A recent report from USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) (“China’s Growing Demand for Agricultural Imports” ) indicated that, “China’s 2001 accession to the World Trade Organization lowered barriers to agricultural imports, and its economic growth has generated new demands for agricultural commodities. An agricultural trading relationship of mutual importance is developing between the United States and China. The United States accounted for over 24 percent of the value of China’s agricultural imports during 2012-13, a larger share than any other country. U.S. agricultural sales to China doubled from 2008 to 2012, reaching nearly $26 billion in annual sales. China has overtaken Japan, Mexico, and Canada to become the leading export market for U.S. agricultural products.”
“All of China’s leading suppliers of agricultural imports are countries richly endowed with land resources: the United States, Brazil, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Argentina. China has been importing more agricultural products from many of these countries, but the United States remains the leader,” the ERS report said.
The ERS report stated that, “Soybeans, other oilseeds, and fats and oils represent nearly half of China’s agricultural import value. Soybeans and other oilseeds are processed to extract oils, and the residual meal is used as a high-protein animal feed ingredient. China also imports fats and oils that are refined and manufactured into consumer oil products. China produces most of its own meat and dairy products, but imports of these products are also significant. The mix of agricultural imports is diver- sifying as China’s purchases of fruits, nuts, cassava, sugar, wine, breeding stock, and processed food imports rise.”
With respect to livestock, the ERS report indicated that, “China’s imports of meat and animal offal rose to over 2.5 mmt during 2013. Pork meat and offal are the largest types of meat imported…China’s imports of dairy products grew more than fourfold from 2008 to 2013, reaching 1.6 mmt.”
A separate ERS report this month (“Targeting Investments To Cost Effectively Restore and Protect Wetland Ecosystems: Some Economic Insights“) stated that, “USDA has spent more than $4.2 billion on wetland restoration and protection over the last two decades. One challenge in allocating these funds is the lack of information on variations in wetland benefits and costs across the Nation. This report discusses the biophysical impacts of new wetlands for eight benefit categories: duck hunting, carbon sequestration, flood protection, nitrogen removal, species protection, open space, sediment removal, and groundwater recharge, as well as the value of these impacts for some categories. In addition, it presents county-level estimates of the costs of restoring and preserving wetlands for some parts of the United States. Although the estimates range in precision and are not comprehensive, they call attention to some areas where the benefits of new wetlands are likely to exceed costs or perhaps may be insignificant. For example, the benefits of restoring and preserving wetlands near the Missouri River in central North and South Dakota are likely to exceed costs. Findings underscore the need for additional information that may increase the number, accuracy, and spatial resolution of wetland benefit estimates.”
Also, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency indicated in a tweet on Monday that:
Deadline for completing yield updates & base acre reallocation is this Friday. Call your FSA county office today. ARC/PLC election 3/31.
— Farm Service Agency (@usdafsa) February 23, 2015