thumbnail

By Ben Conner, USW Vice President of Policy

 

On July 25, we received excellent news after a meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker: the United States and European Union had agreed to work towards a trade deal and hold off on any additional tariffs.

 

Excellent news because the apparent direction prior to the meeting was toward opening another massive trade dispute across the Atlantic on a similar scale to the one happening across the Pacific with China. The ongoing Section 232 investigation on automobile imports threatened punitive tariffs on tens of billions in EU exports to the United States. Retaliation likely would have been similarly massive (putting aside for now the also massive amount of trade that may still be hit by the 232 tariffs on autos and auto parts from Mexico, Canada, Japan, Korea and others).

 

There have been conflicting reports from both sides about the scope of the deal with regard to agriculture. Some European officials claimed agriculture is not on the table, while American officials said the negotiations will cover agriculture. To the Europeans’ point, the text of the joint statement specifies that the work towards zero tariffs will cover “non-auto industrial goods,” and subsequent clarification mentions one agricultural product for increased trade: soybeans.

 

Before considering the U.S. perspective, it is worth noting that our soybean exports to the EU are already increasing due to substantial discounts on newly homeless U.S. soybeans that, like U.S. wheat, are missing the boats to China. Soybean tariffs are already zero and the EU has no power to compel companies to purchase U.S. origin, so if the agricultural negotiations are limited to soybeans, the additional gains for U.S. farmers will be extremely small.

 

From the U.S. perspective – the one we expect to prevail ultimately if this deal will have any chance of ratification in the U.S. Congress – of course agriculture will be covered, in spite of what the initial statement may have implied. How could they negotiate an agreement covering “substantially all trade” (the WTO requirement for such deals) if the negotiations left out one of the most competitive export sectors?

 

Moreover, U.S. Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which gives the President delegated authority to negotiate trade agreements, specifically includes “trade in agriculture” as a principle negotiating objective distinct from trade in other goods. If the U.S. Administration completely ignored that negotiating objective, it is highly unlikely that Congress would provide necessary procedural protections for the agreement under TPA.

 

These questions may complicate the discussions going forward. Agricultural negotiations are always difficult between the U.S. and the EU, as they were during the last attempt at a deal under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations. But for now, we can all be grateful that discussions are occurring and a deepening trade war with the EU seems to be on hold.

thumbnail

Almost 100 people from 16 countries participated in the 2018 edition of the biennial U.S. Wheat Associates (USW) Latin American & Caribbean Buyers Conference July 18 to 20 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.  Apprehension about a growing number of trade policy issues as the conference started was quickly replaced by enthusiasm for the abundance of opportunities available from the 2018 U.S. wheat harvest and USW’s tradition of service.

 

Change was the overall theme of this year’s conference and was apparent from the start with the introduction of the newest USW South American Region colleagues: Miguel Galdos as the next Regional Director and Andres Saturno in a new regional position as Technical Specialist. Regional Vice President Alvaro de la Fuente has announced plans to retire in October and USW recognized his 41 years of service at the conference.

 

USW President Vince Peterson added perspective to the theme with a presentation illustrating the changing dynamics of the global wheat trade and increased competitiveness from Russia and other non-traditional importers into the region. Mark Fowler, Vice President of Overseas Operations, then highlighted how expansion of technical service will increase value for our U.S. wheat customers in the Mexican, Central American and Caribbean region and in the South American region.

 

“The service we provide combines with the variety and quality of the six classes of U.S. wheat available to remain the best choice for our customers in Latin America,” said Fowler.  “As the market becomes more competitive and our customers strive to differentiate their products to their customers, our ability to provide the technical service and product development assistance becomes even more vital for them and the farmers we represent.”

USW Vice President of Overseas Operations Mark Fowler.

 

Galdos provided an overview of the Latin American and Caribbean baking industry while Marcelo Mitre, Technical Specialist, USW/ Mexico City, and Casey Chumrau, Marketing Manager, USW/Santiago, shared several examples of how technical support has benefitted USW buyers and wheat food processors. U.S. participants also provided a wide-ranging look at the supplies and quality of U.S. hard red winter (HRW), soft red winter (SRW), hard red spring (HRS), soft white (SW) and durum during the conference.

