Cattle on feed

By

-

September 20, 2014

ISSN: 1948-9080

Released September 19, 2014, by the National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA).

United States Cattle on Feed Down 1 Percent

Cattle and calves on feed for slaughter market in the United States for
feedlots with capacity of 1,000 or more head totaled 9.8 million head on
September 1, 2014. The inventory was 1 percent below September 1, 2013.

Placements in feedlots during August totaled 1.72 million, 3 percent below
2013. Net placements were 1.65 million head. During August, placements of
cattle and calves weighing less than 600 pounds were 410,000, 600-699 pounds
were 280,000, 700-799 pounds were 395,000, and 800 pounds and greater were
635,000. For the month of August placements are the lowest since the series
began in 1996.

Marketings of fed cattle during August totaled 1.69 million, 10 percent
below 2013. August marketings are the lowest since the series began in 1996.

Other disappearance totaled 66,000 during August, 32 percent above 2013.

Number of Cattle on Feed, Placements, Marketings, and Other Disappearance on
1,000+ Capacity Feedlots – United States: September 1, 2013 and 2014
—————————————————————————-
——-
: Number :
Percent of
Item :—————————:

: 2013 : 2014
:previous year
—————————————————————————-
——-
: —- 1,000 head —-
percent
:

On feed August 1 …………………..: 10,025 9,837
98
Placed on feed during August ………..: 1,772 1,720
97
Fed cattle marketed during August ……: 1,871 1,692
90
Other disappearance during August ……: 50 66
132
On feed September 1 ………………..: 9,876 9,799
99
—————————————————————————-
——-

Number of Cattle on Feed, Placements, Marketings, and Other Disappearance on
1,000+ Capacity Feedlots – United States: August 1, 2013 and 2014
—————————————————————————-
——-
: Number :
Percent of
Item :—————————:

: 2013 : 2014
:previous year
—————————————————————————-
——-
: —- 1,000 head —-
percent
:

On feed July 1 …………………….: 10,375 10,127
98
Placed on feed during July ………….: 1,684 1,560
93
Fed cattle marketed during July ……..: 1,970 1,787
91
Other disappearance during July ……..: 64 63
98
On feed August 1 …………………..: 10,025 9,837
98
—————————————————————————-
——-

Number of Cattle on Feed on 1,000+ Capacity Feedlots by Month – States and
United States:
2013 and 2014
—————————————————————————-
———————–
: : :
September 1, 2014
: :
:—————————–—————
State :September 1, 2013: August 1, 2014 : :
Percent of : Percent of
: : : Number
:previous year :previous month
—————————————————————————-
———————–
: ————– 1,000 head ————-
—– percent —-
:

Arizona ……….: 266 262 257
97 98
California …….: 505 420 415
82 99
Colorado ………: 830 810 800
96 99
Idaho …………: 190 185 180
95 97
Iowa ………….: 550 600 580
105 97
Kansas ………..: 1,980 1,900 1,950
98 103
Minnesota ……..: 101 116 113
112 97
Nebraska ………: 2,090 2,160 2,130
102 99
Oklahoma ………: 280 240 245
88 102
South Dakota …..: 170 190 185
109 97
Texas …………: 2,430 2,470 2,450
101 99
Washington …….: 184 189 199
108 105
:

Other States …..: 300 295 295
98 100
:

United States ….: 9,876 9,837 9,799
99 100
—————————————————————————-
———————–

Number of Cattle Placed on Feed on 1,000+ Capacity Feedlots by Month –
States and United States: 2013 and 2014
—————————————————————————-
—————–
: : : During August
2014
: During : During
:—————————–—————
State : August 2013 : July 2014 : : Percent of
: Percent of
: : : Number :previous
year :previous month
—————————————————————————-
—————–
: ———— 1,000 head ———– —–
percent —-
:

Arizona ……….: 23 23 21 91
91
California …….: 55 39 40 73
103
Colorado ………: 145 90 145 100
161
Idaho …………: 52 37 33 63
89
Iowa ………….: 66 56 63 95
113
Kansas ………..: 380 400 410 108
103
Minnesota ……..: 13 10 15 115
150
Nebraska ………: 440 375 425 97
113
Oklahoma ………: 47 32 50 106
156
South Dakota …..: 28 20 30 107
150
Texas …………: 440 410 410 93
100
Washington …….: 43 37 44 102
119
:

Other States …..: 40 31 34 85
110
:

United States ….: 1,772 1,560 1,720 97
110
—————————————————————————-
—————–

Number of Cattle Placed on Feed by Weight Group on 1,000+ Capacity Feedlots
by Month – States and United States: 2013 and 2014
—————————————————————————-
————
: During August

:—————————–—————————————-
State :Under 600 lbs: 600-699 lbs : 700-799 lbs : 800+ lbs :
Total

:—————————–—————————————-
: 2013 : 2014 : 2013 : 2014 : 2013 : 2014 : 2013 : 2014 :
2013 : 2014
—————————————————————————-
————
: 1,000 head

