Livestock Marketing Assoc. Of Texas Oppose Dealer Trust Legislation H.R. 4058

Recently a group of Livestock Marketing Association of Texas (LMAT) member market owners and livestock dealers from Texas traveled to Washington D.C. to meet with legislators and their staff to discuss their opposition to the proposed Dealer Trust legislation. H.R. 4058 or the Securing All Livestock Equitably (SALE) Act would create a Dealer Statutory Trust, modeled after the existing Packer Statutory Trust which would give unpaid sellers of livestock (including producers, markets, and other dealers) first priority in livestock or, if the livestock have already been resold, the proceeds and receivables from those livestock.
Opposition to H.R. 4058 was first raised by LMAT in 2017 and the officers, directors, staff and legal consultants have been studying the implications of the H.R. 4058 and have determined this legislation is not the right answer to solve payment recovery in cases of dealer default and will cause more problems that it will solve.
LMAT is concerned that the dealer trust provisions would result in less credit from traditional secured lenders to livestock dealers by reducing the value of inventory and receivables used as collateral. This bill would also change lien priority in default situations, giving the trust priority over secured lenders. The precedent of eliminating the first lien rights for lenders has led the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee of the Texas Bankers Association to oppose the bill. These potential lending issues will have an impact on producers, dealers and livestock markets that rely on lenders to finance their operations.
Additionally, another concern is that every buyer of livestock could be considered a ‘dealer’. The Packers and Stockyards Act definition of ‘dealer’ is vague and open to broad interpretation. H.R. 4058 does nothing to address this issue, and there is no clear test to determine who is a dealer under current law. It is impossible to know exactly who is subject to the proposed Dealer Trust. Likewise, the issue of who has clear title to livestock if the trust is created is not resolved. Under the proposed legislation, all livestock purchased by ‘dealers’ are subject to the trust. H.R. 4058 does not state whether the trust terminates or continues when a good faith purchaser pays full value to a dealer for the livestock.
A growing number of market operators, dealers, producers and financial institutions across several states have studied the issue and are now joined in opposition to this proposed legislation. Groups opposing H.R. 4058 include:  Livestock Marketing Association of Texas, Louisiana Livestock Marketing Association, Superior Livestock Auction, a group of livestock market owners, dealers and order buyers from Alabama, Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, Texas Cattle Feeders Association, Independent Cattleman’s Association of Texas and Texas Bankers Association – Ag and Rural Affairs Committee.
 If this concept were to become law, LMAT leadership believes that H.R. 4058 will set the industry up for numerous legal bills, lawsuits and losses before the courts can establish case law as to what this legislation really means. This could take years, and meanwhile, livestock markets, dealers, producers and their secured lender will have to adjust how they do business and manage their risks. This proposed legislation could leave markets and producers to deal with potential fallout and additional regulations on a constant and reliable segment of the livestock marketing industry that provides critical market liquidity and daily price discovery.

