to leave the management of non-navigable waters in the hands of landowners and local governments. For more than 75 years, conservation districts have been leaders in locally led efforts to ensure a clean and sustainable water supply for the nation.

"It is our philosophy that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," NACD president Earl Garber said. "Less-costly preventative measures are being implemented on the ground every day due to voluntary and incentive-based conservation practices."

An expansion of CWA jurisdiction would take away from the current voluntary approach to conservation, which promotes collaboration in a large-scale manner, NACD said. Any attempt to clarify CWA jurisdiction should be subject to local input in order to develop effective parameters, criteria and standards that successfully meet specific local needs.

No final ruling should be employed until EPA and the Corps have successfully vetted and approved clear provisions that are predictable when applied on the local level, the group noted.

The National Cattlemen's Beef Assn. (NCBA) and the Public Lands Council also officially filed comments calling for the immediate withdrawal of the WOTUS rule.

"The proposed rule places no limit on the federal government's authority over water, violating the Clean Water Act, as articulated by the Supreme Court, and will eviscerate over a century of settled water law in much of the country," said Dustin Van Liew, Public Lands Council executive director. "Contrary to the agencies' claims, the exclusions and exemptions in the proposal are unclear and provide the livestock industry no certainty."

NCBA environmental counsel Ashley McDonald added, "The agencies' proposal jeopardizes private property rights and violates Supreme Court precedent by subjecting nearly all waters to regulation."

Volume:86 Issue:45

Grain & ingredient cash market comparisons, 11/3/14

Grain & ingredient cash market comparisons, 11/3/14

 

Major feed ingredients

Oct. 29

Oct. 22

6 months ago

Year ago

Corn No. 2, Chicago, bu.

 

 

 

 

Processor bid*

3.66A

3.48A

N/A

4.26A

Terminal bid*

3.53A

3.26A

N/A

4.22A

Milo, Kansas City, cwt.

6.51

5.94

9.20

 

Soybeans, Chicago, bu., processor bid

10.38A

9.58

N/A

12.93A

Soybean Meal, 48% Decatur Bid

450.20A

381.00A

N/A

442.80A

Cottonseed Meal, Memphis, ton

295.00

300.00

420.00

335.00

Linseed Meal, Solvent, Minneapolis

230.00

210.00

380.00

325.00

Meat and Bone Meal, Chicago, ton

395.00

395.00

560.00

415.00

Fish Meal, Menhaden, Atlanta, ton

1,125.00

1,125.00

1,125.00

1,445.00

Corn Gluten Meal, 60%, Chicago, ton

568.00

560.00

835.00

630.00

Distillers Dried Grains, Chicago, ton

92.00

100.00

235.00

215.00

17% Dehy. Alfalfa Pellets, KC, ton

300.00

300.00

335.00

365.00

Millfeeds, Midds, Minneapolis, ton

95.00

105.00

155.00

140.00

Molasses, Cane, Houston, ton

150.00

150.00

147.50

155.00

Dried Citrus Pulp, Atlanta, ton

180.00

240.00

225.00

255.00

Whey, Whole, Chicago, cwt.

61.00

61.00

65.38

54.00

Rolled Oats, Minneapolis, ton

517.00

517.00

587.00

555.00

Barley, Los Angeles , cwt.

9.85

9.85

13.25

10.48

Feeding Wheat, Kansas City, bu.

5.00

4.90

6.73

7.12

* Chicago corn and soybean prices for latest and previous week are the middle of the range of to-arrive bids; soybean meal prices are midrange of processor quotes. Chicago corn and soybean prices provided by USDA Market News. Six months, year ago comparisons are all spot cash. Based on prices reported by Feedstuffs' market reporters.

A: average

N/A: not available

 

Volume:86 Issue:45

CHS commits $225,000 to IFAMA

CHS Inc. recently announced it has expanded its commitment to furthering agricultural education through a gift of $225,000 to the International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IFAMA).

