Tag Archives: China

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and U.S. President Donald Trump are to discuss continental trade and their shared challenges with China in a meeting in Washington next week.

The Prime Minister’s Office says the leaders will use next Thursday’s meeting to talk about the ratification of the new North American trade agreement and outstanding trade disputes between Canada and the United States.

The meeting will also give Trudeau and Trump an opportunity to discuss strategy ahead of the G20 leaders’ summit in Japan at the end of the month, which will give them face time with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Trudeau and Trump will also talk about two Canadians detained in China for the last six months.

In December, China detained Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor in apparent retaliation for the RCMP’s arrest of a Chinese high-tech executive on a U.S. extradition warrant.

Canada is caught between its two biggest trading partners on that issue, with Trudeau insisting Canada has to follow the rule of law but having no luck pressing the case with China’s leaders.

Besides the Kovrig and Spavor cases, China has obstructed shipments of Canadian agriculture products such as canola and pork, claiming that they’re ridden with pests or have labelling problems. On Thursday the government promised that Export Development Canada will put up $150 million in additional insurance backing for canola farmers looking to sell in new markets.

U.S. Vice-President Mike Pence has said Trump will press Xi to release Kovrig and Spavor and will link the plight of the two Canadians to broader trade talks between Washington and Beijing. Global Affairs Canada says Spavor received his eighth consular visit from Canadian diplomats on Thursday, one day after Kovrig’s latest visit.

While Trudeau and Trump have crossed paths at various international events in the last year, and had several telephone conversations, this will be their first substantive meeting since the U.S. president insulted the prime minister a little over a year ago after departing the G7 in Quebec.

The two leaders have continued to engage because both governments needed to wrestle a conclusion out of the often acrimonious renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which Trump forced on Canada and Mexico.

Now, with the recent removal of U.S. tariffs on Canadian and Mexican steel and aluminum imports, there is renewed momentum to ratify the new trade pact.

Mexico’s Senate is expected to give its final legal approval to the new deal next week, but a delicate political dance continues between Ottawa and Washington over ratification. Trudeau has tabled the government’s ratification bill and it is winding its way through Parliament — slowly — ahead of next week’s adjournment of the House of Commons.

Canadian government sources have said the House could be recalled after its summer recess, in a last session before the October federal election, to deal with ratifying the new NAFTA if the U.S. Congress doesn’t deal with the matter promptly. As much as the government wants to move “in tandem” with the U.S. toward final approval of the new agreement, it doesn’t want to get too far ahead.

Some Democrats in the House of Representatives are less enthusiastic about the new deal, and some would like to deny Trump a trade victory. Some Democrats have said they want to see stronger provisions on labour and environmental standards in Mexico but that country’s lawmakers have approved a new labour-reform law that has won plaudits in Ottawa and among many other lawmakers in Washington.

Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland concluded a two-day visit to Washington on Thursday, meeting two leading Republican and Democratic senators. A day earlier, Freeland discussed trade with U.S. trade czar Robert Lighthizer and China with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Expanding U.S. export markets is vital to the success of American pork producers, but trade disputes with some of our top markets, most notably China, are hampering growth and have caused severe financial harm to U.S. hog farmers, National Pork Producers Council Vice President and Counsel of Global Government Affairs Nick Giordano said today at a Global Business Dialogue event in Washington, D.C.

“Mostly because of free trade agreements, the United States is the leading global exporter of pork. As a result, U.S. pork is an attractive candidate for trade retaliation. America’s hog farmers – and many other sectors of U.S. agriculture – have been at the tip of the trade retaliation spear for more than a year,” Giordano explained to the briefing at the National Press Club.

 

While Mexico’s 20 percent retaliatory tariff on U.S. pork was recently lifted, America’s producers still face a stifling 62 percent tariff into China. There are enormous trade opportunities with China, especially to help offset reduced domestic production due to African swine fever (ASF), a pig-only disease with no vaccine treatment that poses no human health or food safety risks, but that is almost always fatal for hogs, Giordano noted.  ASF has spread to every province in China, other parts of Asia and in Europe.