U.S. And China Talk About Beef

By Richard Smith
DTN Japan Correspondent

Tokyo (DTN) – Asked how U.S.-China talks on trade tariffs affect U.S. beef exports to China, U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) international program assistant Vice-President Greg Hanes used the “chicken-and-egg thing” metaphor.
Chinese “buyers don’t want to commit to specific volumes, because the price is high, and (U.S.) producers don’t want to want to commit to producing for China, because they don’t know if the buyers are going to be there,” Hanes said.
Following a 2003 ban on U.S. beef due to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or mad cow disease, China has allowed boneless U.S. beef from cattle under 30 months back in since last June. But the country requires imported meat to be hormone and beta agonist free, come from China-approved plants and have traceability. That drives up production costs, and consequently, leads to higher retail prices.
Prices will get even higher if the threat of a 25% tariff hike on imports from the U.S. becomes reality. China has threatened higher tariffs in retaliation to the U.S. raising tariffs on imports from China. “Buyers don’t want to commit ready-to-sell beef at an expensive price,” and U.S. beef to China “has the potential to being even more expensive in the future,” Hanes said.
Hanes led an USMEF-organized marketing trip for a group of 11 representatives of U.S. beef associations and one academic to China on May 6-9, and then went to Japan until May 12. Participants met with importers, and in the case of China, with online importers Alibaba and
Despite the tense situation, Cattlemen’s Beef Board (CBB) CEO Scott Stuart said he witnessed a lot of excitement from Chinese importers for U.S. beef. “We would like to see that beef get into their hands as soon as possible,” Stuart said.
The reality is that export volumes to China are low. Hanes told DTN that U.S. exports to China this year through March were only at 1,616 metric tons (mt) (3.6 million pounds), compared to 73,000 mt (161 million pounds) for Japan.
While Japan is the leading volume and value market for U.S. beef, it imposes the highest tariff rate (38.5K) of any major import market. Beef-exporting countries with trade agreements with Japan enjoy lower rates. Once the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) among the 11 remaining countries is implemented, the U.S. will be the only major beef supplier to Japan still subject to quarterly safeguard mechanisms and higher tariff rates. The Trump administration pulled the U.S. from TPP in 2017.
Under the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement (JAEPA), which entered into force in 2015, Japan’s imports of Australian beef are currently subject to tariffs of 29.3% for chilled beef and 26.9% for the frozen meat. These rates are scheduled to fall to 23.5% by 2028 for chilled beef and 19.5% by 2031 for frozen product.
Another important aspect of the JAEPA is that imports from Australia are no longer subject to Japan’s quarterly safeguard mechanisms, but rather are covered by country-specific annual safeguards, which are much less likely to be triggered.
Japan’s economic partnership agreements with Mexico and Canada include tariff rate quotas, within which imports pay a reduced duty rate (currently at 26.5% for Canadian beef, and 30.8% for its Mexican rival), and are also excluded from quarterly safeguards.
Whenever overall beef imports in a fiscal year quarter exceed by more than 17% import volumes in the same period of the previous year, tariffs rise to 50%. When excessive imports show up only in the final figures for the entire preceding year, which come out in late April, the higher tariffs strike only in May and June of the new fiscal year.
The raise is applied separately to chilled and frozen beef. The tariff snapback was applied to the latter Aug. 1, 2017, affecting imports from the U.S. and other countries with no trade deal with Japan.
Under the TPP 11, now known as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), beef-exporting Canada and New Zealand will benefit from the shift to annual import safeguards in Japan, and their tariff rates will immediately drop to those currently paid on Australian beef.
All participating beef suppliers serving Japan, including Australia, will see import tariffs drop to 9% over a period of 15 years, much lower than the 23.5% and 19.5% floors negotiated in Australia’s bilateral agreement.
“That obviously makes our product more expensive,” Hanes said.
CBB member and Minnesota State Cattlemen’s Association past president Ted Reichmann, a cow-calf and feedlot operator in Villard, Minnesota, said he doesn’t think the CPTPP issue is hurting Japan interest in U.S. beef at all. “But it is making our product less competitive,” he said.
CBB chairman Joan Ruskamp, who operates a feedlot with her husband in Dodge, Nebraska, said what the issue does do is create uncertainty. Foodservice managers cannot plan menus for a year when they don’t know what the price will be, Ruskamp said. “It diminishes our potential to export beef to this market,” she said.
On a positive note, there has been talk of a “nikku” (beef) boom in Japan, and Hanes said there does seem to be a shift to meat in this country, with the government helping to promote the need for more protein in the diet. “So we are seeing a lot more interest in restaurants that are highlighting meat, especially beef,” he said.
Texas A&M university department of animal science associate professor Jason Cleere, a beef cattle specialist, said the U.S. beef market suffers from a flattened consumption, but will experience record production this year. “With that, we will need to assure export markets,” Cleere said.
The Chinese market is really exciting, just because the population is so huge, Cleere said. “We need to get those consumers to eat U.S. beef.” And in Japan, “we could have a lot more beef coming in if we could have a trade agreement.”
Hanes said USMEF strives to build demand for U.S. beef whatever the state of access to a market may be. “Whether we have good access or bad access, we’re still working to build demand and awareness, and get more product into the market.”

