Thursday December 22 Ag News

2017 Crop Budgets Released

The 2017 Nebraska Crop Budgets are complete and available online at CropWatch.unl.edu/budgets.

Seventy-three crop budgets are included for 2017. These include budgets for most Nebraska crops from corn to peas to wheat.

With the challenging agricultural economy, the budgets are one means to identify and focus on specific areas of crop production costs.

Farmers can compare their costs to those in the budgets to identify major variances. For areas where their costs are much higher than those in the budgets, they will want to examine the reason for the differences and whether changes can be made to get those costs more in-line with the budget costs.

The Nebraska Crop Budgets tend to reflect the average of the one-third low-cost producers for a given crop.

Many input costs for 2017 are about the same; however, be sure to check all prices as some may have major changes. The greatest change is in fertilizer prices; some prices dropped 15% to 35%. Anhydrous ammonia showed a major price decrease.

Comparing These Budgets and Nebraska Farm Business Reports
In examining production costs and returns reported in the 2015 Nebraska Farm Business Inc. report for irrigated soybeans, one showed the total cost per bushel for the one-third low-cost producers at $9.81/bu as compared to the high one-third of $17.56/bu.

There was less than a three-bushel difference in yield between the low one-third and high one-third in cost of production per bushel so almost all the difference in cost/bu is the cost of the inputs.

Among the Nebraska Farm Business producers, three main items made up most of the difference in cost of production from the low one-third to the high one-third:
-    Fertilizer cost per acre varied from $16.47 for the low-cost producer to $67.21 for the high-cost producer.
-    Machinery costs per acre ranged from $59.44 for the low-cost producer to $141.93 for the high-cost producer.
-    Hired labor costs per acre ranged from $10.46 for the low-cost producer to $59.42 for the high-cost producer.

Each budget of the Nebraska Crop Budgets is available online in a PDF format or an editable Excel format that can be customized to reflect your farm costs or to test and compare possible input costs.



January 2017 Farm Finance and Ag Law Clinics

Openings are available for one-on-one, confidential farm finance and ag law consultations being conducted across the state each month. An experienced ag law attorney and ag financial counselor will be available to address farm and ranch issues related to financial planning, estate and transition planning, farm loan programs, debtor/creditor law, water rights, and other relevant matters. They offer an opportunity to seek an experienced outside opinion on issues affecting your farm or ranch.

Clinic Sites and Dates
    Grand Island — Thursday, Janunary 5
    Norfolk — Thursday, January 5
    North Platte — Thursday, January 12
    Lexington — Thursday, January 19
    Fairbury — Friday, January 20
    Valentine — Thursday, January 26
    Norfolk — Friday, January 27

To sign up for a clinic or to get more information, call Michelle at the Nebraska Farm Hotline at 1-800-464-0258.  The Nebraska Department of Agriculture and Legal Aid of Nebraska sponsor these clinics.



Red Meat, Beef and Pork Production at Record Highs for November

Commercial red meat production for the United States totaled 4.50 billion pounds in November, up 11 percent from the 4.04 billion pounds produced in November 2015.

Beef production, at 2.24 billion pounds, was 16 percent above the previous year. Cattle slaughter totaled 2.67 million head, up 16 percent from November 2015. The average live weight was down 8 pounds from the previous year, at 1,384 pounds.

Veal production totaled 6.7 million pounds, 5 percent below November a year ago. Calf slaughter totaled 47,300 head, up 22 percent from November 2015. The average live weight was down 67 pounds from last year, at 243 pounds.

Pork production totaled 2.24 billion pounds, up 8 percent from the previous year. Hog slaughter totaled 10.6 million head, up 9 percent from November 2015. The average live weight was down 2 pounds from the previous year, at 283 pounds.

Lamb and mutton production, at 12.1 million pounds, was up 3 percent from November 2015. Sheep slaughter totaled 184,900 head, 2 percent above last year. The average live weight was 131 pounds, up 1 pound from November a year ago.

By State  (million pounds - % of Nov '15)
Nebraska .....:     717.1            110      
Iowa ............:     630.3            109      
Kansas .........:     479.2            123      

January to November 2016 commercial red meat production was 46.0 billion pounds, up 4 percent from 2015. Accumulated beef production was up 6 percent from last year, veal was down 8 percent, pork was up 2 percent from last year, and lamb and mutton production was down slightly.