:

Colorado ………: 25 30 20 15 45 35 55 65
145 145
Kansas ………..: 65 75 80 80 115 110 120 145
380 410
Nebraska ………: 55 55 65 50 100 95 220 225
440 425
Texas …………: 175 170 115 95 95 85 55 60
440 410
:

Other States …..: 85 80 47 40 70 70 165 140
367 330
:

United States ….: 405 410 327 280 425 395 615 635
1,772 1,720

:—————————–—————————————-
: During July

:—————————–—————————————-
State :Under 600 lbs: 600-699 lbs : 700-799 lbs : 800+ lbs :
Total

:—————————–—————————————-
: 2013 : 2014 : 2013 : 2014 : 2013 : 2014 : 2013 : 2014 :
2013 : 2014

:—————————–—————————————-
: 1,000 head

:

Colorado ………: 30 25 20 15 30 20 40 30
120 90
Kansas ………..: 60 80 75 70 140 110 150 140
425 400
Nebraska ………: 45 55 55 50 90 85 180 185
370 375
Texas …………: 165 185 75 85 125 85 85 55
450 410
:

Other States …..: 90 80 45 40 60 55 124 110
319 285
:

United States ….: 390 425 270 260 445 355 579 520
1,684 1,560
—————————————————————————-
————

Number of Cattle Marketed on 1,000+ Capacity Feedlots by Month – States and
United States:
2013 and 2014
—————————————————————————-
—————–
: : : During August
2014
: During : During
:—————————–—————
State : August 2013 : July 2014 : : Percent of
: Percent of
: : : Number :previous
year :previous month
—————————————————————————-
—————–
: ———— 1,000 head ———– —–
percent —-
:

Arizona ……….: 18 26 25 139
96
California …….: 60 47 40 67
85
Colorado ………: 180 145 150 83
103
Idaho …………: 46 41 37 80
90
Iowa ………….: 73 74 80 110
108
Kansas ………..: 390 390 345 88
88
Minnesota ……..: 20 15 17 85
113
Nebraska ………: 420 465 440 105
95
Oklahoma ………: 51 46 44 86
96
South Dakota …..: 37 39 34 92
87
Texas …………: 490 415 415 85
100
Washington …….: 47 40 33 70
83
:

Other States …..: 39 44 32 82
73
:

United States ….: 1,871 1,787 1,692 90
95
—————————————————————————-
—————–

Other Disappearance on 1,000+ Capacity Feedlots by Month – States and United
States:
2013 and 2014
—————————————————————————-
—————–
: : : During August
2014
: During : During
:—————————–—————
State : August 2013 : July 2014 : : Percent of
: Percent of
: : : Number :previous
year :previous month
—————————————————————————-
—————–
: ———- 1,000 head ———- —–
percent —-
:

Arizona ……….: 1 7 1 100
14
California …….: 5 7 5 100
71
Colorado ………: 5 5 5 100
100
Idaho …………: 1 1 1 100
100
Iowa ………….: 3 2 3 100
150
Kansas ………..: 10 10 15 150
150
Minnesota ……..: 1 1 1 100
100
Nebraska ………: 10 10 15 150
150
Oklahoma ………: 1 1 1 100
100
South Dakota …..: 1 1 1 100
100
Texas …………: 10 15 15 150
100
Washington …….: 1 1 1 100
100
:

Other States …..: 1 2 2 200
100
:

United States ….: 50 63 66 132
105
—————————————————————————-
—————–

Terms and Definitions of Cattle on Feed Estimates

Cattle on feed are animals being fed a ration of grain, silage, hay and/or
protein supplement for slaughter market that are expected to produce a
carcass that will grade select or better. It excludes cattle being
“backgrounded only” for later sale as feeders or later placement in another
feedlot.

Placements are cattle put into a feedlot, fed a ration which will produce a
carcass that will grade select or better, and are intended for the slaughter
market.

Marketings are cattle shipped out of feedlots to a slaughter market.

Other disappearance includes death loss, movement from feedlots to pasture,
and shipments to other feedlots for further feeding.

Reliability of Cattle on Feed Estimates

Survey Procedures: During January and July all known feedlots in the United
States with capacity of 1,000 or more head are surveyed to provide data for
cattle on feed estimates. During the other months, all known feedlots from
16 States are surveyed. The 16 States account for approximately 98 percent
of the cattle on feed in feedlots with capacity of 1,000 or more head.
Individual State estimates are published monthly for 12 of the 16 States.
Data collected from the remaining 4 States are used to establish the “Other
States” estimates. These 4 States include Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, and
Wyoming. The “Other States” category represents all cattle on feed with a
capacity of 1,000 or more head for the rest of the United States.

Estimating Procedures: These cattle on feed estimates were prepared by the
Agricultural Statistics Board after reviewing recommendations and analysis
submitted by each State office. Regional and State survey data were reviewed
for reasonableness with each other and with estimates from the previous
month when establishing the current estimates.