House Ag Leaders Look For New Path Forward After Farm Bill Defeated

By Jerry Hagstrom
DTN Political Correspondent and
Chris Clayton
DTN Ag Policy Editor

Washington (DTN) – The cheers and jeers were all over the spectrum May 18 after the House of Representatives failed to pass its version of the farm bill following a raucous debate.
The setback adds to the possibility of an extension that could complicate farmers’ ability to switch commodity programs next fall for their base acres. Declining revenue guarantees for the Agricultural Revenue Coverage (ARC) have led to the likelihood that farmers enrolled in ARC are looking for the chance to switch at least some farms to Price Loss Coverage (PLC) for their safety net.
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Michael Conaway, R-Texas, had said the vote on the farm bill would tell farmers and ranchers if Congress stands with them or not. But other elements of the bill, and desire among some Republicans for an immigration vote, got in the way of passage.
“We experienced a setback today after a streak of victories all week,” Conaway said after fending off several amendments in the Rules Committee and on the House floor. “We may be down, but we are not out. We will deliver a strong, new farm bill on time as the president of the United States has called on us to do. Our nation’s farmers and ranchers and rural America deserve nothing less.”
The bill went down to defeat with 198 members voting for the legislation and 213 voting against it. Conaway had sought to pass a bill with just GOP support because of SNAP changes. But the strategy failed, as 30 Republicans joined all 183 Democrats voting against it. The bill fell 17 votes short in a 198-213 vote.
The entire Democratic caucus opposes the farm bill because of tougher job-and-training requirements for people who receive food aid under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Other changes would have restricted the ability of states to expand the income eligibility for people to receive SNAP aid.
Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., ranking member of the House Ag Committee, told reporters after the vote that he has ideas to fix the SNAP section of the bill so that enough Democrats would support it to pass the bill. But Conaway, as the committee chairman, will need to ask for Peterson’s help.
“I’m willing to go back to the table to help them fix this. If they will listen to me, I can deliver a lot of Democratic votes,” Peterson told reporters in the Capitol, while Conaway canceled a scheduled media availability event.
While Freedom Caucus members who want a vote on immigration claimed to have brought the bill down, Peterson noted that moderate Republicans considered the work requirements and tougher access standards in SNAP too harsh. The record shows that the Republicans who voted against it included House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J.; Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.; and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., all of whom are considered moderate Republicans.
As some farm groups expressed disappointment, Chuck Conner, president of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, called the bill’s defeat “only a bump in the road on the way to passing the farm bill that America’s farmers and ranchers so urgently need.”
National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson said the farm bill needed to fail because it did not necessarily improve the safety net for farmers while eliminating conservation programs his members support. “Major changes need to be made to this bill. Farmers Union urges the House to send it back to committee to make significant improvements worthy of the men and woman who feed, fuel and clothe our nation,” Johnson said.
Countering NFU was American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall, who called the vote a blow to farmers and ranchers. “We are already starting to hear from farmers across the nation, many of whom are perplexed and outraged at this morning’s vote,” Duvall said. “They are facing very real financial challenges. We call on all members of Congress not to use farmers and ranchers as pawns in a political game. The risk-management tools of the farm bill are too important, particularly at a time of depressed farm prices. We urge the House to pass HR 2 as soon as possible.”
Lindsey Lusher Shute, co-founder and executive director of the National Young Farmer Coalition, said vote should prove that Congress can’t pass a farm bill by dividing the two parties or dividing farmers from those who use food-aid programs.
“We need a farm bill that works for, and includes, all of us. One that supports farmers and ranchers struggling through an economic downturn or growing amidst a drought, and one that can sustain farming as a viable livelihood for future generations,” Lusher-Shute said. “We cannot wait another farm bill to address the structural barriers holding our generation back. The House farm bill presented today didn’t heed that call. The House was right to defeat it, and let’s hope it’s back to the drawing board.”
Others pointed to the decline in farm incomes, especially since 2013, as reason Congress needs to pass a bill. “Plain and simple: the farm bill matters,” said John Heisdorffer, an Iowa farmer and president of the American Soybean Association. “U.S. soybean growers and everyone involved in agriculture depend on this vital piece of legislation. This bill provides a farm safety net, improves conservation, places value on exports and feeds our nation.”
Under House rules, the House could introduce a motion to reconsider the bill within two legislative days. There was an attempt to introduce that motion May 18, but it stopped midway. It’s not clear how exactly reconsideration could take place – whether it would have to be exactly the same bill or one with some changes.
Peterson said that the bill can still get done this year, but an extension would have only two problems: farmers’ inability to change from the Agricultural Risk Coverage to the Price Loss Coverage program, and no increase in acreage under the Conservation Reserve Program. The dairy program has already been fixed, he said.
Peterson also said he would prefer to finish the bill this year because it will be harder to pass next year whether the Republicans or the Democrats control the House. In the latter case, Peterson would be chairman.
Peterson noted that he decided to oppose the GOP on SNAP changes even though “this is not popular in my district.” He added, however, that his position had helped attract Democratic votes to defeat the sugar amendment, which would have hurt his farmers who produce more sugar beets than any other district in the country.
The GOP nutrition title is based on stricter work requirements, but Peterson said that his biggest objection is the creation of a bureaucracy that is supposed to train people who do not have jobs. The bill would save money because some SNAP beneficiaries would drop out of the program and the money would go toward training programs that critics say would amount to only $30 per month per trainee.
The cost of training two million people adequately “would be $50 billion,” Peterson said.
Peterson has been regarded as a conservative Democrat, but he vigorously defended the SNAP program. “Everybody gets down on their luck some time or other,” Peterson said, noting that most SNAP participants are on the program for less than a year.
“There is less fraud in food stamps than in crop insurance,” he said.

