California Ag Network

Tag: USDA

  • USDA’s Modernized Soil Lab Data Mart Website

    Understanding your specific soil and its dynamic properties, which can change over time due to human impacts, land management, and climate change, can be invaluable. The USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), through the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS), has a team of soil and data scientists who are bringing customers the best soil information using the newest technology through the Lab Data Mart.

    The newly updated Lab Data Mart website, also known as the National Cooperative Lab Characterization Database, brings valuable soil data to the public’s fingertips through a user-friendly, state-of-the-art interactive map. It includes data estimating soil properties such as organic carbon, clay content, calcium carbonate equivalent, and pH, which is beneficial in soil health assessments. Architects, educators, engineers, farmers, landowners, researchers, scientists, and anyone looking to learn more about their soil can access the latest data to make more informed decisions and reduce potential soil risks and hazards.

    The Lab Data Mart includes mid-infrared (MIR) soil spectroscopy data gathered during soil analysis at the NRCS’ Kellogg Soil Survey Laboratory, one of the largest libraries of such data in the world. MIR soil spectroscopy uses the interactions between soil matter and infrared radiation to estimate soil properties.

    The Lab Data Mart’s interactive map also links to a national database of soil characterization data, allowing users to locate soil samples and “pedons” analyzed in the lab. A pedon is the smallest unit of soil, containing all the soil horizons of a particular soil type. The customized data in the Lab Data Mart is downloadable to multiple applications and web services and is continuously updated as more sampled soil sites are added or re-visited.

    How Can the Lab Data Mart Help You?

    • Determining carbon credits or improving carbon sequestration: The data can help you determine how much carbon is currently in the top 12 inches of soil and decide whether you want to sequester more carbon and consider methods and management practices to do so.
    • Leasing or buying land: The data may help determine if your planned management practices will work; and if not, what could be the added cost to do things differently.  Understanding the mineralogy of your soil can help you determine if it requires soil amendments, a new tool or piece of equipment to accomplish your goals, or a change to what you farm or your tillage operation.
    • Taking a more systematic view of your land: Whether working with an NRCS conservation planner or on your own, the data helps you know more about your soil and ties into how you look at the whole ecological site.

    Who Can Help You Use Lab Data Mart and Help You Understand Your Data?

    NRCS State Soil Scientists and their staff, as well as technical service providers, can assist with obtaining the data in Lab Data Mart and understanding it. Contact NRCS at your local USDA Service Center for help and more information.

  • Additional USDA Assistance for Distressed Farmers Facing Financial Risk

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today announced that beginning in April it will provide approximately $123 million in additional, automatic financial assistance for qualifying farm loan program borrowers who are facing financial risk, as part of the $3.1 billion to help distressed farm loan borrowers that was provided through Section 22006 of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The announcement builds on financial assistance offered to borrowers through the same program in October 2022.

    The IRA directed USDA to expedite assistance to distressed borrowers of direct or guaranteed loans administered by USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) whose operations face financial risk. For example, in the October payments, farmers that were 60 days delinquent due to challenges like natural disasters, the pandemic or other unexpected situations were brought current and had their next installment paid to give them breathing room.

    “In too many cases, the rules surrounding our farm loan programs may actually be detrimental to helping a borrower get back to a financially viable path. As a result, some are pushed out of farming and others stuck under a debt burden that prevents them from growing or reacting to opportunities,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “Loan programs for the newest and more vulnerable producers must be about providing opportunity and tailored to expect and manage stumbles and hurdles along the way. Through this assistance, USDA is focusing on generating long-term stability and success for distressed borrowers.”

    In October 2022, USDA provided approximately $800 million in initial IRA assistance to more than 11,000 delinquent direct and guaranteed borrowers and approximately 2,100 borrowers who had their farms liquidated and still had remaining debt. USDA shared that it would conduct case-by-case reviews of about 1,600 complex cases for potential initial relief payments, including cases of borrowers in foreclosure or bankruptcy. These case-by-case reviews are underway.

    At the same time in October 2022, USDA announced that it anticipated payments using separate pandemic relief funding totaling roughly $66 million on over 7,000 direct loans to borrowers who used the USDA Farm Service Agency’s disaster-set-aside option during the COVID-19 pandemic. The majority of these payments have been processed and USDA anticipates it will complete all such payments in April 2023.

    New Assistance for Distressed Borrowers

    FSA intends to provide the new round of relief starting in April to additional distressed borrowers. This will include approximately $123 million in automatic financial assistance for qualifying Farm Loan Program (FLP) direct loan borrowers who meet certain criteria. Similar to the automatic payments announced in October 2022, qualifying borrowers will receive an individual letter detailing the assistance as payments are made. Distressed borrowers’ eligibility for these new categories of automatic payments will be determined based on their circumstances as of today. More information about the new categories that make up the $123 million in assistance announced today and the specific amount of assistance a distressed borrower receives can be found described in this fact sheet, IRA Section 22006: Additional Automatic Payments, Improved Procedures, and Policy Recommendations.

    To continue to make sure producers are aware of relief potentially available to them, all producers with open FLP loans will receive a letter detailing a new opportunity to receive assistance if they took certain extraordinary measures to avoid delinquency on their FLP loans, such as taking on more debt, selling property or cashing out retirement accounts. The letter will provide details on eligibility, the specific types of actions that may qualify for assistance, and the process for applying for and providing the documentation to seek that assistance.

