Lancaster farming. (Lancaster, Pa., etc.) 1955-current, February 08, 2003, Image 16

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    Al6-Lancaster Farming, Saturday, February 8, 2003
GRAIN, CATTLE. HOG,
& MILK BFP
FUTURES MARKETS
Markets Courtesy of Chicago Board and Mercantile Exchange
Closing Bids: Thursday, February 6, 2003
Com
02/04/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
*CASH*
MAR 03
MAY 03
JUL 03
SEP 03
DEC 03
MAR 04
MAY 04
JUL 04
DEC 04
Total
02/04/03
Soybeans
02/04/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
*CASH*
MAR 03
MAY 03
JUL 03
AUG 03
SEP 03
NOV 03
JAN 04
MAR 04
NOV 04
Total
02/04/03
Soybean Meal
02/04/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
*CASH*
MAR 03
MAY 03
JUL 03
AUG 03
SEP 03
OCT 03
DEC 03
JAN 04
MAR 04
MAY 04
JUL 04
AUG 04
SEP 04
DEC 04
Total
02/04/03
Feb. 4,2003
U.S. ECONOMY
SLOWING DOWN
• GDP weak in fourth quar-
• Dairy futures reacting.
• Dairy consumption strong?
The U.S. Department of Com
merce announced last week that
real Gross Domestic Product, or
GDP, grew just 0.7 percent in thC
High
2462
2382
2406
2432
2436
2444
2494
2510
2526
2396
Open
2380
2402
2426
2432
2442
2492
2510
2520
2390
Volume Open_lnt
44474 467128
High
5660
5686
5646
5624
5540
5390
5274
5274
5284
5020
Open
5674
5640
5604
5524
5390
5260
5270
5284
5020
Volume Open_lnt
45147 202453
Open High
17300
1709 1719
1688 1697
1675 1680
1640 1645
1605 1612
1560 1572
1550 1559
1550 1550
1565 1565
1561 1561
1562 1562
1562 1562
1562 1562
1585 1585
Volume Openlnt
19003 162950
last (fourth) quarter of 2002.
That is down from a growth rate
of 4 percent in the prior quarter.
The U.S. economy slowed sig
nificantly during the important
holiday shopping season. This
may explain some of the buildup
in dairy commodity inventories
that occurred at the end of 2002.
The economy is operating in a
very weak environment right
Last
2462
2366
2390
2414
2424
2436
2486
2510
2524
2396
Low
2462
2356
2382
2406
2422
2432
2484
2510
2520
2390
Low
5660
5602
5570
5546
5470
5340
5206
5230
5284
4960
Last
5660
5630
5596
5574
5500
5380
5230
5254
5284
4970
Last
17300
1697
1680
1666
1631
1599
1560
1548
1545
1555
1561
1562
1562
1562
1585
LOW
17300
1693
1678
1663
1629
1598
1558
1546
1545
1555
1561
1562
1562
1562
1585
now. The question is, will it re
bound in 2003? This will be re
quired in order to spur on more
dairy consumption.
The dairy futures market at
the Chicago Mercantile Ex
change (CME) continues to react
to this bad news. As of Jan. 31,
2003, the annual average of Class
111 CME offerings was just
$11.04 per CWT, down $0.95 per
CWT from Dec. 2,2002. In other
words, if a producer on Dec. 2,
2002 locked in 100 percent of
their future milk production for
every month in 2003 using the
Class 111 futures, they would
have been $0.95 per CWT ahead
of what the CME is offering
today.
I advised in this column last
December to consider the CME
when prices were close to the
five-year average.
The weaker outlook at the Chi
cago Mercantile Exchange is
probably because of a combina
tion of two things. First, the milk
supply has not yet slowed down
sufficiently to clear the market.