Direct Receipts

Direct Receipts: 36,000

TEXAS 20,600. 63 pct over 600 lbs. 42 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 FOB Current 655-685 lbs 149.48; 755 lbs 136.00; 800-825 lbs 129.32; Jun 575 lbs 161.00; 650 lbs 147.50; 775 lbs 134.90; Jul 650 lbs 147.50; 775 lbs 134.90; 800 lbs 132.90; Aug 650 lbs 147.50; 750-775 lbs 134.48; 800 lbs 131.50; Del Current 495 lbs 159.80; 515-525 lbs 157.70; 725 lbs 140.00; 800-825 lbs 130.83; 875 lbs 126.00; Jun 835 lbs 132.00; Jul 800 lbs 133.70; Aug 725 lbs 144.20. Medium and Large 1-2 FOB Current 700 lbs 135.01; 775 lbs 130.42; 800-825 lbs 126.43; 860 lbs 121.35; 900-920 lbs 113.51; Del 450-485 lbs 169.84 Mex; 550 lbs 158.00 Mex; 660 lbs 145.10 Mex; 730735 lbs 139.00; 750-765 lbs 137.75; 800 lbs 131.52; Jun 475 lbs 171.50 Mex; 625 lbs 160.00. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 FOB Current 465-500 lbs 144.02; 530 lbs 133.00; 700-725 lbs 126.48; 750 lbs 120.00; Jun 550 lbs 150.00; 725 lbs 129.45; Aug 725 lbs 131.20; Del Current 415-445 lbs 151.64; 485-500 lbs 146.38; 505-535 lbs 143.16; 740 lbs 123.25; 750 lbs 122.88; 800 lbs 124.50; Jul 650 lbs 138.00; 700-725 lbs 134.05; 775 lbs 125.70; Aug 700-725 lbs 130.62; Sep 650 lbs 138.80. Medium and Large 1-2 FOB Current 525 lbs 151.02; 610 lbs 139.05; 760 lbs 122.88; 830 lbs 111.07; Del 450 lbs 149.00 Mex; 550 lbs 145.00 Mex; 630 lbs 147.00, 610-625 lbs 136.53 Mex; 685 lbs 135.00; 715 lbs 125.00; 750 lbs 124.00; 525 lbs 140.50 Mex.
OKLAHOMA 500. 100 pct over 600 lbs. No pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 Current 800 lbs 131.75. Medium and Large 1-2 Current 725 lbs 138.00; 825 lbs 124.00.
NEW MEXICO 5300. 10 pct over 600 lbs. 33 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1-2 Current 450 lbs 166.50; 475-485 lbs 163.96 Mex; 550 lbs 152.50 Mex; 660 lbs 39.60 Mex; Jun 475 lbs 166.00 Mex. Heifers: Medium and Large 1-2 Current 450 lbs 143.50 Mex; 550 lbs 139.50 Mex; 610-625 lbs 131.03 Mex; 750 lbs 123.48; Jun 525 lbs 135.00 Mex.
KANSAS 2800. 100 pct over 600 lbs. 20 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 Del Current 650-685 lbs 152.11; 720 lbs 146.00; 775 lbs 137.00; 800 lbs 133.07; 850875 lbs 135.52; 975 lbs 115.00. Medium and Large 1-2 Del Current 750 lbs 138.50; 875 lbs 122.00. Heifers: Medium and Large 1-2 Del Current 795 lbs 116.00.

