World Agriculture
Developments, trade, data, and topics in world agriculture
-
U.S. agricultural production costs nearly $400 billion~ ~ U.S. Agriculture Production Cost Nearly $400 Billion in 2014 Print Email August 05, 2015 11:30 am (0) Comments WASHINGTON - U.S. farmers spent $397.6 billion on agricultural production in 2014, up 8.3 percent from 2013, the largest increase since 2008, according to the Farm Production Expenditures report, published today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Feed, already the largest expenditure category for U.S. farmers, also saw the largest increase since 2013. In 2014, producers spent $63.7 billion on animal feed, up 16 percent from the previous year. Farm services, livestock, poultry and related expenses, and labor were the other three major categories that saw an increase of 11.4 percent, 11.3 percent, and 8.6 percent respectively. Per farm, the average expenditures total $191,500 compared with $175,270 in 2013, up 9.3 percent. As in the previous year, crop farms account for the majority of production expenditures in 2014, although the gap between two sectors was significantly smaller than in the previous years. The average expenditure per crop farm totals $213,150 compared to $173,285 per livestock farm. Regionally, the largest increase in production expenditures was in the Plains regions, which includes states, such as Kansas and Texas. In that region, expenditures rose by $11.6 billion from 2013. For 2014, total expenditures by region are: Midwest $124.0 billion Plains $99.3 billion West $85.6 billion Atlantic $48.2 billion South $40.5 billion The Farm Production Expenditures summary provides the official estimates for production input costs on U.S. farms and ranches. These estimates are based on the results of the nationwide Tenure, Ownership, and Transition of Agriculture Land (TOTAL), conducted by NASS. The entire Farm Production Expenditures 2014 summary is available online at http://bit.ly/FarmExpenditures.
-
Should Washington end farm subsidies?~ ~ Should Washington End Agriculture Subsidies? Vincent H. Smith says farmers should stand on their own. W. Robert Goodman says subsidies are important for food security. Farm subsidies and insurance, which cost U.S. taxpayers about $20 billion annually, have come under scrutiny in recent years. . Updated July 12, 2015 11:57 p.m. ET The U.S. government has been protecting farmers against unpredictable hardships such as bad weather since the 1930s, when drought and the Great Depression devastated the nation's agriculture industry. Today, agricultural subsidies and insurance cost the U.S. taxpayers about $20 billion annually, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. That support has come under great scrutiny in recent years, with opponents complaining that most of the money goes to millionaire farmers and giant agribusinesses, not small family farms seeking to stay afloat. Congress revamped some agriculture-support programs in 2014, eliminating a controversial system of direct payments to farmers, while providing farmers with more subsidized crop insurance. . But subsidy opponents weren't satisfied. They say the government is still providing costly income support to an industry that doesn't need it. Others disagree, saying farm subsidies provide U.S. consumers with necessary protection against food scarcity and high food prices. Vincent H. Smith, a professor in the departments of agricultural economics and economics at Montana State University and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, makes the case for letting farmers stand on their own. W. Robert Goodman, who was an extension agricultural economist at the Alabama Cooperative Extension System and an associate professor at Auburn University before retiring, explains why farm subsidies should be preserved. YES: Farmers Don't Need Them, and They Impede Innovation By Vincent H. Smith U.S. farmers don't need support from U.S. taxpayers, either directly or through legislation that restricts the supply of a commodity to raise its price. First, many people seem to believe that farmers, like the Joad family in John Steinbeck's “The Grapes of Wrath," are poor, when in fact the average farm household enjoys an income that is about 15% higher than that of the average nonfarm family. What's more, the 10% to 15% of farm families that receive more than 85% of all farm subsidies-amounting to millions of dollars a year in a few cases-have annual household incomes many times as large as those of the average U.S. taxpayer. Some estimates suggest that the farmers who receive the bulk of all subsidies-many of whom mainly raise corn, cotton, rice, peanuts, soybeans and wheat-are worth somewhere between $6 million and $10 million on average. Second, farming is anything but the risky business it is often portrayed to be. The sector certainly isn't highly leveraged; the average debt-to-asset ratio in U.S. agriculture today is between 10% and 11%. And in contrast to the claims of the farm lobby and the private insurance companies (who take about $2 billion of taxpayer funds annually to deliver heavily subsidized crop insurance), competent farmers are perfectly capable of managing the year-to-year price and production risks they face. Less than 1% of all farms (about one in every 200) go out of business in any given year, and the three main causes of those failures are catastrophic health-care costs, divorce and incredibly poor management. Fortune 100 companies and Main Street businesses face much riskier financial environments. Third, farmers don't need “stable” prices to stay in business, especially when stable means they can enjoy high prices but are protected from below-average prices through price-support programs. Most farmers are financially well-positioned to handle both price and production risks. Consider, for instance, that many livestock producers and fruit and vegetable growers run profitable and successful farms and provide plentiful supplies of produce to U.S. consumers without any significant support from the government. Rational response These days, crop-insurance subsidies are the major source of government largess for farmers. Some proponents say farmers wouldn't be able to get crop loans without them. Anyone tempted to buy that argument should consider that before 1980, when crop insurance covered less than 20% of all operations because subsidies were small, banks made plenty of loans to farmers who didn't have such coverage. They also make loans to