    These steps are part of a process USDA announced along with the October payments that is focused on assisting borrowers unable to make their next scheduled installment. Earlier this year, all borrowers should have received a letter detailing the process for seeking this type of assistance even before they become delinquent. Borrowers who are within two months of their next installment may seek a cashflow analysis from FSA using a recent balance sheet and operating plan to determine their eligibility.

    Tax Resources

    USDA will continue to work with the Department of Treasury to help borrowers understand the potential tax implications from the receipt of an IRA payment, including that options may be available to potentially avoid or alleviate any tax burden incurred as a result of receiving this financial assistance.

    In early April, USDA will send a specific set of revised tax documents, educational materials and resources to borrowers that received assistance in 2022, including a link to a webinar hosted by a group of farm tax experts to provide education on the options available. USDA cannot provide tax advice and encourages borrowers to consult their own tax professional, but FSA is providing educational materials for borrowers to be aware of the options. USDA has tax-related resources available at farmers.gov/taxes.

    Improved Procedures and Policy Recommendations

    FSA is finalizing changes to its policy handbooks to remove unnecessary hurdles, improve loan making and loan servicing and provide more flexibility on how loans are structured to maximize the opportunities for borrowers.  Additional details on those changes can be found in the linked fact sheet and are the start of a broader set of process enhancements. The fact sheet also provides information on the eight, no-cost legislative proposals included in the Fiscal Year 2024 President’s Budget that are designed to improve the borrower experience.

  • FSIS’ New Label Proposal for Meat & Poultry Will Raise Prices for Consumers

    The North American Meat Institute (Meat Institute) today said the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service’s (FSIS) latest attempt at proposed rules for a “Product of the USA” label for meat products are again likely to result in trade retaliation from Canada and Mexico costing American consumers and businesses billions of dollars.

    “Unfortunately, this proposed rule is problematic for many reasons. USDA should have considered more than public sentiment on an issue that impacts international trade,” said Meat Institute President and CEO Julie Anna Potts. “Our members make considerable investments to produce beef, pork, lamb, veal and poultry products in American facilities, employing hundreds of thousands of workers in the U.S. and with processes overseen by USDA inspectors. This food should be allowed to be labeled a ‘Product of the USA.’”

    At issue is a rule proposed by FSIS that would limit claims so only products made from livestock born, raised, harvested, and processed in America could be labeled a “Product of the USA.”

    Although the proposed label is voluntary, this overly prescriptive definition link to proposed rule here > would exclude many popular products made in America, by workers in America, and under inspection from the USDA. Those products include certain brands of popular American foods like hot dogs, sausage, bacon, ground beef, sliced ham and much, much more.

    The proposed voluntary “Product of the USA” label will have a discriminatory effect, causing meat packers and processors, who wish to make the claim, to segregate cattle, hogs, and meat from other nations.

    This rule uses the same standard as the mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) statute repealed by Congress in late 2015.

    Congress repealed COOL because Canada and Mexico challenged COOL as a nontariff trade barrier. The U.S. government lost four times before the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the WTO authorized Canada and Mexico to retaliate and levy more than $1 billion in tariffs on goods ranging from meat to wine, chocolate, jewelry and furniture.

    Importantly, the proposed “Product of the USA” rule would be broader than mandatory COOL because it also includes processed products and products intended for foodservice, which were not subject to mandatory COOL.

    Canada and Mexico still retain that authorization and could initiate retaliation with no further action by the WTO.

    In addition to increasing the price of meat and poultry and other goods for consumers, the proposed rule is also problematic because:

    • It conflicts with federal law: see The Federal Meat Inspection Act and The Tariff Act;
    • It will place additional duties on FSIS, which is already overburdened and understaffed.
    • It is a significant change from FSIS’ stated intention provided just three years ago when the agency denied a United States Cattlemen’s Association petition on the label and said it planned to initiate rulemaking to:

    “limit ‘Product of USA’ and certain other voluntary U.S. origin statements to meat products derived from livestock that were slaughtered and processed in the United States.”

    For more background on the problems with the proposed rule and country of origin labeling, including statistics on meat and poultry demand, consumer sentiment and effects on the beef and pork markets see this question and answer document.

    About North American Meat Institute
    The Meat Institute is the United States’ oldest and largest trade association representing packers and processors of beef, pork, lamb, veal, turkey, and processed meat products. NAMI members include over 325 meat packing and processing companies, most of which have fewer than 100 employees, and together account for the vast majority of meat and turkey production in over 800 facilities.

  • Frequently Asked Questions on Product of USA Labels for Meat & Poultry

    What is current law?
    Products made in meat and poultry facilities in America, by workers in America, inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and bearing the USDA mark of inspection may be labeled “Product of the USA.”

    An imported product may be considered a domestic product if it undergoes a “substantial transformation” commonly defined as a change in the product’s name, character, or use that results in a new and different article of commerce. For example: a steer walks into a meat packing facility and after harvesting and processing – the ultimate in “substantial transformation” – is packaged as boxed beef for foodservice, retail sale or export.

    Under current law, if a company chooses to focus its marketing on country of origin, it may do so. A company may voluntarily label its product “born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S.” as long as it can verify the claim.

    For more see:
    The Federal Meat Inspection Act
    FSIS policy
    The Tariff Act

    What is the proposed change?
    The proposal would limit the claims so only products made from livestock born, raised, harvested, and processed in America could be labeled a “Product of the USA.”