Iowa Corn Growers Association Releases Top State and Federal Policy Priorities for 2017

The Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA), one of the most effective, longest-standing agricultural associations in the country, which serves as the collective voice for Iowa corn farmers and lobbying on agricultural issues, released today its final list of state and federal policy priorities for the upcoming year.

“Our dedicated members engage in policy development to establish the goals and priorities each year to aid in the success of the corn industry,” said ICGA President Kurt Hora a farmer from Washington. “We create a list of top issues from our nearly 7,500 corn farmer members and lobby for changes and defend policy that impact our farms. I cannot wait to see what we accomplish this coming year.”

2017 ICGA state priorities, listed in alphabetical order:
    Conservation/Water Quality – Long term, increased funding for Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy
    Livestock – Support the livestock industry and existing laws regulating livestock operations
    Renewable Fuels – Obtain funding for Iowa’s biofuels infrastructure cost-share program (RFIP)
    Research – Increased funding for ISU Experiment Station/long term agricultural research
    Taxes – Full state coupling of the federal Section 179 small business expensing provision

2017 ICGA federal priorities, listed in alphabetical order:
    Environment – Defend against burdensome environmental regulations
    Ethanol – Retain the Renewable Fuel Standard
    Farm Bill – Protect crop insurance funding
    Trade – Expand bilateral and multi-lateral trade agreements
    Trade – Protect funding for Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development (FMD)

 “ICGA provides several opportunities to members throughout the year to get engaged and voice their opinion on different issues. If you have not been before, then I encourage you to join us at a Day on the Hill or at your local roundtable,” stated Hora. “Finally, if you are not a member of ICGA, I encourage you to join us today and get engaged on issues impacting your farm.”

The complete 2017 policy resolution book is available on the website or in hard copy for free upon request by emailing corninfo@iowacorn.org or calling 515-225-9242.



SowBridge Educational Series Offers Ninth Year of Quality Programming

The SowBridge distance education program begins its ninth year in February 2017 and Iowa State University animal science professor and extension swine specialist Ken Stalder said continuing suggestions from subscribers help maintain the program’s value.

“Each year we ask participants for suggestions on topics and speakers, and follow through as much as possible to provide current content that people are interested in,” Stalder said. “SowBridge provides all participants with the opportunity to hear directly from experts, and to contact those experts following the individual sessions.”

Stalder, who also is the Iowa contact for SowBridge, said the program is intended for people involved in managing or caring for boars, sows and/or their litters, including operation owners, employees, technicians, managers and technical service providers. SowBridge is designed to improve the understanding and application of various tools and techniques involved in daily care of the breeding herd and piglets.

“People from the United States, Canada and Ireland took part in the 2016 program, and they told us they appreciated having the opportunity to participate in these learning opportunities without requiring any travel or other expenses,” he said. “With the live phone presentation and slideshow viewed on computer, participants do not need internet access and can take part from anywhere.”

Before each session, subscribers receive details on accessing the speaker’s presentation online. Those who request it also receive a CD containing that session’s presentation. For the session itself, most participants will call a toll-free conference line to listen to and interact with presenters. Each session begins at 11:30 a.m. Central Time and lasts approximately 45 minutes.

Cost is $250 ($U.S.) for the first registration from an entity, but those with more than one location have the opportunity to add additional locations at a lower rate. That cost is $125 for each subsequent subscription from the same entity. The cost provides access to one phone line per session and all program materials for each registration. Stalder said materials, delivery process and program costs are slightly different for those with non-U.S. mailing addresses, and encouraged potential subscribers from outside the U.S. to contact Sherry Hoyer at Iowa Pork Industry Center by phone at 515-294-4496 or email shoyer@iastate.edu for more information.

The yearlong program is offered by subscription only with a Jan. 16, 2017, deadline to ensure participants will receive materials for the first session on Feb. 1. A brochure with information and a registration form is available on the IPIC Web site at http://www.ipic.iastate.edu/SowBridge/2017SBbrochureIPIC.pdf Iowa residents who want more information can call Stalder at 800-808-7675.

