In an address at the Farm Progress Show on August 28^th, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced that the USDA Center for Veterinary Biologics will consider protocols to evaluate a vaccine suitable for cattle against H5N1 strain B3-13.  This change in policy relating to avian influenza vaccine represents a radical departure from the ‘No vaccines ever-we have this in hand-- almost eradicated” policy in response to the trade implications of immunizing poultry.  According to the USDA notice, field trials can be conducted on inactivated vaccines outside of containment facilities and without disposal of milk.  Previously the Center for Veterinary Biologics mandated that all research and evaluation should be conducted in biological containment facilities.

There is an obvious disparity between the approach by the USDA toward vaccination of poultry  in contrast to dairy cattle.  Close to 100 million commercial poultry comprising mainly egg-laying hens, turkeys and to a lesser extent broilers, have been depopulated at considerable expense to the Federal government, producers and consumers. 

The USDA continues to promote biosecurity as a protective measure in the knowledge that even comprehensive structural and diligent operational biosecurity are not absolutely effective. Slogans such as “Defend the Flock” and posters issued by the USDA are more for internal departmental self-assurance rather than to provide meaningful protection as adjudged by outcomes.  While strict biosecurity is regarded as partially protective, the incidence rate of outbreaks and their severity during the periods of migration of waterfowl have confirmed the inadequacy of this modality. Vaccination of egg-producing flocks and turkeys in high-risk regions of the U.S. is overdue by about two years and 100 million birds. Vaccination against HPAI, accompanied by surveillance, is accepted by the World Organization for Animal Health as an adjunct to biosecurity. France is applying vaccine for the second consecutive year. Successful field evaluation has concluded in the Netherlands and extensive vaccination programs have been in effect in Mexico and China for over a decade. This suggests that the U.S. is either behind the curve on recognition of the protective benefits or is influenced in its policy by misplaced concerns over export of broiler leg quarters.

The new-found recognition that vaccination can be part of a preventive program for dairy herds and the relaxations of restrictions for field evaluation of inactivated vaccines demonstrates a responsiveness to the emergence of an infection in a novel species and with an additional concern over zoonotic transmission. The decision to deploy vaccination for egg production flocks, turkey breeders and commercial grow-out units in high-risk areas separated from the broiler industry should have been implemented in 2022.  Creation of immune flocks would have reduced the probability of infection and saved a great deal of time and anguish, not to mention taxpayer funds.

The need to create immune populations among poultry in areas of high population density is evidenced by the mutations that have occurred in the avian H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b to allow adaptation to dairy herds. The emergence of avian influenza in wild terrestrial and marine mammals should have been an indicator of the need to protect herds and flocks as a component of the One Health approach to prevention of infections with pandemic potential.

In the immediate term, the imposition of mandatory milk testing by Colorado veterinary regulators following the emergence of bovine influenza-H5N1 in dairy herds will allow quarantine for the duration of shedding of virus. In addition Michigan and Colorado have facilitated cooperation among Federal and state agricultural and public health and wildlife agencies to implement a comprehensive surveillance program for livestock and workers. Their efforts are worthy of adoption by the other 12 affected states including California. Containment of infection is an immediate priority since vaccination is months into the future.  Anything less than an intensive and immediate program of detection with quarantine of affected herds will result in an endemic status in the U.S. dairy industry. Self-serving and inadequate programs as required for interstate movement by the USDA-APHIS or outright institutional denial as in some states, represent a slow-motion train wreck. Vaccination of dairy herds in the future may or may not be effective but appropriate action is required now.

To apply an old English adage, What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  If H5N1 vaccine can be evaluated and then deployed for dairy herds, then susceptible poultry operations in high-risk areas should be afforded the same consideration.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has awarded $316 million to twelve regional Food Business Centers since May 2023.  Most recently, $3.7 million was granted to the Heartland Center. This entity involves participation by the University of Nebraska at Lincoln and New Growth, operating under the Rural Missouri Community Development Organization.  The objective of the USDA grant is to expand local and regional food systems in Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and northwest Arkansas.

Money is distributed in amounts of $5,000 to $50,000 to eligible applicants who include: -

• Small farms and businesses contributing to local and regional food supply.
• Entrepreneurs who are immigrants, people of color, veterans and the otherwise disadvantaged.
• Food and farm entrepreneurs initiating new enterprises.

Katie Nixon, Co-Director of the Heartland Center, noted, “The Business Builder grant opportunity will inject capital for building and strengthening local food systems.”