    While a voluntary label, this overly prescriptive definition would exclude many popular products made in America, by workers in America and under inspection from the USDA. Those products include certain brands of popular American foods like hot dogs, sausage, bacon, ground beef, sliced ham, spareribs, veal chops, boneless hams, steaks, burger patties, pepperoni and much, much more.

    What is the North American Meat Institute’s (Meat Institute) position on the new proposed rules?
    The proposed rule is problematic because:

    • It conflicts with federal law: see The Federal Meat Inspection Act and The Tariff Act;
    • It could trigger international trade retaliation;
    • It will increase prices for consumers;
    • It will place additional duties on FSIS, which is already overburdened and understaffed.
    • It is a significant change from FSIS stated intention provided just three years ago when the agency denied a United States Cattlemen’s Association petition and said it planned to initiate rulemaking to:

    “limit ‘Product of USA’ and certain other voluntary U.S. origin statements to meat products derived from livestock that were slaughtered and processed in the United States.”

    Is this proposed “Product of the USA” rule similar to the mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) rules repealed by Congress in 2015?
    Yes. Although this proposed “Product of USA” rule is voluntary, it would impose the same standard as the mandatory Country of Origin Labeling statute repealed by Congress in late 2015.

    Importantly, the proposed rule would be broader than mandatory COOL because it also includes processed products and products for foodservice, which were not subject to mandatory COOL.

    Why did Congress repeal the COOL statute?
    Canada and Mexico challenged COOL as a nontariff trade barrier and from 2009-2015 the United States government fought to preserve the law. But the U.S. government lost four appeals before the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the WTO authorized Canada and Mexico to retaliate and levy more than $1 billion in tariffs on goods ranging from meat to wine, chocolate, jewelry and furniture. Congress stepped in and repealed COOL in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016. Then-USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack was forced to stop enforcement of COOL for beef and pork, bringing the U.S. into compliance with the WTO’s ruling and avoiding a trade war.

    Will the proposed rule avoid $1 billion in retaliatory tariffs from Canada and Mexico?
    No. The proposed “Product of the USA” rule does not consider the integrated nature of the North American meat and poultry industry. Livestock and meat products from Canada and Mexico are shipped, tariff-free, across the border for slaughter and processing in the United States. Likewise, meat products are shipped from the United States to Canada and Mexico.  This integrated competitive market allows for more affordable beef and pork for American consumers.

    Although the proposed “Product of the USA” policy is voluntary it would require meat packers and processors who wish to make the claim to segregate cattle, hogs, and meat from other nations. This segregation was the basis for the WTO finding and is what allows Canada and Mexico to levy tariffs on American goods.

    The WTO authorized Canada and Mexico to retaliate in 2015. They still retain that authorization and could initiate retaliation without any further action by the WTO.

    What does this mean for consumers?
    Consumers will pay more for meat and poultry products and any goods Canada and Mexico target in their retaliation.

    Who benefits from the change to “Product of the USA” labeling rules?
    No economic data supports the proposed rule.

    A review of COOL conducted by USDA in 2015, during USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack’s prior tenure in the Obama Administration, concluded,

    … while there is evidence indicating consumer interest in COOL information, the evidence does not support a conclusion that COOL significantly increases consumer demand ….

    … livestock producers face costs for implementing COOL even though cattle and hogs (as opposed to retail beef and pork) are not COOL covered commodities.

    These key findings, both a failure to increase consumer demand and producers incurring additional costs, apply whether the labeling is mandatory or voluntary.

    And there is no evidence that the situation has changed since USDA’s last analysis.

    In fact, consumer demand for meat and poultry is consistently high. According to a consumer study of retail sales called “The Power of Meat” conducted by Anne-Marie Roerink of 210 Analytics, in 2021, nearly all American households, 98.5 percent, bought meat.

    It is noteworthy that mandatory COOL was in place from 2009 to 2015; during that time per capita beef consumption declined 11.5 percent, and per capita pork consumption hit its lowest point since 1976.  In 2016 alone, the first year after COOL was repealed, per capita beef consumption grew 5 percent and per capita pork consumption grew 2 percent.
    How much meat and poultry is imported from Mexico and Canada?

    The U.S. exports more meat and poultry to Mexico and Canada than is imported from those nations.

    On average, the U.S. exports 13-15% of its total beef production, whereas annual beef imports represent 8-12% of domestic production. The highly-integrated nature of the North American meat and livestock industry ensures the U.S. can maintain its high-quality, abundant beef supply to satisfy increasing domestic demand, while also meeting the industry’s trade commitments.  For example, the significant volume of variety meats sent to Mexico returns value to U.S. producers and reduces food waste by ensuring parts of the animal not commonly consumed in the U.S. have access to a viable export market, where demand for such cuts and products is high.

    Mexico is the largest market for pork, by both volume and value, with 2022 U.S. pork and pork variety meat exports to the country exceeding $2.04 billion. Canada is the U.S.’s fourth largest pork export market. In 2022, U.S. pork exports to Canada surpassed $866 million. U.S. imports of Canadian pork reached $1.4 billion in 2022, and pork imports from Mexico were just shy of $190 million.

    Mexico is the top poultry export market, whereas Canada is the third largest poultry export market. In 2022, the US imported $512,666 in poultry from Canada and just $20,859 from Mexico.

    Why is FSIS proposing the new definition of “Product of the USA”?
    Citing consumer confusion, USDA conducted a consumer sentiment study about the “Product of the USA” label.