Session dates, speakers, their industry affiliations and topics are as follows.
    Feb. 1 - Chris Rademacher, Iowa State University, “VFD Compliance in Barn”
    March 1 - Lee Johnston, University of Minnesota, “New Management Guides for Sow Gestation Housing”
    April 5 - Corrine Bromfield, University of Missouri, “Identifying Scours”
    May 3 - Tim Safranski, University of Missouri, “Hidden Impact of Heat Stress on Pregnant Sows and Their Piglets”
    May 31 - Leon Sheets, Iowa pork producer, “Responding to On-Farm Disasters” (June session)
    July 5 - Todd Stumpf, DNA Genetics, “Managing Large Litters”
    Aug. 2 - Christina Phillips, Smithfield, “On-Farm Research”
    Sept. 6 - Spencer Wayne, Pipestone Veterinary Services, “Struggling to Get Back to Pre-PEDv Production”
    Oct. 4 - Kara Stewart, Purdue University, “Importance of Colostrum”
    Nov. 1 - Brian Richert, Purdue University, “Decision Making for Fallback Pigs”
    Dec. 6 - Todd Price, North Central Veterinary Services, “Sow Prolapses: How to Handle/Repair”
    Jan. 3, 2018 - Jason Ross, Iowa State University, “Vulva Size as Part of Replacement Gilt Criteria”

SowBridge is sponsored by a group of 11 state universities - including Iowa State - from the major swine producing states.



PorkBridge Educational Series Returns in February 2017

The 11th year of the PorkBridge distance education series begins Feb. 2, 2017. This low-tech program features timely and intriguing topics presented by recognized industry experts. Operating through the collaboration of 11 land-grant universities, PorkBridge reaches producers and industry professionals across the country and around the world in an every other month series of six sessions.Pork Bridge wordmark

Iowa State University Extension and Outreach swine specialist Ken Stalder is the Iowa contact for PorkBridge. He said the distance education series provides relevant and accurate information for those who own, manage or work in swine grow-finish facilities.

“Producers and others in the industry can get the information they need without the hassle of traveling or giving up a whole day to attend a meeting,” Stalder said. “PorkBridge participants can take part where it works best for them whether at home, in an office or in the swine unit. And whether or not they can participate in the live session, all are able to download audio files from each session for later use.”

Stalder, who also is swine specialist with Iowa Pork Industry Center at Iowa State, said PorkBridge combines electronic information viewed on a computer with live presentations by topic experts via phone. About a week before each session, subscribers receive a web link to download that session’s presentation and any additional information provided by the presenter. Those who request it also receive the same materials via mailed CD. Participants call in for the audio portion of each session and follow along with the presentation on their computer.

Sessions generally are scheduled for the first Thursday of the designated month, starting at noon Central Time. New this year is a change in session length to a maximum of 60 minutes. Based on participant suggestions and personal experience, organizers decided to shorten individual sessions because they understand that many are limited to an hour or less over their noon break. It’s hoped that the shorter length will encourage more to listen live.

“The registration amount has not changed since the program began in 2005, and remains a great deal at $125 for the entire year,” Stalder said.

The subscription form and payment must be received by Jan. 16 to assure receipt of program materials in time for the first session on Feb. 2. An informational brochure with subscription information is available on the IPIC website at www.ipic.iastate.edu/PorkBridge/2017PBbrochureIPIC.pdf. Iowa residents who want more information can call Stalder at 800-808-7675.

Session dates, speakers, their industry affiliations and topics are as follows.
    Feb. 2 - Chris Rademacher, Iowa State University, “VFD Compliance in Barn”
    April 6 - Laura Bruner, Swine Vet Center, “Seneca Valley Virus – Early Recognition”
    June 1- Leon Sheets, pork producer, “Responding to On-Farm Disasters”
    Aug. 3 - Christina Philips, Smithfield, “On-Farm Research”
    Oct. 5 - Dale Ricker, The Ohio State University, “Sites, Sounds and Smells of Normal Finisher Barn”
    Dec. 7 - Joseph Zulovich, University of Missouri, “Recognizing Maintenance Needs”

Each registration provides access to one phone line per session and all program materials for each registration. Stalder said materials, delivery process, and program costs are slightly different for those with non-U.S. mailing addresses, and encouraged potential subscribers from outside the U.S. to contact Sherry Hoyer at IPIC by phone at 515-294-4496 or email shoyer@iastate.edu for more information.



    

Checkoff Study: Beef Maintains Favorable Tenderness Ratings

Favorable tenderness ratings for beef steaks, which have improved significantly since 1990, have remained steady over the past five years, recent research shows. This quality retention has occurred despite environmental and financial challenges that could have derailed its progress. The beef checkoff-funded 2015/2016 National Beef Tenderness Survey was conducted at Texas A&M University, which has surveyed beef tenderness regularly since 1990.

