Japan - backpedling on 20-month old rule

Just when you think everything is going good, the train jumps the track! The USMEF (United States Meat Export Federation) and US trade officials had almost convinced the Japanese government to allow beef from cattle older than 20 months but younger than 30 months of age to be imported from the US once again. But now with a more left thinking ruling party (Democratic Party) taking over in Japan, this measure looks to be derailed with the country taking more of a protectionist stance.

Before BSE was discovered in the U.S., 30% of the US beef exports by volume went to Japan, but the Japanese took less than 8% last year. I understand that politics rule trade negations more than supply and demand, but this is ridiculous. Here's a link to an article about the trade situation:

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/reuters/2009/09/01/2009-09-01T173214Z_01_N01392490_RTRIDST_0_BEEF-JAPAN.html

Take a look at one of my earlier posts to find out how I really feel about the whole trade situation.

Nonetheless, who is paying off Japan to keep our beef out of their country? Now, since the BSE scare of 2003, Australia and New Zealand took over the bulk of our beef exports for Japan, but you have to wonder if Brazil has or is in the process of acquiring more quota based on the fact that they can produce a lot of beef for pretty cheap? Just something to think about...

One thing's for sure, I don't see the Obama administration really caring that much about trade, unless it has to deal with human rights issues and so called "fixing" of the trade agreements put into place by the Bush administration. It will be interesting to see for some time to come!

Texas A&M Study Reveals Negative Impact of Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill on Farms

Everything I have read about the cap and trade bill would be bad for business and especially Agriculture (big and small, in particular small farms). While there probably should be changes in some environmental regs, this bill is not the answer, especially at a time when our economy is still on life support.
A bill like this would handcuff business with new environmental regulations that would limit production and increase costs for all involved, especially consumers. With this being said, do you think that the economy could withstand more drawbacks? For instance, the stock market and the overall health of the economy is now (at this point in time) solely based on how many jobs are being created or kept open within the country. Today, the unemployment rate in the U.S. hit 9.7%, an increase of 9.4% from last month, subsequently the stock market futures went down to negative territory this morning after the report. The Waxman-Markey bill would continue to hamper business' ability to be profitable at a time when we can least afford it.
And as long as companies are not making profits, they won't be hiring, the economy will continue to trudge along in a long slow recovery. Oh, and those 2nd quarter profits from a few months ago, were not due to greater productivity, they were due to cutbacks in supplies, productivity, and firings, that's all. And companies won't hire as long banks don't lend, but that's a whole other topic...
Anyhow, back to agriculture. According to the study conducted by TAMU, the only area of the country that would reap any benefits would be in the Midwest corn belt. And they would only benefit from crops being taken out of production, thereby raising the costs of crops. This is where the profit would come from, not carbon offsetting as has been preached by the Secretary of Agriculture. Below is the press release from Senator Chambliss' office over the study, and below is a link to the actual study.

New Study Reveals Negative Impact of Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill on Farms PDF Print E-mail
September 03, 2009
NEW STUDY REVEALS NEGATIVE IMPACT OF WAXMAN-MARKEY CLIMATE CHANGE BILL ON FARMS (WASHINGTON, D.C.) U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Ranking Republican Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, today reiterated his call for additional hearings on comprehensive global warming legislation upon release of a new study conducted by The Agriculture & Food Policy Center (AFPC) at Texas A&M University. The study, which was performed at the request of Sen. Chambliss, examined 98 representative farms in the AFPC database to understand the farm gate implications of the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act and discovered that 71 of the operations would be worse off under the bill.

“Clearly the data outlined in the Texas A&M University study is troubling,” said Sen. Chambliss. “I have said before this bill, particularly the cap and trade program, will undoubtedly raise production costs for farmers and ranchers. Perhaps most troubling is that the Waxman-Markey bill will result in more than 7 million acres shifting out of production in the first 5 years, with nearly 50 million acres by 2050. It does not make sense to rush action on a policy of this scope when we are now just beginning to understand the tremendous costs associated with the bill.”

