Hogs Slip into Thursday's Close
Lean hog futures ended the Thursday session with contracts down 7 to 95 cents in the front months. USDA's national average base hog negotiated price was down $1.21 from the day prior at $87.67 in the Thursday PM report. CME's Lean Hog Index from April 1 was up 15 from the previous day on at $88.80.
In response to President Trump's reciprocal tariffs, China issued a retaliatory tariff of 34% on all US goods overnight.
Pork export sales totaled 52,953 MT in the week that ended on March 27, the largest so far this MY. Mexico was the buyer of 30,600 MT, with 10,300 MT to China. Export shipments came in at 32,899 MT, which was a 3-week high. Of that total, 12,200 MT was headed to Mexico, with 5,200 MT to South Korea.
Census trade data was released on Thursday morning, with a converted carcass basis total of 565.2 million lbs of pork exported in February. That was a 2% decline from January and down 4.8% from last year.
USDA's pork cutout value from Thursday afternoon was up $1.11 at $94.81 per cwt. The belly, picnic and rib primals were reported lower, with the loin leading the charge higher, up $7.04. USDA estimated the Thursday Federally inspected hog slaughter at 488,000 head, with a weekly total at 1.926 million head. That is down 13,000 head from last week but 106,548 head above the same week last year.
Apr 25 Hogs closed at $87.375, down $0.075,
May 25 Hogs closed at $88.575, down $0.550
Jun 25 Hogs closed at $95.550, down $0.975,
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
5 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: Tax break for families The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump campaign promises Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. More SALT The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. Medicaid providers The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' Tax breaks for business The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Clean energy tax credits Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. Odds and ends The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees. ___
Cision Canada
10 hours ago
- Cision Canada
Statement from Dennis Darby, President & CEO, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters regarding passage of C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, in the House of Commons
OTTAWA, ON, June 20, 2025 /CNW/ - Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (CME) welcomes today's passage of Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, through the House of Commons. This legislation marks a meaningful first step toward fixing Canada's fragmented and inefficient approach to infrastructure approvals - one that has held back investment, delayed major projects, and weakened our economic competitiveness. From highways and ports to pipelines and clean energy infrastructure, Canada needs to get major projects moving - faster. Bill C-5 can help pave the way for clearer oversight, reduced duplication and greater government accountability, all of which are vital building the infrastructure our economy depends on. But this is only the beginning. The passage of Bill C-5 must not be the end of the conversation - it must be the starting point for a broader transformation. The federal government must now turn its attention to a much harder task: tackling the underlying web of outdated legislation, regulatory inefficiencies, and policy contradictions that have made a bill like this necessary in the first place. Until those deeper barriers are addressed, Canada will continue to struggle to attract private sector investment in the kinds of projects - big and small, urban and rural - that create jobs, grow communities, and position our economy for long-term success. Manufacturers are looking for outcomes, not just intentions. We look forward to the Bill passing in the Senate so that we can build on this momentum and do the hard work needed to truly unlock Canada's potential. About Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (CME) From the first industrial boom in Canada, CME has advocated for and represented member interests. 150 years strong, CME has earned an extensive and effective track record of working for thousands of leading companies nationwide. More than 85 per cent of CME's members are SMEs and collectively account for an estimated 82 per cent of total manufacturing production and 90 per cent of Canada's exports.
Globe and Mail
14 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Mark Carney is walking a high-stakes foreign-policy tightrope between Canada's values and interests
Mark Carney leads the first Canadian government in decades to have been elected almost entirely on the basis of a foreign-policy agenda. And the last weeks have been dominated by his urgent efforts to turn that agenda into reality. But which foreign policy? On one hand, Mr. Carney has a mandate to pursue a policy of Canadian values and ideals. He owes his party's re-election to the powerful mood of defensive nationalism that swept Canada after Donald Trump began his attacks on Canada's economy and sovereignty. Voters overwhelmingly wanted the new PM to realign Canada away from the United States and into a new set of alliances with countries that share our democratic and egalitarian principles. The economist who entered politics with a book titled Values seemed ideally positioned to do this. In fact, his campaign platform mentioned Canadian values more than 20 times, and national interests only once. On the other hand, Mr. Carney was expected to return Canada to the cold hard realism of protecting our core national interests. Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau were both foreign-policy idealists (albeit with different ideals) whose approach to the world often involved the largely symbolic projection of Canadian values. With Mr. Trump's re-election, things got real. His policies threatened our trade, defence and governance interests, a large part of which are inextricably tied to the United States. Experts observed that in order to prevent economic catastrophe, Mr. Carney would have to hold his nose and make a deal with Mr. Trump – 'a plan that identifies where our national interests converge and where we can deepen the relationship,' as Edward Greenspon, Janice Gross Stein and Drew Fagan wrote in The Globe, even if that meant trading away some of our ideals. Opinion: Carney takes the elbows down – and it may pay off Some success for Carney, not a win for the G7 Those two approaches, on their face, are mutually incompatible. Yet what we've seen, most visibly during the G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alta., is a Prime Minister pretty actively pursuing both of them at once. Mr. Carney is walking along a razor-thin ridge, balanced precariously between one chasm that could destroy our standard of living and another that threatens our fundamental principles. He is very much pursuing a policy to realign Canada with countries closer to its values. This is most visible in military affairs, where he has made major spending commitments to join the European-led effort to replace lost U.S. support for Ukraine and to forge a new collective-defence alliance in the event of a U.S. departure from, or the collapse of, NATO. On the trade file, his fast-paced resumption of economic-integration talks with Britain is meant to supplement the successful Canada-European Union agreement. In the diplomatic space, Canada's decision to break with its neutral Mideast policy and join France and Britain in censuring Israel's denial of Gaza aid and their plan to recognize Palestinian statehood was clearly an effort to shift our foreign policy toward countries more aligned to our values. But Mr. Carney is also pursuing a deal with Mr. Trump that would protect our interests, at almost any cost. This has meant flattering rather than confronting the far-right President, and avoiding the sort of mildly critical remarks that scuppered Mr. Trudeau's previously good relationship with Mr. Trump at the 2018 G7 summit in Quebec. More substantially, roughly half of Mr. Carney's immigration and border bill consists of policies designed to take a load off federal bureaucracies by shifting migrants into more manageable categories, while the other half is comprised of border-security theatre transparently intended to meet Mr. Trump's absurd demands. As G7 wraps, Carney vague on aims of 30-day time frame for U.S. talks Likewise, Mr. Carney is discussing the notion of Canadian participation in Mr. Trump's 'golden dome' missile-defence megaproject just as the renegotiation of our crucial free-trade agreement is beginning. There has been little public effort to shift defence procurement away from the U.S., at least not before a trade deal is complete. The potential political and thus economic cost of jeopardizing our trade relationship would be unbearable. At some point, these twin foreign policies are going to collide. But luckily for Mr. Carney, a number of his policy initiatives involve what the military would call 'dual-use' technology. His big arms-spending commitments satisfy Mr. Trump's obsession with arbitrary NATO targets, but a good chunk serve the more urgent purpose of buying weapons for Ukraine to compensate for Mr. Trump's abandonment. Mr. Carney can truthfully claim to be cracking down on illegal immigrants, and while Mr. Trump might imagine this is similar to his mass-deportation agenda, Ottawa is actually taking the more sensible and Canadian approach of turning them into legal immigrants. So far, this Janus-faced statecraft appears to be succeeding. The risk is that this juggling of interests and values could result in damage to both, probably at the hands of Mr. Trump. But it's also quite likely the only way to emerge from this dark era with both somewhat intact.