“Despite some challenges over the past ten years, including drought, fluctuating supply and rising input costs, the tenderness of the beef being produced in the United States has remained steady, and often improved,” according to Jeffrey Savell, Ph.D., the lead investigator of the research at Texas A&M. “Beef is delivering a good eating experience to consumers, and this research suggests the industry is keeping its eye on the ball when it comes to protecting the improvements in tenderness it has made.”

Results from the first survey, conducted in 1990, confirmed that significant tenderness issues existed with cuts from the chuck, round and sirloin. Over the next 15 years tremendous improvements in tenderness were realized. Results from the 1999 survey showed a 20 percent increase in tenderness, while a 2005/2006 survey showed an 18 percent improvement over 1999 – and 34 percent improvement over results in 1990, with most steaks evaluated as tender.

Reasons for the improvement included increased aging time, longer and slower chill rates and more branded programs at retail. In 2005/2006, about 47 percent of retail cuts were marketed through branded programs designed to guarantee certain quality traits, including tenderness.

While fewer branded products were surveyed compared to a decade ago, results from the 2015/2016 survey found that, as with the 2010/2011 survey, most steaks were considered tender. Warner-Bratzler shear force values, an objective measure of tenderness, were consistent with values noted five years ago for ribeye, top blade, top loin and sirloin steaks. Similar to previous surveys, the 2015/2016 survey indicated a need for more industry focus on tenderness and increasing the overall consumer "liking" for cuts from the round. Because the survey shows rounds are sometimes not aged sufficiently, and consumer understanding of the different cooking methods necessary for round cuts is limited, enjoyment of cuts from this primal could be improved, the study suggested.

“Our research proves that all cuts aren’t created equal,” said Savell. “While they have a wonderful flavor profile, cuts from the round remain an industry tenderness challenge. Future focus needs to include a collective effort to utilize optimal aging practices as well as more support for extensive consumer cooking education for round cuts.”

Savell said that with tenderness goals generally being achieved across many cuts, additional focus and research could be placed by the industry on other quality traits, such as flavor.



Obama Administration Takes Action to Address European Union’s Unfair Trade Practices against U.S. Beef Industry

The Obama Administration announced today that the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is taking action against the European Union’s (EU) unfair trade practices that discriminate against U.S. beef imports.  Acting on the request of the U.S. beef industry, USTR has scheduled a public hearing and is seeking public comments in connection with the EU’s ban on most U.S. beef products.  The EU’s ban on U.S. beef is not based on sound science and discriminates against American beef farmers, ranchers, and producers.  If the trade action resumes, the United States would reinstate industry-supported tariffs on a list of EU products imported into the United States.  USTR is particularly interested in comments addressed to the possible effects of reinstatement on U.S. consumers and small- or medium-sized businesses.

"The WTO determined that the European Union's ban on U.S. beef imports violates its international trade obligations," said Ambassador Froman. "The EU has failed to live up to assurances to address this issue, and it's now time to take action. Today's action holds the EU accountable and is an important step in encouraging the Commission to come back to the table to ensure that American ranchers have access to Europe's market and that European consumers have better access to high-quality U.S. beef."

In 1998, the EU lost a case at the WTO for banning American beef. In 2009, the U.S. negotiated an agreement to allow a modest degree of market access for specially-produced beef that meets the EU's standards, but that agreement has not worked as intended. The European Commission had argued that this issue should be resolved through T-TIP. However, given that the EU stated in September that they did not view the completion of T-TIP this year to be possible, it is now time to take action.

The U.S. beef industry exports an average $6 billion per year. These exports produce an estimated $7.6 billion in economic activity and support 50,000 jobs nationwide. The American beef industry is essential to the overall strength of the nation’s economy, and to rural communities seeking ways to access new customers in foreign markets.

"American ranchers raise some of the best beef on the planet, but restrictive European Union policies continue to deny EU consumers access to U.S. beef at affordable prices. For several years we have been asking the EU to fix an agreement that is clearly broken, despite its original promise to provide a favorable market for U.S. beef,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “The U.S. beef sector is vital to our economy. U.S. beef and beef product exports average $6 billion per year, producing an estimated $7.6 billion in annual economic activity and supporting nearly 50,000 jobs nationwide. The industry is essential to the overall strength of the nation’s economy, and to rural communities seeking ways to access new customers in foreign markets.”

An interagency committee of trade experts and economists will participate in the hearing and review public comments on the particular products and EU member States that may be subject to the imposition of additional duties, with the goal of resolving this dispute. Complete information on the submission of comments is set forth in a Federal Register Notice that is published today on the USTR website (www.ustr.gov) and will be available shortly on the Federal eRulemaking Portal (www.regulations.gov).