livestock and fruit and vegetable producers who don't have access to or don't use crop insurance as a risk-management tool. The problem with subsidized crop insurance is that it allows farmers to operate in ways that increase the risk of crop and other forms of financial loss because they know that any losses they incur will be covered by taxpayers. Farmers have responded rationally by, for example, planting crops on poor-quality land, cutting back on things like pesticides and fertilizer that reduce the risk of crop losses and reducing the extent to which they diversify their enterprises (for example, by jointly raising livestock and crops). Subsidies also discourage farmers from being innovative and improving productivity. That's because when any business is effectively guaranteed profits by the government, there is much less incentive to adopt new practices and technologies. Granted, subsidies have had a modest effect on reducing soil erosion because farmers are required to file conservation plans to receive them, but many economists believe the same effect could have been achieved through other means. Land-rich nation The farm lobby may argue that subsidies lead to increased food output and lower prices for consumers, but that isn't true when subsidies are considered as a whole. Some subsidy programs may produce that effect, but others do the opposite by taking farmland out of production for conservation purposes. And the idea that U.S. food security depends on government farm programs is an even weaker argument. As a land-rich nation, the U.S. is a net exporter of crops and food products and would be under any credible price scenario. At about $20 billion a year, total spending on agricultural subsidies is a relatively small part of the overall federal budget. But wasteful government spending is still waste, and most farm subsidies are wasteful. Dr. Smith is a professor in the departments of agricultural economics and economics at Montana State University and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He can be reached at reports@wsj.com. NO: They Keep Farming Profitable and Stable By W. Robert Goodman Modern society is far removed from agriculture. With only a small percentage of the population engaged in food production, few understand the fragile nature of modern farming and why government farm subsidies are necessary to protect the public from scarcity and high food prices as the world's population expands to a projected 11 billion people by 2100 from seven billion now. Government subsidies help keep farming profitable and stable, allowing for the commercial finance of modern agriculture, the development of products and technologies that help farmers produce more food at a lower cost, and the preservation of production resources in case of future need. Today's farm subsidies don't “pay farmers not to plant." Instead, they come in the form of insurance. Under the 2014 farm bill, farmers buy crop insurance, and the premium is subsidized by the government. Fewer payments are made in years of normal yield and price, thus subsidy cost can be very low. But the insurance provides farmers with the income security necessary to secure the loans they need to produce crops. Contrary to what some say, farming is “risky business”: Growing a single acre of corn in Iowa can cost over $500. With projected yield around 160 bushels and corn price around $3.30 per bushel, depending on weather, the profit margin farmers earn is small. But a farmer planting 1,000 acres of corn this year will need a “crop loan” of a half-million dollars. Getting a crop loan without insurance is like getting a loan without collateral. U.S. farmers will plant 89 million acres of corn in 2015. Financing this single crop will require about $45 billion. This is one reason why crop insurance, and crop-insurance subsidy, is necessary. Nobel Peace Prize winner Norman Borlaug, known as “the father of the Green Revolution," insisted that continuous increases in world food production must come through adoption of more efficient technology, not through increased acreage. It is this increased productivity that has allowed for the preservation of significant amounts of ecologically sensitive acreage around the world. Agriculture subsidies have promoted rapid advances in productivity by encouraging the development and adoption of modern farming methods and materials by farmers who may not have been willing to take the financial risk otherwise. Farm subsidies also have resulted in a significant decrease in the rate of soil erosion from crop production. Since 1985, wind and water erosion rates of farmed land in the U.S. have declined more than 40% and are still trending downward, thanks to the development and widespread adoption of agricultural technology such as conservation tillage, establishment of streamside protection zones, and grass waterways and buffer strips. Farmers must agree to comply with these erosion-limiting practices to qualify for subsidies. Even at $20 billion a year, the cost of farm subsidies is modest compared with federal spending. And much of that cost is offset because as agriculture subsidies keep food prices low, they become transfer payments made by taxpayers to consumers of agriculture commodities-or, in other words, themselves. Like many products of the political process, agriculture subsidies are deeply flawed, in that farm policy hasn't always kept up with rapidly changing economic and environmental conditions. But to those who complain that farm subsidies go to big companies and millionaires, my question is this: Shouldn't those who produce the bulk of our food receive the bulk of farm payments? The fact is, large, efficient farms benefit the public by producing food at a much lower cost than would otherwise be possible. We must continue to craft agriculture policy that provides incentives necessary to ensure world food security, while constantly seeking to improve the fairness, equity, and efficiency of those policies. In Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1937 inaugural speech, he defended his proactive efforts to bring the country out of the Great Depression when he said, “We refused to leave the problems of our common welfare to be solved by the winds of chance and the hurricanes of disaster." That sentiment is apt here. Dr. Goodman, now retired, was an extension agricultural economist at the Alabama Cooperative Extension System and an associate professor at Auburn University. He can be reached at reports@wsj.com.