In all USDA announcements, grants and funding are referred to as “investments”.  This presumes either a future financial return or alternatively quantifiable social benefits. The USDA under the present Administration has expended taxpayer funds for numerous projects intended to restructure the food supply in the U.S. and to benefit the “underserved.” It is now time for the Department to justify their expenditures on projects funded three years ago and to provide solid financial data on return as a result of grants and loans. If not, the Department should cease using the misleading euphemism “investment” and refer to the disbursements as giveaways to selected constituencies.

Food price inflation that has in recent months steadily declined is now a rallying cry by politicians leading up to the November Election.  Data released on August 14^th by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed a 2.9 percent annual increase in inflation for July 2024.  Food at home was up 1.1 percent year-over-year although the category of “meat, fish and poultry” was collectively up 3.0 percent.  In contrast, food away from home was up 2.8 percent from July 2023 with QSRs leading at 4.3 percent compared to full-service restaurants at 3.8 percent.

It appears that the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice have collaborated in making a case for the alleged overpricing of food. The activist FTC Chair, Ms. Lina Khan, maintains that high-food prices at supermarkets are (or were) a source of consumer complaints. In contrast a review of quarterly reports posted by the major food retailers demonstrates net margins ranging from 1 to 3 percent, obviously inconsistent with upward manipulation of prices.

Unfortunately, fluctuation in egg prices with a recent substantial rise has focused unwanted scrutiny on our industry.  Politicians and federal regulators seem to forget the weeks of  $0.70 to $1.00 wholesale prices with producers underwater for months on end.

The ad hoc FTC and DOJ group are considering legislation relating to alleged price-gouging although it would appear from federal economic data that the inflation horse has long since bolted from the stable.

Chairperson Khan stated, “We have to use the full extent of our reviews to stop any corporate law-breaking that inflates costs for American families.”  She added, “This is essential work that will help ensure that Americans can be free from economic coercion and indignities in the marketplace.”

Currently, the FTC opposes the merger of the Kroger Company and Albertsons Corporation on the grounds that it would diminish competition and ultimately raise prices. This is despite the assertion by Kroger that they intend reducing prices albeit over the short term. Recent history has shown that mergers, especially when competition is reduced through oligopoly can result in higher prices and inconvenience especially in rural areas and in food deserts.

The decision by Kroger and other food retailers to install electronic shelf-pricing as a convenience factor suggests an intent to introduce surge pricing. Even if this is not the motivator the initiative represents extremely bad optics and timing.  With existing electronic scanning at checkout using barcoding, surge pricing is probably a de facto tactic during peak shopping periods, especially over weekends.

It is now apparent that bovine influenza H5N1, identified in close to 200 dairy herds in 13 states represents an ongoing danger to the poultry industry and potentially, human health.  In June and July outbreaks in three egg-production complexes in Michigan and Colorado required depopulation of more than seven million hens apparently infected indirectly by movement of personnel from infected dairy herds.

Current standards of structural and operational biosecurity for dairy operations, even in closed herds, is acknowledged to be inferior to egg production complexes. This creates the potential for extension of infection and ongoing spillover.  The recognition that the bovine adapted B3.13 strain of H5N1 is zoonotic, albeit producing mild clinical symptoms, is an added complication.  The understated risk of a possible mutation of the virus to become more infectious to humans and also to exhibit contagion are important justifications to intensify field and laboratory studies on the epidemiology of bovine influenza H5N1.  With the exception of Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota, state agricultural agencies appear unwilling to implement the necessary surveillance to establish the extent of infection and to define the factors that contribute to exposure of workers.

Commentators have suggested that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the obvious regulatory authority to become involved in worker safety.  The ability of OSHA to play an active role in investigation and exposure of workers is limited by a self-serving 1976 rider to an appropriation bill barring the Agency from becoming involved on farms with ten or fewer employees.

A spokesperson for the Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment notes the historical political aversion to regulating farms.  Surveillance of bovine influenza-H5N1 is clearly inadequate at present with only a proportion of workers subject to sampling by conjunctival and nasal swabs that are assayed for the presence of H5 influenza RNA by PCR.

At the outset it must be recognized that dairy herd operators are reluctant to allow more comprehensive sampling of both personnel and herds.  Workers are also reluctant to cooperate with state and federal authorities as many are undocumented and are concerned over termination of employment or even deportation.