"There is no doubt that American beef products are safe. The 20 year EU ban has been in effect far too long. It is not based on fact and should be lifted," said House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Collin Peterson. "The beef industry is an important contributor to our nation's economy, especially rural economy. This announcement is welcome news for America's beef producers."

"The EU, our largest trading partner, unfortunately maintains numerous unscientific policies focused on protecting European agriculture producers from competition with American producers rather than promoting food safety,” said Representative Adrian Smith, member of the House Ways and Means Committee and Chair of the Modern Agriculture Caucus. “It also closes off many more markets to U.S. producers in countries around the world which defer to the EU on these regulatory issues. I commend USTR for moving forward on this enforcement action, and I will continue to push the EU to adopt scientific regulations which will enhance trade and food security across the globe."

Additional Background Information
The beef industry’s request is based on a 1998 WTO ruling in the EU beef dispute that the European ban on the import of meat and meat products from animals treated with certain hormones was not supported by scientific evidence and thus violated WTO obligations.  In 1999, the WTO authorized the United States to impose additional tariffs on EU products with a total annual trade value of $116.8 million. Consistent with this authorization, the United States imposed additional duties on products from certain EU member States.

In 2008, the WTO confirmed that the United States has a continuing right to impose trade measures until the EU beef dispute is resolved. In January 2009, USTR announced a decision to change the products subject to additional duties, consistent with the list of products approved by the WTO in 1999.  USTR delayed the decision, however, to permit further negotiations with the EU to resolve the dispute.

In May 2009, the United States and the EU signed an MOU under which the EU agreed to create a new duty-free quota for imports of specially-produced beef.  Since 2009, in exchange for the elimination of increased U.S. tariffs on EU imports, the MOU has provided an opportunity for U.S. producers to export additional beef to the EU market, as intended by the parties.  However, in recent years the U.S. beef industry has been prevented from gaining the intended benefits from the MOU because of increased imports under the duty-free quota from non-U.S. suppliers.



NCBA Applauds USTR for Defending U.S. Beef from European Mistreatment

Today, the Office of the United States Trade Representative announced it will start the process of reinstating retaliatory tariffs on goods and products from the European Union due to the E.U.’s unfair treatment of U.S. beef. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association President Tracy Brunner applauds USTR Ambassador Michael Froman for standing up for the U.S. beef industry and taking action in defense of U.S. beef producers. 

“The European Union has left us no choice but to seek compensation for the long-standing mistreatment of U.S. beef exports,” said Brunner. “Our temporary agreement with the E.U. was meant to be an opportunity to build a bridge of trust between U.S. beef producers and E.U. consumers, and to compensate the United States for the losses we have suffered as a result of the E.U.’s hormone ban. The E.U. has violated the spirit of that agreement and caused U.S. beef exports to become a minority interest in a quota meant to compensate U.S. beef producers.”

In 2009 the U.S. and the E.U. signed a Memorandum of Understanding under which the E.U. agreed to create a new duty-free quota for imports of specially-produced beef to compensate the United States for losses arising from the E.U.’s ban on the use of hormones in beef production. Imports under the quota have grown steadily since then, and for the past two years, the entire 45,000 metric ton quota has been filled, though from countries other than the U.S.

Over the past two years the U.S. government has attempted, without success, to engage the European Commission in discussions about ways to rectify this situation.

“While this is not our preferred choice, retaliation is the only way cattle producers are going to secure our rights for the losses we have incurred over the years due to the E.U.’s hormone ban,” said Brunner. “If the E.U. is unwilling to honor the terms of the agreement then we have no alternative but to seek restitution. We will not continue to be subjected to such trade agreement abuse.”

While initially imports from the United States accounted for the majority of the business done under the quota, over time imports from Australia, Uruguay and Argentina increased rapidly, taking a greater share of the quota. Neither Australia, Uruguay, nor Argentina was a party to the hormone dispute or the 2009 MOU that created the quota intended for the United States. The United States now has a minority and declining share of the quota, and imports so far this year point to a continuation of this trend.



USMEF Statement in Support of USTR’s Action on Beef Trade with EU

Today the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced that it is initiating the process of reinstating industry-supported tariffs on $116.8 million of exports from the European Union (EU) to the United States. This action was taken in response to a request from the U.S. beef industry and is the latest installment in a long-running dispute between the U.S. and the EU over beef production practices. Even though the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled against the EU in two separate decisions, it has not been possible to find a lasting settlement to this dispute. In 2009, the EU agreed to compensate the United States by creating a duty-free quota for specially-produced beef. The United States once supplied most of the beef imported under the quota, but over the past three years U.S. beef has accounted for a minority and declining share of these imports.