 

Ambassador Rubens Barbosa (second from right), President of Abitrigo, the Brazilian Millers Association, was a guest speaker at the Latin American and Caribbean Buyers Conference.

Additional guest speakers included: Alejandro Daly, Executive President of ALIM, the Latin American Millers Association covering how labeling laws affect consumption; Ambassador Rubens Barbosa, President of Abitrigo, the Brazilian Millers Association, focusing on Brazil’s wheat production and national policies; Irineu J. Pedrollo, Owner of I&MP Consulting Associates, presenting on the experiences of a U.S. wheat buyer; Dr. Glenn Gaesser, Arizona State University, presenting on the nutritional challenges of a gluten-free diet; and Mara Isabel Perdomo, Broker Manager Director with Marita Freight and Trade, speaking on freight market dynamics.

 

In addition to the wheat buyers from milling companies at the conference, U.S. wheat producers from seven states either attended or provided financial support for the conference. USW thanks the Idaho Wheat Commission, the Oregon Wheat Commission and the Washington Grain Commission for their sponsorship and participants from the California Wheat Commission, Kansas Wheat Commission, Montana Wheat & Barley Committee, North Dakota Wheat Commission and Oklahoma Wheat Commission for their support to make the conference a continued success. Additional funding was provided by USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service.

 

“It’s significant that the conference was held in Brazil this year because Brazil is one the world’s leading wheat importers,” said Kansas Wheat CEO Justin Gilpin in a report on the conference by Kansas Wheat.

 

Dr. Romulo Lollato, Extension Wheat Specialist at Kansas State University, spoke on “The Role of Agricultural Extension on Wheat Quality: A Case Study for Hard Red Winter.”

 

According to Gilpin, Lollato was able to communicate to buyers about what Kansas wheat farmers are putting into their crops for both management and quality.

 

“Buyers have a better understanding of what goes into wheat production and management for quality,” Gilpin said. “This will help differentiate U.S. hard red winter in a competitive marketplace.”

 

Kansas Wheat Vice President of Research and Operations Aaron Harries saw the conference as an opportunity for customers to meet U.S. growers and discuss wheat productio

USW Chairman and wheat grower Chris Kolstad.

n and the business of farming, and for growers to show their appreciation to buyers and millers who buy their crops. In fact, USW Chairman Chris Kolstad, a wheat farmer from Ledger, Mont., covered “The Economics of Growing Wheat” at the conference.

“I hope that the buyers and attendees appreciate the transparency we show,” Harries said. “We fully disclose information about the crop, even in years when our wheat crop isn’t that good. I hope they come away from the conference knowing that if they seek any information or expertise, as sellers we have that readily available for them.”

 

USW has posted presentations from the 2018 Latin American, Caribbean and South American Buyers Conference on its website here: https://www.uswheat.org/marketing/2018-latin-american-and-caribbean-buyers-conference/.

 

 

thumbnail

By Elizabeth Westendorf, USW Assistant Director of Policy

 

This week, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled on the regulatory status of plants developed through mutagenesis (which includes many modern plant breeding innovations). They determined that these technologies do fall under the jurisdiction of EU laws regarding GMOs. And with that, they landed a serious blow to the future of agricultural innovation.

 

Earlier this year, an advocate general of the ECJ wrote an opinion stating that gene-editing techniques that did not result in foreign DNA in the final product should not be considered GMOs under EU GM legislation. This ruling created hope that regulations on promising new technology like CRISPR-Cas9 would not be overly burdensome. Those hopes were dashed by this new ruling though.