IFAMA, an international management organization based in Washington, D.C., brings together current and future business, academic and government leaders, along with industry stakeholders to improve food and agribusiness systems globally.

The $225,000 gift will make CHS a premier sponsor of IFAMA's 2015 World Forum and Symposium, held June 14-18 in Minneapolis, Minn. The five-day forum – expected to draw more than 400 students, academic, government and business leaders – will include interactive discussions and presentations that address global nutritional security.

"Investing in the next generation of agriculturists is the primary focus of CHS Corporate Citizenship and the CHS Foundation," said William Nelson, president, CHS Foundation and vice president, CHS Corporate Citizenship. "Partnering with IFAMA and the participating colleges and universities in the Agribusiness & World Food Forum is an excellent example of how CHS works on behalf of its farmer and rancher owners to make investments that create a strong future and strong future leaders for agriculture."

Maximizing feed value of canola meal

Maximizing feed value of canola meal

Rising availability and favorable economics have more animal nutritionists considering canola meal.

AS canola production has shot upward over the past decade, so, too, has the potential for more U.S. livestock operations to take advantage of canola meal as an alternative feed protein source.

Canola production is primarily associated with the prairie provinces of western Canada, where it was first introduced and has ascended to become the dominant cash crop thanks to rising demand for the crop's healthy oil for culinary uses and a wide variety of food products, along with some ethanol use.

However, rising production and exports of Canadian canola meal, as well as gradually expanding canola production in the northern-tier states and other key pockets of the U.S, have quietly made canola meal a rapidly increasing factor in U.S. feed markets.

According to the Canola Council of Canada, in the 2013-14 crop year, the country produced approximately 4.2 million metric tons of canola meal and, of that, exported about 3.2 mmt — the vast majority (more than 95%) to the U.S. This represents a peak in a canola meal export trend that has rocketed skyward in recent years and the highest canola meal exports to the U.S. to date.

At the same time, U.S. canola production has expanded to about 1.5 million acres, with virtually all canola meal used domestically, according to the U.S. Canola Assn.

 

Spike in interest

"The numbers are a clear reflection that interest and use of canola meal in the U.S. has expanded substantially over the years," Brittany Dyck, canola meal manager with the Canola Council of Canada, said. "Increasing levels of production in Canada should make even more canola meal available to the U.S. and other markets around the world."

The rise in exports of canola meal to the U.S. is due to a number of factors, starting with major production increases over the last five years, Dyck said. More major U.S. operations are now familiar with using canola meal and, based on favorable results, have become repeat customers. Also, the quality of canola meal has been very consistent for the past 10 years, and industry knowledge has greatly improved on how to get the best value from it.

"A growing body of new research results is having an influence," Dyck said. "There have also obviously been some favorable economics in recent years that have made canola meal more attractive more often relative to other options."

The main concentration of canola meal use in the U.S. has been in the dairy industry, Dyck said. The feed source provides an alternative to soybean meal with a strong overall nutritional composition, including an excellent amino acid profile that is favorable for milk production.

A meta-analysis (Martineau, 2013) comparing results from 49 separate dietary treatments with the same level of protein confirms that canola meal can increase milk production by approximately 1.4 lb. of milk per cow per day compared to similar use of soybean meal and other vegetable protein ingredients.

There is also significant interest in and increasing use of canola meal in the U.S. poultry and swine sectors, she said. Along with improving economics, this is driven, in large part, by new research results supporting higher inclusion levels.

"The research shows that when diets are properly formulated, canola meal can be safely fed at much higher levels than what was traditionally recommended, including to young animals," Dyck said. "Canola meal represents an expanding area of opportunity for more animal nutritionists and livestock operations to consider."

 

Key factors

Good information on key considerations for canola meal is available through sources such as the Canola Council of Canada and the U.S. Canola Assn.