Giordano said NPPC is working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Customs and Border Protection to strengthen biosecurity at our borders and on our farms to prevent its spread to the United States.

“We have always known that China holds more potential than any market in the world for increased U.S. pork sales. But, today, because of African swine fever, that potential is off the charts, offering the single greatest sales opportunity in our industry’s history,” said Giordano. “China needs reliable suppliers of pork now, and likely, well into the future. The question U.S. hog farmers are asking: ‘Will we get the main course, or will we get the crumbs off the table?'”

“For most of the last year, the U.S. pork industry has the dubious distinction of being on three retaliation lists: China and Mexico related to U.S. actions under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and China in response to U.S. tariffs imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974,” Giordano said. Last year, Mexico was the industry’s largest volume market and China was the third top market by volume, although punitive tariffs imposed by those two countries have cost U.S. pork producers $2.5 billion over the last year.

“U.S. pork production costs are among the lowest in the world with safety and quality that are second to none. But for the retaliatory duties, the United States would be in a perfect position to take advantage of this massive import surge in the world’s largest pork-consuming nation and single handedly put a huge dent in the U.S. trade imbalance with China,” Giordano said. Instead, Chinese pork buyers are reaching out to those in Europe, Canada and Brazil for supplies. “What should have been a time of enormous prosperity and growth for U.S. pork producers and their suppliers will instead fuel jobs, profits and rural development for our competitors,” he noted.

“U.S. hog farmers understand the challenges faced by this administration in recalibrating U.S. trade policy toward China. The issues are myriad and complex. Moreover, hog farmers appreciate the farmer aid packages that the administration has put forward,” Giordano continued. “However, the China pork tariff needs to be lifted.”

Giordano’s full remarks can be read here.

(THE CONVERSATION) Soybeans may not seem all that useful in a war. Nonetheless they’ve become China’s most important weapon in its ever-worsening trade conflict with the U.S.

China, the world’s biggest buyer of the crop, has reportedly stopped purchasing any American soybeans in retaliation for the Trump administration raising tariffs on US$250 billion of Chinese goods. This is very bad news for U.S. farmers.

While China’s targeting of soybeans may have come as something of a surprise to most Americans, to a professor of agricultural economics who studies international commodity markets for a living, this was not at all unexpected.

Even before the conclusion of the 2016 presidential race, trade analysts were already weighing the possibility that China might impose an embargo on U.S. soybean imports based on protectionist rhetoric from both candidates.

As a result, with the trade war in full swing, American soybean farmers are now among its biggest losers. Here are a few figures that show why.

Soybeans, by the numbers

Soybeans are a crucial part of the global food chain, particularly as a source of protein in the production of hogs and poultry.

The importance of China as a market for soybeans has been driven by an explosion in demand for meat as consumers switch from a diet dominated by rice to one where pork, poultry and beef play an important part. Chinese production of meat from those three animals surged 250% from 1986 to 2012 and is projected to increase another 30% by the end of the current decade. However, China is unable to produce enough animal feed itself, hence the need to import soybeans from the United States and Brazil.

In 2017, the U.S. accounted for $21.4 billion worth of global soybean exports, the second largest after its main competitor Brazil, which exported $25.7 billion.

Meanwhile, in 2017 China accounted for the lion’s share of global soybean imports at $39.6 billion, or two-thirds of the total.

Back in 2017, that was good news for American farmers, when U.S. exports made up about a third of Chinese purchases, or $13.9 billion. That made soybeans the United States’ second-most valuable export to China after airplanes.

But U.S. exports to China have fallen dramatically since China slapped a 25% tariff on Americans soybeans last April as part of its initial response to President Donald Trump’s trade war.

In the current farm marketing year, which began Sept. 1, U.S. farmers have exported just 5.9 million metric tons of soybeans to China, compared with an average of 29 million at the same point during the previous three years – or about 80% less.

That’s why the tariffs have tremendous potential to hurt farmers in my state of Ohio, where soybeans were the number one agricultural export in 2017 at $1.3 billion. China is the state’s largest export market.