 

This ruling, based solely on the process used to develop a plant and ignoring the safety and effectiveness of the plant itself, is shortsighted and irresponsible. A ruling like this will have a chilling effect on European plant breeding efforts, and by extension will have negative economic and environmental consequences for the continent. Those effects will likely trickle to other plant breeding programs around the world because if a plant cannot get into Europe easily, then all countries that export to the EU will be hesitant to adopt new technology.  Additionally, the EU is often used as a benchmark for other countries considering their own regulations on biotechnology and plant breeding, so this interpretation may be adopted more widely.

 

The EU, as a group of developed countries, can weather those negative effects of restrictive regulation. But this is one more stumbling block to food security that other parts of the world cannot afford. The privilege to limit food options based on non-scientific consumer fear is one that the EU and other developed countries take for granted. But these technologies can have a massive impact on production and nutrition in Sub-Saharan Africa or Southeast Asia. With that in mind, rather than constraining new research, we should be supporting these efforts as much as possible. And one crucial avenue of support is providing science-based regulations that do not impede trade flows. As global economic leaders, this is not an option; it is a responsibility.

 

For more information, visit:

thumbnail

By Amanda J. Spoo, USW Assistant Director of Communications

This week, the Wheat Quality Council hosted its annual hard red spring (HRS) and durum crop tour. Participants spent three days mainly in North Dakota surveying this year’s crop and estimating yield. The tour, which surveyed a total of 342 fields, estimated weighted average HRS yield at 41.1 bushels per acre (bu/a), slightly higher than last year’s HRS average of 38.1 bu/a, which was impacted by ongoing drought conditions in western areas. The durum weighted average yield was 39.3 bu/a, in line with last year’s average of 39.7 bu/a, which was a decline from 45.4 bu/a in 2016. While the overall crop looks better than last year, it is still below the tour’s 5-year average of 45.4 bu/ac.

Participants on the tour always represent a wide range of the wheat industry, including millers, traders, farmers, researchers, government officials and media who travel along eight distinct routes covering most of the state’s wheat production.

“The continuing success of this tour is that we make it a value-added experience,” said Wheat Quality Council Executive Vice President Dave Green. “We keep training more and more people and that makes a difference across this industry.”

On the first day, participants drove west from Fargo to Bismarck, with two routes going farther into the western part of the state, and others covering western Minnesota and northern South Dakota. The Day 1 weighted average yield was 41.1 bu/a, up from 38.8 bu/a in 2017. For HRS specifically, the yield was 41.3 bu/a, down from 37.9 bu/a in 2017. The scouts surveyed 138 fields on Day 1, of which 135 were HRS and 3 were durum.

On Day 2, the tour surveyed 148 fields, 135 of which were HRS and 13 were durum. The group moved from Bismarck to Devils Lake. The overall average for Day 2 was 38.8 bu/a, up from 35.7 in 2017. For HRS, the yield was 38.3 bu/a, up slightly from 35.8.

The third day of the tour included a half day of crop surveying. The participants then all returned to North Dakota State University’s Northern Crops Institute in Fargo to compile the overall crop report. On Day 3, participants surveyed at total of 55 HRS fields and one durum field. The Day 3 weighted average yield for HRS was 45.6 bu/a, down slightly from 46.2 bu/a in 2017.

The results reflect a snapshot of yield potential observed by the participants in the fields they scouted.

“I think what we saw was kind of encouraging in part because there had been concern about scab with this crop, but we saw a lot of spraying for it; and we never felt that more than a handful of fields had a serious scab problem,” said Green. “And we were scouting for it, so we were very positive about what we saw.”

Green added, “I’m also positive that we thought we were headed for a lower protein record relative to how good everything looked going in, but I wouldn’t say the same thing now that we’ve seen the crop. I think it is going to have a wide range of protein and a lot of choices for buyers. I would anticipate that with the heat that us on the crop, the quality is going to be better than normal.”

View highlights and photos from the tour by searching #wheattour18 on Facebook and Twitter. For more information and for results from previous tours, visit the Wheat Quality Council’s website at www.wheatqualitycouncil.org.

thumbnail

Recent news and highlights from around the wheat industry.