-
FAO food price index falls to lowest in six yearsThe Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations released the Food Price Index on the 6th, saying that the index averaged 164.6 points in July, the lowest level in six years. According to the FAO website, the food price index fell 1.0 per cent in July from June and 19.4 per cent from the same period last year, falling to its lowest monthly average since September 2009. FAO said the decline was mainly due to a sharp drop in the prices of dairy and vegetable oils, which offset a small increase in the prices of sugar and cereals. Specifically, the dairy product price index fell 7.2 month-on-month in July. The reason for the decline was that the import demand in China, the Middle East and North Africa was reduced, while the EU's milk production was large, resulting in an abundant supply of dairy products for export; the vegetable oil price index fell by about 5.5 month-on-month, reaching the lowest value since July 2009. The main reason for the decline in palm oil prices was the increase in Southeast Asian production and the slowdown in Malaysia exports, the further weakness in soybean oil prices is due to abundant export supplies in South America and good global supply prospects from 2015 to 2016. The FAO Food Price Index consists of a weighted average of the international market prices of five food categories: cereals, meat, dairy products, vegetable oils and sugar. (Reporter Ge Chen) 2015-08-07 Source: Xinhua
-
China's economic reforms burst the global salary bubble?Some commentators pointed out that while China is rising, workers and the middle class in OECD member countries are becoming more and more difficult. One of the main reasons for this trend is that China's open economy has impacted global labor market supply. Some economists have said with great interest that China's reform and opening up has "punctured the global salary bubble". For capital owners, this means that there are no more unions, no more overtime pay and pensions; at the same time, cheap labor and low-cost land have emerged, and regulatory costs have been reduced. This is not to say that the Chinese government is bent on weakening the middle class in rich countries; it means that China uses its vast territory and large population as a comparative advantage to accelerate economic development. This article has some reference significance. There is now a growing notion that Western-style capitalism is chaotic, harsh and unfair, while another model adopted by a rising China seems more attractive. There are two arguments in support of this argument. First, democratic institutions do not apply to all countries. Compare India and China, which system has lifted 0.5 billion people out of poverty over the past 20 years? Not to mention the Middle East. Another argument is that the West has made a key mistake: overestimating the efficiency of its private sector. One can see this by comparing the situation in Russia and China, or by looking at the wave of deregulation that preceded the global financial crisis. Earlier, Niv Horesh (Niv Horesh), a professor of modern Chinese history at the University of Nottingham in the UK, published a commentary in the South China Morning Post, which was widely circulated. He makes the more controversial argument that democracy is doomed. The reason for its demise is neoliberalism. Heriff criticized that Western countries promote individualism, restrict government power, and advocate free markets, which aggravate social inequality and lead to other economic injustices. If it continues, will the world pursue something else ...... like the Islamic State? No, fortunately it's not that bad yet. "The West is at a disadvantage in this debate, while the Chinese model has gained credibility," Herniff wrote." He continued: "Inaction may threaten the future of democracy." In his concluding remarks, he reminded people that the democracy of ancient Greece lasted only 200 years. On the surface, this looks like a joke. Is it possible to choose between Reagan's small-government doctrine and central leadership? Can't we follow the Swedish model or something else? From another perspective, if you agree that extreme free marketism is the main cause of the growing gap between the rich and the poor in the OECD (OECD) member countries, perhaps this statement is not unreasonable. After all, the largest redistribution of wealth occurred during the Cold War, when then-FBI Director John. Edgar. Hoover (J. Edgar Hoover) went house-to-house searches for Communists, while the American middle class rose. It can also be argued that when competing with other powerful economic models, capitalism is more moderate, but also more arbitrary. As an emerging superpower, can China, like the former Soviet Union, curb the cruelty and greed of capitalism? A perfect example is that Chinese bankers have much lower incomes than their Western counterparts-at least those who have not embezzled large sums of money to flee to other countries. The same goes for executives in the Chinese oil and steel industries; in general, for any senior SOE. This example strongly refutes the argument that China's top industrialists will go on strike if they don't get hundreds of millions of dollars in income. In some emerging countries, the rich can hide their assets abroad, resulting in a lack of investment funds in their own countries. China, on the other hand, keeps a firm grip on the country's capital account and limits deposits to the country. The centrally controlled bank transferred the funds to state-owned enterprises and used them for a series of construction projects, such as highways and high-speed railways, to successfully transform a backward country into a modern power. China has not completely copied the ideas in the "Washington Consensus", but has become a rich and powerful country in its own way. Many Westerners have also become rich: bankers, factory owners, technical consultants, and Australian mining tycoon Gina. Gina Rinehart-in short, all capitalists. China's rise has coincided with growing