And yet nationally, Ohio is just the seventh-largest exporter of soybeans, after Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Indiana and Missouri, all of which are suffering from the tariffs.

Not only do farmers stand to lose out by giving up market share to Brazilian farmers, but soybean prices at the port of New Orleans have fallen as well and are currently $9.35 a bushel compared with $10.82 per bushel a year ago. This has hurt incomes and created a double whammy for Midwest farms.

This is of course why the Chinese chose to place a tariff on U.S. soybeans in the first place. Farmers will hurt a lot, and soybeans are produced in states where many of them voted for Donald Trump. China’s hope, presumably, is that farmers will lobby the administration to step back from further escalation of the trade war.

That seems unlikely, given the $28 billion in aid the Trump administration is offering farmers to soften the blow and the possibility of higher tariffs on an additional $325 billion worth of Chinese imports. At this point it looks like both sides are hunkering down for a prolonged trade war.

This is an updated version of an article original published on April 5, 2018.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here: http://theconversation.com/how-soybeans-became-chinas-most-powerful-weapon-in-trumps-trade-war-118088.

This spring’s planting decisions may be as clear as mud, yet they carry heavy financial consequences.

“You couldn’t have planned this to be more confusing,” said University of Illinois economist Gary Schnitkey. “The falling out of the trade deal happened right when we were getting to the point of planting corn.”

Then, persistent heavy rains across wide swaths of the Corn Belt kept farmers from their fields, forcing many producers to weigh their options: take a prevented planting payment from crop insurance, plant corn but with lower insurance coverage levels or switch to soybeans.

“So it just becomes a point of looking for the alternative that you think has the highest expected return, even though it’s probably not the return that you’d like,” he said. Many farmers will still be looking at negative incomes as they put pen to paper.

VARIOUS FACTORS

Farmers have to factor in their local weather forecast, fluctuating markets and USDA’s revised Market Facilitation Program. USDA released its proposal on Thursday afternoon — $14.5 billion of direct payments to farmers with a rate based on county-level trade impacts and the total acreage a farmer plants to eligible commodity crops.

“They’ve tried to structure it in a way that doesn’t necessarily favor switching to soybeans sooner, which is what a lot of people were worried about, but it does suggest that people who get toward the end of that (soybean) planting window might wind up stretching it a little farther,” Jim Mintert, director of the Center for Commercial Agriculture at Purdue University, said in a webinar.

While that program could help lift farmers’ bottom lines, USDA hasn’t released payment rates, which it says will be based on trade losses at the county level. (For more details on how the program would work, please read https://www.dtnpf.com/….)

“USDA is going to have to provide some clarification as far as how those payments are going to be computed, but if our interpretation is on track, it’s going to discourage prevented planting,” Mintert said.

DEPENDS ON LOCATION

Determining whether it’s worth it to continue planting corn after the final planting date, which is sometime between May 25 and June 5 depending on where you are in the Corn Belt, is complicated.

Farmers have to consider whether they’ll have a window to plant, what they may be giving up in yield, changes to their insurance protection levels and whether they believe they’ll be able to sell the crop at a profit. Many of those are still moving targets.

Robert Nielsen, Purdue Extension agronomist and corn specialist, said planting date is only one factor in determining yields. After about the middle of May, corn yields decline approximately 1 to 2 bushels per acre per day. So, if you plant corn on June 10, you’re looking at a yield loss of about 30 to 60 bushels per acre.

“That still doesn’t tell us what the actual yield will be at the end of the season,” he said on the webinar. For example, if the rest of the season turns out perfectly, yield potential could have been 260 bushels per acre. Subtract 60 bushels because you planted late, and you’re still looking at a 200 bpa yield. But if the rest of the summer has poor growing conditions, that topline yield could fall to 200 bpa, leaving you with a yield of 140 bpa.

“I accept the fact that we lose yield as we delay planting, but that doesn’t tell me what the actual yield will be at the end of the season, and so we’re playing these what-if scenarios trying to budget in numbers that require yields, not loss. It’s really what’s going to happen the remainder of the season that’s going to dictate the actual absolute yield,” Nielsen said.