Unless health authorities have a clear understanding of the extent of bovine influenza H5N1 with respect to the incidence rate (new cases within a specified time period), persistence of the infection in bovine and human cases will rise together with heightened risk to poultry farms and workers.

As usual, USDA-APHIS has been passive and belatedly reactive to the emerging outbreak.  Limiting interstate movement of animals from farms with a positive milk assay is an inadequate response. Administrators at the agency appear to be influenced in their decisions by political expediency rather than scientific rigor. In addition to the voluntary assay of pooled milk samples, dairy animals and workers should be subjected to a structured program of surveillance for the presence of H5N1 antigen using PCR. A complementary serologic assay program should be implemented to determine the prevalence of antibody denoting exposure in non-clinical cases.

Until the second quarter of 2024, the risk to poultry farms of infection with H5N1 was associated with seasonal migration of free-living waterfowl.  It now appears that the dairy industry represents more permanent reservoir of infection.  Accordingly, surveillance should be intensified since the egg industry may now be subject to a year-round risk of exposure. The 600 lb. gorilla in the corner of the room is the possibility of emergence of a more pathogenic or even a contagious (person-to-person) zoonotic strain of mammal-adapted H5N1. The risk is low but the economic and practical consequences could be immense. Did we learn anything from COVID?

A consortium has been established in Michigan to convert 14,000 tons of milk permeate, a dairy by-product, into 2.2 million gallons of ethanol annually. The projected date of operation is the 4^th Quarter of 2025.

A plant with a capital cost of $41million will be erected with funding supplied by the Michigan Strategic Fund and CoBank. USDA has contributed funding through the Inflation Reduction Act.

The justification for the project is questioned on the grounds of financial feasibility and sustainability.  Dairy permeate comprises 4 percent protein and 80 percent carbohydrate, mainly in the form of lactose.  These are potential food ingredients with functional properties.

A use other than fuel ethanol should be considered.  There does not seem to be much point in feeding cows, processing milk and then turning residue into ethanol. But in this age of subsidies and mandates the project is indirectly subsidized by taxpayers for the benefit of a small group of milk producers and processors.

To place the volume of ethanol production in perspective, 2.2 million gallons of annually represents 0.6 percent of daily U.S. ethanol production averaging one million gallons per day.

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) the Majority Whip has introduced a bill to place dietary supplements on the same footing as drugs. This will require amending the federal supplement law exempting vitamins and supplements not marketed for therapeutic administration from FDA oversight with the the legal obligation to demonstrate both efficacy and safety.  It is estimated that the supplements industry sells products with the retail value exceeding $50 billion annually.  There is adequate evidence to show that some supplements contain harmful ingredients. The Durbin Bill will require a listing of ingredients and other label instructions.

Predictably the proposed legislation is strongly opposed by the Alliance for Natural Health USA representing the multitude of manufacturers and compounders of dietary supplements, some of which indirectly claim health benefits.

It is noted that Senator Durbin is a cosponsor of a bill to establish a separate food safety and nutrition agency that would presumably have direct jurisdiction over nutritional supplements, a prospect that concerns manufacturers. The two bills should be considered separately as one is not necessarily contingent on passage of the other.

Contentions by the Alliance for Natural Health include the sentiment that that the bill would “strip consumers of their freedom to make informed choices about their health and for those who cherish their freedom to choose natural and alternative health solutions, the proposal should be seen as a threat to choice.” 

In many respects the freedom to select untested and some cases potentially harmful supplements that interfere with conventional scientifically proven therapy, or to receive a vaccine, appears congruent with the desire to drink raw milk. The same principle is expressed, reinforcing the inalienable right to engage in personally destructive behavior in the name of freedom.

A reputable manufacturer of vitamins and nutritional supplements has nothing to fear from reasonable regulations and restraints as proposed in the Durbin bill. The federal government has the right and obligation to establish standards based on scientific knowledge and to protect the public from charlatans and those who would wish to profit from ignorance, misery, superstition and contrarianism. But then there are lobbyists-- which is how this industry gained exemption from oversight.

The Colorado Department of Agriculture has introduced a mandatory statewide surveillance program to sample milk from all licensed commercial dairies.  The objective is to identify all potentially infected herds.

The surveillance program will be administered jointly by the Colorado Department of Agriculture and the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment, with support from the USDA.  All licensed dairy-cow facilities producing milk will be required to provide samples each week to be collected by state-certified technicians to be assayed by the Colorado State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory.

