FARE Blog

Food, Agriculture, and Resource Economics

The Impact of China’s Potential Cotton Tariffs on U.S. Cotton Exports

By Yangxuan Liu, John R. C. Robinson, and Don Shurley

On April 4th, 2018, China announced a potential 25 percent increase in import tariffs on major U.S. origin agricultural commodities in retaliation to a series of tariffs proposed by the United States. United States upland cotton is one of the commodities affected by this proposed increase in import tariffs. The export market is an important source of demand for the U.S. cotton industry. The United States is the largest cotton exporting country with around 71.3% of cotton produced in the U.S. exported last year. China is the second largest trading partner with the U.S. for cotton in 2017 and buys 16.7% of the U.S. cotton exports. The total value of cotton exported to China was worth approximately $976 million last year, which is the second highest value among all the other row crops after soybean.

If Chinese tariffs are imposed on U.S. cotton, global cotton suppliers like India, Australia, and Brazil may experience a near-term opportunity to supply more cotton to China. In the short run, the market disruption could be a shock to the U.S. cotton futures market, particularly if hedge fund speculators sell off their long positions. However, the longer-term situation could see more U.S. exports rerouted to other cotton importing countries. This recent history of the change in China’s internal cotton policy suggests a similar reshuffling effect from a bilateral Chinese tariff on imported U.S. cotton. Chinese raw cotton import tariffs would continue to stimulate imports of duty-free yarn from Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Indian subcontinent.

Click here to download the full publication.

China’s Tariff Impact on Georgia Pecan Industry

By Dr. Esendugue Greg Fonsah

The U.S. and Chinese Trade War will have a negative impact on the Georgia pecan industry if not resolved.  The United States produces 80% of the world’s pecans and Georgia remains the number one producer of pecans with a record 50-70% exported to China for almost a decade (Hargreaves, 2013). The high demand for pecans has also triggered a market distortion from the traditional distribution channel (grower-processor-consumer) to direct marketing and sales.  An additional 15% tariff on nuts and fruits will create a major impact to the Georgia pecan industry as it will increase the cost of pecans, thus reducing the quantity exported to China. That would in turn increase domestic quantities since the bulk of Georgia pecans that were destined to China will be floating in the domestic market.  So far, China remains the main market for U.S. pecans although a small quantity goes to India, South Korea, Turkey and Vietnam (Andrew, 2017).   Although the U.S. might successfully look for alternative markets, it will be difficult for these new/emerging markets to absorb the large volume of stock created by the possible reduction in export to China.  With the large pecan production and acreage expansion currently going on, the domestic market might be flooded and eventually dampen prices.

Click here to download the full publication.

The Impacts of Chinese Tariff on Georgia Agriculture

By Yangxuan Liu, Esendugue Greg Fonsah, Levi Russell, Adam N. Rabinowitz, and Don Shurley

The uncertainty in trade policy between China and the U.S. creates concerns among the agricultural community. We recently released an extension publication, named The Impacts of China and United States Trade and Tariff Actions on Georgia Agriculture: the Perspectives of UGA Agricultural Economists. Georgia agriculture produces many of the items targeted by Chinese tariffs, including nuts, fruits, soybean, corn, wheat, sorghum, cotton, pork, beef, and tobacco. The Chinese retaliatory trade tariff on products of U.S. origin would have a negative impact on Georgia’s agriculture and economy. However, the magnitude of the impact of these new tariffs on Georgia’s agricultural industry is unclear.  In this extension publication, we discussed in detail about the Chinese tariff and its potential impact on pecan, cotton, soybean, corn, wheat, sorghum, and livestock industry.

Click here to download the full publication.

 

Changes to the Dairy Program from the House-Passed Farm Bill

by Levi Russell

H.R. 2 of the 115th Congress, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 passed by a 2-vote margin in the house on June 21, 2018. On June 25th it passed a motion to proceed in the Senate and is now being debated. There are some key differences between this bill and the current Senate version I wrote about here. At this time it is not clear which version of the Farm Bill will become law or if other changes will be made. In this post I will go through the changes the House bill makes to what is currently known as the Dairy Margin Protection Program. I will continue to post updates to http://fareblog.uga.edu as the process continues.

There are several changes made to the Dairy Margin Protection Program in the House bill. Some of them address concerns the industry has voiced while others make the program cheaper and more flexible for small and medium size dairies. Below are a list of these changes.