TOUGH DECISION

Michael Langemeier, associate director at Purdue’s Center for Commercial Agriculture, said he thinks there’s a danger farmers could pull the plug on corn planting too soon because they’re wary of the yield impact. “If the yield drops are not very big, corn does look like it’s more profitable and has less downside risk than soybeans. It’s a tough decision this year.”

DTN Lead Analyst Todd Hultman concurs that there’s more profit potential in corn this year, even though the marketing year got off to an unusual start. Noncommercial traders made record-large bearish bets early in the season based on the size of Brazil’s and Argentina’s crops. That pushed prices down this spring, limiting farmers’ pricing opportunities.

“So, for a while, it looked like the seasonal pattern in corn wasn’t really forming up, and that actually happens, maybe, one out of four years,” Hultman said. “When it does, we usually see a seasonal peak come later in the year than it normally does.”

Now, with the wet spring and inability to plant corn in May, those noncommercials are being forced to cover their positions, putting the market in a bullish situation. Hultman said it’s tough to guess how high the market will go.

“The planting problem is for real. It’s not because it’s exaggerated by anybody yet,” he said. “The noncommercials being that heavily short just adds fuel to the fire. I think we can continue to bet on higher corn price.”

MARKETING UPSIDE

Mintert said the upside from a marketing standpoint is “clearly on the corn side because it looks like we’re going to pull some acres away from corn, maybe tighten up the supply a little bit. On the soybean side, the failure to negotiate the trade agreement with China is huge.”

The 2018-19 stocks-to-use ratio for soybeans, at 25%, is the highest it’s been since the 1980s.

“If we chart ending stocks-to-use ratios compared to where they have typically traded in the past, we’re talking about cash soybean prices with a $6 in front of them,” Hultman said. “The bearish potential for this situation we’re in is clear and very hard to argue. Why would anybody plant soybeans in that situation? But if they can be assured of getting a bonus check, that certainly might help them.”

Hultman has recommended DTN customers establish a price floor under their 2019 soybean production by buying out-of-the-money puts. A put option allows the owner the right, but not the obligation, to sell the underlying commodity at a set price. When he initially made the recommendation, those options were less than a nickel per bushel. Despite that option price more than doubling to date, Hultman says there is still potential in the strategy.

“This year, I don’t think we can say it’s really a bad price yet because of the potential downside risk.”

For farmers looking to cash in on the corn market’s rally, Hultman suggests a mix of old-crop and new-crop sales. He’s recommended farmers price up to 25% of new-crop corn, being careful not to overestimate their production potential. For old-crop sales, he suggests pricing another 25%.

“That can certainly help boost their cash position, and if we get a little more here in the next few weeks, that would help a lot too,” Hultman said. He suggests feeding this rally, instead of trying to catch the top.

“The big picture for grains in general is still extremely bearish, especially with record wheat supplies and the ending stock numbers we’re talking about for beans. It seems like a real gift to get some better corn prices, so we want to take advantage of it.”

COLBY, Kan. — The trade conflict between the United States and China, which began brewing early last year pulled U.S. corn prices down an average $0.20 per bushel per month in the first six months of 2019, according to a Kansas State University agricultural economist.

“Since December 2018, U.S. corn prices had been moving in a pattern contrary to a normal seasonal price pattern found in Kansas, with essentially no seasonal price increases,” said Dan O’Brien, K-State Research and Extension agricultural economist in a report released May 17.

Seasonally, corn prices tend to move higher during the spring and summer when the crop is planted and growing and often come down during the fall harvest when the new crop is available to the market.

Much of the focus in recent months has been on how the trade tensions have cut soybean exports to China, pushing soy prices lower, O’Brien said, but the potential spillover effect is that U.S. farmers will plant fewer acres to soybeans this year and instead plant more corn.

“And that sentiment has held sway among the corn trade until recently in mid-May 2019 when 2019 U.S. corn planting problems became serious enough to cause corn futures prices to begin trending higher,” he said, referring to unusually wet spring weather which delayed planting in some areas.