Currently in the U.S. there have been more than 170 dairy herds confirmed as infected with bovine influenza H5N1, many of which have recovered.  Colorado has confirmed 47 cases. In the absence of structured surveillance, and based on the presence of RNA fragments in commercial milk the infection appears to be widespread the U.S. extending beyond the current 13 states. Without knowledge of the extent of infection and acquiring temporal and spatial parameters it will be difficult to develop appropriate preventive strategies. 

Virologists and epidemiologists have pointed to the need to suppress bovine influenza H5N1 since there is the potential for emergence of a zoonotic strain that could even become contagious. This would result in a U.S. epidemic and could extend to a worldwide pandemic. The World Health Organization and a wide range of epidemiologists and virologists in public health and academia urge suppression of the infection among dairy herds in the U.S. 

Among many problems relating to bovine influenza is the documented extension of infection to mammalian species including cats, mice in addition to evidence of transmission back to poultry farms. This is evidenced by an extensive outbreak in Michigan and more recently in two egg production complexes in Weld County, CO., all infected with the bovine-adapted H5N1 virus.

Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture Kate Greenberg stated, “Mandatory surveillance of highly pathogenic avian influenza across all Colorado Grade A commercial dairies is a critical next step to tamping down the virus and protecting the food system.  Ongoing cooperation is key to supporting worker health and safety, protecting animal health and welfare and minimizing the spread of the virus.”

USDA-APHIS initiated a program of control requiring bulk milk sampling from a herd before interstate movement of lactating cows.  This is an inadequate and self-serving requirement that ignores the possibility of dissemination of virus by dry cows and heifers and does not address intrastate movement of dairy animals.

Regulatory officials in some states have adopted an ostrich-like response ignoring the potential danger of zoonotic infection relying on pasteurization to inactivate virus in milk.  The Commissioner of Agriculture in one state characterized the need for surveillance of workers by CDC as “overreach.” Many of the 13 states affected have essentially failed to implement programs of detection such as those developed for Colorado and Michigan. Regulatory agencies in these two states support the intermediate and long-term interests of farmers and consumers. Suppression of bovine-influenza is a public health imperative.

In an editorial in the July12th 2024 edition of Science Dr. Nicola Lewis Director of the Worldwide Influenza Center, at the Francis Crick Institute in London and Dr. Martin Beer Head of the Institute of Virology, Friedrich-Loeffler Institute in Germany expressed their concern over the diagnosed incidence rate of bovine influenza-H5N1. Essentially the specialists warned of emergence of a potential zoonotic strain given the changes in the genome of the H5N1 avian virus to become infectious to dairy cattle. 

It is evident that cases of H5N1 among workers involved in depopulating impacted egg production complexes in Weld County, CO. showed both conjunctivitis and respiratory tract involvement, denoting increased pathogenicity for humans.  Comparison of avian, bovine and human strains applying whole genome sequencing is in progress but the inference of human susceptibility to a mammalian-adapted H5N1 avian influenza virus raises concerns.  As yet there is no evidence of contagion, but obvious animal-to-animal transmission occurred among mink on a farm in Spain in 2023 and among marine mammals along the Pacific coast of South America from 2022 onwards.

The authors urge action expressed in the title of their editorial entitled Stop H5N1 influenza in U.S. cattle now.  Suggested action included:

• Intensify surveillance incorporating as many U.S. dairy farms as is possible by sampling bulk milk. This has been initiated in Colorado.

• Enforce strict quarantine for infected herds and restrictions on both interstate and within-state transport

• Introduce biosecurity and hygiene precautions including the supply of PPE and decontamination of vehicles and equipment.

• Initiate surveillance for human cases including characterization of viruses from influenza cases and sampling of wastewater.

The authors urged global surveillance with real-time release of information concerning swine and fur-animal farms to detect any mutation that may predispose to a zoonotic strain or resistance to current antiviral drugs.  Human clusters of infection should be investigated to determine source and mode of transmission.

Drs. Lewis and Beer stressed the need for a One Health approach with cooperation among the Food and Agriculture Organization, the United Nations Environment Program, the World Health Organization and the World Organization for Animal Health.

According to a ProMED posting on July 17^th and press reports, the Colorado Department of Health and Environment has reported six confirmed positive cases of avian influenza-H5N1 and 16 presumptive cases in workers engaged in depopulating an infected farm in Weld County, CO.  According to the report, all of the affected workers showed conjunctivitis but ominously also exhibited mild respiratory symptoms and malaise suggesting a higher level of pathogenicity associated with a presumed bovine-adapted virus.