According to the AFPC study, nearly all of the 27 farming operations that realize benefits under the Waxman-Markey bill are located in the Midwest Corn Belt. The study indicated the benefits are predominantly the result of increase revenue from higher prices, a result of fewer acres planted to these crops, not from payments under an offset program. In other words, geographic disparities would exist as a result of the Waxman-Markey bill. Virtually all cotton and dairy operations would be worse off and no rice farms or cattle ranches would experience any benefit under the bill. This is in direct contrast to what U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Vilsack said while testifying before the Senate Agriculture Committee hearing in July, at which he stated that all agriculture would benefit from this plan.

“The study makes the point that despite what Secretary Vilsack says, the Waxman-Markey bill does not benefit U.S. agriculture, and in fact, will make it harder for farmers and ranchers across the country to make a living under cap and trade,” said Sen. Chambliss. “Payments from a carbon offset program provide some benefit to some producers, but are not a significant factor in the profitability of farms in the analysis. As pointed out by AFPC researchers, higher crop prices provide the bulk of new revenue for crop farms due to ‘the price increasing effect of shifting land out of commodity production to forestry.’ We need to pursue legislation that reflects the realities of producing food, fiber, feed, and fuel in the United States, and not favor one geographic region.” A link to the study can be found here:

http://www.afpc.tamu.edu/pubs/2/526/rr%2009-2%20paper%20-%20for%20web.pdf


In conclusion this bill will do more harm than good. I will try and expound on this subject more in future posts, but for now this is a brief explanation of what I think about cap and trade.

Blogging

I haven't blogged in a long time even though I have had numerous ideas and thoughts about ag, and just haven't found the time to sit down and write about them. You see, I used to think that I had to come up with long and very detailed blogs about what I thought, but I have come to realize this is not the case.

So from now on, I plan on jotting down some ideas and view points on various ag topics, but I don't really plan on going into great detail on everything. So if you agree with me, great, if you don't and you piss me off, I will throughly prove you wrong! :)

Allen

Barack Obama, vegetarian????

As learned from his pilot and one of his flight attendants, everyone on his plane was served veggie burgers, and when asked about his lunch, they led on to believe that he was a vegetarian. I know this because my charter plane had to wait to unload until obama and the secret service got into their yukons at Chicago's Midway airport on June 2,2008.

World Trade: WTO, Free Trade, BSE, and Trade Promotion Authority

As I have said before, the U.S. feeds the world, and because of this we must have fair trade throughout the world. A pro-trade agenda from our government helps to strengthen our economy, grow businesses here at home, open and/or expand international markets, and can help improve relations between us and other countries. The U.S. must stay competitive in the world market place in order to continue to be a world power, especially with the emergence of Brazil, China, and India. The room for error is small and will continue to shrink, it the U.S. does not work with the World Trade Organization (WTO) and similarly pass more free-trade agreements with other countries.

The WTO is not always a popular subject and is even despised by many. However, it is now a fact of life that we will have to conduct business within this organization and its members or face financial ruin as a country. The most recent round of WTO talks, the Doha round, have been suspended for almost two years (since July 28, 2006), over other countries demanding that the U.S. cut more of its farm subsidies and other programs. Of course the U.S. resisted these demands, but only because these other countries wouldn’t reduce or do away with their tariffs, quotas, or allow greater market access to American products. Granted, subsidies can be detrimental to other countries, especially small and developing countries that depend on agriculture, but we must find a way to slowly reduce and eventually do away with these various payments so that we can guarantee greater market access and improved economic relations with other countries.

I know none of this sounds good to the row crop farmers, but it must be done for all agriculture commodities to benefit. However, we should not get rid of crop or livestock damage grants or loans, if a government has the means to help out its farmers and ranchers in a time of need, they should do so every time. But to put in an artificial market floor is not always the best option for producers, instead market situations should be allowed to dictate prices for everyone in the world. Just imagine a world without trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas, it would be a more profitable venture for everyone involved and could even bring about more peace. However, this is a long way from being accomplished, because like everything in life, trade revolves around politics and is used in many ways for countries to get what they want, only time will tell.

