Marketing

and 92.4 million acres. The USDA gave us 88.325 Cash Grain Markets million acres. Coming in even below the bottom end of expectations should have been bullish — very bullStewartville corn/change* $6.64 -.92 soybeans/change* $14.60 -1.49 ish. But the overwhelming outflows quickly squashed any bullish reaction to the surprise figures. Edgerton $6.82 -1.02 $14.69 -2.52 If you plug in 88.325 million acres into the soybean Jackson $6.89 -1.27 $14.61 -1.54 balance sheet and keep all the other variables the Editor’s Note: Joe Lardy, CHS Hedging research analyst, is sitting in this week for Phyllis Nystrom, the regular “Grain Outlook” columnist. Hope Cannon Falls Sleepy Eye $6.92 $6.54 $6.77 -.89 -.97 -1.04 $14.43 $14.68 $14.39 -1.54 -1.54 -1.69 same, the carry out is only 143 million bushels. For many analysts, that is right on pipeline minimums. We are now looking at a carryout that is real tight. There is no room for a weather hiccup at this point. The following marketing analysis is for the week end ing July 1. Average: Year Ago Average: $6.76 $6.26 $14.57 $13.26 Soybean export data was a mixed bag this week. Inspections were ok. This is the 17th straight week where this year’s inspections were better than last

CORN — Another tough week for the corn market. Grain prices are effective cash close on July 5. year. The current levels are running right in line On the week, December corn futures dropped 66.5 *Cash grain price change represents a two-week period. with the five-year average. Export sales data was cents. Over the last two weeks, corn has dropped terrible. Old crop sales were a negative for the first $1.23. Over the past 10 trading sessions, there have been eight down days and time this year due to cancellations and marked a marketing year low. New crop only two up days. The markets feel like they are in a downward trend and it’s sales barely offset the old crop debacle and the net total was only 271,000 bushgoing to be hard to reverse the trend. els. Those numbers certainly won’t stop any bearish momentum.

The market got a huge lift from the inflationary talk; but there has been a Outlook: The USDA did include a footnote that they will resurvey Minnesota, decisive shift to more recessionary talk. That environment is not friendly for North Dakota, and South Dakota due to late plantings. I don’t see a huge numcommodities so a lot of the inflationary gains have been given back. ber of additional acres coming back. So now weather will become a real big factor.

The big event this week was the quarterly stocks and acreage reports on June The bean balance sheet is too tight to have any yield drags. Keep your friendly 30. Overall, the corn numbers were very neutral coming in very near expecta- meteorologist on speed dial. v tions. Quarterly stocks were 4.346 billion bushels compared to expectations of 4.343 billion. A difference of only 3 million bushels. This is about as neutral of Information in the above columns is the writer’s opinion. It is no way guaranteed and should an input as possible. The acreage number of 89.921 was slightly above expecta- not be interpreted as buy/sell advice. Futures trading always involves a certain degree of risk. tions of 89.86 million. The market took that slight increase as a very bearish input and sold off hard on report day. It felt like the market needed something very bullish to hold on, and those numbers didn’t come. Adding to the corn market woes this week was the export numbers. Export inspections were the second-lowest total of the past 10 weeks. And sadly, the Visit The Land at Farmfest numbers didn’t improve when export sales data was released on June 30. The combined total was a marketing year low. Cancellations to Panama, Mexico, Booth #2401 in the Ag Tent Taiwan, and unknown really brought down this week’s total. In Brazil, the Safrinha harvest is ongoing and about 20 percent complete which is slightly ahead of average. Yields have been variable. Most estimate have the Brazilian corn crop a little lower than the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s estimate of 116 million metric tons. Outlook: With the report behind us, when will the money outflows stop? The July World Agriculture Supply and Demand Estimates report will be upon us FREE within a few weeks and the new data will be reflected there. Weather has been a little dry, so timely rains will be needed to hold onto yields. I think your choice of SOYBEANS — The soybean market also had a down week. November soybeans ended the week down 29 cents. The losses over the last two weeks total 2023 Scenic Almanac $1.42. Calendar or The Land Hat

The stocks report for soybeans was super close to expectations also at 971 million bushels vs. expectations of 965 million. But the major surprise from the Must present coupon at Farmfest 2022. report came from soybean acreage. The range of estimates was between 88.7 Good while supplies last.