Revision Policy: Revisions to previous estimates are made to improve month
to month relationships. Estimates for the previous month are subject to
revision in all States each month when current estimates are made. In
February, all monthly estimates for the previous year, and the number of
feedlots and annual marketings from two years ago are reviewed and subject
to revisions.
The reviews are primarily based on slaughter data, state check-off or brand
data, and any other data that may have been received after the original
estimate was made. Estimates will also be reviewed after data from the
Census of Agriculture are available. No revisions will be made after that
date and estimates become final.

Reliability: Since all 1,000+ capacity cattle on feed operators in every
State are not included in the monthly survey, survey estimates are subject
to sampling variability. Survey results are also subject to non-sampling
errors such as omissions, duplications, and mistakes in reporting,
recording, and processing the data. The effects of these errors cannot be
measured directly.
They are minimized through rigid quality controls in the data collection
process and through a careful review of all reported data for consistency
and reasonableness.

To assist users in evaluating the reliability of estimates in this report,
the “Root Mean Square Error” is shown for selected items in the table on the
following page. The “Root Mean Square Error” is a statistical measure based
on past performance and is computed using the differences between first and
latest estimates. The “Root Mean Square Error” for cattle on feed inventory
estimates over the past 24 months is 0.1 percent. This means that chances
are
2 out of 3 that the final estimate will not be above or below the current
estimate of 9.8 million head by more than 0.1 percent. Chances are 9 out of
10 that the difference will not exceed 0.2 percent.

The table on the following page shows a 24 month record of the range of
differences between first and latest estimates for selected items. Using
estimates of number on feed as an example, changes between the first
estimate and the latest estimate during the past 24 months have averaged
9,000 head, ranging from 0 to 34,000 head. During this period the initial
estimate has been above the latest estimate 8 times and has been below the
latest estimate
9 times. This does not imply that the initial estimate is likely to
understate or overstate final inventory.

Reliability of Monthly Cattle on Feed Estimates [Based on data for the past
24 months]
—————————————————————————-
———————————————-
: Root mean : 90 percent :
Difference between first and latest estimate
: square error : confidence : :
: : :
: : level
:—————————–———————————
Item : : : :
: : Months
: : : :
: :—————————–—
: : : Average
:Smallest : Largest : Below latest : Above latest
—————————————————————————-
———————————————-
: percent percent ——–
1,000 ——- —– number —-
:

Number on feed ……………: 0.1 0.2 9 0
34 9 8
:

Placements ……………….: 1.7 2.9 18 0
88 4 14
:

Marketings ……………….: 1.5 2.5 17 0
67 0 13
—————————————————————————-
———————————————-

Information Contacts

Listed below are the commodity specialists in the Livestock Branch of the
National Agricultural Statistics Service to contact for additional
information. E-mail inquiries may be sent to [email protected].

Dan Kerestes, Chief, Livestock Branch ……….. (202) 720-3570

Scott Hollis, Head, Livestock Section ……….. (202) 690-2424
Travis Averill – Cattle, Cattle on Feed …… (202) 720-3040
Doug Bounds – Hogs and Pigs ……………… (202) 720-3106
Donnie Fike – Dairy Products …………….. (202) 690-3236
Tiffany Hora – Livestock Slaughter ……….. (515) 284-4340
Mike Miller – Milk Production and Milk Cows .. (202) 720-3278
Evan Schulz – Sheep and Goats…………….. (202) 720-6147

Access to NASS Reports

For your convenience, you may access NASS reports and products the following
ways:

All reports are available electronically, at no cost, on the NASS
web
site: http://www.nass.usda.gov

Both national and state specific reports are available via a free e-
mail subscription. To set-up this free subscription, visit
http://www.nass.usda.gov and in the “Follow NASS” box under “Receive reports
by Email,” click on “National” or “State” to select the reports you would
like to receive.

For more information on NASS surveys and reports, call the NASS Agricultural
Statistics Hotline at (800) 727-9540, 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET, or e-mail:
[email protected].

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against
its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the basis of
race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity,
religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status,
familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an
individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program, or
protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity
conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply
to all programs and/or employment activities.) If you wish to file a Civil
Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program
Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at
http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office,
or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter
containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed
complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at
[email protected].

Convincing a customer

By

Sandy Pugh

-

September 19, 2014

0

When I went to beauty school, little did I know that part of the training was going to be diplomacy and psychology, but it sure was. Or maybe I just learned it really fast because it was the only way to survive in the job.

Some times a customer would come in and show me a picture that was the style they wanted their hair to look like. Nine times out of ten the style would not work for their hair but it was hard to get them to understand that it wouldn’t work.

One woman brought in a picture of a wig and she wanted her hair styled just like the wig. A wig is usually not real hair and the fiber is curled to do that particular style and only that style.

A wig usually has a lot of hair which makes it look really good too. This particular woman had thin hair, you couldn’t see her scalp yet, but it was thin and very fine. This was not a style for her hair.