U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) President and CEO Philip Seng issued the following statement:

“We fully support USTR’s decision to use the means available to it under U.S. law to defend the interests of the U.S. beef industry. Over the past seven years, U.S. cattlemen and meat packers have made significant investments to meet the requirements of the EU market, only to see the U.S. share of the market undermined by producers in Australia, Uruguay and Argentina. This situation is unsustainable and demands a firm and decisive response.

“The U.S. beef industry has supported our government’s efforts to find a commercially feasible way for us to participate in the EU market. The 2009 agreement initially appeared to represent a step in that direction, but unfortunately it has not lived up to the industry’s expectations. Under the circumstances, we cannot agree to stand by as our competitors take an ever-expanding share of a quota that was specifically created to compensate the United States.”



Statement by American Farm Bureau Federation, Regarding USTR Victory in WTO Dispute
Zippy Duvall, President

“The American Farm Bureau Federation applauds U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and the Obama administration on their victory at the World Trade Organization in defending farmers and ranchers from unfair trade restrictions in Indonesia.

“America’s farmers and ranchers depend on our nation’s leaders to hold our trading partners accountable, and Farm Bureau is grateful for the administration’s work to defend U.S. agriculture’s interests abroad. Enforcement of trade agreements is crucial to maintaining market access. Thanks to this victory, American farmers and ranchers will have the freedom to reach customers in one of the world’s most populous countries.”



US Wins WTO Trade Enforcement Dispute for American Farmers and Ranchers
The Obama Administration has secured another trade enforcement victory for American farmers, ranchers, and businesses. United States Trade Representative Michael Froman announced today that a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement panel has found in favor of the United States’ challenge to Indonesia’s wide-ranging restrictions and prohibitions on horticultural products, animals, and animal products. The United States, working closely with New Zealand as co-complainant, filed this dispute to address trade barriers in Indonesia that restrict the importation of American fruits and vegetables (such as apples, grapes, and potatoes), animal products (such as beef and poultry), and other agricultural products.

The WTO Panel agreed with the United States on 18 out of 18 claims that Indonesia is applying import restrictions and prohibitions that are inconsistent with WTO rules.

“The Obama Administration has again prevailed on behalf of U.S. farmers, ranchers, and businesses,” said Ambassador Froman. “Today’s panel report will help eliminate unjustified trade restrictions on American agricultural products, allowing U.S. farmers and ranchers to sell their high-quality products to customers in Indonesia – the fourth-most populous country in the world. This major victory is the fourth WTO win announced by USTR this year. It again affirms the Administration’s commitment to enforcing U.S. rights to ensure Americans benefit from all the opportunities the United States has negotiated under our trade agreements.”

“This is a slam dunk for American agriculture,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “Since 2012, Indonesia has maintained an untenable import licensing program, harming the ability of U.S. producers to sell a wide range of American-grown products in the Indonesian market – from potatoes to beef to grapes to oranges to poultry. Importantly, the WTO Panel findings will discourage Indonesia from simply substituting new trade-distorting approaches for the measures repealed, restoring American farmers' and ranchers' ability to compete.”

“American jobs – including thousands in my District – are jeopardized when other countries attempt to skirt trade rules,” said U.S. Congressman Rick Larsen. “Today’s report adds to a growing list of victories for the current administration’s record of enforcing trade rules and protecting US jobs that count on a level playing field to compete against foreign competitors.”

"Today’s announcement is a win for Washington’s apple industry and agriculture community. The Indonesian government’s trade restrictions have limited access for our exporters to this important market and harmed growers in my state,” said U.S. Congressman Dave Reichert. “We must always fight against these types of actions that hurt consumers and limit opportunity for our communities. I thank Ambassador Froman and his team for their commitment to eliminating barriers and supporting U.S. agriculture.”
 
Background on Dispute
Since 2012, Indonesia has maintained unjustified and trade-restrictive licensing regimes for the importation of horticultural products and animals and animal products. Indonesia has amended its regimes several times, adding additional trade-restrictive requirements. The United States launched a dispute with Indonesia in January 2013 and, working together with New Zealand, filed additional complaints in August 2013 and in May 2014 to address the modifications to Indonesia’s import licensing restrictions.  The WTO Dispute Settlement Body established the panel for this dispute in May 2015.