    Consumer opinion and transparency is important to the meat and poultry industry. However, there is no evidence this rule will increase already high consumer demand for meat and poultry products.

    In fact, Kansas State University Professor Glynn Tonsor’s Meat Demand Monitor for April, 2020 found country of origin was 11th out of 12 consumer considerations when making purchasing decisions. Taste, freshness, safety, price, nutrition, health, appearance, convenience, hormone/antibiotic free and animal welfare were all more important to consumers than where the animal was born. 

    Will the new “Product of USA” rules help livestock producers?
    No.  Although supporters of COOL and the proposed “Product of USA” rule like to claim that mandatory COOL increased prices beef producers received in the years leading to the repeal in 2015, this assertion ignores basic supply and demand fundamentals. In 2015, cattle prices saw record highs because there was a limited supply of cattle to harvest increasing demand.  And today, without COOL, cattle prices are again approaching record highs, also due to supply and demand.

    A review of COOL conducted by USDA in 2015, during USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack’s prior tenure in the Obama Administration, concluded,

    … while there is evidence indicating consumer interest in COOL information, the evidence does not support a conclusion that COOL significantly increases consumer demand ….

    … livestock producers face costs for implementing COOL even though cattle and hogs (as opposed to retail beef and pork) are not COOL covered commodities.

    These key findings, both a failure to increase consumer demand and producers incurring additional costs, apply whether the labeling is mandatory or voluntary.

    And there is no evidence that the situation has changed since USDA’s last analysis. With questions please contact Sarah Little, NAMI, at (443)440-0029.

    About North American Meat Institute

    The Meat Institute is the United States’ oldest and largest trade association representing packers and processors of beef, pork, lamb, veal, turkey, and processed meat products. NAMI members include over 350 meat packing and processing companies, the majority of which have fewer than 100 employees, and account for over 95 percent of the United States’ output of meat and 70 percent of turkey production.

  • Hackathon Aims to Solve Agricultural Challenges

    Almost 200 students from around the U.S. had the chance to work on two challenges for the agricultural industry as part of the NSF/USDA-NIFA-funded AgAID Institute’s Digital Agathon. The event was held on the Washington State University Pullman campus as well as in Corvallis, Oregon and Merced, California.

    A total of 32 teams from WSU, Oregon State University, University of Virginia, Virginia Tech and University of California, Merced participated in the event, which was sponsored by the AgAID Institute, and held in partnership with Microsoft and innov8.ag.

    “Our hackathon is experiential learning, providing a deep dive into areas of agriculture where artificial intelligence (AI) can help,” said Ananth Kalyanaraman, Boeing Centennial Chair in the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and director of the AgAID Institute. “The hackathon gives our students a chance to creatively and collaboratively solve problems in interdisciplinary settings, and in the process learn and apply new.”

    The students were given one of two agricultural challenges and had 48 hours to come up with solutions. In one challenge, students were asked to develop computer vision, using AI methods to measure and count apples grown in an apple orchard. The information is important for farmers because they would like to know how their decisions about orchard organization, pruning strategies, watering, fertilization, and harvest scheduling impact their crop yield.

    “Estimating the number of apples grown in farms can be a time-consuming and error-prone process during the fast-paced harvest season,” said Kalyanaraman.

    Another challenge had the students develop and apply computer models to forecast winter precipitation in the Sacramento Basin of California. Researchers would like to improve seasonal forecasting to reduce risks to water systems and help water managers manage supplies.

    A WSU team including students Gabriel Compton, John Hadish, Josh Oliver, Michael Oliver, and Shlok Tomar took first prize for the labor challenge competition, while WSU students Nicholas Kraabel, Bhupinderjeet Singh, Krishu Thapa, and Sejal Welanakar took second prize for the water challenge competition.  Muluh Muluh, Meijing Liang, Srikanth Gorthi, and Grant Erickson took fourth prize in the labor challenge.

    The AgAID Institute began in 2021 with a $20 million federal grant. The multi-institutional research institute aims to develop artificial intelligence solutions and workforce to tackle critical agricultural challenges related to labor, water, weather, and climate change. The institute aims to build and foster partnerships between the AI and agriculture communities and create a transdisciplinary ecosystem for technology innovation and knowledge transfer. — By Tina Hilding, Voiland College of Engineering & Architecture, Washington State University

  • USDA Seeks Nominees for American Pecan Promotion Board

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is seeking nominees for the American Pecan Promotion Board. Nominees are needed to fill six seats for members whose terms end on Sep. 30, 2023, and one vacant seat with a term that ends on Sep. 30, 2024.

    The American Pecan Promotion Board is seeking nominees for the following seats:

    • Four producer seats representing the Western Region
    • Two importer seats
    • One vacant producer seat representing the Central Region

    Members appointed to the producer and importer seats will serve three-year terms. The member appointed to the vacant seat will serve a one-year term.

    The Western Region consists of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Alaska, Hawaii, plus any states in the U.S. whose land mass is in the Mountain or Pacific Time zones, plus any U.S. territories in the Pacific Ocean. The Central Region consists of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, plus any U.S. state with the majority of its land mass is in the Central Time Zone.

    The board is made up of 17 industry members including ten producers and seven importers.

    To serve on the board, producers and importers must have produced or imported more than 50,000 pounds of inshell pecans (25,000 pounds of shelled pecans), on average, for four fiscal periods. Producers who produce pecans in more than one region may seek nomination only in the region in which they produce the majority of their pecans.