 

 

Quote of the Week.Going back to the days of President Carter’s grain embargo, we learned that trade, more especially agricultural trade, should not be used as a weapon. Rather it is a tool – a tool for peace, for national security through open markets, and for economic growth.” — Sen. Pat Roberts, addressing the Washington International Trade Association on July 19, 2018.

Congratulations. We are fortunate to have devoted, loyal colleagues at USW. This month Senior Advisor Jim Frahm is celebrating 40 years and Office Director and Marketing Specialist Valentina Shustova, based in the USW Moscow Office, is celebrating 25 years. Thank you Jim and Valentina for your service to our organization, to U.S. wheat farmers and to our customers around the world.

FGIS Advisory Committee. USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue has appointed 12 members to serve on the Federal Grain Inspection Service’s (FGIS) Grain Inspection Advisory Committee beginning July 1, 2018. Their recommendations ensure that FGIS services meet the needs of all stakeholders, he said. Read more.

Korea, Japan to Accept Canadian Wheat Again. Following the discovery of a small number of wheat plants with a regulated glyphosate resistance trait in Alberta, Korea and Japan have established testing programs and re-opened their markets to Canadian wheat imports, confirming that no wheat with transgenic events are in commercial supplies. Korea and Japan have also tested U.S. wheat for similar traits for several years with no detection.

USDA’S $12 Billion Farm Assistance Programs. The Trump administration on July 24 said it would provide up to $12 billion in aid for U.S. farmers from early September to shield them from the repercussions of trade disputes between the United States and China, the European Union and others. See a U.S. wheat organization statement on the program here. More details here.

SW Losses in Oregon Fire. A recent wildfire in north central Oregon destroyed as much as 1 million bushels (more than 27,200 metric tons) of soft white (SW) in the field — a devastating loss to many individual farmers, but unlikely to influence SW export supply or prices. One farmer said he watched the fire “torch a 900 acre wheat field in 12 minutes.” USDA expects increased SW production this year. Read more here.

“Quick” Harvest in Oklahoma. Dry conditions in Oklahoma limited yield potential buy helped keep HRW quality higher this year. National Association of Wheat Growers President Jimmy Musick talks about his harvest in a video here.

Grain Procurement Management for Importers. The Northern Crops Institute will host this eight-day course, Sep. 10 to 19, 2018, at its facilities in Fargo, N.D. The course will focus on the mechanics of grain merchandising and providing training for individuals responsible for purchasing grain. The registration deadline is Aug. 15, 2018. Learn more about the course here.

IAOM-KSU Basic and Advanced Milling Principles. The IGP Institute will host two short courses focused on milling principles in October at its conference center in Manhattan, Kan. The Basic Milling Principles short course, scheduled Oct. 8 to 12, 2018, will help participants develop a conceptual understanding of the milling process with a focus on mill balance, understanding critical control points in the milling system, and milling different wheat classes. The Advanced Milling Principles short course, scheduled Oct. 15 to 19, 2018 will educate participants on quantitative tools and practices to influence and impact, optimal machine adjustment, milling efficiency and flour quality in the mill. Learn more about the courses here.

Subscribe to USW Reports. USW publishes a variety of reports and content that are available to subscribe to, including a bi-weekly newsletter highlighting recent Wheat Letter blog posts, the weekly Price Report and the weekly Harvest Report (available May to October). Subscribe here.

Follow USW Online. Visit our page www.facebook.com/uswheat for the latest updates, photos and discussions of what is going on in the world of wheat. Also, find breaking news on Twitter at www.twitter.com/uswheatassoc and video stories at www.youtube.com/uswheatassociates.

thumbnail

By Stephanie Bryant-Erdmann, USW Market Analyst

 

There is an old saying: “When there’s blood on the streets, buy property.” Given recent price movements, that could easily be changed to: “When trade policies are in the news, buy wheat.”