After analyzing data, O’Brien said that from January to May this year, U.S. corn prices were $0.07 to $0.34 per bushel under levels they would have been if normal, seasonal average price patterns – those that are typically seen in Kansas – had prevailed.

Market perceptions about the trade negotiations seem to have had a negative effect on U.S. corn markets, said O’Brien, citing trader data from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that confirmed a bearish “short” sale aggregate position of speculative traders that started in January 2019 and trended to record bearish levels in April. Someone with a “short” position in the futures market makes money as the price of a commodity declines.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture also increased its projected U.S. corn ending stocks-to-use to 14.45% in May 2019 from 11.85% in January for the corn crop harvested last year. During that time, the only changes affecting supply and demand were on the usage side, with market expectations for U.S. corn use declining, he said. USDA also projected this year’s average corn price in May at $3.50 per bushel, down $0.10 from its projection in February.

Further, China may be eyeing Brazil’s crop as it moves away from buying U.S. corn.

“The success of the 2019 Brazilian second corn crop also contributed, likely in a sort of ‘piling on’ negative, confirming manner,” O’Brien said.

With the trade dispute ongoing even as farmers are planting this year’s crop, he said, CFTC data indicate traders are beginning to focus more on planting concerns linked to weather-related delays, with some speculators moving away from short positions and toward the long side, indicating they think prices may go up. It remains to be determined, however, if the trade conflict will continue to weigh on the market to the same degree that it did through mid-May.

More information is available on the K-State agricultural economics website www.agmanager.info

Hong Kong retiree Lee Wai-man loves pork fresh from the market but eats a lot less now that the price has jumped as China struggles with a deadly swine disease that has sent shockwaves through global meat markets.

China produces and consumes two-thirds of the world’s pork, but output is plunging as Beijing destroys herds and blocks shipments to stop African swine fever. Importers are filling the gap by buying pork as far away as Europe, boosting prices by up to 40% and causing shortages in other markets.

“I’m a fresh-pork lover, but it’s too expensive,” Lee, 87, said as she shopped at a Hong Kong market.

African swine fever doesn’t harm humans but is fatal and spreads quickly among pigs. It was first reported in August in China’s northeast. Since then, 1 million pigs have died and the disease has spread to 31 of China’s 34 provinces, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization.

The outbreak’s scale is unprecedented, said Dirk Pfeiffer, a veterinary epidemiologist at the City University of Hong Kong.

“This is probably the most complex animal disease we have ever had to deal with,” Pfeiffer said.

China’s shortfall is likely to be so severe it will match Europe’s annual pork output and exceed U.S. production by 30%, industry researchers say.

“Everyone wants to import as much pork as possible,” said industry analyst Angela Zhang of IQC Insights. She said the trend is likely to accelerate as Chinese production falls.

That’s a boost for farmers in Germany, Spain and other countries with healthy pigs but hard on families in Southeast Asia and other poor markets that rely on pork for protein.

This year’s Chinese pork output might fall by up to 35%, according to Rabobank, a Dutch bank.

Global supplies will be “redirected to China,” the bank’s researchers said in an April report. It said the “unprecedented shift” in trade will likely cause shortages in other markets.

Grocery shoppers in Germany, Japan and other high-income markets grumble at paying more for kielbasa or tonkatsu, but short supplies are a serious concern in places such as Cambodia where pork is the only meat many families can afford.

Cambodia’s live hog price jumped 37% in the past six months, according to Srun Pov, president of the Cambodia Livestock Raiser Association. He said the country is buying about 30% of its daily needs of 500-600 tons from Thailand.

“Pork is important to us,” said Chhe Pich as a butcher weighed her purchase in the Cambodian capital, Phnom Penh. “Even though the current price is a bit high, I have to buy it to serve my family.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture expects China’s pork imports to soar 41% this year over 2018 to 2.2 million tons. There’s no immediate end in sight as “evidence mounts that China will be unable to eradicate ASF in the near-term,” it said in a recent report.

