Markets lower on soft demand, pink slime debacle

 Resize text        

The majority of cattle markets traded lower last week, driven by sharply lower boxed beef prices and soft retail demand. The continuing saga of lean, fine-textured beef (LFTB), commonly referred to in the media as “pink slime,” reduced demand for the product and resulted in the temporary closure of three plants and the loss of 650 jobs.

Cash fed cattle traded mostly $1 per hundredweight lower for the week, with dressed sales in Nebraska $1 to $2 lower. Northern feedyards sold cattle at $126 to $127 per hundredweight, and $200 to $202 dressed. Southern feedyards sold at $125 to $125.50 per hundredweight.

Boxed beef cutout values fell sharply lower for the week. Choice boxed beef traded Friday at $183.37 per hundredweight, a decline of $4.04 from the previous Friday. The Select price on Friday was $182.40, a decline of $4.17 from last week. The Choice-Select spread was $0.97, compared to $0.84 last Friday.

Stocker and feeder cattle traded steady to $4 per hundredweight higher across the nation, with weakness noted on heavy yearlings over 850 pounds that were called steady to $3 lower. Demand for light grazing cattle remains strong, and bids on those cattle were $4 to $8 higher.

Last week’s auction receipts totaled 196,400, compared to 208,200 the previous week and 218,500 last year. Direct sales of stocker and feeder cattle totaled 27,600, with video/Internet sales at 55,500. The weekly total was 279,500, compared to 345,300, a year ago.

Slaughter cows sold steady to as much as $5 higher, mostly on extremely tight supplies. Cattle futures lost $3 for the week, and have now recorded weekly losses for four consecutive weeks.

USDA released quarterly grain stocks report for March 1, which came in below expectations for corn and wheat but soybean stocks were close to expectations. Last week also saw the Prospective Plantings report which suggests farmers will plant 225.7 million acres to corn, soybeans and wheat this year. That would represent an increase of 4.4 million acres over last year. Intended corn plantings were estimated at 95.9 million acres, up 3.9 million from last year. Soybean acreage was called 73.9 million acres, down 1.1 million from last year.

 


Sponsored Links


Comments (5) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

Tom G    
Montana  |  April, 02, 2012 at 01:55 PM

It seems that the NCBA which is mostly funded by the beef checkoff is more worried about loosening our BSE standards so we can bring in more foreign beef imports and to kill our COOL meat labelling system rather than concentrating on damaging news such as pink slime that is really affecting our markets.

Sam J    
Ohio  |  April, 02, 2012 at 03:44 PM

What does NCBA have to do with this story? Or are you just another Rcalfer complaing just to complain?

Maxine    
SD  |  April, 02, 2012 at 03:59 PM

This site needs a BS ejector! Something which will automatically print the fact when total BS is stated.

First, 'Tom G', you need to check how the beef checkoff is spent: Cost recovery only for projects approved by the CBB. Nothing in NCBA for that. Staff shared keeps minute time accounts in 15 minute segments according to project and are paid by whom they work for what amount of time.

NCBA isn't working to 'loosen' any standards, but to get eveyone working according to international standards of animal health. AND to increase exports, not to increase imports. BTW, imports are at a very low rate and if this smear of the lean beef continues, burger processors are going to be desperate for more very lean beef.

anonymous    
April, 02, 2012 at 07:43 PM

Pink Slime is NOT lean meat. It is "parts are parts". Wherever you might have your own freezer beef processed would never concoct this stuff and you would never want it in the beef you were going to feed your family.

Rod R    
CO  |  April, 03, 2012 at 09:33 AM

Does anyone know what percentage(by weight) of an average hamburger is pink slime (LFTB)? If LFTB is removed from ground beef that percent of the weight has to be made up somewhere right?

Does anyone have the percentage of reduced demand for ground beef since the "pink slime" media hype?

I think we really need to talk about the numbers because if the removal of LFTB from ground beef is higher than the reduced demand for ground beef then the net effect will be positive because the additional ground beef needed to offset the loss of using LFTB will more than compensate for the temporary reduced demand. Removing LFTB could be a long-term benefit from both a PR and a demand perspective.


Feedback Form
Leads to Insight