    More information about the board is available on the Agricultural Marketing Service’s (AMS) American Pecan Promotion Board webpage or on the board’s website at www.eatpecans.com. You may also contact the American Pecan Promotion Board at industry@eatpecans.com or by phone at (817) 985-3034, or USDA Marketing Specialist Alex Caryl at Alexandra.Caryl@usda.gov or by phone at (202) 253-4768.

    AMS policy is that diversity of the boards, councils and committees it oversees should reflect the diversity of its industries in terms of the experience of members, methods of production and distribution, marketing strategies, and other distinguishing factors, including but not limited to individuals from historically underserved communities, that will bring different perspectives and ideas to the table.  Throughout the full nomination process, the industry must conduct extensive outreach, paying particular attention to reaching underserved communities, and consider the diversity of the population served and the knowledge, skills and abilities of the members to serve a diverse population.

    Since 1966, Congress has authorized industry-funded research and promotion boards to provide a framework for agricultural industries to pool resources and combine efforts to develop new markets, strengthen existing markets and conduct important research and promotion activities. The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) provides oversight to 22 boards. The oversight ensures fiscal accountability and program integrity, and is paid for by industry assessments.

  • Japan’s Reopening Signals Export Opportunities, with Tree Nuts on the Rise

    The sun is rising again for increased U.S. export trade opportunities in “Land of the Rising Sun”.  Japan has a well-developed food retail market that demands high-quality, high-value agricultural and food products. Despite reduced economic activity during the COVID-19 pandemic, trade data show that agricultural imports have remained resilient (with growth opportunities for California tree nuts in particular). As Japan’s top supplier of agricultural products, the United States is a stable and reliable partner with a long-standing relationship. Although competition in Japan has intensified in recent years, U.S. suppliers can find many opportunities to market consumer-oriented products that follow Japanese retail trends. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) maintains a website to help U.S. food and beverage exporters to navigate the Japanese market: USDAJapan.org.

    Macroeconomic Perspective

    Japan is a high-income country with a population of 125.7 million people. It is one of the most highly urbanized countries in the world with more than 90 percent of the population living in urban areas. With the third-largest economy in the world, behind only the United States and China, Japan has a highly diversified manufacturing and service economy. According to household data from IHS Markit, 95 percent of Japanese households, approximately 51.6 million households, have incomes higher than $20,000 at purchasing power parity. In 2021, Japan had a gross domestic product (GDP) per capita at purchasing power parity of $42,940. According to the latest International Monetary Fund forecast, real GDP growth is projected at 1.6 percent in 2023 and 1.3 percent in 2024.

    Since the initial response to the COVID-19 outbreak in 2020, the Government of Japan’s containment measures and consumers’ risk-averse behaviors limited economic activity. However, in the third quarter of 2022, Japan loosened border controls, boosting economic activity and seeking to reconnect with the world. Since October 2022, visa-free tourism resumed for U.S. citizens While Japan’s economic recovery continues, challenges remain. Japan’s lack of natural resources, including agricultural land, makes the country susceptible to external pressures such as food and energy prices. For example, price shocks from Russia’s war in Ukraine and supply chain disruptions have impacted domestic purchasing power. Increased prices have subdued household confidence and real income. Also, from a demographic perspective, Japan not only has an aging population but also a declining population. This trend continues to limit economic growth and presents fiscal policy challenges.

    Japan & Agricultural Trade

    Despite various challenges and an uncertain global economic environment, Japan’s agricultural trade, particularly agricultural imports, has been resilient because these imports play a crucial role in Japan’s domestic food supply. According to Japan’s Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries annual report, Japan’s food self-sufficiency ratio on a caloric basis was 37 percent in 2020, suggesting that many food items depend on imports to boost food availability. In particular, imported livestock products and animal feed supplement Japan’s limited domestic agricultural production.

    In 2022, Japan imported $70.2 billion of agricultural products, a 16.4-percent increase from pre-COVID 2019 and also surpassing record-level agricultural imports of 2011 and 2012. Although rising food prices contribute to higher unit prices, putting downward pressure on real income and purchasing power, Japan is an advanced economy where demand for high-quality food is relatively stable compared to emerging economies.

    The United States is a dependable agricultural trading partner of Japan. Despite supply chain disruptions and economic shocks from the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States has continued to supply safe, high-quality agricultural products. With the implementation of the 2020 U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement (USJTA), U.S. agricultural exporters remain competitive, from a tariff perspective, with Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) member countries. However, macroeconomic conditions, including Japan’s economic recovery and exchange rate dynamics, affect U.S. export competitiveness. As the U.S. dollar strengthened during 2021 and 2022, U.S. exports to Japan became more expensive. However, since October 2022, the Japanese yen has rebounded somewhat, increasing purchasing power for Japanese importers.

    As Japan’s top agricultural supplier, the United States exported $14.6 billion of agricultural products in 2022, with consumer-oriented products making up almost half ($6.8  billion) of the agricultural exports. Japan was the fourth-largest market for U.S. consumer-oriented products.