The jolt to the global meat industry highlights China’s voracious demand for food for its 1.4 billion people, the potential for wider disruptions if its own production falters and its growing ability to outbid other customers for supplies.

African swine fever was first reported in August in China’s northeast. Since then, 1 million pigs have died and the disease has spread to 31 of China’s 34 provinces, according to the FAO.

Outbreaks have been reported in Cambodia, Mongolia, South Africa and Vietnam.

It’s been found among a small number of wild boars, which can spread the disease, in Russia and seven European countries.

Yang Wenguo, a farmer in Jiangjiaqiao, a village a two-hour drive northeast of Beijing, said he has lost 800 pigs. He now has a few dozen.

Most of Yang’s pens are empty. White pus drips from blood-shot eyes of one surviving hog. Foam drips from another’s mouth. Smaller pigs cough.

Yang dosed his animals with government-subsidized medications but they kept getting sick. The government hauls away dead animals and pays compensation of 1,000 yuan ($145) for a sow and 20 yuan ($3) for a piglet.

“You buy pigs, then they all die,” he said, walking on ground covered in disinfectant that looks like dirty snow. Only about 60 to 70 pigs remain from total herds of about 3,000 in Jiangjiaqiao.

Four other families in the village that raised pigs have stopped, Yang said, “No one can bear losing all the pigs they raise.” He’d like to sell his farm and find work in the city but no one wants to buy.

The USDA forecasts China’s total hog herd will shrink by 18% this year to 350 million animals, the lowest level since the 1980s.

In Hong Kong, authorities destroyed 6,000 pigs at one slaughterhouse after an animal imported from the mainland was found to be infected.

“More and more customers are switching from roast pork to other roast meat like chicken and duck,” said restaurant owner Siu Si-man.

Chinese authorities respond to outbreaks by temporarily banning shipments of pigs from any province where a case is reported.

That has caused retail prices to spike in big cities cut off from supplies. Prices paid to farmers have collapsed in areas with a surplus of pigs they can’t export.

A half-hour drive from Yang’s farm, Wang Lijun breeds his own piglets to avoid buying infected animals. His herd shrank from 160 to 170 animals to about 20 to 30 but none died this year.

“All farmers are cutting production,” he said, walking past a row of cages holding pregnant sows.

The number of sows needed for breeding had fallen 19% from a year ago by the end of February, which suggests supply will plunge through next year, the USDA forecasts.

“China’s herd-rebuilding will be slow and take years,” said Rabobank.

In Vietnam, the government said in mid-May that 1.2 million pigs, or about 5% of its total herds, had died or been destroyed. Rabobank expects Vietnamese pork production to fall 10% this year from 2018.

China’s biggest foreign pork supplier is Spain, which accounts for 20% of imports. Germany supplies 19.5% and Canada 16%.

Spanish exports of pork and other pig products to China jumped 32.8% in the first two months of 2019 from a year earlier to 117 million euros ($131 million), according to Interporc, a Spanish industry group.

“My suppliers have told me that they are going to raise prices at the end of the month because of what is happening in China,” said Jordi Nargares, a butcher in a working class neighborhood of Barcelona.

U.S. pork sales to China have been disrupted by Beijing’s tariff war with the Trump administration over trade and technology.

Chinese buyers canceled orders for 3,300 tons of American pork the week of May 6, according to the USDA.

Chinese companies are investing in farms and food processors abroad to capitalize on strong demand. New Hope Group, one of China’s biggest agribusiness groups, said it plans to invest 1.1 billion yuan ($170 million) in three pig-breeding farms in Vietnam.

U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, an outspoken trade advocate and a China hawk, issued the following statement regarding the Trump Administration’s deal to lift steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada and Mexico.

“China is our adversary; Canada and Mexico are our friends. The President is right to increase pressure on China for their espionage, their theft of intellectual property, and their hostility toward the rule of law. The President is also right to be de-escalating tension with our North American allies. Today’s news that the Administration is dropping steel tariffs on Canada and Mexico is great for America, great for our allies, and certainly great for Nebraska’s agriculture industry.”