The wig had the hair on both sides coming forward toward the face and the woman’s hair grew one side forward and one side back on the sides. This is normal on 99% of the people because our hair grows in a circle around the head and that is what creates that little pattern at the top of the crown that people call a cow lick.

I told this woman it would not work but she just kept insisting on that style so the only way to teach her that it wouldn’t do it was to set it that way and send her on her way. I told her when I was finished with her hair that the right side that grew back from the face would be going back in the morning when she got up and it would not look like it did right then.

I don’t think she believed me and she was thrilled with her hair when she left because it looked as close to the wig picture as I could get it with the amount of hair that she had.

I received a call from her bright and early the next morning that her hair had not stayed overnight. It usually did but this time it was not like I had combed it. I asked her if the right side had reverted to going back instead of coming forward onto her face.

She said: “How did you know which side didn’t do well?” I said: “I told you yesterday that it wouldn’t work and that the right side would revert back to its old way over night.”

She always believed me after that when I told her a style wouldn’t work on her hair. We all have to learn the hard way I guess.

I am one of the 1% that their hair doesn’t grow in a complete circle. The top of my hair and the sides all three grow back towards the back of my head. There was a style in the 80’s that was perfect for my hair and I loved it.

It was cut short around the ears with the little point in the front of the ear. The top was cut short in the crown and longer towards the bangs. My bangs fell to the middle of my nose when they were straight.

I would curl all the hair on the top and the sides back and then the bangs would just fall over the forehead. It was a neat style and my hair would stay days after it was curled with a curling iron because it was cut to do that and it grew that way.

I had a customer come in and ask me one day to cut her hair like mine. She normally wore her hair off her forehead, it was curled back from the face but off the forehead, and I asked her a couple of times if she was sure.

I told her my hair was cut to do what it was doing. She said yes she wanted that cut. Here is another one that wouldn’t listen to me. But the customer is always right. Right??

So I cut it like mine and sent her on her way. She never wanted to pay to have it curled when I cut it so she left with it dry but not curled and combed. I was happy with the cut on her hair and knew that it would do exactly what my hair did when it was fixed.

When she came back in four weeks to get a cut she was not a happy customer when she sat down in the chair. She started in on me the minute the cape was around her neck.

She was mad because the hair wouldn’t stay off her forehead. I just laughed which probably didn’t make her any happier and told her: “Do you remember me telling you that the style is cut to make the hair to do what my hair is doing?”

She admitted that she remembered that conversation. I told her it was doing exactly what I had cut it to do and I was happy that the cut was doing what it was supposed to do. That didn’t make her happy and she said: “I want it like yours.” I said: “It is like mine.”

“No,” she said, “I want the sides and the back like yours and the top like I always wear it.” I told her I had cut it like she wanted but we would cut the top back like she always wore it and the rest like mine but the style wouldn’t look mine. But she was happy then.

Sometimes all the talking and psychology does not help convincing a customer that what they want is not realistic or what they want. We are all human and sometimes we have to learn the hard way to listen to others who might really know what they are talking about. To contact Sandy: [email protected]

Governor Brownback proclaims September as Farm Safety Month

By

Kansas Department of Agriculture

-

September 18, 2014

0

MANHATTAN, Kan. – To encourage all Kansas citizens to keep our state’s farm and ranches safe, Governor Sam Brownback has proclaimed September as Farm Safety Month and the week of September 21-27, as Farm Safety and Health Week.

The safety and health of Kansas farmers, ranchers and their families is imperative to the livelihood of agriculture. Through proper training and education, agricultural-related fatalities and incidents can be prevented. According to the Census of Fatal Occupational Injury, agriculture is seven times more hazardous than other U.S. industries.

“Promoting the safety of agriculture to Kansas citizens is second to none. Agriculture is the driving force behind our daily lives. Proper and persistent farm safety will help keep the valued and treasured heritage of Kansas agriculture alive,” said Secretary of Agriculture Jackie McClaskey.

The theme for National Farm Safety and Health Week is ‘Safety Counts, Protecting What Matters.’ This week is an opportunity to bring awareness to vital farm safety while celebrating Kansas’ largest industry that brings together, whether in the field or around the dinner table, the people who matter.

For more information, please contact the Kansas Department of Agriculture at 785-564-6700 or visit the KDA website: http://agriculture.ks.gov/home.

Kansas Profile – Now That’s Rural – Paul Shirley

By

K-State

-

September 18, 2014

0

K-State Research and Extension, Candice Shoemaker

By Ron Wilson, director of the Huck Boyd National Institute for Rural Development at Kansas State University.

The little boy dribbled the basketball on the gravel driveway and dreamed of playing in the NBA. He imagined the announcer saying, “Paul Shirley shoots…it’s good!” Many small town Kansas kids have dreams of playing in the NBA, but today we’ll meet a young man who actually made it to the big leagues. Through his writings, he shared that experience with others.

