Return to TFB Main Page
Return to Texas Agriculture Archive

October 6, 2000

Most of the gain in export value will result from anticipated larger export volume. Expected 2001 bulk export volume is up 9.5 million tons from a year earlier to 121.9 million, the largest since fiscal 1995. Corn accounts for two-thirds of the projected total gain, with a strong increase also forecast for wheat.

The projected continued increase in U.S. agricultural imports in fiscal 2001 is a modest gain to $39.5 billion. This reflects slower projected 2001 growth of the U.S. economy and higher domestic supplies of many commodities. Retaliatory delays spark questions. The strong dollar will help hold import values down. Most of the import growth is attributed to the major horticultural productsfruits, vegetables, and wine and malt beverages.

With exports expected to rise faster than imports for the first time since 1996, the U.S. agricultural trade surplus is forecast to increase to $12 billion ($51.5 billion - $39.5 billion)
Source: Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade, Aug. 30, 2000

So that's where the water goes!
According to National Geographic Traveler, May/June 2000 issue, the 16,000-plus golf courses that are in the United States take up more land area than Rhode Island and Delaware combined.

On average, each course annually uses enough water to supply a town of 8,000 and uses 12 pounds of pesticide per acre. If you multiply that by the total U.S. golf courses, that is enough water for almost half the nation's population, not counting the 350 to 450 new courses that open every year.

One 1990 study discovered that a course in Maryland received nearly seven times as much pesticide as a nearby corn and soybean field.
Source: National Geographic Traveler, May/June 2000, Vol. XVII, Number 4


Exchange rate favors bulk commodities
The exchange-rate competitiveness of U.S. agricultural exports has declined by 18 percent since 1995. That is, the dollar's higher export-weighted exchange value in fiscal 2000 has effectively raised U.S. farm export prices by 18 percent over the past five years.

Based on local currency units per dollar, the inflation-adjusted exchange rate index for bulk commodity exports appreciated for soybeans, wheat, rice, and tobacco, but depreciated for corn. Since 1995, the exchange rate for U.S. bulk exports is up by almost 20 percent.

Among high-value product (HVP) exports, the dollar's appreciation is more pronounced for feeds and fodders, tree nuts, soybean meal, and seeds. Overall for HVP exports, the dollar has risen 16.7 percent since 1995. Thus, U.S. HVP export prices in foreign currency terms are effectively 17 percent higher than 5 years ago.

The dollar's exchange-rate competitiveness against foreign export competitors, on the other hand, is much lower with respect to both bulk and non-bulk exports. The high overall relative exchange value against competitors, up 26.5 percent from 1995, is partly responsible for reduced U.S. bulk exports in fiscal 2000.
Source: U.S. Agricultural Trade Update, Aug. 23, 2000

It's illegal to use foreign ag chemicals
Is it legal to purchase agricultural chemicals manufactured for use in other countries?

The reason for the question has to do with the lower costs of these chemicals compared to those produced for use in this country.

According to Scott Rawlins, American Farm Bureau Federation Environmental Policy specialist, chemicals produced in this country for use in other countries do not contain an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registration number. It is illegal to purchase, import, or use chemicals that do not contain this EPA registration number in this country.

He said the reason the price for agricultural chemicals manufactured for use in this country is higher is because chemical companies must bear the costs of meeting EPA rules, regulations, and guidelines, particularly the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Chemicals produced in the U.S. for use in other countries do not have to meet EPA standards.

Rawlins stated that it is a violation of FIFRA to bring non-EPA registered chemicals into the United States.

Section 12 of FIFRA states that it is unlawful for any person in any state to distribute or sell to any person pesticides that are not registered or whose registration has been cancelled or suspended. Section 17 of FIFRA states that a foreign purchaser of a pesticide manufactured in the U.S. for exportation must sign a statement acknowledging that the purchaser understands that such pesticide is not registered for use in the U.S. and cannot be sold in the U.S. under this act.