These organizations caution that nutritional composition may vary depending on the processing method (i.e., solvent-extracted or expeller) and the changes in growing conditions from year to year. Some of the important factors to consider include:

Nutritional composition. The main advantages of canola meal typically include a good protein content and amino acid profile, high oil content and a complex carbohydrate matrix, along with good selenium and phosphorous content. Like many vegetable protein sources, canola meal is limiting in lysine but has high levels of methionine and cysteine.

The bypass protein content of canola meal is also substantial, making key amino acids such as methionine more available for milk production. A high bypass protein value and ideal amino acid composition contribute to the dramatic research results showing a substantial milk production advantage with canola meal compared to soybean meal. (The Table provides a snapshot of the typical chemical composition of canola meal.)

Glucosinolates. An early concern with canola meal was its glucosinolate content, which, at high levels, can cause a host of problems, including health concerns for young animals and a bitter taste that can reduce feed intake. However, this is no longer an issue with today's canola varieties because plant breeding advances have steadily reduced the total glucosinolate content of canola to about one-twelfth of that of the earlier high-glucosinolate varieties.

Inclusion levels. Advances in the current generation of canola varieties, along with improvements in diet formulation practices, have also supported much higher inclusion levels than was advised in the past.

For example, while recommended levels for poultry were traditionally as low as 3%, today even very cautious recommendations based on appropriate feed formulation techniques and animal health considerations are at around 10% for young birds and rise to 20% or 30% depending on other life stages and bird types.

Another area where major inroads have been made is in understanding the potential for pigs. For example, the research team of Dr. Martin Nyachoti at the University of Manitoba demonstrated recently that canola meal can be included in the diets of weaned pigs at levels of up to 25% while supporting high growth performance (Journal of Animal Science, July 2014).

Energy factor. Canola meal is a slightly more fibrous byproduct, which lends itself to better utilization in ruminant animals.

For monogastrics such as poultry and swine, the energy profile of canola meal compared to soybean meal is often lower. However, nutritionists note that this gap can be easily addressed by adding slightly higher fat levels to the diet along with the canola meal.

Enzymes boost potential. Another option to consider is supplementing with enzymes to unlock more nutrients from canola meal. Recent studies and literature reviews, such as those by Dr. Bogdan Slominski and his team at the University of Manitoba, show that substantial gains in nutrient utilization are possible for all species with properly formulated and applied enzyme supplementation; also, this approach can make feasible the use of full-fat canola or off-grades of canola seed that can represent an economic, well-balanced source of protein.

Because canola meal is a complex feed ingredient with multiple hard-to-digest components, research trials by Slominski and others indicate that multi-carbohydrase enzyme approaches are more effective than single-enzyme formulations.

Top researchers on feed nutrient digestibility such as Dr. Hans Stein of the University of Illinois have highlighted that the digestibility of amino acids in canola meal is lower than in soybean meal, primarily due to a higher fiber content. This is a key area where Slominski and others suggest that enzyme supplementation can play an important role.

 

Typical chemical composition of canola meal (12% moisture basis)

Component

Average

Crude protein (nitrogen x 6.25%)

36

Rumen bypass protein, %

35

Oil, %

3.5

Linoleic acid, %

0.6

Crude fiber, %

12.0

Tannins, %

1.5

Sinapine, %

1.0

Phytic acid, %

3.3

Glucosinolates (micromol/g)

7.2

Note: Information shown is for canola meal processed using the solvent extraction method. Canola meal will have 8-15% higher fat and much higher energy values if processed using the double-press expeller method.

Source: Canola Council of Canada.

 

Volume:86 Issue:45

Removing oil from DDGS affects nutrient levels

Removing oil from DDGS affects nutrient levels

THE ethanol industry is now extracting much of the corn oil found in dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS), which changes the nutrient value of DDGS when used as a feed ingredient, but the exact effects have not been determined.

Drs. W.A. Dozier III and J.B. Hess of the Auburn University poultry science department recently completed a research project, funded by the U.S. Poultry & Egg Assn. (USPOULTRY) Foundation, in which they determined the effects of removing the oil from DDGS on the energy content and amino acid digestibility when fed to broilers.