hardship for workers and the middle class in OECD countries. One of the main reasons for this trend is that China's open economy has impacted global labor market supply. Some economists have said with great interest that China's reform and opening up has "punctured the global salary bubble". For capital owners, this means that there are no more unions, no more overtime pay and pensions; at the same time, cheap labor and low-cost land have emerged, and regulatory costs have been reduced. This is not to say that the Chinese government is bent on weakening the middle class in rich countries; it means that China uses its vast territory and large population as a comparative advantage to accelerate economic development. In the process, China is not the antidote to neoliberalism, but one of its best partners. Time: 2015-08-03 11:37 | Author: Yan Mouse | Source: First Agricultural Economics | Editor: Zhai Tianchang
-
Japan to launch brewing experiments on the International Space Station to make the taste more mellowAccording to Japanese media reports, a large Japanese manufacturer recently revealed that it will begin "winemaking" experiments on the International Space Station. The purpose of this study is to study the influence of gravity-free environment on wine making and to analyze the ripening process of wine becoming mellow. According to reports, the wine participating in the experiment will be transported to the space station by the unmanned cargo spacecraft "Stork" 5 launched at the Seed Island Space Center (located in Kagoshima Prefecture) on August 16, and will be in the Japanese "Hope" in the space station. The experimental cabin is kept for one to several years, and then brought back to the earth for detailed analysis of the ingredients, and then the whisky wine tasting experts will confirm the taste. According to the research team, if the wine is kept in an environment with less temperature change, convection will be reduced, and the stimulation of alcohol may become mild and form a soft taste. So the team set their sights on space, where convection is least likely to occur. The experimental liquor used this time is 5 kinds of distilled liquor, including whiskey and ethanol with an alcohol concentration of 40 degrees, which have been stored in barrels for 21 years, totaling 1 liter. At present, there are 6 astronauts in the space station for a long stay, and drinking alcohol is prohibited in space. Time: 2015-07-31 17:54 | Author: Jinse | Source: First Agricultural Economic Times | Editor: Zhai Tianchang
-
Chinese Taste Westernized Western Australia Optimistic about Cold Tibetan Mutton Export to ChinaScott Boyle, a breeder in York City, pointed out that Chinese tastes are changing rapidly and food consumption is becoming more westernized, ACB News reported. WA producers should consider how to market cold storage to them sheep meat. Currently, China does not import chilled mutton. Mr. Boyle said that during the visit he realized that all imported meat was frozen and needed to be thawed and then deboned or processed before being frozen for sale. Chinese local mutton can't do this, only products with higher hygiene standards like Australian mutton can. "But it destroys quality, so the challenge is that if the Chinese eat more Westernized, they will gradually appreciate the benefits of refrigerated food and be willing to pay for it," he was quoted as saying by Farm Weekly. Boyle currently owns a 20,000 sheep farm in York. He said that his inspection experience in China prompted him to decide to expand the scale of production, "there is real demand there". The Australian Meat and Animal Commission (MLA) and government trade departments may explore opportunities. The recent memorandum of understanding (details) on mutton export between Western Australia and China and the free trade agreement will provide an excellent platform for the export of cold storage products to China. Western Australia Mining Nomadic Legislative Council member Mark Lewis said building a long-term relationship and setting long-term goals was the first step in the right direction. It is clear that Western Australia now needs to consider the Chinese refrigerated products market and enter this high-value field. According to the initial export data compiled by the Western Australian government, the top five markets for Western Australian mutton accounted for 55% of the export volume in the 2014/15 fiscal year, while China accounted for 22%, far higher than Saudi Arabia (10%), which ranked second. Kimbal Curtis, WA's Senior Research Officer, Agri-Food, discusses the latest industry data and trends this week as industry exchange forums are held across the state. He pointed out that the rising global consumption demand for mutton is pushing up the export price of Australian mutton. "I think the demand will continue to rise for some time to come, especially in the Middle East and China". Judging from the situation in the past two years, the mutton market is in short supply, and the industry prospect is very positive. With the support of MLA and Australian processor V & V Walsh, the Western Australian delegation visited the asset facilities of V & V Walsh partner Heilongjiang Manor Group, and learned extensively about retail and food distribution channels and mutton production systems in Beijing, Heilongjiang, Inner Mongolia, Shanghai and other places. An Agri executive in Wellard said that the size of the Chinese market and the scale of demand is eye-opening. Wellard Agri's parent company, Wellard Group, Australia's largest livestock exporter, is currently planning a listing on the Australian Stock Exchange with the assistance of investment bank UBS. Sources said the IPO size could be A $2-A $0.3 billion. Investment presentations have been held in Sydney and Melbourne this week, with Hong Kong next. Time: 2015-08-04 08:46 | Author: Xiong Da | Source: First Agricultural Economic
-