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 10, 2019 – The Trump administration today indicated it is planning a trade relief package in response to the U.S. trade dispute with China. The following statement may be attributed to David Herring, a pork producer from Lillington, North Carolina and president of the National Pork Producers Council:

“U.S. pork has suffered from a disproportionate share of retaliation due to trade disputes with Mexico and China. This retaliation turned last year — which analysts had forecast to be profitable — into a very unprofitable time for U.S. pork producers. The financial pain continues; the 20% punitive tariff on pork exported to Mexico alone amounts to a whopping $12 loss per animal.

“While there is no substitute for resolving these trade disputes and getting back to normal trade, NPPC welcomes the offer of assistance from President Trump. We stand ready to work with the USDA to facilitate U.S. pork exports as food aid to a number of nations. This assistance should not cannibalize commercial trade. Rather, it should help people in need who otherwise would not have access to this high-quality U.S. protein.

“Pork producers have been innocent bystanders in these trade disputes. Unlike most of the population, they have suffered severe economic dislocations as a result of trade disputes.  It is fair and right that the U.S. government purchase significant quantities of pork over the next 18 months to ship as food aid to help ease the financial burden placed on producers.”

A new report says a nearly $200 million decline in Nebraska’s agricultural exports in 2017 was driven by President Donald Trump’s threats to impose tariffs on U.S. trading partners.

The Nebraska Farm Bureau report attributes the drop to decreases in soybean and corn exports, while beef and pork exports both increased in 2017.

The bureau’s senior economist, Jay Rempe, says Trump’s talks of tariffs in January 2017 caused a decline in soybean and other commodity prices. Rempe points out that China’s retaliatory tariffs didn’t occur until May 2018.

The findings come as Trump imposed his latest tariff hike on Chinese goods Friday. Beijing vowed retaliatory measures.

Rempe says Nebraska’s agricultural community will continue to face pressure unless the administration resolves its trade disputes with China, Mexico and other countries.

Washington, D.C. (May 10, 2019) –Today, the U.S. Trade Representative moved forward with increasing the tariff rate from 10 to 25 percent on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. Farmers across the country are extremely concerned by the actions taken today by President Trump and his Administration. The National Association of Wheat Growers, the American Soybean Association, and the National Corn Growers Association were expecting a deal by March 1 before farmers went back into the fields but today saw an escalation of the trade war instead. The three commodities represent around 171 million of acres of farmland in the United States.

“U.S. wheat growers are facing tough times right now, and these additional tariffs will continue to put a strain on our export markets and threaten many decades worth of market development,” stated NAWG President and Texas wheat farmer Ben Scholz. “Further, members from both sides of the aisle and Chambers have reservations about the Section 232 tariffs in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Today’s announcement adds on another political barrier, which may hinder Congressional consideration of the Agreement.”

“We have heard and believed the President when he says he supports farmers, but we’d like the President to hear us and believe what we are saying about the real-life consequences to our farms and families as this trade war drags on,” said Davie Stephens, soy grower from Clinton, Ky., and ASA President. “Adding to current problems, it took us more than 40 years to develop the China soy market. For most of us in farming, that is two thirds of our lives. If we don’t get this trade deal sorted out and the tariffs rescinded soon, those of us who worked to build this market likely won’t see it recover in our lifetime.”

“Corn farmers are watching commodity prices decline amid ongoing tariff threats, even while many can’t get to spring planting because of wet weather. Holding China accountable for objectionable behavior is an admirable goal, but the ripple effects are causing harm to farmers and rural communities. Farmers have been patient and willing to let negotiations play out, but with each passing day, patience is wearing thin. Agriculture needs certainty, not more tariffs,” said NCGA President Lynn Chrisp.

Growers have been reeling for almost a year now after the President first imposed a 25 percent duty on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods in July 2018, and later, a 10 percent duty on an additional $200 billion worth of Chinese products, which resulted in the retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods. These are having a compounding impact not only on agriculture but all industries across the United States.