 

Since the steel and aluminum tariffs went into full effect for major U.S. wheat customers, September Kansas City hard red winter (HRW) wheat futures have fallen 51 cents per bushel ($19 per metric ton [MT]), September Chicago soft red winter (SRW) wheat futures dropped 25 cents per bushel ($9 per MT) and Minneapolis hard red spring (HRS) plunged 58 cents per bushel ($21 per MT).

 

Seasonal harvest pressure always impacts U.S. wheat prices during the summer months; however, this year the unique trade environment is also pressuring export demand and driving U.S. wheat prices lower. As of July 19, U.S. export sales for marketing year 2018/19 (June 1 to May 31) totaled 6.43 MMT, down 32 percent year over year. Exporters note that customers are choosing to purchase smaller than normal volumes of U.S. wheat, just what they need for the short-term or are waiting to make purchases, noting uncertainty about U.S. trade policies and their own countries’ retaliatory measures. Sales to the top five U.S. wheat customers — Mexico, Japan, the Philippines, Korea and Nigeria — are 27 percent behind last year’s pace.

 

Futures v Global S&D

U.S. wheat futures prices are not reflecting global supply and demand realities. Buyers are uncertain about the effects of unforeseen tariff wars and have altered their typical wheat import cadences.

With trade policy issues dominating the headlines, U.S. wheat futures markets are mostly ignoring global wheat supply and demand fundamentals, which can be seen in competitors’ wheat prices. The average global wheat price is up 41 cents per bushel ($15 per MT) with larger increases noted in Australia and Argentina, which compete with the United States in key quality-driven markets. According to International Grains Council (IGC) data, the average price of Australian wheat is up $19 per MT and the average price of Argentine wheat is up $75 per MT. These price increases are driven by increased global wheat demand, shrinking global wheat supplies and their location.

 

USDA noted in last week’s World Agricultural Supply and Demand estimates that global wheat production will fall to 737 MMT in 2018/19, the first drop in 5 years and down 3 percent from 2017/18. Decreased production is expected in the European Union (EU), Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Australia. While the United States, Canada and Argentina are expected to have increased production, exporter supplies are expected to fall 20.2 MMT year over year.

 

Simultaneously, many importers are engaging in “just in time” purchases since wheat price movement has rewarded their patience the last few years. USDA expects importer ending stocks to fall to 49.8 MMT in 2018/19, the lowest amount in a decade.

 

While importer stocks are shrinking, USDA expects global wheat demand to surge to a new record high of 749 MMT, 4 percent above the 5-year average. That means that global wheat consumption will outpace global wheat production by 12.6 MMT this year and drop the global wheat stocks-to-use ratio (excluding China) to less than 20 percent. A level that has not been seen since 2007/08.

 

For perspective, in July 2007 all three wheat futures were above $6.00 per bushel ($220 per MT) and would continue climbing until March 2008 when prices peaked at $11.60 per bushel ($426 per MT) for SRW, $12.17 per bushel ($447 per MT) for HRW and $17.30 per bushel ($636 per MT) for HRS. On Friday, July 20, those three futures were at $5.16 per bushel ($190 per MT), $5.08 per bushel ($187 per MT) and $5.55 per bushel ($204 per MT), respectively, indicating there is a lot of room for upward mobility.

 

With exporter supplies shrinking and importers continuing a “just in time” purchasing pattern, global wheat prices are sitting on a powder keg that trade policy issues are currently disguising. Customers should take advantage of current U.S. futures price levels and lock in the competitive prices.

 

To track U.S. wheat export prices, subscribe to the USW Weekly Price Report.

thumbnail

By Elizabeth Westendorf, USW Assistant Director of Policy

 

Dumping in international trade is the export by a country or company of a product at a price that is lower in the foreign market than the price charged in the domestic market. U.S. Wheat Associates (USW) for many years has raised concerns about the Turkish government’s complex inward processing regime (IPR) that creates incentives to its milling industry to export flour at prices that are less than domestic flour prices.