The affected complex undergoing exposure for the third time in three years housed approximately 1.5 million hens in eight aviary houses in addition to 170,000 hens among four conventional cage units. To date two houses holding replacement pullets situated about a mile from the laying complex are unaffected.

The question that arises relates to the prevalence rate among workers.  Previously only one case of mild conjunctivitis occurred with the depopulation of as many as 50 million laying hens in previous outbreaks of H5N1 avian influenza. In the present situation if all the workers are positive and discounting any additional cases that may be incubating H5N1 infection the prevalence rate among the cohort of 170 is 14 percent. Depopulation of the 1.6 million complex was completed on July 16^th. Initiation of the operation was delayed due to the Independence weekend when carbon dioxide for euthanasia was not readily available.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is currently conducting field and laboratory investigations relating to the outbreak in cooperation with public health agencies in Colorado. It will be determined whether the virus isolated from the affected workers is in any way different as denoted by whole genome sequencing from a previous isolates of H5N1 responsible for a single case in a worker in 2023 together with a comparison of the isolates from previous and recent egg production flocks.  Since there is a probability that the infection in the layer complex comprising 1.6 million hens was derived from a dairy farm, it is presumed that a bovine-adapted strain may have enhanced the ability to bind to mammalian receptor sites including conjunctival tissue and in the respiratory tract of humans.

The degree of protection afforded workers using PPE including respirators and face shields or goggles under hot conditions requires elaboration.  Although PPE was provided, the question arises as to correct use and supervision especially the Tyvec suits, N95 masks and face shields that were apparently in short supply at the beginning of the operation. Midway through the depopulation goggles were supplied but canister respirators were not used. Whether depopulation of aviary houses with more dust contributes to exposure of workers compared to cage-housed flocks will have to be investigated. The question of whether cooling fans may have increased the level of suspended virus in the air of the houses will be evaluated either as an independent factor or in combination with dust in aviary-equipped houses. The fact that H5N1 infection has until now not been a problem with depopulation suggests a change in the virus facilitating infection of the respiratory mucosa through affinity with human sialic acid receptors. This has implications for future protective modalities. Since depopulation of a second complex in Weld County is underway  the incidence rate among workers will be monitored and protective measures will require modification.

Cases among contract workers emerged on July 10^th approximately four days after commencing depopulation. There were no cases among workers employed on the farm. The USDA was able to depopulate this laying complex over seven days from commencement of the operation, half the time required when the complex was previously infected, although there was a delay after diagnosis.

Notwithstanding the cases among contract workers, avian influenza in egg production flocks does not represent a risk to consumers.  The virus is not considered to be vertically transmitted to eggs.  None of the eggs packed by the complex entered the supply chain and were disposed of together with carcasses and manure on site.

The response of agencies in the State of Colorado and cooperation with the CDC team and USDA-APHIS is commendable given the incidence rate of avian and dairy herd outbreaks in the State.

The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) has awarded Moderna $176 million to develop a pandemic influenza vaccine for humans.  The Agency focuses on preparation for potential pandemics and is responding to general concern by virologists and epidemiologists over the wide range of marine and terrestrial mammals susceptible to H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b.  The perceived need for a vaccine has been stimulated by the emergence of bovine influenza-H5N1 that has been confirmed in more than 140 herds in twelve states in the U.S.

Moderna developed mRNA vaccine technology used to produce a successful vaccine against SARS-CoV-19 (COVID).  An mRNA vaccine against H5 and H7 influenza strains previously developed by Moderna is currently undergoing evaluation in human volunteers. Results of the Moderna mRNA-1018 evaluation to provide protection against both H5 and H7 subtypes will be available by the end of the current year

It is fortunate that mRNA vaccines are prepared without the use of time-consuming egg propagation and can be modified quickly to respond to changes in field viruses to optimize protection. Stephanie Bacel CEO of Moderna stated, “mRNA vaccine technology offers advantages in efficiency, speed of development and production, scalability and reliability in addressing infectious disease outbreaks as demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

To date only four cases of mild H5N1 avian influenza have been confirmed among a large number of susceptible dairy herd workers, despite close contact with cows and raw milk. Notwithstanding the low risk of an emerging U.S. epidemic public health agencies consider it prudent to make provision for the emergence a zoonotic strain that may become capable of human-to-human transmission.