  • The program is renamed the Dairy Risk Management Program and is authorized through 2023
  • Calculation of the Actual Margin remains the same as well as most of the changes made back in February, such as the monthly calculation of the margin and payments
  • Coverage levels of $8.50 and $9.00 are added for Tier I only
  • Producers can buy coverage ranging from 5% to 90% instead of the previous 25% to 90% limits. Coverage can be purchased in 5% increments
  • The table below details the new premiums for Tier I. Tier II premiums are the same as in the 2014 Farm Bill. In general, Tier I premiums are about 1/5 of premiums in the 2014 Farm Bill.
  • The House directs the Secretary of Agriculture to address a few issues with the feed cost component of the margin:
    • The Secretary is to conduct a review of feed cost calculation and to determine whether it reflects actual costs paid by dairy producers
    • A report is to be made on the use of corn silage as a feed ingredient including a report on the cost difference between the use of corn silage and corn
    • NASS will revise monthly alfalfa price survey reports to include high-quality alfalfa prices in the top-five dairy producing states as measured by the volume of milk produced in the previous month
  • The House bill allows producers to use both LGM and Dairy Risk Management, but not on the same production. For example, half of a producers’ production could be covered by LGM while the other half could be covered by the Dairy Risk Management Program
  • Production history updates for the purpose of payment calculations end as of 2018
  • Payments to a dairy are prohibited if the Secretary of Agriculture determines that the dairy business was reorganized expressly for the purpose of qualifying as a new operation
  • Producers have 90 days after the passage of the bill to elect a margin coverage level for the duration of the program

In general these changes make the program less costly for producers to cover 5 million pounds of milk or less. The combination of allowing producers to cover as little as 5% of their production and the significantly lower Tier I premiums accomplish this. In addition, the flexibility to use LGM and the Dairy Risk Management Program is likely to be helpful in managing risk across the entire operation. Time will tell whether the House or Senate versions or some compromise between the two make it into law. Subscribe to the blog in the upper-left corner if you’d like to receive updates in your email!

 

 

Tentative Changes to Dairy Support in the 2018 Farm Bill (Senate)

by Levi Russell

UPDATE: This post has been updated to include information from Senate amendments passed June 27th and 28th, 2018. The changes have been made by marking through the previous text and adding new text after it in italics.

Last night’s cloture vote on the 2018 Farm Bill in the Senate is an indication that we are progressing well on passage of a bill this year. Though that vote was for the House version of the bill (which you can read about here), I thought I’d give an update on my reading of what the Senate Ag Committee changed in Title 1 for dairy since the changes are significant. Keep in mind that things are in flux right now and that this information could be obsolete in the near future. If that is the case, I will write a new post to let you know and provide updates to the process as it unfolds.

The Margin Protection Program has been renamed Dairy Risk Coverage and extends through the year 2023. The basic logic of the program remains the same, but there are significant changes to margin coverage levels and premiums. The margin calculation remains the same.

  • Premiums are still split into two tiers and the threshold remains the same. Lower premiums for less than or equal to 5 million pounds of milk covered and higher premiums for milk covered in excess of 5 million pounds.
  • Premiums are discounted based on the dairy’s total annual production. For dairies with 10 million pounds or more of production, there is no discount. For dairies with 2 million to 10 million pounds of total annual production, there is a 25% discount on all premiums. For dairies with 2 million pounds of production or less, there is a 50% discount on all premiums.
  • In addition to the $4.00, $4.50, $5.00, $5.50, $6.00, $6.50, $7.00, $7.50, and $8.00 margin coverage levels producers covering less than 5 million pounds of milk can choose $8.50 and $9.00 coverage levels.
  • Producers can select a catastrophic coverage level that covers a $5.00 margin. Producers can cover 40% of historical production. No other choice of coverage level is allowed under the catastrophic coverage option.
  • Producers who select catastrophic coverage will be required to pay an additional $100 administrative fee on top of the original $100 administrative fee carried over from the 2014 Farm Bill. There is no other premium associated with catastrophic coverage.
  • There is no longer a 25% minimum production coverage level. Producers can choose coverage as low as 5% up to 90% of their production in 5% increments.
  • Production history is still based on 2011-2013 production, but adjustments will end in 2019.
  • Other changes made in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 remain the same, such as the monthly calculation of the margin and payments.
  • Producers who paid MPP premiums in excess of the indemnity payments they received in 2015, 2016, and 2017 will receive a refund of the difference between the premiums they paid and the payments they received.