    Exports Opportunities for Consumer-Oriented Products

    Japan’s highly developed food retail market allows consumers to have several options to meet their food needs, whether it is dining at a restaurant, shopping at supermarkets and convenience stores, or retailing via e-commerce, where customers have quality groceries and food delivered to their doorsteps. Customers continue to seek out high-quality food, emphasizing convenience and accessibility, such as ready-to-eat meals and on-the-go packaged food. Also, Japan’s demographic shift has opened the door for increased demand for health food. Japan’s older population generally has more spending power and influence regarding household consumption patterns, and the health-conscious population are willing to pay more for high-quality, nutritious foods Food products that consumers believe support health and dietary and functional needs are promising for the foreseeable future.

    In October 2019, the United States and Japan signed the USJTA, which provides for limited tariff reductions and quota expansions to improve market access. Japan agreed to reduce or eliminate tariffs on about 600 agricultural tariff lines (e.g., beef, pork, and cheese), and expand preferential tariff-rate quotas for a limited number of U.S. products (e.g., wheat). Opening Japan’s highly protected agriculture market and reaching parity with exporters from Japan’s free trade agreement partners was a major priority for the U.S. agriculture sector.

    Consumer-oriented goods with strong prospects for growth include the following:

    Beef and Beef Products: Despite higher beef retail prices, beef shipments to Japan in value and shipment volumes have remained steady. Higher prices may shift consumer preferences from fresh or chilled beef to frozen beef, or from beef products to pork and poultry products. However, beef consumption is expected to increase in 2023 as Japan’s reopening to foreign visitors further supports the hotel, restaurant, and institutional (HRI) sector’s recovery. As a result of the recently revised agreement with Japan regarding the beef safeguard mechanism, U.S. beef exports are less likely to trigger safeguard tariffs in the coming years even with increased shipments. In 2022, the United States exported $2.3 billion of beef and beef products to Japan, nearly matching the previous year’s record of $2.4 billion.

    Cheese: The United States exported $231.8 million of cheese products to Japan in 2022, a 23.4-percent increase from a year ago. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, cheese products were generally marketed and consumed in dining options outside of the home. However, consumers taking advantage of expanded retail options in supermarkets during the pandemic have continued to consume cheese products beyond the stay-at-home period. According to cheese consumption data from the Agricultural Trade Office at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, Japan’s per capita cheese consumption is significantly lower than other advanced economies. From a marketing perspective, elevating the cheese consumption experience with cheese pairing guides will be important. Although the European Union (EU) suppliers enjoy a degree of marketing advantage (product differentiation) by promoting their geographical indications, import demand for most cheese products continues to rise.

    Tree Nuts: In 2022, Japan imported $826.5 million of tree nuts, of which 51.0 percent (approximately $421.1 million) were from the United States. Elevated unit prices in 2022 did not negatively impact shipment volumes, suggesting that demand for tree nuts is stable. The United States almost exclusively supplies almonds and walnuts, the top two imported tree nuts (not including mixed or prepared tree nuts). Another positive development is shelled pistachios, which had a higher import value than in-shell pistachios. Japan imported $28.3 million of shelled pistachios in 2022, a 35.9-percent increase from 2021’s record-breaking imports ($20.8 million). Combined with in-shell pistachios, Japan imported $50.9 million worth of pistachios, and the United States supplies almost 90 percent of shelled and in-shell pistachios. With an image of “guilt-free” snacking, tree nuts have great potential as a stand-alone product as well as ingredients for other prepared food.

    Processed Fruit: Processed (frozen, prepared, or preserved) fruits are essential ingredients in bakery products and snack foods. Although consumers have generally regarded fresh fruit as a premium product, consumers are shifting from fresh fruit to processed fruit. The link between processed fruit’s longer shelf life and perceived “freshness,” or the lack thereof, is less significant, especially among the younger generation. Also, processed fruit allows consumers to enjoy seasonal products year-round and to take advantage of many more fruit options that aren’t available from domestic production. While the United States has a strong presence in the dried fruit market (raisin and dried prune products), frozen fruit competition continues to intensify.

    Distilled Spirits: After record-high imports in 2019 ($817.1 million), the premium drink market experienced decreased sales with disruptions to the HRI food service industry in 2020 and 2021. During this slump, however, distilled spirits observed a consumption trend shift, where the COVID-19-induced trend of at-home drinking made distilled spirits more accessible. As consumers seek a premium experience, whether at home or from a bar, spirits-based, ready-to-drink beverages have growth potential. Imports from the United Kingdom, for example Scotch whiskey, make up more than 60 percent of the whiskey market share, but name recognition for American whiskeys, namely bourbon and Tennessee whiskey, is growing. In 2022, U.S. whiskey exports were up 7.2 percent in value during the past year.

    Looking Ahead

    Japan’s declining agricultural production and evolving consumption trends indicate that agricultural imports will continue to play an integral role in meeting Japan’s food demands. Japan has emphasized import diversification and stabilization to secure food supplies, including through trade liberalization. Accordingly, Japan signed significant trade agreements with major U.S. competitors in recent years, notably the CPTPP and the Japan-EU Economic Partnership Agreement. As more economies in Asia and South America continue to join the CPTPP, Japan will continue to diversify trade partners for its food supply. Nevertheless, given U.S agriculture’s reputation for safety and reliability, the United States is well-positioned to continue as the leading agricultural product supplier.

    As competition intensifies in the food retail market, crafting a marketing strategy to cater to Japan’s consumer preferences will be essential for U.S. suppliers to remain competitive in a Japanese market that seeks quality, value, and convenience. — By the USDA Foreign Ag Service

  • Emergency Conservation Program Applications Now Being Accepted in CA

    U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) State Executive Director Blong Xiong today announced that 41 counties in California are accepting applications for the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) to address damages from the recent severe storm to eligible farmland, fences, and conservation structures/other installations. ECP signup will begin on February 13th, 2023, and end on April 14th, 2023.