In related action, cell-derived vaccine manufactured by CSL Seqirus will be dispensed into ready-to-administer doses to protect farm workers, veterinarians, health-care providers and first responders.  Approximately 4.8 million doses will be available with the E.U. purchasing a large quantity.  Finland has announced that it will embark on a program of preventive vaccination of at-risk personnel although as yet, bovine influenza-H5N1 has not emerged in Europe.  Finland has a special concern over workers on fur farms since mink and foxes are susceptible to H5N1 infection with a number of farms having been depopulated as a result of exposure during 2023.

U.S. public health authorities and the WHO confirm that the risk of a zoonotic and pandemic strain of H5N1 emerging is low but the consequences could be catastrophic and accordingly appropriate preemptive action has been initiated both in the E.U. and the U.S.

During 2003 a U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling on Sackett v Environmental Protection Agency determined that ephemeral streams are not protected under the Clean Water Act leading to a revision of the WOTUS Rule.  By definition, ephemeral streams contain water only following rainfall and may be dry for extended periods.  Following this decision, a June 2024 reversal of the Chevron Defense in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo has deprived scientists, economists and specialists within federal agencies of the right to interpret ambiguous legislation following a “reasonable and rational” consideration of issues.  Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion noted “The implicit delegation of authority to Agencies was ‘misguided’ because Agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities”. Accordingly, jurors will now become hydrologists in addition to their acquired expertise as gynecologists, pharmacologists and epidemiologists.

The Sackett decision is now clearly unfounded based on recent research conducted at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.  Dr. Craig Brinkerhoff and colleagues mentored by Dr. Colin Gleason, Professor of Civil And Environmental Engineering clearly demonstrated the contribution of ephemeral streams to water flow in rivers.  These bodies of water may contribute as much as 55 percent of water that reaches the mouth of river systems across the U.S east of the Rockies.  In some areas, ephemeral streams in mountainous areas of Nevada and California may contribute 90 percent or more of water reaching the termination of western river systems.

Research leading to the recognition of the importance of ephemeral streams included application of hydrologic models based on field data.  This approach was used to determine the proportion of the river flow derived from ephemeral streams.

Dr. Brinkerhoff concluded that the study provided evidence that the contribution of ephemeral streams is significant to major waterways.  Accordingly, pollution in ephemeral streams that are now excluded from EPA jurisdiction will become greater sources of pollution unless appropriate state and local control is applied.  The implications of the research conducted at the University of Massachusetts is exemplified by Dr. Brinkerhoff in “all things are connected; we cannot regulate water bodies ad hoc”.

U.S. farmers’ associations have asked policymakers not to involve food in a trade war with China.  This is a forlorn hope. Stan Born, Chair of Trade Policy and International Affairs Advocacy for the American Soybean Association, noted, “I have gone to Washington, D.C. and I talked to senators and representatives. I always emphasize the business of our food.  This is one area that we should keep separate and keep it clean and not use it as a hammer.”  His comments reflect growing concern over volumes of agricultural exports to China, a significant buyer of corn and soybeans.

The American Soybean Association cannot hope to continue exporting to China against existing punitive tariffs and the threats of escalation with a different Administration.  Even with a level playing field, Brazil can produce and ship to China cheaper than the U.S.  Corn, soybean and sorghum farmers should recognize the realities of extreme competition and trade barriers and plan accordingly.  For consecutive calendar years 2017 through 2019, the U.S. supplied 34 percent of soybean requirements for China amounting to 95.5 million metric tons.  This was followed by a decline to 17 percent of 88.5 million metric tons in 2018 and 16 percent of 88 million metric tons in 2019.  Subsequent to establishing the Phase 1 Trade Agreement, it was anticipated that China would import 95.0 million metric tons during the 2020/ 2021 market year but in reality only 16 million tons was shipped through August 2021.  For the current market year to date, cumulative exports of 40 million metric tons of soybeans to all recipients with China as the major importer, are 17 percent lower compared to the equivalent week of the previous market year.  In contrast, corn exports have attained 40 million metric tons, 24 percent higher compared to the equivalent week of the 2022-2023 market year.

Even if all things were equal and there were no punitive tariffs or commercial conflict, China would favor Brazil and other South American nations for supplies of corn and soybeans.  The situation becomes even more difficult with an ongoing trade war and extreme competition and attempts at political and military one-upmanship.

This situation is completely beyond the influence of commodity producers’ associations, and this reality should be taken into account with respect to planting for the 2025 season.

Should exports fall further from current production levels, there will be a reduction in the price of soybeans even with diversion to biodiesel.  Ultimately, this will benefit all segments of livestock pro