You are here: / Trade Policy
thumbnail
, ,

Diverse Group of U.S. Farmers Visit Cuban Farms, Discuss Future Relationships

U.S. Wheat Associates (USW) is very pleased to see that the grass roots effort to build a lasting, open trading relationship between Cuba is still going strong.

Delegates from the U.S. wheat, soybean, corn, poultry, potato, rice, sorghum and barley industries recently traveled to Cuba to meet with Cuban government officials and farmers. Kansas wheat farmers Doug and Terry Jo Keesling and Kansas Wheat Director of Communications Marsha Boswell represented the wheat industry at the Cuba-U.S. Agriculture Business Conference sponsored by the U.S. Agricultural Coalition for Cuba. The coalition believes that the improvement of agricultural trade between the U.S. and Cuba is the foundation for building successful and enduring relations between both countries.

“The reason I’m here is not to sell potatoes,” said participant Carl Hoverson, CEO of Hoverson Farms, Larimore, N.D., “but to help people live better.”

Boswell reports* that the traditional Cuban diet is made up of rice, black beans, chicken, bread and locally-produced fruits and root vegetables. Much of the food must be imported including an estimated 30 million bushels of wheat the Cuban government currently imports from the EU and Canada. U.S. hard red winter (HRW) wheat is an ideal source for Cuba’s needs, but political choices on both sides related to the long-standing U.S. embargo (known in Cuba as el bloqueo, “the blockade”), prevent that trade.

Under the embargo, Cuba can buy certain U.S. products and may finance the purchases until the products arrive in Cuba, with one exception. Food purchases, which have been allowed since 2000, must be paid in cash up front, before the ships set sail.

Boswell said U.S. Congressman Rick Crawford of Arkansas, spoke to the group about pending legislation that would allow extension of credit terms from U.S. entities to Cuba to purchase food.  Half of the U.S. rice production is grown in his district.

He said, “It’s not about rice; it’s not about wheat; it’s not about chicken. It’s about U.S. ag commodities and market access to areas that have really been difficult for us, and this is a market that I would certainly like to see us participate in.”

After hearing from Cuban government officials who expressed interest in easing trade restrictions with the United States, participants visited a farmer’s market in Havana and toured two farmer cooperatives.

“We are far from reaching our potential. We need technology, modern equipment and timely inputs,” said the president of the first cooperative. For example, Boswell said he noted they know tilling the soil is bad for the land, but that the cooperative does not have the equipment needed to reduce tillage.

While planting genetically modified crops is not yet allowed in Cuba, there is research being done in laboratories. Boswell said Ambassador Juan Jose Leon Vega, Cuban Ministry of Agriculture, International Affairs Division, told the group, “It would be a benefit to the world if it was demonstrated that GMO was safe and could be planted to end hunger. There are 77 million hungry in Latin America.”

Amb. Vega also summarized the position of the Cuban government on trade.

“Farmers in the U.S. and Cuba can have better relationships,” he told Boswell and the other participants. “There is a strong distinction in Cuba between the American government and the American people. We want people to be able to do business together.”

Texas wheat farmer and Vice President of the National Association of Wheat Growers Ben Scholz makes a similar point.

“After visiting Cuba, it is clear that a consistent market for U.S. wheat can be developed in the country,” he said. “With global competition growing rapidly, ending the embargo and easing current regulations that restrict trade with Cuba could provide a much-needed boost for U.S. farmers.”

To read more about USW’s position on trade with Cuba, visit our website at https://www.uswheat.org/policy/trade-barriers/.

*Marsha Boswell’s report on the conference and a list of U.S. participants is posted here: https://kswheat.com/news/2018/11/16/us-farmers-visit-cuban-farms-discuss-future-relationships.

/by
thumbnail
, ,

Twenty-Three Pages You Just Cannot Miss

By Ben Conner, USW Vice President of Policy

 

Longtime readers of “Wheat Letter” know that there is a certain time of year when the “Wheat Letter” must be opened. When its content must be consumed with abandon. When one must read an article so important that – despite all the other wonderful “Wheat Letter” content provided throughout the year – this alone would justify the subscription.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, that time is now. This is the “Wheat Letter” post you have been waiting for. This is the one where we spin the tale of the “National Trade Estimate” report.

 

You ask, what is it about the National Trade Estimate that is so important? Why do you spend hours (days!) every year scouring the world to develop one long submission of trade policy issues to present to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)?

 

I am glad you asked. The straightforward answer is that USTR also asked. In 2019, for the 34th time, USTR will release a report on trade barriers around the world. In preparation, the agency published a “Federal Register” notice asking organizations like ours to catalogue all the policy challenges that disrupt U.S. exports.