The Panel found that all of Indonesia's import restricting measures for horticultural products and animal products are inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.  The United States challenged Indonesia’s agricultural import regime as a whole as well as the following measures:

·       Requirement to import at least 80 percent of the quantity for each product specified on each importer’s license, or face steep penalties.

·       Restriction on the importation of horticultural products during Indonesian harvest periods to avoid competition with domestic products.  For example, Indonesia would restrict the importation of oranges during the harvest season of its domestic oranges.

·       Restrictions on the use, sale, and distribution of imported products.  For example, imported beef could only be sold in restaurants and hotels, but not in traditional markets and supermarkets.

·       Restriction on the importation of certain products when their market prices fall below the government-determined “reference prices.”

·       Restriction on the importation of horticultural products based on an importer’s ownership of storage facilities.  For example, an importer could only import 100 bushels of apples if it owns the storage space for 100 bushels of apples.  The importer cannot lease or rent storage spaces to satisfy this requirement.   

·       Requirement to purchase certain amounts of domestic beef before importation of beef from other countries is permitted.

·       Limited time period in which to apply for an import license and short validity periods of these licenses.

·       Restriction on imports that can be entered under a license based on fixed type, quantity, country of origin and port of entry requirements.

·       Prohibition on the importation of horticultural products that were harvested more than six months previously.

·       Prohibition on the importation of animals and animal products if they are not specifically listed in Indonesia’s regulations.

·       Prohibition on the importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products when Indonesia determines that its domestic supplies are sufficient to satisfy domestic demand.

The Panel found that all of these break WTO rules because they either restrict or prohibit importation of these products.  The Panel also found that Indonesia has failed to demonstrate that the challenged measures are justified under any general exception available under the GATT 1994, including Articles XX(a) (public morals), XX(b) (human health), or XX(d) (compliance measures) of the GATT 1994.
  
The Panel sided with the United States and New Zealand on 18 out of 18 claims that it reached.  The Panel report not only provides a win in this complaint, but it also would resolve the two U.S. complaints filed on previous versions of Indonesia’s import regime for agricultural products.

Indonesia is the fourth most populous country in the world and an increasingly important export market for many U.S. agricultural products, with exports of agricultural products affected by Indonesia’s import licensing regimes totaling nearly $115 million in 2015.

U.S. agricultural products affected by Indonesia’s import licensing regimes and related prohibitions and restrictions include fruits, such as apples, grapes and oranges; vegetables, such as potatoes, onions and shallots; dried fruits and vegetables; flowers; juices; cattle; beef, including a ban on secondary cuts; poultry, including a ban on chicken parts; and other animal products.

In 2015, U.S. exports of affected horticultural products to Indonesia exceeded $87 million – including $28 million of apples and over $29 million of grapes. In the absence of Indonesia’s trade-restrictive import licensing regime, however, we would expect U.S. farmers to be able to compete more effectively for sales to Indonesian consumers. In 2015, exports of affected horticultural products to Malaysia, a similar market, totaled $106 million, $19 million more than exports to Indonesia, despite the fact that Indonesia’s population is over eight times larger than Malaysia’s.

U.S. exports of affected animals and animal products totaled $26 million in 2015. As with exports of horticultural products, however, we would expect U.S. producers to compete more effectively in the Indonesian market in the absence of Indonesia’s trade restrictions. For example, U.S. exports of affected animals and animal products to the Philippines, another similar market, totaled $205 million in 2015, notwithstanding the fact that the population of the Indonesia is 2.5 times larger than that of the Philippines.

Under WTO rules, either party may request adoption of the panel report by the WTO within 60 days of the release of the report, and the report would be adopted unless an appeal is filed.  If the report is appealed, WTO rules provide that the WTO Appellate Body must issue its report within 90 days of the filing of the appeal.



'Death by China' Author to Head U.S. Trade Council

President-elect Donald Trump announced the appointment of University of California, Irvine economics professor Peter Navarro, an outspoken critic of China, to head the new White House National Trade Council and serve as director of trade and industrial policy. The academic was an adviser to Trump during the election campaign.

Navarro's books include "The Coming China Wars" and "Death by China," in which he is deeply critical of Chinese policy. "Death by China" was adapted into a documentary film narrated by Martin Sheen, on which Navarro is credited as both writer and director. It is available to watch for free on YouTube. In its preamble, he urges viewers "help defend America and protect your family - don't buy 'Made in China'."