FAO says global natural teak forests are decliningA survey report released by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on the 26th showed that the global natural teak forest area is decreasing, and the wood quality of natural teak is also declining. According to FAO, only India, Laos, Myanmar and Thailand have natural teak forests in the world. After conducting teak resource surveys and market assessments in 60 tropical countries around the world, the organization found that in 2010, the total area of natural teak forests in the world was about 29 million hectares, of which about half grew in Myanmar. Between 1992 and 2010, the global natural teak forest area decreased by 385000 hectares. Myanmar is the only country currently using natural teak forests to produce high-quality teak, and India, Laos and Thailand have all banned logging in natural forests or the export of logs, the report said. Thailand implemented a total ban on natural forest logging in 1989, which helped restore natural teak forests. Since the ban was promulgated, the country's natural teak forest area has increased by about 2.9 million hectares. At the same time, teak, one of the most important and valuable woods in the world, has attracted a lot of private sector investment in artificial teak forests in Africa, Asia and Latin America, and the related area is increasing. India's artificial teak forest planting area has accounted for 38% of the world's total. FAO's official in charge of forestry, Colert, said that the supply and quality of natural teak are declining, which will lead to the loss of genetic resources. Therefore, it is necessary to formulate plans as soon as possible in the four countries with natural teak forests to organize and implement the protection of genetic resources of native teak. Release date: March 27, 2012, 10:57 | Source: Xinhua
-
How do Japanese farmers get rich?Editor's note: China is a large agricultural country, and rural development is related to social stability and national prosperity. Although the problems encountered in the process of rural development in various countries are similar, they are at different stages of development, and the ideas and methods for solving the problems are not exactly the same. In the process of promoting people-oriented new urbanization, how to organically coordinate the planning and policies of new socialist rural construction and new urbanization construction? How to integrate the resources scattered in various departments? How to balance the contradiction between the needs of public construction land and the protection of personal rights and interests? How to reflect the role of traditional culture and morality in the new rural construction? The experience of other countries can be used as a reference. Since 1972, the average income level of Japanese farmers has been slightly higher than that of urban residents. However, this was not the case in Japan before that. The income of farmers around 1960 was equivalent to 60% of that of the citizens. Looking back to 1930, it was about 35%. How does Japan achieve income equality between urban and rural residents? Based on field visits and in-depth research, the author believes that the following points are worth learning from. Relying on Scientific Theory to Guide Agricultural Development after the Meiji Restoration, the capitalist industrial and commercial civilization quickly took root in Japan. Under such a historical background, it is impossible for the state to attach importance to agriculture and imitate ancient times. It is necessary to form new ideas for the development of modern agriculture. In this regard, Japan has experienced a difficult process of exploration. On the whole, before the First World War, Japan's agricultural and rural development was relatively smooth, and agricultural production and farmers' lives were greatly improved compared with those before the Meiji Restoration. However, in 1918, there was a "rice riot" incident. Then, under the influence of multiple political and economic factors at home and abroad, Japan's agriculture had a crisis since 1926. Under the combined impact of the global economic crisis of 1929-1931, many farmers were poor enough to sell their children. The cruel reality puts forward an urgent innovation requirement for the theory of agricultural economic development. In the past, Japan's agricultural economic theory was mainly based on the experience summary of agronomism, and some scholars studying in the West (mainly Germany, France and Britain) copied the agricultural economic theories of advanced countries to Japan, but none of them could provide an effective answer for Japanese agriculture to get out of the predicament. In 1936, Tokyo University professor Yoshiichi Higashi published the book "The Development Process of Japanese Agriculture", which marked the development of Japanese agricultural economy from experience to science. Based on Schumpeter's theory of innovative economic development, the book puts forward and analyzes the "entrepreneur" problem that promotes the development of Japanese agriculture. Yoshiichi Tohata believes that the entrepreneurs who promote the development of Japan's agricultural economy are neither traditional small farmers nor traditional landlords, but agricultural product purchasers and processors. These businessmen guide the reallocation of agricultural resources and improve the level of agricultural production; however, the most important thing to promote the development of Japan's agriculture is the government. The basic means for the government to promote agricultural development is to inject monetary capital into the agricultural production and management system. The channels through which the government injects monetary capital into agriculture are fiscal and financial. The government does not use this capital directly, as ordinary entrepreneurs do, but gives it to its "rangers", that is, farmers' cooperative economic organizations. Seiichi Higahata's theoretical innovation was highly praised by Schumpeter and became the basic theoretical basis for guiding the development of Japan's agricultural economy. The first basic agricultural law adopted by Japan in 1961 was formed under