National Feeder Cattle Summary

St. Joseph, MO — May 18
National feeder cattle receipts: 190,400

Steers and heifers sold $2-7 lower nationwide. Sharp declines in the CME Cattle complex rocked cash feeders on their heels. For the week, the front four months of CME Feeder futures were more than $6 lower. Feeders would’ve been even lower on the week if not for the correction on May 17, when the deferred contracts were $1.50-2.00 higher on the day. The front four months of Live Cattle futures were $4.10-6.10 lower on the week. Cash fed cattle also followed the downward trend as Southern Plains feedlots traded $5-8 lower at $115-118, while Northern Plains dressed sales were quoted $9-10 lower at $180-185. Futures traders looking past this “wall” of sharply higher current supplies will no doubt see declining numbers of finished cattle when taking into consideration the lack of placements in recent cattle on feed numbers. When late summer/early fall arrives and the basis is sure to be much different than it was just a few weeks ago. Packers continue to be sharpening their pencils as their inventory managers continue to earn their wages. Packers have bought a significant number cattle for 15-30 day delivery in recent weeks; an average of over 32,000 head per week for the last 10 weeks. That 10 week average is the largest since AMS started tracking the data point in 2010. Fed cattle supplies are showing up with anticipated slaughter levels increasing above the 650K level and this week’s estimated slaughter was reported at 660K. This large cattle slaughter will have to continue in the summer to keep the beef industry current; not staying current would be a burden on the market. Steer and heifer slaughter has ramped up in recent weeks to the tune of 523,789 for the week ending May 5, the largest fed cattle slaughter since August 2011. Also, the estimated cattle slaughter of 660K May 18 (if realized) will be the largest since June 2013 when the actual slaughter was reported at 659,702. In addition, total mature cattle harvest has also risen in the January-April time frame when 2.217 million head were harvested for 2018, which is currently 12.2 percent higher than the previous three year average. In the liquidation years of 2010-2013, average for the same time period was 2.281 million head. One must also realize that six mature cattle plants have closed from May 2013 to March 2016. With current data released yesterday from the World Agricultural Outlook Board, approximately 23 percent of the cattle inventory is within an area experiencing drought in the United States. With the expansion of the cattle herd in 2016 and 2017, heifers were being retained at a higher rate than normal. The 2018 January to April heifer slaughter compared to total fed cattle slaughter is calculated at near 35.5 percent, while the same calculation for 2016 and 2017 was 33.2 to 34.0 percent. This would generally indicate a stable herd size; however, this indicator could change if the heart of cattle country gets encompassed by more drought conditions this summer. Choice cut-out looks to be topping with current production and anticipation of upcoming slaughter rates will start to weigh on prices in the coming weeks. For the week, Choice cutout closed $1.24 higher at $232.21. While the Select cutout closed 0.23 lower at $208.46.

Texas 5500. 66 pct over 600 lbs. 40 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 350-400 lbs (369) 177.76; 400-450 lbs (440) 169.49; 450-500 lbs (487) 158.22; 600-650 lbs (621) 145.89; 650-700 lbs (673) 142.92; 750-800 lbs (779) 133.58; 800-850 lbs (819) 128.19; few loads 871 lbs 119.50. Medium and Large 1-2 550-600 lbs (583) 146.53; 600-650 lbs (623) 139.37; 650-700 lbs (692) 144.13; 700-750 lbs (711) 135.03; part load 774 lbs 133.00; 800-850 lbs (840) 124.69. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 400-450 lbs (411) 150.75; 500-550 lbs (511) 143.15; 600-650 lbs (634) 134.34; 650-700 lbs (657) 134.01; 700-750 lbs (714) 122.81; 850-900 lbs (862) 108.42. Medium and Large 1-2 450-500 lbs (477) 154.64; 500-550 lbs (525) 139.03; 550-600 lbs (583) 131.52; 650-700 lbs (655) 131.17; 700-750 lbs (727) 117.06; few loads 761 lbs 120.00; few loads 812 lbs 114.50.