 

While we aimed for brevity, globally dispersed conspirators had other plans. Twenty-three pages later and spanning a dozen countries, we have documented some of the most consequential policies affecting U.S. wheat exports today. These are limited to the policies that we believe to be inconsistent with each country’s World Trade Organization obligations and for various reasons the list is not exhaustive. We talk about domestic support, export subsidies, tariff barriers, non-tariff barriers, phytosanitary problems, and more.

 

Go ahead, take a look. If you love trade policy as much as me, you may still be bored but it could be helpful. After all, the point of listing these trade barriers is eliminating them. Without attention on barriers, governments will never work to solve them. And solving impediments to trade between U.S. farmers and their overseas customers is what we are all about here on the U.S. Wheat Associates trade policy team.

/by
thumbnail

Bring the Farm Bill Home

The long run up to the United States midterm election is over and (most) of the votes have been counted. There will be new members of Congress sworn in next January, some that may serve on the committees that focus on agricultural policy. Before then, however, the current Congress has an opportunity to pass the Farm Bill that their committees wrote. If that does not happen, the full trade service and technical assistance that U.S. Wheat Associates (USW) has long provided to overseas wheat buyers and end-users is at risk.

The Foreign Market Development Program (FMD) assists helps U.S. farmers developing new foreign markets and work to promote products in existing markets. The FMD program helps organizations like USW establish the long-term relationships that are so important in today’s international trade environment.

However, the FMD program lost its baseline funding on September 30 when the 2014 Farm Bill expired.  Without a new Farm Bill in place, the market development infrastructure built with FMD and farmer funds is under serious threat, at a time when export promotion is needed most. Without the funding from the FMD program, USW would eventually have to cut back on it activities, short-changing the wheat farmers we represent as well as their overseas customers who benefit from the many service-oriented activities USW conducts.

A coalition of export market development organizations like USW appreciates that the House and Senate Agriculture Committees recognized FMD’s importance and took steps to renew the program and protecting its baseline funding in both versions of the Farm Bill. Without protecting the baseline, export promotion organizations like USW will face serious uncertainty every time a Farm Bill is set to expire because of a law that ends the funding baseline for programs like FMD with budgets of less than $50 million per year. A new Farm Bill can protect the FMD program and the trade service it supports.

This week, the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) called on Congress to pass the Farm Bill as soon as possible, in part because “the economy in rural America is struggling,” said Jimmie Musick, NAWG President and a wheat grower from Oklahoma.

Also this week, the ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota said that because negotiators are getting “relatively close” to an agreement on a final measure that Congress could pass during the lame-duck session, farmers and ranchers can expect a new Farm Bill before the end of 2018.

USW, NAWG, and the U.S. wheat farmers they represent are all hoping that Rep. Peterson is right.

 

/by
thumbnail
,

Annual World Food Prize Event Focuses on Nutrition Challenges and Food Production Growth

By Elizabeth Westendorf, USW Assistant Director of Policy

In its 2018 Global Agricultural Productivity (GAP) Index, the Global Harvest Initiative has reported that food production growth is not keeping up with the rising population pressures. The past four years, the index has reported a similar trend, and that gap is widening.

This is one reason why the theme of The 2018 World Food Prize and Borlaug Dialogue Oct. 15 to 19 in Des Moines, Iowa, was “Rise to the Challenge.” According to World Food Prize Foundation President Ambassador Kenneth Quinn, the theme references “the single greatest challenge in human history…whether we can sustainably feed the 9 billion people who will be on our planet in 2050.”

More than over 1,200 people from over 65 countries attend this annual event. The 2018 World Food Prize Laureates honored there were Dr. Lawrence Haddad and Dr. David Nabarro for their work to elevate maternal and child undernutrition in policy discussions and with development groups around the world.

This year’s Borlaug Dialogue focuses significantly on nutrition challenges, and speakers included Her Excellency Mercedes Araoz, Vice President of Peru; former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman; Daniel Voytas, Chief Science Officer of Calyxt; Rob Bertram, Chief Scientist at USAID’s Bureau of Food Security; Martin Kropff, Director General of CIMMYT; Sir Gordon Conway; James Collins, Chief Operating Officer for Corteva Agriscience™; Ted McKinney, Under Secretary of Agriculture for Trade and Foreign Affairs; and Randal Kirk, CEO of Intrexon.