the guidance of this theory. The Agricultural Association provides a full range of social services. In addition to the theoretical level, the real solution to the problem of increasing farmers' income and wealth ultimately depends on institutional mechanisms. As an East Asian country, the basic national condition of agriculture in Japan is that there are many people and little land, and the scale of farmers' operation is small. Under the market economy system dominated by industrial and commercial capital, how small farmers participate in market competition is a historic issue that developing countries must answer. Combining the experience of Western Europe, especially Germany, and summing up the experience and lessons of the development of rural industrial combination after the Meiji Restoration, the Japanese government formed a top-to-bottom farmer cooperative economic organization system in the mid-1930s (still called industrial combination at that time, after the war It was renamed the Agricultural Cooperative Combination, referred to as the Agricultural Association), which became the government's starting point for the development of modern agriculture. Japan has three levels of government, and each level of government has a counterpart to the agricultural association organization. The agricultural association that directly provides production and living services to farmers is located at the city (town, village) level, also known as the comprehensive agricultural association. In the comprehensive agricultural association, the technical guidance department provides farmers with agricultural technical services, the purchase and marketing department provides farmers with pre-production purchase, post-production sales and living materials purchase services, the credit department provides farmers with capital deposit and loan and various settlement services, and the insurance department provides farmers with various insurance services for production and life. In addition, in terms of land planning and utilization, medical care, and amateur cultural life, the Agricultural Association can provide services to farmers. It is precisely by such cooperative economic organizations that farmers do not fight alone in the market competition, but form a group. The various undertakings of the Agricultural Association are mutually supportive. The agricultural technical guidance department knows how much means of production farmers need and how much agricultural products they produce, laying a solid foundation for the purchasing and marketing department to carry out services; if farmers need financing to develop production, the credit department can obtain sufficient information on the safety of capital investment through the technical guidance department and the purchasing and marketing department. Therefore, with the support of the agricultural association system, Japanese farmers will not encounter such problems as difficulty in buying, selling, and loans, let alone the phenomenon of counterfeit and inferior agricultural materials pitting farmers and merchants purchasing agricultural products to lower prices. Taking the production and sales of vegetables as an example, the Agricultural Association organizes farmers to produce in accordance with standardized agricultural methods. After the products are harvested, the quantity and quality of each household's products are inspected and packaged, and then transported to the wholesale market for sale. The gross income of farmers can generally reach 2/3 of the final consumer price, which is about twice as high as that of Chinese vegetable dealers who buy directly in the fields. In particular, it should be pointed out that the technical guidance provided by the Japan Agricultural Association to farmers is free of charge, and the purchase and sale fees charged by the purchase and sale departments are limited to the scope of necessary expenses, that is to say, the service departments that directly bring benefits to farmers are not profitable, and the funds to support the normal operation of such departments mainly come from the profits of the credit department and the insurance department. The financial cause of the Agricultural Association not only solves all the problems in the operation of farmers' funds, but also provides financial guarantee for the smooth development of the whole agricultural association. Therefore, the Agricultural Association is actually an agricultural monopoly organization with financial business as its core. Donghata Jingichi advocates that the government inject monetary capital into agriculture, and the financial sector of the Agricultural Association is the main channel. Of course, the monopoly of the Agricultural Association is not for the interests of a few capital owners, but to protect the interests of all farmers, and through democratic management within the Agricultural Association, to ensure that all farmers share the services provided by the Agricultural Association fairly and fairly. government support for agricultural protection taking the promotion of improved seed technology as an opportunity, Japan has listed agricultural development projects in the central government's fiscal budget since 1900. Since then, financial support for agriculture has continued to increase. The Japanese government's financial support for agriculture follows a basic principle, that is, urban and rural areas share public goods and public services equally. For example, many rural schools have a small number of students, but there is no difference between campus construction, teaching facilities (such as indoor gymnasiums), teachers' salaries and other aspects and first-tier cities. If measured according to the per-student funding index, rural areas are higher than urban areas. Transportation, communications, energy and other infrastructure construction is also a unified urban and rural planning and construction. The government also implements a protective price purchase policy for major agricultural products, especially rice production, to ensure that the