The tables below show the premiums for the three different levels of annual production. In general, premiums for both Tier I and Tier II are higher than the current premiums for 2018. However, these higher premiums are offset to some extent by discounts for what the proposed law calls “small and medium” dairies. The 50% discount for dairies with 2 million pounds of annual production or less pushes the new premiums lower than those in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 this year. The 25% discount offsets the increase in premiums to a degree, but not completely.

The program is now more flexible in that it allows producers to purchase coverage for as little as 5% of their annual production. While this doesn’t offset the higher premiums, it does allow producers to cover a smaller percentage of their production if they wish. For example, a larger dairy could use hedging techniques or the new dairy insurance product created by Farm Bureau to manage most of their risk and still participate in the Dairy Risk Coverage program at a lower level.

I will keep this site updated with new information as votes occur and changes are made.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tariff Retaliation Already Hitting the Pork and Dairy Industries

by Levi Russell

Recent tariffs imposed on steel and aluminum imports to the U.S. from Canada, Mexico, and the European Union (EU) have resulted in retaliation in the form of tariffs on a range of U.S. exports to those countries. Incomplete lists can be found here, but the biggest concerns in terms of agricultural trade are Mexican tariffs on pork and cheese.  Mexico is responsible for a significant portion of all U.S. exports of pork (32% in 2017) and cheese (up to 28% annually), but the full effect of these tariffs is currently unknown.

New Mexican tariffs on cheese include a 15% duty on fresh cheese and a 10% duty on shredded or powdered cheeses. These duties increase to 25% and 20%, respectively, after July 5th. The new tariffs on pork include a 20% tariff on all chilled or frozen pork as well as cooked ham and shoulder products and a 15% tariff on pork sausages. The U.S. is still allowed to export pork to Mexico duty free under their 350,000 metric ton quota. However, this limit is only 43% of U.S. pork export volume in 2017 and the U.S. must compete with other exporting countries for this quota. To put it simply, the 350,000 metric ton quota is “first come, first served.”

The higher tariffs will likely have a severe impact on the dairy industry. U.S. Dairy Export Council President and CEO Tom Vilsack has indicated that the tariffs will make it very difficult for the U.S. to compete with other countries for exports to Mexico, putting $391 million worth of exports at risk.

The tariffs on pork will likely be prohibitive, meaning that pork otherwise exported to Mexico will have to find a new home. Wherever that pork is exported, it will likely receive a somewhat lower price. Given the demand-driven markets for pork, chicken, and beef this year (due mostly to significant supply side growth the past few years) make this especially concerning.

What Farmers Need to Know about Crop Insurance and Prevented Planting

by Adam N. Rabinowitz and Yangxuan Liu

Southern Georgia has seen a lot of rain during the month of May.  The table below shows the precipitation and number of rainy days in 2018 compared to the average from 2015-2017 for four selected areas in southern GA.  Precipitation in 2018 has been, on average, more than twice that of the previous three years.  The number of rainy days has also been more than twice the previous three-year average.

Southern Georgia Rainfall Data for May 1 through May 29  
2018 2015-2017 Average
  Precip. (in) # Rainy days   Precip. (in) # Rainy days
Tifton 6.91 14 2.02 6.33
Camilla 5.16 13 3.26 5.33
Midville 6.74 14 2.98 7.00
Plains 7.11 14   2.94 6.33
Source: http://weather.uga.edu

Subsequently, planting issues have occurred for farmers who typically plant cotton and peanuts during the month of May.  According to the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, only 65% of cotton and 73% of peanuts have been planted through May 27th.  This compares to an average of 72% for cotton and 81% for peanuts for the similar period during 2015-2017.  With saturated fields and more rain in the forecast, farmers need to start thinking about whether all their intended plantings will occur following sound agricultural practices.  It is also important to think about how this relates to their crop insurance policy, planting deadlines, and prevented planting eligibility for 2018.

Over 90% of Georgia peanut and cotton farmers typically select some form of crop insurance coverage.  Included in this coverage is a prevented planting provision that provides payments when extreme weather conditions prevent expected plantings by the final planting date or during the late planting period.  The USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA) announces the final and late planting dates, which vary by crop, coverage type, and county.  The table below identifies the final planting date and the end of the late planting period for peanuts and cotton in GA.  Coverage during the late planting period is reduced by 1% for each day after the final planting date, up to the end of the late planting period.