The first 1,000 days of life, which encompasses the period of a child’s life from pregnancy to its second birthday, is the most critical developmental period for children. Malnutrition in this window can lead to irreversible damage to a child’s brain development and physical growth, resulting in developmental delays and stunting. It also increases their risks of diseases later in life, including heart disease and diabetes.

For this reason, food security cannot be a conversation about increasing calories alone. It is vital that nutrition security is part of that discussion and part of any solution. By fighting malnutrition in women and young children, it is possible to break up the insidious cycle in which malnourished mothers give birth to malnourished daughters, who then grow up to be undernourished mothers. This not only benefits women, but also a country’s entire economy.

Wheat is a staple crop around the world and is thus an important part of this conversation. Not only does wheat make up 20 percent of calories in global diets, it also makes up 20 percent of protein on average. Additionally, whole wheat and fortified white flour provides essential nutrients, including niacin and iron. Fortified flours also include folic acid, thiamin, essential B vitamins and riboflavin. Whole wheat products are a great source of fiber and are naturally low in fat. They also contain key nutrients like selenium, potassium and magnesium.

U.S. Wheat Associates is proud to help our farmers’ high-quality wheat reach customers around the world, and we are also proud of our continued engagement on food security issues. Find more information about our policies and activities online here.

/by
thumbnail
, , , ,

A Wild Trade Ride

By Ben Conner, USW Vice President of Policy

U.S. trade policy has been going through a wild ride recently. The current U.S. administration believes that the existing trade architecture is outdated or constricting, and new forms of leverage are needed to achieve its goals. Meanwhile, they have correctly pointed out that some countries seem to interpret trade commitments as rules to ignore until caught, and then to be circumvented. In the words of President Trump, “they have been taking advantage of us.”

In our view, this perspective has a ring of truth but understates the major benefits of international trade institutions to the United States and may have long-term costs. However, using the space such leverage creates has certainly produced results in trade talks, including an updated U.S.-Korea agreement, a completed North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) renegotiation, renewed efforts to address longstanding U.S. complaints at the World Trade Organization (WTO) and agreements to begin negotiations with Japan and the European Union.

This situation has even allowed U.S. Wheat Associates (USW) to make progress on some longstanding issues, so we certainly appreciate the effort to use the tools available in ways that can help U.S. wheat farmers and their customers.

Overall, these tactics have shifted the U.S. role from a bulwark of the global trading system to a major disruptor. The Trump Administration is making a case that the rules-based system has been inadequate in disciplining policies of countries like China that have pursued state-led economic growth at the expense of once-vibrant industries in the United States and elsewhere. Regardless of one’s views on the approach, this case does deserve consideration and new rules will likely be needed to keep the rules-based system relevant.

Of course, we do not know fully what the cost of these tactics will be. The most obvious cost to U.S. wheat farmers is being shut out of the growing Chinese wheat market, uncertainty during the NAFTA negotiations and vulnerability created by the withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The imposition or threat of unilateral tariff barriers is particularly worrisome and has damaged crucial trade relationships.

USW will continue to question certain approaches that we believe could disrupt the hard-won, mutually beneficial trade between the wheat farmers we represent and their overseas customers. But we will also strongly support the Administration when its approach can help strengthen the international trading system and make trade freer. If that is the ultimate outcome perhaps the ride will have been worth it.

/by
thumbnail
,

The United States and U.S. Wheat Step Up to Address Yemen’s Desperate Food Needs

By Elizabeth Westendorf, USW Assistant Director of Policy

The United States has been a leader in helping those in need around the world for more than 60 years. In marketing year (MY) 2017/18, the United States sent approximately 800,000 metric tons (MT) of wheat overseas through international food aid programs, according to U.S. Wheat Associates’ internal tracking. Almost half of this amount, 385,000 MT, was soft white (SW) wheat that went to Yemen. Other recipient countries included Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali and Sri Lanka.

To put this number in perspective, the top five export markets for SW wheat in MY2017/18 were:

  1. Philippines – 1,174,200 MT
  2. Japan – 828,800 MT
  3. South Korea – 805,800 MT
  4. Indonesia – 599,100 MT
  5. China – 312,600 MT

Currently, an estimated 22.2 million people in the country require humanitarian assistance to meet basic needs, and 17.8 million of those need emergency food assistance. Wheat donations overseas vary from year to year because they are driven by need. Two years ago, Ethiopia was receiving the vast majority of wheat donations due to famine caused by drought that decimated local production.

Yemen is now receiving large quantities of wheat due to prolonged civil unrest that contributes to food insecurity. In August, the World Food Programme (WFP) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) hosted an event in Portland, Ore., to bring attention to the need for food in Yemen and the ongoing U.S. efforts to provide aid. The media event was held across the Willamette River from an export elevator where government-purchased SW wheat was being loaded into an bulk container ship bound for Yemen.