If you haven’t filled out The Land 2022 subscriber card you can do it at Farmfest!

I own or operate 80+ acres of Minnesota and/or Northern Iowa ag cropland, raise 25+ head of livestock or am actively involved in agribusiness. Full Year Voluntary Subscription:  $49  Other

I do not qualify but would like a one-year subscription. Full Year Subscription:  $49

Corn      Soybeans      Alfalfa      Wheat      Sugar Beets      TOTAL ACRES     

 1-99  100-249  250-499  500-999  1000+

 1-99  100-249  250-499  500-999  1000+

 1-99  100-249  250-499  500-999  1000+

 1-50  51-99  100-199  200+

Data will NOT be sold.

for achieving precision swine nutrition when formulating diets. Using accurate nutritional composition values minimizes the risk of over-feeding or under-feeding energy and nutrients relative to the pig’s requirements. They are also important for capturing the greatest economic value of feed ingredients by minimizing “safety margins” which are frequently used to manage uncertainty in the feed ingredients’ nutritional composition.

Furthermore, if nutritionists have confidence in the energy and digestible amino acid values of the sources of feed ingredients they are using, they are more likely to increase diet inclusion rates if the sources are competitively priced to obtain greater diet cost savings.

Nutrient content varies in all feed ingredients, but some animal nutritionists often complain that the nutrient content among DDGS sources is too variable for them to use compared with other common feed ingredients. While it is well-documented that the energy, nutrient content, and digestibility are variable among DDGS sources, they are no more variable than the nutrient content of other common feed ingredients.

In 2012, Tahir et al. conducted a feed ingredient analysis survey of common feed ingredients used in North America and calculated the coefficient of variation for several components. Their results showed that the coefficient of variation of crude protein was less among samples of DDGS (5.4 percent) than among samples of corn (8.7 percent) and wheat (19.1 percent). Furthermore, DDGS had the least variability in neutral detergent fiber and phosphorus content compared with corn, soybean meal, wheat, and canola meal. However, as expected, the variability in crude fat content was the greatest among DDGS sources due to the fact that the majority of U.S. ethanol plants partially extract variable amounts of corn oil prior to manufacturing DDGS.

Due to the high ME and NE and digestible phosphorus content and relatively high digestible amino acid content of DDGS compared with corn and soybean meal, the economic value of using DDGS in swine diets can be as much as $60-100 per ton greater than the purchase price. Numerous studies have shown that adding high amounts of DDGS — up to 30 percent in phase 2 and 3 nursery, growing/finishing and lactation diets, and up to 50 percent in gestation diets — maintains performance comparable to feeding conventional corn/soybean meal diets (Stein and Shurson, 2009).

Significant feed cost reductions have been achieved when using these high DDGS inclusion rates to the point where many large pork producers are attempting to find ways to use even greater amounts (50-60 percent) in grower/finisher diets. However, to achieve optimal growth performance and carcass composition when feeding diets containing more than 30 percent DDGS, re-examining the threonine requirements and managing excess leucine relative to isoleucine and valine must be considered.

The high fiber content of DDGS may increase the threonine requirement because of increased mucin production in the gastrointestinal tract, which occurs when feeding high fiber diets to pigs. Mucin contains significant amounts of threonine, which is lost and not used for growth. Corn protein in DDGS also contains high amounts of leucine relative the pig’s requirement, and excess leucine reduces the utilization of two other amino acids: valine and isoleucine. Therefore, feeding diets containing high amounts of DDGS may result is suboptimal growth performance if these conditions are not properly managed in diet formulations.

Research is underway to evaluate ways to overcome these challenges and further increase DDGS use in nursery and growing/finishing pig diets.

Jerry Shurson is a professor of swine nutrition at the University of Minnesota Department of Animal Science. He can be reached at shurs001@umn.edu. v