Paul Shirley is a former basketball player and writer, the author of the book, “Can I Keep My Jersey? 11 teams, 5 countries and 4 years in My Life as a Basketball Vagabond.” He grew up in rural Kansas. In fact, he described the location of the family home as being “at the intersection of two unnamed gravel roads” outside of the town of Meriden, population 701 people. Now, that’s rural.

Paul Shirley loved basketball. He and his brothers would watch games on television and, at halftime, go outside to re-enact those games with themselves as their favourite star players. He grew tall and went on to a successful career at Jefferson West High School, both academically and in basketball.

Unfortunately, he was not recruited to play for the biggest colleges. He was considering some of the mid-major colleges or Ivy League schools when he had a contact with Iowa State.

Iowa State had used up all its basketball scholarships, but Paul’s mother pointed out that Paul was a National Merit Scholar. Coach Tim Floyd was then able to put Paul on an academic scholarship and he joined the basketball team at Iowa State.

Paul proved he could play at a high level and went on to start. By his junior and senior years, Iowa State was in the NCAA top ten and contending for championships. After college, he did well at an NBA invitational camp and hired an agent with hopes of playing in the pros.

What followed was an emotional roller coaster of a career, where he would repeatedly catch on with an NBA team for a time and then get demoted and go play for teams in Europe. As the title of his book stated, he played for eleven teams in five countries during a span of approximately four years. As the book title also suggests, it was not always fun.

For example, he was invited by the then-world champion Los Angeles Lakers to Lakers training camp. After a few weeks, he was released. Paul said to the equipment manager, “Can I keep my jersey?” His request was turned down, illogically enough, even though Paul’s name and number was stitched on it. When Paul wrote his book a few years later, he gave it the title Can I Keep My Jersey?

Through the years, Paul Shirley played with the Atlanta Hawks, Chicago Bulls, and Phoenix Suns of the NBA, while enduring several injuries and limited playing time. He also played for minor league teams in Kansas City and Yakima, Washington and for pro teams in Greece, Spain, and Russia.

Of course, there is a big gap between the salaries and creature comforts of an NBA star versus a minor leaguer. This makes for entertaining reading in Paul’s sardonic style. The book is like a window into the everyday life of an NBA bench player.

Paul’s professional writing career began when he chronicled one of his NBA road trips in an on-line journal. He has gone on to write for Esquire, Slate, ESPN.com, and the Wall Street Journal.

Today, Paul lives in southern California where he writes and teaches. He maintains a website called flipcollective.com and a writers workshop called Writers Blok. He also writes for a Spanish-language newspaper, teaches English at a preparatory program for Los Angeles policemen, and co-hosts a podcast about the NBA.

The little boy dribbles the ball on his parent’s driveway and then makes a layup. Little did he know that, one day, he would make a layup like that in the NBA as a member of the Chicago Bulls. We commend Paul Shirley for making a difference by sharing his experience inside pro basketball. When it comes to his writing about his experience, it’s good!

Cougars knocked from top spot in 5-2 loss at Coffeyville

By

Editor

-

September 18, 2014

0

Battling for the top spot in the early conference race, the Barton Community College men’s soccer team couldn’t keep up with the Red Ravens as Coffeyville Community College scored a 5-2 victory Wednesday night in Coffeyville. Taking an early one goal lead, Barton surrendered four straight goals to drop its first conference game of the season and fall to 2-1-1 in Jayhawk play and 2-3-2 overall while Coffeyville moves into the top spot at 3-0-0 and 6-2-0 overall.

Dominic Swindler got the Cougars on the board first with 29:16 remaining in first half action as the Red Ravens were unable to clear a Barton free kick leaving Swindler to beat the keeper for the lead.

Proving to be the difference maker for Coffeyville, Mike Dias scored the first of his four goals in the contest tying the game at the 20:23 mark. Erasmo Tejada provided intermission in the Dias show giving the Red Ravens a 2-1 lead with eight minutes left with Dias pushing the Coffeyville lead out to two beating the defense once again with 5:35 remaining in the half.

As if a fifteen minute break between halves would cool down Dias, it took the sophomore speedster from Brasil only twenty-seven seconds into the second frame to ice the game away with the hat trick and the fourth unanswered Coffeyville goal.

Christopher Hogg gave Barton new life with 37:45 remaining as the sophomore launched a 30 yard strike to beat the Red Raven keeper and cut the deficit to two. But it was as close as the Cougars would come and with Dias’ icing on the cake with just over a minute to play, Barton fell from the top spot in the conference standings.

Barton will stay in conference action this Saturday as both the men’s and women’s teams welcome Johnson County Community College to the Cougar Soccer Complex in key Jayhawk battles. Kickoff for the women’s game is 1:00 p.m. followed by the men’s contest at approximately 3:00 p.m.

Broiler hatchery

By

Editor

-

September 18, 2014

0

ISSN: 1949-1840

Released September 17, 2014, by the National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA).