 

In June, I traveled to Haiti to see firsthand the effect that Turkish flour dumped on the local market has on its domestic mills. Turkish flour is undermining domestic mills in countries around the world, including the Philippines, Angola, Indonesia, and Malaysia. This harms both U.S. wheat exports through market displacement and stifles the growth of local flour milling industries, potentially leading to closed mills and lost jobs.

 

Additionally, in countries like Haiti that are on the UN’s Least-Developed Countries list, these cheap flour imports can have a detrimental effect on development in the country. Local mills in Haiti provide needed value-added industry and employment. These mills are involved in the Haitian community and often contribute to educational efforts in local schools and other philanthropic pursuits that aid the country.

 

The French cultural influence is obvious in popular Haitian bread styles, made with flour from high quality U.S. wheat milled in Haiti.

Turkish flour companies exporting to Haiti do not do any of these things, and flour imports do not need nearly the same amount of labor. These factors mean that not only do these flour imports hurt Haiti’s mills and U.S. wheat exports, but also the Haitian people who benefit from the presence of this industry, imposing long-term costs on the country.

 

Over the past five years, Turkey has emerged as the world’s largest exporter of wheat flour, accounting for roughly a third of all flour exports globally.  Turkey exports over 70 percent of its flour to Iraq, Syria, and countries in Africa, but it reaches 160 countries worldwide and expands exports virtually every year. The rub is that this growth is not due to superior product or competitive advantage, but rather due to unfair government support systems that artificially encourage dumping flour on world markets.

 

Flour mills in Turkey can import wheat duty free under Turkey’s IPR. Under WTO rules, the wheat used in flour exports must be the same quality and characteristics as the imported wheat for the IPR to comply with WTO rules. However, there is no evidence that Turkey enforces this requirement, leading to an enormous incentive to export flour. They import high quality wheat for their domestic market and export lower quality flour made from domestic wheat. Several countries have successfully pushed back on this practice of dumping flour on export markets by opening investigations against Turkey. The Philippines successfully completed an anti-dumping investigation in 2014 against multiple Turkish flour exporters, and Indonesia invoked a global safeguard for wheat flour in 2012.

 

The root of this problem is policy in Turkey where trade remedies have no effect. If subsidized Turkish flour is blocked by trade remedies in individual markets, the incentives still exist for it to go somewhere. Flour exporters will keep finding vulnerable markets to dump their product in, and other countries like Haiti will suffer. This problem will only be fixed when Turkey follows its WTO commitments.

 

thumbnail

Overall, U.S. wheat farmers are certain they produce some of the highest quality milling wheat in the world and want to compete on that basis freely and fairly. That desire is being challenged in unique ways right now by trade policies and global reactions that have never been a part of the world wheat market. To express the challenges of these policies on farmers and the rural community, the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) this week arranged for one of their members to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee’s Trade Subcommittee. We want to share that testimony here:

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Michelle Erickson-Jones and I am the Co-Owner of Gooseneck Land and Cattle from Broadview, Montana. I also currently serve as the President of the Montana Grain Growers Association, am on the Board of Directors of the National Association of Wheat Growers and a member of Farmers for Free Trade. As a fourth generation farmer, it is my honor to testify today on the impacts of tariffs on my farm, my industry and most importantly my community that depends on trade for its livelihood.

American agriculture is a tremendous global marketing success story. We export 50 percent of our wheat and soybeans, 70 percent of fruit nuts, and more than 25 percent of our pork. We are also the top exporter of corn in the world. Exports account for 20 percent of all U.S. farm revenue and we rely on strong commercial relationships in key markets including Canada, Mexico, Japan, the European Union and, of course, China – the second largest market for U.S. agriculture, accounting for nearly $19 billion in exports in 2017. U.S. agriculture exports also support over 1,000,000 American jobs. As such, trade is critically important to the U.S. economy and our rural communities.

Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA) and Michelle Erickson-Jones.