Yemen is experiencing the largest food security emergency in the world, with people facing famine because they are unable to access sufficient food on their own. To complicate matters, ongoing violence around key ports makes getting food into the country more and more difficult. So far in 2018, WFP’s work in Yemen has reached approximately 7 million food-insecure people monthly with food assistance and food vouchers. Other than U.S. wheat, USAID’s Food for Peace program has also provided U.S.-sourced peas and vegetable oil to the country, as well as ready-to-use therapeutic foods that combat severe malnutrition.

As we face a world with political instability and unpredictable natural disasters, the demand for food aid is unlikely to abate; instead, the recipient countries will simply shift from year to year.

Given this continued need, it is vital that the United States continue to be a leader in humanitarian efforts abroad. Wheat is a staple food source for much of the world, providing an average of 20 percent of calories and protein to people worldwide. If the United States is to remain a leader, then in-kind commodity donations must remain a key part of our donations programs.

/by
thumbnail
, , ,

In Spite of Trade Conflicts, U.S. Wheat Farmers Will Not Abandon Customers in China

By Vince Peterson, USW President

Chinese Vice Minister of Agriculture Han Jun recently acknowledged the decades of work that U.S. farmers have put into growing the Chinese market for U.S agriculture. He then warned that this market may never come back to where it was if the trade dispute with the United States continues much longer.

We can guarantee the Vice Minister, and the wheat food industry in China, that U.S. Wheat Associates (USW) and the farmers we represent will not turn our backs on our outstanding customers in China. We remain dedicated to our core mission in China, as we are everywhere in the world, to bring profitability and value to our customers even if that is temporarily more difficult today.

Presumably, Chinese leaders believe that U.S. farmers can persuade the Trump Administration to end this trade war with China. However, U.S. farmers have been clear with their own government that China’s predictable response to the conflict has harmed them and we have supported negotiations to resolve this conflict. While we agree that escalating rounds of tariffs are a bad idea, we also believe that many of the U.S. government complaints about China’s policies are valid.

In our experience, state disruption of the wheat trade has been an enormous problem, severely limiting opportunities and profitability for both U.S. farmers and our wheat food industry customers in China. Through opaque administration of its wheat tariff rate quota (TRQ), China has deprived its flour mills of an average of 6.5 MMT of imported wheat annually over the past decade. In fact, recent import volumes are still well below what China imported in the 1980s and early 1990s; that is, before it joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). One could be forgiven for thinking China was a more promising market before joining the WTO than after; almost entirely because of excessive subsidies to the domestic wheat crop in recent years, as well as tight limits on TRQ access. This is why the U.S. government, under the Obama Administration, initiated two WTO cases on these issues in the fall of 2016. The prosecution of those cases have been continued and pressed forward by the Trump Administration. We are highly supportive of this action.

The Chinese government should recognize that its many years of flouting international commitments and highly interventionist “state capitalism” have led directly to the present conflict. If China had lived up to the commitments made when it joined the WTO, it is highly doubtful that we would still find ourselves in this situation. If Chinese leaders want to avoid further conflict and bolster the international trading system that they claim to defend, China can first start behaving like a responsible economy and adhere to its trade commitments in both letter and spirit. Of course, we are urging the same from the United States, which must also approach China with clear demands and a path towards achieving them.

Nevertheless, we are confident that this trade confrontation will one day be resolved. In the meantime, we will continue to reach out to our customers and friends in China, to reassure them of our unfailing dedication to our work with them. Further, we will make the guarantee that, once this trade dispute is resolved and behind us, we will work harder than ever to continue earning their business as we chart a path, together, to build the commercial channels that hold so much promise for Chinese and American industries and people.

/by
thumbnail
,

The Art of the (US-EU) Deal

By Ben Conner, USW Vice President of Policy

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

/by
thumbnail
,

The EU Fails to Support Scientific Progress Yet Again

By Elizabeth Westendorf, USW Assistant Director of Policy

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

For more information, visit:

/by
thumbnail
, , , , , , , ,

Lower U.S. Wheat Futures: An Anomaly and Excellent Opportunity

By Stephanie Bryant-Erdmann, USW Market Analyst

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Futures v Global S&D

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

/by

Think Farm Export Programs Don’t Matter? Think Again.

GET THE REST OF THE STORY

DTN Wheat Detail
DTN Corn Detail

2008-2013 U.S. Wheat Associates. All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy | Non-Discrimination Statement