Lean Hogs
Date
02/05/03 *CASH*
02/06/03 Feb 03
02/06/03 Apr 03
02/06/03 May 03
02/06/03 Jun 03
02/06/03 Jul 03
02/06/03 Aug 03
02/06/03 Oct 03
02/06/03 Dec 03
02/06/03 Feb 04
Chge
+ 10
-10
-12
-12
-6
-4
-4
-4
+ 6
+4
Composite Volume Open_lnt
02/05/03 8243 41014
Live Cattle
Date
02/05/03 *CASH* 0 790079007900 unch
02/06/03 Febo3 8150 815580158065 -100
02/06/03 Apr 03 7850 785077257777 -98
02/06/03 Jun 03 7115 712069977060 -87
02/06/03 Aug 03 6815 683067406792 -63
02/06/03 Oct 03 7050 705069927040 -27
02/06/03 Dec 03 7145 715571227145 -7
02/06/03 Feb 04 7310 732573027325 +3
Chge
+ 43
-74
-66
-60
-56
-32
-46
-44
-44
-30
Composite Volume Openjnt
02/05/03 23572 117831
Pork Bellies n „ .
r** .. T Previous Previous
Date Open High Low Last Chge v o | ume Open Int
0 0
250 981
586 1233
134 589
20 279
0 28
02/05/03 *CASH* 0 780078007800 unch
02/06/03 Feb 03 8455 852583508425 -97
02/06/03 Mar 03 8475 8525 8350 8385 -100
02/06/03 May 03 8582 8630 8452 8465 -117
02/06/03 Jul 03 8555 862585508590 -57
02/06/03 Aug 03 8330 833083308330 -70
Composite Volume Open_lnt
02/05/03 990 3110
Oats
02/04/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
02/05/03
Total
02/04/03
~ ¥W . . , , Previous Previous
Open High Low Last Chge Vo|ume openJnl
0 0
2618 5696
4325 18229
182 2903
561 7714
214 2831
258 2230
62 972
23 386
0 52
0476947694769
4840486048004830
5395 543753305360
5835 589758005850
6155621061256132
6015 602559755990
5750 579057105750
4990 502049705000
4872 490548724880
5330 533053105310
„ Previous Previous
Open High Low Last Chge Volume op e„_l„t
0 0
7685 20478
10343 62536
3087 - 20698
1137 7703
810 3889
448 2118
62 409
Open
*CASH*
MAR 03
MAY 03
JUL 03
SEP 03
DEC 03
MAR 04
1994
1950
1870
1694
1620
1660
Volume Qpen_lnt
878 6632
Second, demand for dairy prod
ucts is still weak. Imports could
be a third reason, but in my opin
ion, net trade (imports less ex
ports) has not yet been adequate
ly quantified to the marketplace
in terms of its impact on U.S.
supply and demand.
For example, we import MFCs,
then dump (I mean DEIP) nonfat
dry milk on to the international
market. What is the net effect of
this on domestic cheese produc
tion?
USDA released another set of
mysterious numbers for supply
and demand for the first 11
months of 2002. According to the
latest numbers, milk marketings
were up 2.7 percent in 2002.
However, this was offset by con
sumption in butter ( 2 .5 percent),
American cheese ('.4 percent),
other cheese ( 3 .3 percent), nonfat
dry milk (-22.0 percent), and
fluid milk products (°.3 percent).
Numbers for the period Sep
tember through November look
even better! Butter consumption
for this three-month period was
-5
-20
-30
High
2222
2030
1974
1880
1694
1620
1660
Low
2222
1994
1950
1870
1694
1620
1660
up 8.4 percent, and total cheese
consumption was up 4.1 percent.
These numbers, however, don’t
jibe with the inventory numbers,
or at least I don’t think they do.
Much more needs to be ex
plained.
Average Farm Feed
Costs for Handy
Reference
To help farmers across the state to have
handy reference of commodity input costs
in their feeding operations for DHIA re
cord sheets or to develop livestock feed
cost data, here’s last week’s average costs
of various ingredients as. compiled from
regional reports across the state of Penn
sylvania.
Remember, these are averages, so you
will need to adjust your figures up or
down according to your location and the
quality of your crop.
Com, No.2y 2.94 bu., 5.27 cwt.
Wheat, N 0.2 3.20 bu., 5.34 cwt.
Barley, N 0.3 2.14 bu., 4.57 cwt.
Oats, N 0.2 2.06 bu., 6.44 cwt.
Soybeans, No.l 5.58 bu., 9.32 cwt.
Ear Com 88.52 ton, 4.43 cwt.
Alfalfa Hay 156.25 ton, 7.81 cwt.
Mixed Hay 135.50 ton, 6.75 cwt.
Timothv Hav 136.50 ton, 6.83 cwt
Chge
+ 16
+ 10
-2
-14
+ 14
-20
unch
Last
2222
2012
1952
1870
1694
1620
1660