Broiler-Type Eggs Set in the United States Up 4 Percent

Hatcheries in the United States weekly program set 209 million eggs in
incubators during the week ending September 13, 2014, up 4 percent from a
year ago. Hatcheries in the 19 State weekly program set 201 million eggs in
incubators during the week ending September 13, 2014, up 4 percent from the
year earlier. Average hatchability for chicks hatched during the week in the
United States was 84 percent. Average hatchability is calculated by dividing
chicks hatched during the week by eggs set three weeks earlier.

Broiler-Type Chicks Placed in the United States Up 1 Percent

Broiler growers in the United States weekly program placed 175 million
chicks for meat production during the week ending September 13, 2014, up 1
percent from a year ago. Broiler growers in the 19 State weekly program
placed
168 million chicks for meat production during the week ending September 13,
2014, up 1 percent from the year earlier. Cumulative placements from
December 29, 2013 through September 13, 2014 for the United States were 6.37
billion.
Cumulative placements were up slightly from the same period a year earlier.

Broiler-Type Eggs Set – 19 Selected States and United States: 2014
—————————————————————————-
————————————–
: Week
ending
State
:—————————–———————————————-
——–
: August 9, : August 16, : August 23, :
August 30, :September 6, :September 13,
: 2014 : 2014 : 2014 :
2014 : 2014 : 2014
—————————————————————————-
————————————–
: 1,000
eggs
:

Alabama ………………….: 28,150 27,963 28,733
28,729 27,926 28,501
Arkansas …………………: 21,235 21,550 21,553
21,592 21,725 21,399
Delaware …………………: 4,415 4,516 4,567
4,400 4,416 4,472
Florida ………………….: 1,224 1,222 1,222
1,225 1,224 1,222
Georgia ………………….: 34,983 34,809 34,589
33,568 34,459 33,795
Kentucky …………………: 8,033 7,920 8,020
7,823 7,836 7,845
Louisiana ………………..: 3,787 3,817 3,817
3,787 3,787 3,787
Maryland …………………: 7,875 7,489 7,579
7,806 7,218 7,125
Mississippi ………………: 18,042 18,088 18,017
17,536 16,743 17,529
Missouri …………………: 8,473 8,472 8,474
8,354 8,533 8,503
:

North Carolina ……………: 20,905 21,093 21,053
20,719 20,593 19,027
Oklahoma …………………: 6,632 6,600 6,662
6,615 6,700 6,337
Pennsylvania ……………..: 4,379 4,150 4,419
4,487 4,422 4,487
South Carolina ……………: 5,257 5,497 5,166
5,123 5,416 5,037
Texas ……………………: 14,790 14,749 14,394
14,267 13,596 14,543
Virginia …………………: 6,450 6,448 6,444
6,446 6,461 6,393
California, Tennessee, :

and West Virginia ………..: 10,313 10,902 10,862
10,986 11,020 11,105
:

19 State total ……………: 204,943 205,285 205,571
203,463 202,075 201,107
Percent of previous year …..: 101 102 101
101 103 104
:

Other States ……………..: 8,192 7,994 7,913
7,782 7,644 7,746
:

United States …………….: 213,135 213,279 213,484
211,245 209,719 208,853
Percent of previous year …..: 101 102 101
101 103 104
—————————————————————————-
————————————–

Broiler-Type Chicks Placed – 19 Selected States and United States: 2014
—————————————————————————-
————————————–
: Week
ending
State
:—————————–———————————————-
——–
: August 9, : August 16, : August 23, :
August 30, :September 6, :September 13,
: 2014 : 2014 : 2014 :
2014 : 2014 : 2014
—————————————————————————-
————————————–
: 1,000
chicks
:

Alabama ………………….: 22,136 21,518 21,132
20,795 21,639 22,150
Arkansas …………………: 19,290 19,047 19,097
19,869 19,343 19,315
Delaware …………………: 5,511 4,199 4,621
4,790 4,985 5,411
Florida ………………….: 1,286 1,299 1,534
1,300 1,290 1,182
Georgia ………………….: 26,128 28,209 27,243
27,761 26,957 27,767
Kentucky …………………: 6,162 6,618 6,415
6,646 6,713 6,762
Louisiana ………………..: 3,265 3,145 3,318
3,331 3,395 3,404
Maryland …………………: 5,925 5,955 6,337
6,336 6,419 5,077
Mississippi ………………: 14,809 14,775 15,142
15,217 15,095 14,994
Missouri …………………: 5,627 6,529 6,196
5,989 6,082 6,166
:

North Carolina ……………: 16,241 16,849 15,813
16,588 16,317 16,250
Oklahoma …………………: 5,226 4,371 4,501
4,033 4,342 4,387
Pennsylvania ……………..: 3,699 3,641 3,511
3,519 3,349 3,622
South Carolina ……………: 5,993 4,077 4,923
4,621 4,507 4,539
Texas ……………………: 11,636 11,894 11,994
11,913 12,289 11,988
Virginia …………………: 5,048 5,916 5,313
5,334 4,673 5,759
California, Tennessee, :

and West Virginia ………..: 11,275 10,846 10,893
9,573 10,390 9,703
:

19 State total ……………: 169,257 168,888 167,983
167,615 167,785 168,476
Percent of previous year …..: 102 101 102
100 101 101
:

Other States ……………..: 5,959 5,809 6,216
5,936 6,050 6,109
:

United States …………….: 175,216 174,697 174,199
173,551 173,835 174,585
Percent of previous year …..: 102 101 102
100 101 101
—————————————————————————-
————————————–

Statistical Methodology

Survey Procedures: Data for broiler hatchery estimates are collected weekly
from all broiler-type hatcheries that hatch at least one million chicks a
year. Individual NASS field offices maintain a list of all known hatcheries
and update their lists on a continual basis. All hatcheries that meet the
minimum size criteria are given adequate time to respond to the weekly
survey. Those that do not respond are contacted by telephone.

Estimating Procedures: All data are analyzed for unusual values. Data from
each operation are compared to their own past operating profile and to
trends from similar operations. Data for missing operations are estimated
based on similar operations or historical data. NASS field offices prepare
these estimates by using a combination of survey indications and historic
trends.
Individual State estimates are reviewed by the Agricultural Statistics Board
for reasonableness. Individual hatchery data are summed to State, 19 State
total, Other States, and the United States.

Revision Policy: Revisions are generally the result of late or corrected
data. Revisions made to the previous five-week’s data during the current
week are published in this report. Final estimates are published in the
annual Hatchery Production Summary released in April.

Reliability: Estimates are subject to errors such as omission, duplication,
and mistakes in reporting, recording, and processing the data. While these
errors cannot be measured directly, they are minimized through strict
quality controls in the data collection process and a careful review of all
reported data for consistency and reasonableness.

Information Contacts

Listed below are the commodity specialists in the Livestock Branch of the
National Agricultural Statistics Service to contact for additional
information. E-mail inquiries may be sent to [email protected]

Dan Kerestes, Chief, Livestock Branch …………………………….
(202) 720-3570

Bruce Boess, Head, Poultry and Specialty Commodities Section ………..
(202) 720-4447
Alissa Cowell-Mytar – Cold Storage…………………..…………
(202) 720-4751
Heidi Gleich – Broiler Hatchery, Chicken Hatchery………………..
(202) 720-0585
Michael Klamm – Poultry Slaughter, Turkey Hatchery, Turkeys Raised ..
(202) 690-3237
Tom Kruchten – Census of Aquaculture, Mink, Trout Production………
(202) 690-4870
Kim Linonis – Layers, Eggs ……………………………………
(202) 690-8632
Joshua O’Rear – Catfish Production, Honey ………………………
(202) 690-3676
Vacant – Egg Products ………………………………………..
(202) 720-3570

Access to NASS Reports

For your convenience, you may access NASS reports and products the following
ways:

All reports are available electronically, at no cost, on the NASS
web
site: http://www.nass.usda.gov

Both national and state specific reports are available via a free e-
mail subscription. To set-up this free subscription, visit
http://www.nass.usda.gov and in the “Follow NASS” box under “Receive reports
by Email,” click on “National” or “State” to select the reports you would
like to receive.

For more information on NASS surveys and reports, call the NASS Agricultural
Statistics Hotline at (800) 727-9540, 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET, or e-mail:
[email protected].

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against
its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the basis of
race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity,
religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status,
familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an
individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program, or
protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity
conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply
to all programs and/or employment activities.) If you wish to file a Civil
Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program
Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at
http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office,
or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter
containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed
complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at
[email protected].

Two second half goals propel Barton women’s soccer in 2-0 victory at Coffeyville

By

Editor

-

September 18, 2014

0

The Barton Community College women’s soccer team picked up a solid road conference win Wednesday shutting out Coffeyville Community College 2-0. The victory improves the Lady Cougars to 2-1-1 in conference play and 3-4-2 on the season while giving Coffeyville their second straight loss in falling to 2-2-0 in the Jayhawk and 4-3-0 overall.

Following a scoreless first half, Millie York‘s free kick just missed the game winner off the crossbar but Aliya Marshall cleaned up the mess within the 8′ to give Barton the 1-0 lead with 38:07 remaining in the contest.

Scarlett Real gave the Lady Cougars a two goal cushion within two minutes later as the reigning KJCCC Player of the Week took a Maria Munoz pass outside the 18′ dribbling past two defenders to strike the upper 90 on far post.

Barton will stay in conference action this Saturday as both the men’s and women’s teams welcome Johnson County Community College to the Cougar Soccer Complex in key Jayhawk battles. Kickoff for the women’s game is 1:00 p.m. followed by the men’s contest at approximately 3:00 p.m.

Barton volleyball get four-set victory at Dodge City

By

Editor

-

September 18, 2014

0

The Barton Community College Volleyball team picked up a much needed conference win Wednesday night with a 3-1 victory over host Dodge City Community College. The Cougars won the first sets 25-18 and 25-8 only to have the Conquistadors scrap out a highly contested third set 28-26. Barton quickly shook off the loss to race out to an early lead in the fourth then outscore the Conquistadors 11-1 down the stretch for a 25-8 match clinching win. The victory improved the Cougars to 2-3 in Jayhawk play and 3-12 overall while keeping Dodge City winless in conference play at 0-5 and dropping to 4-13 overall.