    The approved ECP practices under this authorization include debris removal, grading, shaping & leveling, fence restoration & restoring conservation structures & other installations. The use of ECP funds is limited to activities to return the land to the relative pre-disaster condition. Conservation concerns that were present on the land prior to the disaster are not eligible for ECP assistance.

    Counties approved for ECP: Alameda, Colusa, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Kings, Lake, Los Angeles, Madera, Marin, Mariposa, Mendocino, Merced, Mono, Monterey, Napa, Orange, Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Ventura, Yolo and Yuba.

    ECP assists producers with the recovery cost to restore the farmland to pre-disaster conditions. Approved ECP applicants may receive up to 75 percent of the eligible cost of restoration measures. Eligible socially disadvantaged and beginning farmers and ranchers can receive up to 90 percent of the eligible cost of restoration. No one is eligible for more than $500,000 cost sharing per natural disaster occurrence.

    Cost share assistance has now been authorized to:

    • provide advance payments, up to 25% of the cost, for all ECP practices before the restoration is carried out, an option that was previously only available for fence repair or replacement. The cost-share payment must be spent within 60 days; and
    • allow producers who lease Federally owned or managed lands, including tribal trust land, as well as State land the opportunity to participate.

    To be eligible for assistance, practices must not be started until all the following are met:

    • an application for cost-share assistance has been filed
    • the local FSA County Committee (COC) or its representative has conducted an onsite inspection of the damaged area
    • the Agency responsible for technical assistance, such as the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), has made a needs determination, which may include cubic yards of material moved, etc., required for rehabilitation

    Producers with damage from such events must apply for assistance prior to beginning reconstructive work. FSA’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and environmental compliance review process is required to be completed before any actions are taken. Submitting an application after reconstructive work has been completed may impact eligibility for ECP.

    For more information on ECP, please contact your local FSA office or visit farmers.gov/recover. To find your local FSA office visit farmers.gov/service-center-locator.

  • Commemorating 60 Years IR-4 Project Has Served Specialty Crop Growers

    USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is commemorating 60 years since the beginning of the Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4 Project). Since it was established by Land-grant Universities and the USDA in 1963, IR-4 has championed specialty crop growers by facilitating the registration of safe, effective pest management solutions to meet their unique needs.

    Dr. Michelle Samuel-Foo, NIFA National Program Leader, serves as a member of IR-4’s Project Management Committee. As a former Regional Field Coordinator for IR-4’s Southern Region, Samuel-Foo brings deep knowledge of IR-4’s work to her role at NIFA and helps coordinate research and equity initiatives between the two organizations.

    “The IR-4 project is an outstanding example of a long-standing and very successful program that has been funded by  USDA-NIFA,” said Samuel-Foo. “On a fundamental level,  IR-4 helps to ensure that American consumers have access to a safe and nutritious supply of fruits and vegetables, which is a critical component of a healthy diet. I am extremely proud of the work that IR-4 does and grateful to be a proponent linking NIFA’s support and IR-4’s continued work.”

    Specialty crops are essential components of a healthy diet, a thriving landscape, and a robust U.S. economy. According to an economic impact study by Michigan State University in 2022, IR-4 contributes $8.97 billion annually to the gross domestic product. Additionally, seven jobs today can be attributed to every $1,000 of public investment in IR-4.

    IR-4 has secured over 23,000 pest management product registrations through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for food crops, and countless others for ornamental crops. Putting farmers’ needs first, IR-4 assesses a range of tools — including reduced-risk chemical and bio-based pesticides, as well as emerging technologies and integrated solutions.

    Notable registrations facilitated by IR-4 include Chlorantraniliprole (a reduced-risk conventional pesticide) and Spinosad (a bio-based insecticide approved for both conventional and organic growers). As a result of IR-4’s submissions, these products are approved by EPA for use on numerous specialty crops. IR-4 has also secured several biopesticides to manage Varroa mites in honeybee colonies. These registrations help reduce dietary exposure to pesticides, increase growers’ pest management options, and secure the vitality of the U.S. food supply.

    IR-4 works closely with public and private sector partners to achieve its mission. NIFA, IR-4’s federal funding organization, is a key partner. NIFA and IR-4 share goals of advancing agricultural research to best serve growers and the environment, as well as ensuring all U.S. citizens enjoy a nutritious, accessible food supply. NIFA’s support is critical to IR-4’s research, and IR-4’s findings in the field and lab help shape NIFA’s understanding of the specialty crop community’s needs.

    Headquartered at North Carolina State University since 2021 (formerly at Rutgers University), IR-4 works nationwide through four regional offices, each collaborating with growers, commodity groups, state liaisons, Land-grant University researchers, Extension, and industry leaders to determine research priorities and conduct studies. IR-4 also works with international partners to harmonize pesticide regulations, spearheading the effort to streamline crop grouping across agencies.

    As the future of pest management grows increasingly complex, IR-4 and NIFA will continue to guide the specialty crop community forward with innovative and sustainable solutions. Visit the IR-4 website to connect via email, newsletter or social media— the organization will be sharing stories of impact throughout 2023 to commemorate its 60-year milestone.