Oklahoma 36,100. 78 pct over 600 lbs. 42 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (322) 193.29; 350-400 lbs (373) 193.55; 400-450 lbs (425) 181.06; 450-500 lbs (478) 170.53; 500-550 lbs (520) 168.04; 550-600 lbs (570) 161.99; 600-650 lbs (616) 149.49; 650-700 lbs (665) 147.92; 700-750 lbs (719) 141.09; 750-800 lbs (774) 135.06; 800-850 lbs (827) 128.59; 850-900 lbs (871) 125.79; 900-950 lbs (923) 119.19; 950-1000 lbs (969) 114.74; 1000-1050 lbs (1023) 112.80; 1050-1100 lbs (1080) 110.99. Medium and Large 1-2 300-350 lbs (327) 181.02; 350-400 lbs (383) 183.89; 400-450 lbs (421) 170.21; 450-500 lbs (471) 171.55; 500-550 lbs (522) 161.43; 550-600 lbs (573) 151.48; 600-650 lbs (628) 150.67; 650-700 lbs (668) 147.04; 700-750 lbs (726) 136.59; 750-800 lbs (779) 130.03; 800-850 lbs (836) 124.73; 850-900 lbs (875) 119.54; 900-950 lbs (930) 115.48; 950-1000 lbs (973) 112.67; few loads 1044 lbs 109.00. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (321) 169.60; 350-400 lbs (379) 163.25; 400-450 lbs (425) 157.02; 450-500 lbs (471) 150.70; 500-550 lbs (521) 143.94; 550-600 lbs (569) 142.53; 600-650 lbs (631) 137.87; 650-700 lbs (670) 132.76; 700-750 lbs (715) 127.54; 750-800 lbs (778) 120.97; 800-850 lbs (827) 117.54; 850-900 lbs (869) 114.60; 900-950 lbs (915) 111.90; 950-1000 lbs (965) 111.16. Medium and Large 1-2 300-350 lbs (331) 159.70; 350-400 lbs (375) 156.44; 400-450 lbs (426) 144.74; 450-500 lbs (476) 147.70; 500-550 lbs (534) 141.31; 550-600 lbs (576) 138.73; 600-650 lbs (632) 133.44; 650-700 lbs (674) 130.43; 700-750 lbs (730) 125.52; 750-800 lbs (777) 118.59; 800-850 lbs (818) 115.71; 850-900 lbs (877) 111.69.

New Mexico 3900. 43 pct over 600 lbs. 43 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 500-550 lbs (508) 161.11. Medium and Large 1-2 450-500 lbs (468) 165.42; 550-600 lbs (583) 145.48; 600-650 lbs (613) 136.68; 650-700 lbs (685) 140.60; 750-800 lbs (790) 130.25; pkg 820 lbs 129.50. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 400-450 lbs (424) 161.95; 450-500 lbs (474) 152.38; 450-500 lbs (487) 141.99; 500-550 lbs (520) 140.10; 550-600 lbs (562) 132.92; 600-650 lbs (631) 132.04. Medium and Large 1-2 800-850 lbs (830) 114.86.