Currently, the U.S. Congress is in the midst of debating or has already passed free trade agreements between the U.S. and Peru, Colombia, and Panama. All of these agreements have been well thought out and negotiated, and the only thing left is for Congress to ratify them for the good of our economy. Another free trade agreement that has almost been worked out involves South Korea, however the Korean’s have been very stubborn (for lack of a better word) on the importation of U.S. beef. This trade deal could be potentially bigger and better than all three of the previous deals mentioned, but until the South Koreans accept all American beef imports (including meat with bones, and meat from animals regardless of age, but at least up to 30 months of age) no deal will be done, thereby hurting both countries.

Also the U.S. government must focus on re-establishing beef exports to all markets especially those that were large U.S. beef importers prior to the discovery of BSE (South Korea, Japan, Russia, and China). Some of these countries do currently import some U.S. beef, but maintain tight rules and regulations that handcuff our beef industry in an unfair way and these rules are not always scientific based, but more so based on human emotion. The fact is that the BSE is a dead disease, and there is now some scientific research that has begun to determine that BSE may not even cause the brain wasting disease variant-CJ disease. And because the U.S. implemented a ban on meat and bone meal being fed to ruminants, there should be no other cases of BSE in the U.S., and we also have measures in place that continue to safeguard our beef supply. Therefore, these and all countries should be able to trust our research and our food safety enough to start importing American beef just as they did before the discovery of BSE in America.

Finally, the president of the United States should be granted Trade Promotion Authority before it expires in July of 2007! This responsibility should rest with the president in order to accomplish time sensitive trade deals that may get bogged down in bureaucratic red tape if solely left up to Congress. TPA assures that the U.S. stays competitive in the arena of world trade instead of letting our competitors gain greater access for their products in other countries.

All of these issues are paramount for American agriculture, especially the beef industry, and should be focused on by all involved. By expanding free trade and the tools used to obtain it, the U.S. economy will benefit for years to come.

United States and Japanese Beef Trade

I do not refer to BSE as “Mad Cow Disease”, this is merely a term cooked up by the sensational media to grab people’s attention. I cringe when the national media reports on agriculture topics, because they usually don’t understand all that is going on, and this leads them to drawing outlandish conclusions, i.e. mad cow disease and the 7 second clip of the Holstein cow on slick concrete that turned into a 45 second clip and helped scare people and governments around the world. Anyhow on to the subject at hand:

American agriculture lives and dies with world trade, especially the beef industry. Trade agreements between countries not only stimulate economic growth, but they also broaden international markets. However, these agreements don’t always run smoothly, and the U.S. has had its fair share of disagreements with other countries on a number of issues. The most recent issue for the U.S. beef industry has been BSE, which was discovered in Washington State in December 2003. Even though this animal was determined to have come from Canada a short time after the discovery, the reaction in the markets and throughout the world was swift.

According to a study conducted by Kansas State University, the U.S. immediately lost 82 percent of its export market, more than half of that from two markets, Japan and South Korea. In December 2005, Japan reopened its markets to U.S. boneless beef but soon closed trade again after a box of veal exported to Japan was found to contain bones. And not until June 21, 2006, did Japan agree to reopen its market to U.S. beef under two conditions. The first requirement was that Japanese inspectors would be allowed to tour the 35 beef processing plants that were authorized by the USDA to export to Japan, and the second was that no vertical column material would be contained in shipments and would only consist of beef and beef products from cows less than 20 months of age.

When news of this trade agreement reached the beef industry, not everyone was thrilled about the news; but at the same time, a lot of people were just happy to re-establish trade with Japan. Many people, myself included, believed that the under 20-month requirement imposed by the Japanese was a way to get the U.S. ‘s foot in the door, and that future negoations would reflect the international scientific standard of 30 months. The 30-month standard is in reference to the World Organization for Animal Health’s (OIE) definition that cattle that have or are susceptible to BSE are older than 30 months. Anything younger than 30 months will not have BSE, which has been proven by enormous amounts of scientific evidence. But Japan has little room to talk; they have had numerous cases of BSE throughout its national herd, most of which are Holstein cattle. They have even said that they found two supposed BSE positives in Japanese cattle younger than 30 months, which is pretty hard to believe, considering that there is a mountain of scientific evidence going against these findings.