  • USDA-FSA Helps Farmers and Ranchers Tackle Challenges

    Under the Biden administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has worked to assist distressed borrowers, improve land access for underserved producers and provide disaster assistance and relief for producers impacted by natural disasters. USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) also gave producers and landowners tools to help with climate-smart land management and made great strides in supporting USDA’s priorities of improving equity in program delivery and helping producers rebound and recover after natural disasters, the pandemic, and other challenges in the past two years.

    “Although we are always considering ways to improve our programs and looking for growth opportunities, I am extremely proud of the extra effort and ingenuity our employees have put forth over the past couple of years – exceptionally difficult years defined by an economic-crippling pandemic and catastrophic natural disasters – to ensure agricultural producers received the quality service they have come to expect and deserve from FSA,” said FSA Administrator Zach Ducheneaux.  “For 2023, FSA remains committed to continually evaluating how we can deliver our programs in a manner that is meaningful to the farmers and ranchers we serve and demonstrates our ongoing dedication to improving customer service and enhancing equity in program delivery.”

    Key highlights from the past two years include:

    • In 2022, FSA provided nearly $800 million in assistance to distressed borrowers with direct and guaranteed loans to help cure delinquencies and resolve uncollectable farm loan debts. Section 22006 of the Inflation Reduction Act provided $3.1 billion for USDA to deliver this relief for distressed borrowers and to expedite assistance for those whose agricultural operations are at financial risk. FSA is currently working with borrowers to address complex cases and help producers with cashflow challenges. In 2023, additional opportunities for financially distressed borrowers to receive payments will begin. FSA will start by contacting direct borrowers, or a guaranteed borrower’s lender, to validate payment amounts.
    • The Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access Program invests up to $300 million in funding to support projects that enabled underserved producers to access land, capital and markets. Land access is critical to the success of agriculture. Underserved producers have not received the amount of specialized technical support that would benefit the launch, growth, resilience and success of their agricultural enterprises. USDA accepted applications for the program through Nov. 18, 2022 and anticipates announcing selections in 2023.
    • In 2022, USDA launched the Loan Assistance Tool to help farmers and ranchers better navigate the farm loan application process. FSA experiences a high rate of incomplete or withdrawn applications, particularly among underserved customers, due in part to a challenging and lengthy paper-based application process. This uniform application process helps to ensure all farm loan applicants receive equal support and have a consistent customer experience with FSA regardless of their individual circumstances. Access the Loan Assistance Tool at farmers.gov/farm-loan-assistance-tool.
    • FSA administers several programs designed to help agricultural producers recover from the impacts of natural disasters including drought, winter storms, hurricanes and more. Over the past two years, FSA has paid more than $3.5 billion through these disaster programs and has made several policy enhancements to better meet the recovery needs of producers who have suffered significant production and physical losses on their operations.  FSA expanded the Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees and Farm-Raised Fish Program to provide program benefits to producers of fish raised for food and other aquaculture species as well as cover above normal expenses for transporting livestock to forage and grazing acres and to transport feed to livestock impacted by qualifying drought. FSA also updated the Livestock Indemnity Program payment rates to better reflect true market value of non-adult beef, beefalo, bison and dairy animals. In the wake of devastating tornadoes and derechos in 2021, FSA designed a new program to deliver direct assistance to producers who lost critical grain storage facilities and struggled to meet their on-farm storage capacity needs. USDA also just announced expanded program benefits and improvements to several conservation, livestock and noninsured crop assistance programs to ensure these programs are reaching all producers in need including underserved producer groups.  Read the Jan. 10, 2023, news release.
    • Building on the existing suite of USDA disaster assistance programs that help offset losses and manage risk incurred as a result of natural disaster events USDA rolled out the Emergency Relief Program (ERP) and Emergency Livestock Relief Program (ELRP). In 2022, FSA implemented ERP Phase One, which delivered more than $7 billion in payments to commodity and specialty crop producers. FSA also delivered more than $600 million through ELRP to livestock producers who experienced losses to drought and wildfire in calendar year 2021.  USDA recently announced additional relief through ERP Phase 2 for producers who suffered a decrease in allowable gross revenue in 2020 or 2021 due to losses of eligible crops from a qualifying natural disaster event. Read the Jan. 9, 2023 news release.
    • In 2022, FSA took steps to improve coverage through the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC), especially for small- and mid-sized dairies. This included offering a new Supplemental DMC (SDMC) program and updating its feed cost formula to reflect the actual costs dairy producers pay for high-quality alfalfa hay. For 2022, SDMC paid producers nearly $3 million.  DMC provided $76.6 million to dairy producers who had coverage in 2022, and the signup for 2023 closed on Jan. 31, 2023. In additional safety-net support, FSA provided more than $2.1 billion in critical support through the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs to mitigate fluctuations in either revenue or prices for certain crops.
    • FSA updated the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) to improve their environmental benefits while expanding the reach of the program. In 2021, FSA added a Climate-Smart Payment Incentive and higher payment rates for CRP as well as tweaked CREP to allow for added staffing capacity and to better include organizations including Tribes. Just this past year, FSA enrolled about 5.6 million acres into the CRP through its General, Continuous and Grassland signups in 2022. This surpassed the 3.9 million acres expiring this year. Grassland CRP had its largest signup in history, enrolling 3.1 million acres.

    More Information

    Producers can explore all FSA farm loan and disaster assistance options at www.farmers.gov or by contacting their local USDA Service Center.