Kansas 7000. 86 pct over 600 lbs. 37 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 550-600 lbs (565) 169.84; 600-650 lbs (615) 158.15; 750-800 lbs (782) 133.91; 800-850 lbs (824) 130.18; 850-900 lbs (855) 129.11; 900-950 lbs (913) 124.32; 950-1000 lbs (969) 121.10. Medium and Large 1-2 400-450 lbs (434) 170.86; 450-500 lbs (462) 165.55; 500-550 lbs (520) 164.16; 550-600 lbs (580) 155.89; 650-700 lbs (669) 146.50; 700-750 lbs (712) 140.94; 750-800 lbs (755) 136.08; 800-850 lbs (825) 128.80; 850-900 lbs (880) 122.44; 900-950 lbs (932) 118.59; 950-1000 lbs (980) 117.25. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 450-500 lbs (472) 154.02; 500-550 lbs (532) 145.64; 550-600 lbs (586) 140.00; 600-650 lbs (619) 139.25; 650-700 lbs (658) 137.21; 700-750 lbs (733) 126.39; 750-800 lbs (778) 122.15; 800-850 lbs (815) 119.14; part load 856 lbs 117.75;900-950 lbs (925) 114.63; 950-1000 lbs (990) 111.06. Medium and Large 1-2 400-450 lbs (433) 149.64; 450-500 lbs (479) 147.11; 500-550 lbs (511) 144.66; 550-600 lbs (576) 136.87; 600-650 lbs (626) 133.40; 650-700 lbs (671) 129.38; 700-750 lbs (715) 124.83; 750-800 lbs (781) 118.31; 800-850 lbs (820) 118.00; 850-900 lbs (875) 113.17.

Missouri 31,700. 38 pct over 600 lbs. 43 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (327) 200.07; 350-400 lbs (376) 189.59; 400-450 lbs (423) 183.46; 450-500 lbs (477) 175.17; 500-550 lbs (525) 172.39; 550-600 lbs (574) 165.02; 600-650 lbs (620) 159.79; 650-700 lbs (669) 149.70; 700-750 lbs (729) 145.53; 750-800 lbs (777) 136.21; 800-850 lbs (828) 129.88; 850-900 lbs (868) 129.84; 900-950 lbs (910) 122.26; 950-1000 lbs (990) 113.01. Medium and Large 1-2 300-350 lbs (331) 180.42; 350-400 lbs (373) 179.27; 400-450 lbs (426) 171.34; 450-500 lbs (477) 165.76; 500-550 lbs (527) 161.73; 550-600 lbs (575) 156.03; 600-650 lbs (626) 152.95; 650-700 lbs (675) 143.35; 700-750 lbs (727) 142.48; 750-800 lbs (764) 131.51; 800-850 lbs (831) 124.69; 850-900 lbs (869) 123.87; 950-1000 lbs (975) 115.25. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 250-300 lbs (277) 169.21; 300-350 lbs (328) 167.32; 350-400 lbs (378) 161.20; 400-450 lbs (425) 158.53; 450-500 lbs (473) 152.06; 500-550 lbs (523) 147.94; 550-600 lbs (572) 144.10; 600-650 lbs (625) 138.62; 650-700 lbs (670) 136.87; 700-750 lbs (715) 133.93; 750-800 lbs (773) 122.84; 800-850 lbs (812) 119.36; 850-900 lbs (871) 115.24; few loads 978 lbs 114.25. Medium and Large 1-2 300-350 lbs (334) 155.18; 350-400 lbs (376) 153.02; 400-450 lbs (427) 147.77; 450-500 lbs (477) 144.88; 500-550 lbs (523) 141.44; 550-600 lbs (574) 136.78; 600-650 lbs (625) 132.81; 650-700 lbs (671) 131.33; 700-750 lbs (720) 127.43; 750-800 lbs (778) 120.03; 800-850 lbs (821) 112.96; 850-900 lbs (885) 109.31.

Arkansas 6400. 26 pct over 600 lbs. 37 pct heifers. Steers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (324) 182.76; 350-400 lbs (372) 178.16; 400-450 lbs (424) 173.66; 450-500 lbs (472) 165.99; 500-550 lbs (521) 159.05; 550-600 lbs (567) 150.92; 600-650 lbs (621) 142.59; 650-700 lbs (665) 141.17. Heifers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs (326) 161.90; 350-400 lbs (372) 155.72; 400-450 lbs (423) 151.30; 450- -500 lbs (473) 144.44; 500-550 lbs (522) 139.75; 550-600 lbs (566) 135.17; 600-650 lbs (623) 130.18; 650-700 lbs (675) 125.75.






Friday, May 25, 2018 10:34 AM