With this being the case, the U.S. can still only export beef from cattle that are 20-month old or younger to Japan. On top of this Japan has sent their inspectors to come over to the U.S. and inspect our beef packing plants to make sure they are up to Japan’s standards. I can see where this may have been an olive branch given to the Japanese by the U.S. to initate trade, but at the same time the U.S. is known for its food safety and is considered the world leader in these matters. Hell, let them come over and inspect all the plants they want to, but to constantly discount science and not accept beef from cattle that is 30 months or younger is hypocritical! Hong Kong has decided to allow beef from cattle younger than 30-months from Japan and they have had many more BSE cases than the U.S., Japan needs to go ahead and drop the 20-month old or younger restriction.

Finally, the OIE has declared that the U.S. is considered a “controlled risk” for BSE, which is just one step away from being considered to be free of BSE. This alone should make countries want to accept U.S. beef on a larger basis, but politics are politics.

This leaves a large portion of the U.S. beef supply that is older than 20 months and is of high quality here in the U.S. or exported to other countries. This is not all that bad, we have a large demand for beef in the U.S., but we stand to gain more money for American farmers and ranchers through our exports, and also gain other benefits from trade and commerce as well.

Texas A&M University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Proposed Name Change

Recent events have come about that involve a proposed name change to the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (C.O.A.L.S.) at Texas A&M University. The future name would be the College of Agrilife Sciences. Administrators within the college hired a marketing firm to help change the college’s image and improve recruiting. According to the marketing firm, agriculture is an “antiquated” term and not appealing to students or the general public. And not only would the college’s name change, but the extension service and experiment station’s titles as well. All of this was approved without the notice or consent of the student body.

If this measure goes through, we will see the further erosion of traditions at Texas A&M. This fine university was established as a land grant institution with an emphasis placed on Agriculture, not Agrilife. This new term “Agrilife” is intended to show people that are not in the agriculture field, that we are apart of life, which is very true. However, you have to wonder if a name change will make anyone think differently about agriculture in general?

We as agriculture students and/or professionals must do what we can to not only provide for the general public but also educate them about agriculture. Now, I know that Vice Chancellor Dr. Elsa Murano and the other heads of C.O.A.L.S. want the best for our college, but a name change would only detract from our origin as a university and maybe even tarnish the reputation of the college in the eyes of some. We are not opposed to a new marketing plan that will help the college, only the proposed name change. As the college’s website states “Texas A&M Agriculture…We are the "A" in Texas A&M.”

With this being the case, I have created a group on Facebook.com (a collegiate networking website), which currently has over 900 students that are against the name change. Many of these students have begun sending letters and emails to the board of regents and President Gates, who will vote on the name change at its last meeting on November 30 and December 1. However, we need all former students, agriculture majors or not, to help send more emails and letters to all the regents and Dr. Gates, to let them know that we are against the proposed name change.

We need everyone’s help to keep not only Agriculture, but also all traditions alive and well at Texas A&M University.

Texas A&M Board of Regents

Mr. John D. White ’70 of Houston ~ Chairman

Mr. Bill Jones ’81 of Austin ~ Vice Chairman

Mrs. Ida Clement Steen of San Antonio

Dr. Wendy Gramm of Helotes

Mr. Phillip "Phil" Adams '70 of Bryan/College Station

Mr. Gene Stallings ’57 of Powderly

Mr. Lupe Fraga ’57 of Houston

Mr. Lowry Mays ’57 of San Antonio

Mr. Erle Nye ’59 of Dallas

Mr. Tyson Voelkel ’96 of Brenham ~ Student Regent
Email ~ Student-Regent@tamu.edu

Email ~ vickie@tamu.edu (Executive Secretary to the Board) for all Regents

Mailing Address
P.O. Box C-1
College Station, TX 77844-9021
Campus Mail Stop: 1123

Dr. Robert Gates

Email ~ president@tamu.edu

Mailing Address
Office of the President
Texas A&M University
Mail Stop 1246 TAMU
College Station, TX 77843



“The pursuits of agriculture are the surest road to affluence and best preservative of morals.”
Thomas Jefferson