Farmers across the country depend heavily on the ability to sell our commodities to foreign consumers. We are painfully aware of the prevalence of unfair trading practices used by some countries and we support the Administration’s interest in finding solutions to tariff and non-tariff barriers that impede fair trade. But what I’d like to share with you today are some examples of the impact of tariffs imposed by our own Administration and by the retaliatory tariffs levied by our trading partners. These impacts are felt by farmers such as myself throughout our supply chain, from higher input costs to reduced exports and lower market prices.

In May, I testified at Section 301 hearing at the International Trade Commission. As I said then and believe more strongly than ever now, “while many rural American families are optimistic about economic growth under the current Administration, there is mounting concern among farmers about trade policies that would reduce access to the export markets they depend on.”

There have been very few issues in my career as a farmer that have caused me to lose sleep. But these tariffs are one of them. I’d like to share some of the effects that have directly impacted my farm and family.

The first wave started at the time the Administration imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum. For me and farmers across the country that translates into increased costs of capital investments. For example, earlier this year we priced a new 25,000-bushel grain bin to increase grain storage capacity on our farm. The price was 12 percent higher than an identical bin we had built in 2017.

As we weighed our options, the bid on bin #2 expired, so we sought a second bid. This bid was 8 percent higher than the one we received just a few weeks prior – a 20 percent increase total in the cost of the same steel product in just one year.

The bin company attributed the difference in the final bin cost to a significant increase in their cost of steel. I learned that their domestically sourced steel suppliers had increased their prices to match the price of imported steel which was subject to an additional 25 percent duty when imported. As a result of this dramatic cost increase and volatility in the market, we abandoned our grain storage expansion project. The implications of that decision not only harmed my operation, it also hurt my community: a small local construction company lost a project, a U.S. grain bin company missed a sale, and a domestic steel company had one less shipment to send out of their factory.

Another unexpected outcome is something we are living through right now. Back in January, we built cattle guards for several capital improvement projects we had planned for later in the fall. A neighbor saw the finished product and asked to buy several from us. We agreed because we thought we would be able to utilize the profits for other investments. Last week I priced the steel needed to replace the cattle guards I had sold. To my shock, the price of steel had increased 38 percent – evaporating our profits. To make matters worse, now we will no longer break even on the project.

These scenarios are playing out across the nation, particularly the states that depend on agriculture. These states depend on healthy agricultural commerce for a robust economy. As our profits evaporate and our ability to spend on rural main street businesses or take weekends away decreases, our other top economies, including tourism and manufacturing, are negatively impacted as well.

While one singular example is a small sum of money in the big picture, adding up those small singular examples shows the real and substantial increase to agriculture and rural main street.

There are countless examples in Montana, where last summer, large portions of my state were on fire. Just imagine the cost or replacing fencing or other equipment with prices increasing by double digits – at a time of record low prices for agriculture commodities. The impacts on our input costs coupled with increased market volatility and lower farmgate prices have further reduced our already slim margins. According to the USDA Economic Research Service net farm income is expected to drop to a 12-year low, down 6.7 percent from 2017.

Now allow me to further illustrate the impact of tariffs on our topline – sales – especially in an industry that exports $450 million in wheat to China annually, $65 million of which was from Montana. China is the world’s largest wheat consumer, with a significant trade opportunity in their market. In market year 2016/2017 China was our fourth largest customer, however when China placed a 25 percent retaliatory tariff against U.S. wheat not one new shipment has been purchased from the United States since March, and the last shipment arrived in June.

Wheat growers also understand that China hasn’t been keeping to their trade obligations they agreed to when they joined the WTO (World Trade Organization), and as such the United States has two cases against China for their domestic support programs and their TRQ (tariff rate quota) requirements for wheat, rice and corn. We applaud the Administration for moving forward with these cases and believe this is the proper course of action to hold our trading partners accountable to their trade commitments. We do not, however, support the tariffs which have already hurt many farmers across the United States through both the tariff retaliation and domestic decisions as I have outlined.

For Montana, other commodities are also being hurt. Our producers are already suffering from the 25 percent import tariff on American pork and are bracing for the impacts on beef. Mexico has also targeted these two sectors in response to the steel tariffs.

