Cattle futures were mixed Wednesday, with Feeder Cattle pressured by a surge in Corn futures
prices, while Live Cattle was supported by the discount to cash.
Feeder Cattle futures closed an average of $1.19 lower (35¢ lower at the back to $1.85 lower toward the front).
Live Cattle futures closed an average of 47¢ higher (10¢ to $1.17 higher), except for an average of 6¢ lower in three contracts.
Negotiated cash fed cattle trade was slow on moderate demand in the Texas Panhandle, Nebraska and the western Corn Belt through Wednesday afternoon, according to the Agricultural Marketing Service.
So far this week, live prices are steady in the Southern Plains at $140/cwt. and $2 lower in Nebraska at $144. Dressed prices in Nebraska are $2 lower at $230.
Live prices last week were $142-$148 in Colorado and $144-$147 in the western Corn Belt, where dressed prices were $230-$232.
Choice Boxed beef cutout value was 16¢ lower Wednesday afternoon at $255.08/cwt. Select was 17¢ lower at $242.18.
Corn and Soybean futures rose on South American wonderments and likely positioning ahead of Thursday’s World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates.
Corn futures closed mostly 15¢ to 17¢ higher through Jly ‘23 and then mostly 4¢ to 5¢ higher.
Soybean futures closed 11¢ to 20¢ higher through Aug ‘23 and then mostly 2¢ higher.
Major U.S. financial indices closed sharply lower Wednesday, pressured by higher inflation than investors expected.
The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased 0.3% in April on a seasonally adjusted basis after rising 1.2% in March, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Over the last 12 months, the all-items index increased 8.3% before seasonal adjustment.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed 362 points lower. The S&P 500 closed 65 points lower. The NASDAQ was down 373 points.
West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil futures on the CME closed $4.62 to $5.95 higher through the front six contracts, apparently fueled by a day of increased fears about shortages.
Choosing to consume beef or plant-based proteins designed to mimic the real thing is not an either/or proposition, according to a new study from agricultural economists1 at Kansas State University and Purdue University.
The analysis — Benchmarking U.S. consumption and perceptions of beef and plant-based proteins — comprised two separate studies. One documents factors affecting beef and plant-based consumption. The other focuses on factors motivating consumers to include beef and/or plant-based proteins in their diets.
“An interesting insight comes from evaluating beef and plant-based consumption together. Of the 6% of respondents who ate plant-based proteins, 58% also ate beef during the prior day. In other words, 4% of respondents ate both beef and plant-based proteins in the same day,” according to the study. “This indicates beef and plant-based protein consumption are not necessarily exclusive of each other. More participants ate both proteins than ate plant-based protein only and not beef.”
Around 6% of all respondents consumed plant-based proteins (patties and crumbs specifically) at least once during the previous day, while 53% ate beef at least once.
The fact that some consumers already consume beef and plant-based proteins in the same day could motivate development of blended products, according to the researchers.
“Blending may be an attractive consideration for the beef industry if these proteins (plant) become much cheaper to produce and consumers perceive them as close alternatives to animal-derived meat. Blending products could decrease the price of these hybrid products, increasing the quantity demanded of both traditional beef and plant-based proteins,” according to the study. “In this way, plant-based proteins could compete with imports of lean beef destined for blending into ground products and thus fulfill a market segment for U.S.-produced products.”
Keep in mind, alternative protein market share is exceptionally small, relative to beef, as demonstrated in a number of studies.
“Current consumer preferences do not support projected major demand changes, especially since whole muscle products such as steaks and roasts are currently only available from animal sources,” say researchers.
1Researchers included agricultural economists: Glynn Tonsor and Ted Schroeder, Kansas State University (K-State); Jayson Lusk, Purdue University; Hannah Taylor, USDA-ERS, who was with K-State when the study was conducted.