The film highlights the sustained loss of American manufacturing jobs at a time of Chinese economic growth, as a well as the environmental impact of Chinese industry.

During the election, the president-elect made trade issues a core campaign issue, criticizing some deals made with countries like China and Mexico.

Trump has already angered China by speaking with the Taiwanese president by phone, in violation of the U.S.'s decades-long "one China" policy. He has also openly criticized China in outbursts on Twitter, recently accusing them of devaluing their currency to impede US competition, among other claims.

Many other economists, however, fear that aggressive moves against Chinese trade could prompt a "trade war," with repercussions on both sides.



Farm Bureau, NASDA Seek Delay of Unlawful EPA Rule

The American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture have petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to delay the January 2017 start date of its worker protection safety rule. AFBF and NASDA cited EPA violations of federal law as well as incomplete and undelivered compliance and enforcement tools to support their petition.

According to the joint petition to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, the WPS rule was issued in violation of federal law. The proposal, Farm Bureau and NASDA told McCarthy, “fails to advance the purpose of furthering the safety of farmworkers.” The rule’s rapidly approaching implementation also poses “a serious problem for administration of the rule’s requirements” by state departments of agriculture as well as farmers and ranchers who must comply with its terms.
 
“We ask EPA to delay the effective date to give NASDA members adequate time to prepare for compliance with the rule and to avoid the unfair and unredressable harm to farmers and ranchers,” the groups said.

The petition from AFBF and NASDA claims EPA did not meet the law’s requirements when it failed to provide congressional agriculture committees a final copy of the regulations along with the copy sent to the agriculture secretary. The EPA has acknowledged that omission in responses to questions from Congress.

“EPA’s failure to meet its statutory obligations deprived Congress of its lawful expectation of examining the regulation before its promulgation,” the petition states.

The groups also claimed that the rule’s “designated representative” provision exceeds the scope of the WPS rule by depriving farmers of reasonable expectation of privacy for confidential business information. The groups say that the rule subjects farmers to potential harassment and public criticisms for lawful use of EPA-approved pesticides. In spite of the groups identifying problems related to equity and implementation of the WPS rule, EPA has not addressed the problems.

The petition also asserts that the EPA has failed to finalize and deliver to state lead agencies the enforcement guidance, educational material and training resources needed to effectively implement the rule and assist farmers and ranchers with compliance efforts.

“At this time, even if all of the compliance and enforcement materials were completed and distributed to all the appropriate state enforcement agencies, there is simply not enough time for the (state lead agencies) and the regulated community to successfully implement the provisions scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2017,” the petition states. “In short, EPA has failed to develop and deliver the necessary resources for states to train the regulated community on the new requirements, and the agency has failed to comply with its own WPS Implementation Timeline.”



USDA to Measure Financial Well-Being of the Dairy Sector

Beginning in January, representatives of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) will visit dairy farms across the nation, as the agency begins collecting data for the final phase of the 2016 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS).

ARMS is a joint effort between NASS and USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS). The survey is an annual program that gathers in-depth information on production practices, costs, and financial well-being of American farm families. ARMS targets select commodities on a rotational basis. This year, the survey places additional focus on corn, and conventional and organic dairy sectors. The last time ARMS focused on the dairy sector was in 2010 and focused only on the conventional dairy sector. This will be the first time ARMS will include additional focus on the organic dairy production.

"The structure of dairy farming in the United States has changed dramatically over the last two decades, making these economic data more crucial than ever before," said NASS Census and Survey Division Director Barbara Rater. "The 2016 ARMS will help determine how recent policy changes have affected American dairy farms."

The results of the 2016 ARMS will help USDA and other policymakers analyze the impacts of the new Dairy Margin Protection Program, introduced in the Agricultural Act of 2014. With operational costs driving structural changes within the dairy industry, this new program aims to help dairy producers when milk prices drop and feed prices remain high. USDA launched the program in 2015, making the current survey crucial to measuring its initial effects.

All dairy farmers selected to participate in the 2016 ARMS will be notified by a mailed postcard. After that, trained enumerators will make appointments and visit the participating farms to gather the information through personal interviews. These visits will begin in late January and will continue through early April.

Once all the data are in, NASS and ERS will review and analyze the data. NASS plans on publishing its summarized data in the Farm Production Expenditures report on Aug. 3. ERS plans on putting out a report focusing on the ARMS dairy data in late 2017.