labor, capital and other factors invested by farmers receive benefits that are not lower than the social average. The government has also funded the establishment of a special policy finance (regarded as the second finance to support agriculture) institution to provide long-term low-interest loans for farmers to carry out the construction of modern agricultural operating infrastructure. The implementation of government policies and measures to support agriculture is generally coordinated by the Agricultural Association to ensure that farmers receive benefits. A misconception needs to be clarified that such an approach could overburden the government's finances. If you look at fiscal spending alone, this view cannot be said to be unreasonable. However, this is not the case with a comprehensive examination of macroeconomic performance in conjunction with the agricultural association system. On the one hand, farmers have formed a strong rural market demand under the conditions of the government's support for agriculture policies and the thoughtful service of the Agricultural Association, which provides a huge domestic demand power for the development of the national economy. On the other hand, farmers do not have a strong demand for loans after their income stabilizes. The credit department of the Agricultural Association can fully meet the capital needs of farmers with only about 30% of the deposit balance, the remaining 70% or so of the huge surplus funds are used to purchase government bonds and corporate bonds, which also support the development of the entire national economy. Published: 2015-7-24 8:46:26 | Author: Xu Xianglin | Source: Learning Times
-
How can China learn from Europe's "emotional" urbanization?Premier Li Keqiang said in his speech at the China-EU Urbanization Forum that the urbanization of China and Europe should "go hand in hand". This sentence is very good and very emotional. Because after all, Europe has a history of urbanization for hundreds of years, China has only 30 years. The so-called partnership is to learn European experience better on the basis of complementarity. What exactly does the so-called European experience learn? The first is people-oriented urban planning. The Qingdao groundwater pipeline was built by the Germans a hundred years ago and is still in good use so far, and all European cities have a long-term vision in the operation and management of underground facilities and are very efficient, so do we have to learn? The treatment of underground facilities, drainage, sewage and garbage in many of our cities, including the treatment of water supply pipelines, has not been well solved. We pay more attention to the surface, do enough modern factors, want to try to achieve leapfrog development, but ignore the most basic needs of people in the city, the most basic public needs. And there are public health needs, which are ignored by most cities. Therefore, the first meaning of traveling together is that we still have a big gap in the people-oriented service of the whole city. The second is the image of the city. We also know that the biggest difference between you and Chinese cities when you go to Europe is that its antiquity and civilization are deeply imprinted in a city. When we see European cities, we can see the existence of hundreds or even thousands of years of history, not a building, or a certain building, nor a certain corner or a certain site, but a city as a whole. You can see the continuation of this ancient and glowing civilization for thousands of years. So we have a big gap in China in this regard, we can find the Forbidden City seven hundred years of history, Suzhou gardens probably also have a history of several hundred years, but as a city as a whole to the present, we can find it? Speaking of which, this is a question to think about. We remember that the general secretary said at the urbanization work conference that "see the mountains, see the water, and remember homesickness" is the same meaning. He also hopes that we can retain the ancient urban style and be in the corner of the city or even the whole city. Find your own history. I think the speech of the Prime Minister and the General Secretary probably means the same thing, that is to say, in the process of traveling together, we should learn from their protection of the civilization and history of the city, not only as a city, but also as a symbol of a large amount of historical information in this city, and form a landscape, so that you will always feel a memory of history. When we study the architecture of European cities, what will we think of from the perspective of the image of the city, the continuation of urban civilization and the protection of history? Why can't we do this in China? Of course, there are factors of our population, our institutional factors, but there are also human factors. In order to achieve speed, to pursue economic benefits, and to sell land collectively, a large number of our governments have demolished all the ancient buildings and buildings with reserved value, which is very common in many cities. Although it has been a long time, it has completely disappeared when you go back to that city to find your history and memory. So we have to go to ancient villages and ancient towns to find our history, but we can hardly see it in our big cities, medium cities and small cities. This is what we need to seriously reflect on in the past 30 years of urbanization. Do we have to learn this aspect in the process of comparing and learning with Europe? Third, how do you see a city? We know that there are also traffic jams in Europe. Brussels and Paris where I went were all jammed, but they were not as serious as ours. So what do people think of the problem of traffic jams in cities? I think we have a problem to pay attention to. Whether we go to Belgium, Paris, or even to European cities such as Rome, their road network is very rich, and the capillaries of the city are unblocked. The so-called rich road network means intersections and urban roads run through to connect the whole