Barton will take to the road for the second straight weekend as the Cougars will compete in the Wyo-Braska Shootout taking place Friday in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, with Saturday’s action in Torrington, Wyoming. The Cougars’ next home match is Wednesday, September 24, against Marshalltown Community College beginning at 6:30 p.m.

Annual Corn Picking Event

By

Editor

-

September 18, 2014

0

Ag Heritage Park welcomes a new exhibit along with the traditional corn picking demonstrations as part of the Old Settler’s Day activities in Alta Vista, Saturday, September 27^th. For the first time, the Diehl Family of Alta Vista plans to display their extensive Arrowhead Collection for public viewing all day in the main museum building at Ag Heritage Park.

Old fashioned corn picking will again highlight the afternoon activities beginning at 1:30 p.m. Traditional blue grass music is planned for 9:30 a.m., breaking for Ag Heritage Park tractors to join the Old Settler’s Day Parade downtown scheduled at 11:00 a.m. A drawing for a 4’ x 4’ barn quilt block will take place at 4:00 p.m.

Ag Heritage Park will be open from 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., Saturday, September 27^th on Old Settler’s Day. Drinks and snacks will be available all day at Ag Heritage Park. Visitors are invited to “Step Back In Time” and visit the museums, 1880’s era farm buildings, and a wide variety of farming implements from the 1800’s horse drawn pieces through the 1960’s tractors and implements. Ag Heritage Park is handicap accessible.

In addition to activities at Ag Heritage Park, Alta Vista’s Old Settler’s Day activities are planned all day downtown and at the city park. Several businesses downtown will be open for the day as well.

Please follow www.AgHeritagePark.com and Ag Heritage Park Facebook for updated details on the schedule of events in conjunction with Old Settler’s Day activities, or call Kirby Zimmerman at 620-767-2714.

Keeping an eye on Ukraine, other Black Sea Countries’ Wheat markets

By

K-State

-

September 18, 2014

0

MANHATTAN, Kan. – The growing importance of wheat production from Black Sea-area countries Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan on the world market has Daniel O’Brien keeping a close watch on geopolitical events there – and he’s encouraging U.S. wheat producers to do the same.

Wheat and feed grain exports from those three countries have been growing since the mid-1990s, said O’Brien, an agricultural economist with Kansas State University. Speaking at K-State’s recent Risk and Profit Conference in Manhattan, O’Brien said world wheat prices initially seemed mostly unaffected in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine which developed early this year. But the wheat market in recent months has been put on edge by developments of the conflict.

O’Brien and North Dakota State University agricultural economist, Frayne Olson have been tracking world hard red winter and hard red spring wheat markets, trying to determine the inter-relationships of Black Sea region country wheat export prices, both within the Black Sea region and with major world wheat exporters, including U.S. wheat.

What they found was that changes in U.S. hard red winter wheat prices most closely associated with prices in Russia, but to a lesser degree with wheat prices in Ukraine, Australia, Germany, and with the prices of other major U.S. wheat classes.

“Daily and weekly prices on world wheat markets typically work or move together, but the closeness or co-integrated nature of their co-movements vary among classes and export supplying countries,” O’Brien said. He noted that the Black Sea-area countries’ advantage in world wheat trade is their geographic proximity to buyers in North Africa and Middle Eastern countries, which translates to lower shipping costs. Some of those countries, including Egypt and Nigeria, are also significant potential buyers of U.S wheat.

He noted that the main Ukrainian port for wheat export shipments is Odessa: “If Ukraine lost control (of that port) it could be devastating for that country’s wheat market.”

Physical differences in wheat-by-class are often reflected in U.S. and world cash wheat prices, he said, noting that different types of wheat lend themselves to use in different products – for example durum wheat is best for making pasta and hard red winter is best for certain bread products – but there is only so much blending you can do.

In their analysis, O’Brien and Olson found that:

Black Sea region wheat prices display some degree of price interrelatedness for milling quality wheat, but not complete uniformity.
Ukraine milling wheat export prices show evidence of being co-integrated with German milling wheat export prices, but less so with those of Russia.
Russian milling wheat export prices appear to be co-integrated with both U.S. hard red winter and soft red winter wheat export prices, but less so with those of Ukraine.
Kazakhstan milling wheat export prices show evidence of being somewhat associated with Russian milling wheat export prices, but not so close with those of Ukraine.

O’Brien noted that a major difficulty in attempting to thoroughly analyze the wheat market in Black Sea-area countries stems from gaps in price and other grain market information for countries in that region.

O’Brien’s presentation and others from the 2014 Risk and Profit Conference are available at http://www.agmanager.info/events/risk_profit/2014/Papers.asp.

Story By : Mary Lou Peter