Peanut Revenue & Yield Protection
Final Planting Date End of Late Planting Period Date Counties
5/31/2018 6/10/2018 Jefferson, Johnson, Laurens, Montgomery, Richmond, Treutlen, Washington, Wilkinson
6/5/2018 6/15/2018 All other counties
Source: USDA Risk Management Agency
Cotton Revenue & Yield Protection
Final Planting Date End of Late Planting Period Date Counties
5/25/2018 6/4/2018 Bartow, Chattooga, Elbert, Floyd, Franklin, Gordon, Hart, Henry, McDuffie, Monroe, Morgan, Oconee, Polk, Spalding, Walton, Warren
6/5/2018 6/15/2018 All other counties
* There is a special provision starting in 2018, which will allow for coverage of Upland Cotton planted five days after the end of the late planting period.  If Upland Cotton is planted during that five-day period, it is not eligible for prevented planting.
Source: USDA Risk Management Agency

If planting by these deadlines is not possible, it is important that farmers maintain proper records that document the cause.  Keep in mind that planting decisions must be based on sound agronomic and crop management practices.  If it appears that it will be difficult to finish planting by the final planting date or during the late planting period, farmers should contact their crop insurance agent and discuss their options.

A full publication is available (click here to download) that includes the above information, frequently asked questions, answers, and links to additional resources.

 

2018 Farm Bill and Seed Cotton Program Timeline Update

By Don Shurley, Yangxuan Liu and Adam N. Rabinowitz

The legislative process leading to the next farm bill has now begun.  The current 2014 farm bill will end with the 2018 crop year.  On April 18, the House Agriculture Committee approved The Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (HR 2).  This was the first step in the legislative process that will lead to the next/new farm bill beginning with the 2019 crop year.

House consideration of the bill is expected this week (week of May 14, 2018).  The Senate Ag Committee has not yet considered it’s version of the new farm bill.  The Senate Ag Committee is expected to consider its version of a new farm bill in late May or possibly sometime in June.  The goal remains to have the new farm bill completed this year.  Debate in both the House and Senate is expected to be contentious, however, where Democrats are opposed to proposed farm bill revisions in the nutrition title.  There is also, as always, likely to be debate on payment limits and payment eligibility.

A factsheet titled House Ag Committee Farm Bill Proposal and Seed Cotton Program FSA Timeline (Click here to download the factsheet) discusses some of the changes in HR 2 compared to the current 2014 farm bill, discusses the remaining farm bill process, and updates to the timeline for the generic base conversion and new seed cotton program.

 

More information can be found at Georgia Agricultural Policy Webpage.

 

The Impacts of China Trade Tariff on Georgia Livestock Industry

By Levi Russell

China implemented a 25 percent increase in import tariffs on United States pork and is expected to increase import tariffs on United States beef products by 25 percent. However, unlike many row crops and other agricultural products, China is not a primary destination for United States meat products. Beef exports to China only resumed recently and there is not yet a significant amount of beef being produced in the United States that is exported to China. In 2017, the United States was the second largest pork producer after China, and the largest pork exporting country (USDA FAS, 2018b). Twenty-two percent of pork produced in the United States enters the export market (USDA FAS, 2018b). From January 2013 to January 2018, the USDA ERS reports that mainland China made up 7.5% of total United States pork exports, coming behind Mexico (29.3%), Japan (25.1%), Canada (10.4%), and South Korea (8.1%). Pork production is mainly concentrated in the Midwest and North Carolina, and Georgia is not in the major pork producing regions. The impact of the tariffs on pork will be minimal on Georgia’s agricultural industry. However, the reductions in pork prices could hurt some of the pork producers in Georgia. For beef and pork (and other meats), the NAFTA trade discussions are a far bigger concern than Chinese tariffs.

Short-term market fluctuations this year in both cattle and hog markets will almost certainly depend much more on rising supplies, domestic consumption, and exports to other countries than on Chinese tariffs. A recent report by the USDA FAS indicates that the reductions in exports to China will mostly be offset by the increases in shipments to Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines. Exports of both pork and beef from the United States are expected to rise this year, in part due to relatively low United States prices (USDA FAS, 2018a).

In the long term, however, these increased tariffs on pork and beef products constitute a missed opportunity, as China is the number one pork-consuming nation in the world. New sources of demand for United States producers are hard to come by and higher tariffs on beef and pork will likely result in increased production in other countries to fulfill China’s growing demand. This will put the United States at a competitive disadvantage in the long term if the tariff increases are put in place on United States beef and pork products.

 

References

USDA FAS. (2018a). Livestock and poultry: world markets and trade. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/livestock_poultry.pdf.

USDA FAS. (2018b). Production, Supply and Distribution Database.  Retrieved April 25, 2018 https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/app/index.html#/app/advQuery

Page 1 of 41234