They documented a significant decrease in energy content and were able to determine which amino acids were affected by oil removal. These results will allow rations to be more precisely formulated when using DDGS from which the corn oil has been removed.

The ethanol industry produces a variety of co-products, ranging from dehydrated corn germ meal to corn bran. High-oil DDGS is approximately 31% crude protein, 12% ether extract and 44% neutral detergent fiber.

With the ethanol industry seeking additional profit streams and the biodiesel industry seeking alternatives to high-priced soybean oil, one product with potential is the corn oil extracted from ethanol. After extracting the oil in DDGS, crude fat levels can drop from approximately 12% to 6% ether extract, while in contrast, concentrations of other nutrients in the resultant reduced-oil DDGS are increased.

Dozier and Hess said their objectives were to: (1) determine the metabolizable energy (AMEn) and amino acid digestibility of three sources of DDGS and (2) examine growth and meat yield responses of broilers fed diets consisting of three sources of DDGS at different inclusion levels during days 1-35 and days 1-49 of age. Diets were formulated using AMEn and digestible amino acid values determined from objective 1.

In experiment 1, AMEn was determined to be 1,975 kcal, 2,644 kcal and 3,137 kcal/kg for low-oil DDGS (L-DDGS), medium-oil DDGS (M-DDGS) and high-oil DDGS (H-DDGS), respectively, Dozier and Hess reported.

In experiment 2, apparent amino acid digestibility was determined by feeding L-DDGS, M-DDGS or H-DDGS. The researchers said the apparent amino acid digestibility coefficients were negatively affected by oil extraction for methionine, lysine, threonine, tryptophan and arginine, but no differences were seen for isoleucine, leucine and valine.

These results indicated that L-DDGS had lower apparent amino acid coefficients for methionine, lysine, threonine, tryptophan and arginine compared with H-DDGS, Dozier and Hess said, adding that this information should be considered when formulating diets using de-oiled DDGS.

In experiment 3, diets were formulated to contain L-DDGS, M-DDGS and H-DDGS at moderate (5%, 7% and 9%) and high (8%, 10% and 12%) inclusion rates, and the diets were fed to male broilers from one to 35 days of age.

Broilers receiving diets with a higher inclusion of DDGS had lower bodyweight gains and poorer feed conversion ratios, the researchers noted. The oil content of the DDGS source did not affect live performance, they added, but abdominal fat yield was reduced and breast yield was increased for broilers receiving the H-DDGS source at moderate inclusion levels.

In experiment 4, diets were formulated to contain L-DDGS, M-DDGS and H-DDGS at moderate (5%, 7%, 9% and 11%) and high (8%, 10%, 12% and 14%) inclusion rates, and the diets were fed to male broilers from one to 49 days of age. Neither the DDGS source nor the inclusion rate affected cumulative performance or parts yield, Dozier and Hess reported.

In general, these data indicated that acceptable performance can be obtained with de-oiled DDGS if diets are formulated to the actual nutrient values of DDGS, the researchers concluded. Using an L-DDGS source can provide adequate performance but may increase diet costs because of its lower energy contribution.

 

Detecting salmonella

Detecting salmonella in various stages of the food production system is complicated by the vast number of salmonella serotypes and the variation of characteristics even within a serotype, and the poultry industry needs simple methods to track isolates of salmonella through the production system, according to USPOULTRY.

Drs. Michael Rothrock and Jean Guard of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service Egg Safety & Quality Research Unit recently completed a USPOULTRY-funded research project in which they developed reagents and protocols to rapidly detect and identify some of the major serotypes of salmonella and differentiate different isolates within a serotype.

Utilizing single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of two different genes, they were able to detect 89-100% of a panel of salmonella isolates from environmental, poultry production and processing settings. SNPs are discreet areas in a gene that vary between isolates of similar bacteria and can be used to identify those bacteria.