In addition, these markets that we’ve been growing for decades could be lost to our competitors who do not have tariffs against their products, a fate that could last for years or decades to come. The same can also be said by not seeking or joining new trade agreements, for example when CPTTP (Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership) is implemented our Canadian and Australian wheat competitors will gain a price advantage in Japan against U.S. wheat, potentially losing our largest wheat market.

Currently farmers like me are not only struggling to ensure this year’s crop is profitable, but we are also concerned about the long-term impacts to our valuable export markets. For young and beginning farmers like me the stakes are even higher. We are often highly leveraged, just establishing our operations, as well trying to ensure we have access to enough capital to successfully grow our operations. Increased trade tensions and market uncertainty makes our path forward and our hopes to pass the farm on to our sons less clear. I hope to pass my farm to my sons and as such urge you to consider the tolls these tariffs will have on my operation and how it impacts that possibility, and many other family farms, as outlined in my testimony.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

thumbnail

By Stephanie Bryant-Erdmann, USW Market Analyst

USDA raised 2018/19 U.S. wheat production to 51.2 million metric tons (MMT), up 8 percent from 2017/18, if realized. Along with the increase, USDA also released its first U.S. by-class forecast for U.S. wheat. Increases in hard red spring (HRS), soft red winter (SRW) and soft white (SW) wheat are expected to more than offset a 12 percent year over year reduction in hard red winter (HRW). U.S. spring wheat production is expected to increase to 15.9 MMT, up 52 percent from the previous year when drought shriveled the crop.

But while wheat production is expected to increase in the United States, it is expected to fall globally in 2018/19. USDA forecast 2018/19 total world wheat production at 736 MMT, down 3 percent from the year prior, if realized. The largest decrease is expected in Russia, which is forecast to produce 67.0 MMT, down 18.0 MMT from 2017/18 due to poor growing conditions. Wheat production is also expected to fall in the European Union (EU) and Australia due to dry conditions.

While 2018/19 world wheat production is expected to fall for the first time in 5 years, world wheat consumption is expected to grow 5.23 MMT from the previous year to 749 MMT. If realized, world wheat consumption will outpace world wheat production by 12.6 MMT in 2018/19.

With consumption outpacing production, world wheat ending stocks are expected to fall to 261 MMT, down 5 percent from 2017/18. The reduction in ending stocks puts the 2018/19 global stocks-to-use ratio (excluding China) just under 20 percent, which is the lowest level since 2007/08.

 

 

Image of wheat field to illustrate report on global wheat production

This week marks the 10-year anniversary of the signing of the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement and the Korea-U.S. (KORUS) Free Trade Agreement. These were the last free trade agreements completed by the United States. In the decade since, there has been plenty of negotiating, but nothing to show for it.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is on its way to ratification without the United States. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is indefinitely on ice. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) modernization effort is now likely to slip into 2019. An update to KORUS made only cosmetic changes.

Meanwhile no other country has agreed to sit down at the negotiating table as the United States slaps unilateral tariffs on close allies and strategic competitors alike.

The familiar African proverb says that when elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. Unfortunately for farmers, that grass is the wheat growing in their fields as the big guys in the United States, China and other countries escalate this trade fight.

In a trade war, agriculture always gets hit first and the effects are likely to force overseas customers who want quality U.S. farm products to compromise or seek alternative supplies and to further erode the incomes of farm families who strongly support addressing the real concerns about trade barriers.

That is why in 2016, U.S. Wheat Associates (USW) and the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) called for World Trade Organization (WTO) cases intended to push China to meet its WTO commitments on domestic support and tariff rate quota management. We are glad the Trump Administration supports and is pursuing those cases. That is also why USW will continue to press for new trade agreements, including U.S. accession to TPP.

USW and NAWG know that farmers still want our organizations to keep fighting for fair trade opportunities because they know they can compete successfully in the world based on the quality and value of what they produce — given the freedom to do so.

We would prefer, however, to see our government do that first within the processes already in place.