Rothrock and Guard noted the following accomplishments of their research:

1. SNPs and test protocols were successfully identified in the cyaA gene that distinguished between major serotypes (Salmonella enteritidis, Salmonella typhimurium and Salmonella kentucky) and important S. enteritidis pathotypes.

2. To expand the utility of this protocol, SNPs within a second gene target, ushA, were identified for major serotypes (S. enteritidis, S. typhimurium, Salmonella heidelberg, Salmonella infantis and S. kentucky).

3. The developed assays correctly identified 89-100% of a panel of salmonella isolates from environmental poultry production or processing settings.

This work demonstrates the power of using SNPs to quickly and accurately distinguish between target salmonella serotypes/pathotypes relevant to the meat-type and egg-type poultry industries, the researchers said.

 

Flocking

Although it would seem logical that large numbers of roosting birds would attract more mosquitoes that carry West Nile virus and contract the disease when bitten, recent research at the University of Illinois found the opposite to be true. That is, when large groups of birds roost together, the chances that an individual bird will get bitten by mosquitoes carrying West Nile virus and subsequently contract the disease actually go down.

"Our study is the first field-based evidence to support what's called the 'encounter-dilution effect' acting in a vector-borne disease system with an experiment," University of Illinois researcher Bethany Krebs said. "There have been other laboratory and modeling studies that suggest that mosquitoes feed less per individual in a group than they do on a solitary bird, but it's hard to get the information in natural settings."

The experiment was conducted over a period of three years.

"We trapped mosquitoes inside and outside of roosts from 2010 to 2012 to determine whether roosts attracted more mosquitoes than non-roost sites," Krebs said. "Then, we sent the mosquitoes to a lab in Texas that ran analyses on them to determine if they carried the virus. Uninfected house sparrows were used as sentinel birds to assess host risk of West Nile exposure in 2012. The timing coincided with the historical period of peak West Nile virus transmission in the Chicago (Ill.) study areas known to be 'hot spots' for the disease."

The house sparrows were placed in flight cages, with 23 birds in cages near communal roosts and 25 in non-roost cages. Krebs explained that sentinel birds are used by public health departments as sort of a "canary-in-the-coal mine" early-warning system to detect the presence of a vector-borne disease.

"Only three sparrows near roosts contracted West Nile virus, whereas 11 birds in non-roost cages were infected," Krebs said. "So, the risk of West Nile virus exposure for those sentinel birds caged within roosts was significantly lower than for birds caged in non-roost locations."

Jeff Brawn, University of Illinois ecologist and head of the department of natural resources and environmental sciences, described how this study sheds light on the spread of vector-borne diseases, such as West Nile virus, compared to those transmitted via direct contact.

"If you're in a group, the probability of infection goes way up with direct contact diseases such as colds and flu," Brawn explained. "This study confirmed that the risk is spread out among the individuals in the herd; in the case of West Nile virus, which is a vector-borne disease, individual risk is minimized."

Brawn said they don't understand why some birds roost and others of the same species do not, but this study shows that those who do choose to roost together benefit from the lower risk of exposure to West Nile virus infection.

Regarding the maintenance and transmission of West Nile virus, the common mosquito Culex pipiens is the carrier (vector) of the disease. The mosquitoes bite birds, usually at night while they are roosting, and infect them with the virus. Crows and jays typically die after they contract West Nile virus, but robins are called "super-amplifiers of the disease" as they are able to serve as hosts for the virus. Later, other mosquitoes bite the infected birds, get the virus and transmit it to another host, which could be another bird or a human.

Brawn added that, although the study was on birds, it could provide an interesting implication with respect to human behavior and health risk. "If you are in the woods alone, you may have a greater probability of getting bitten than if you are in a large group of people," he said.

The research was published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences and was supported by the National Science Foundation Ecology of Infectious Disease program.

Volume:86 Issue:45