city. And our problem is that our city looks very big, but many of the road networks are closed. We can have a fast track of the city, but there are large compounds within the fast track, such as real estate compounds and various institutions. The compound completely divides the city, so the car can only go on the main line. The hutongs in the inner city of Beijing are better, and the new city is almost completely divided. This is why our traffic jam is very important. Not only Beijing, but other cities across the country are facing the same problem. We only set up one courtyard. In the past, we built a courtyard in the form of agriculture to ensure the safety of the courtyard. However, we forget that all the elements of the city should be open to the society. This can not only solve the problem of microcirculation, but also solve the problem of the development of service industry. When you are a courtyard, others can't get in. In the open road network, all the houses along the street can be turned into new service supply places. This is the characteristic of Europe from the Middle Ages. Fourth, the protection of the ecological environment. The first is the efficiency of resource allocation, and the second is how to look at the supply of such resources in cities. It is very difficult for us to see a particularly large square or a particularly large park in Europe. China now has square culture in squares, square dances, parks and green spaces are far away from the city, far away on foot, and some lawns cannot be reached. In many cities in Europe, except for Hyde Park in the United Kingdom and Central Park in New York in the United States, most of the other parks are small street parks. The gardens are not large or wide. The purpose is to increase the compactness of the city. Do everything. But we must drive, and a large amount of traffic is blocked, and urban development will be affected, so life is inconvenient. Later, we changed to a complex model. The complex model has a certain effect, but it is not only a complex. The shaping of various street gardens and ecological environment should not all be done by the government. So I want to how to improve the efficiency of urban resource allocation, how to achieve a compact city, reduce the waste of land resources, and how to make the city achieve the very important goal of carbon saving and energy saving. There is still a lot of work to be done. Not only in the investment and financing of urban infrastructure, not only in the efficiency of urban resource allocation, but also in the concept of urban planning and management, not only in the ecological civilization of the city, but more importantly, an urbanized civilization from management To society, to whether everyone can be deeply rooted in the hearts of the people, let everyone know what is good, what is bad, and what we must go through, what needs to be complemented sequentially in the process of partnership is my understanding of China's urbanization. Why is our city more and more inconvenient? For example, we see that the urban traffic road is very wide, the traffic is fast, but the connection between the two sides of the traffic function is divided. Let's look at an old city with shops on both sides of the road, but now there are no shops, why? The rapid development of transportation has divided the city, because of the planning of the city, the supply of various infrastructure is objectively dividing all the functions of the city. Because of this, we feel that its resource allocation efficiency has not been well utilized, the extensive use of land, the so-called sustainable development of the city, and the convenience of people-oriented have been greatly reduced. In this way, of course, energy consumption is large, which is not ecological and economical. Therefore, internationally speaking, the way people can travel on foot is the best way to use ecology. But which city can solve most of our problems by walking as much as possible? Unless we go to a small city. Therefore, we need to reflect on the misunderstandings in the development of big cities and megacities. (author: Li Tie, director of the Urban and small Town Reform and Development Center of the Development and Reform Commission) published: 2015-7-24 8:48:09 | Author: Li Tie | Source: Love Thought Network
-
World Bank report expects continued weakness in commodity prices this yearCrude oil prices fine-tuned to $57 from $53 a barrel economic Daily News reporter Lian Jun reported: The World Bank stated in the latest quarterly report of the Commodity Market Outlook that although international oil prices rebounded in the second quarter of this year, global commodity prices will continue to be weak this year, and prices may be in 2016. A slight recovery. In terms of energy, the World Bank has fine-tuned its crude oil price forecast for 2015 after oil prices rose 17% in the second quarter: from US $53 per barrel forecast in April to US $57. The World Bank report pointed out that overall global energy prices rose by 12% in the second quarter, and the impact of higher oil prices was offset by lower prices of natural gas (down 13%) and coal (down 4%). However, the World Bank expects energy prices to be on average 39% lower this year than in 2014. Natural gas prices in the three major markets of the United States, Europe and Asia are expected to fall by 17%. John Bafis, senior economist at the World Bank and author of the Commodity Market Outlook, said: "Crude oil demand in the second quarter was higher than expected. Despite a slight upward revision in the 2015 price forecast, large inventories and increased production from OPEC members point to the possibility of continued weakness in oil prices in the medium term." the report predicts that the downside risks to energy commodity prices include higher-than-expected non-OPEC member country production and continued increase in OPEC member country production; possible upward pressure from high-cost well closures (for example, the total number of drilling platforms in the United States has decreased by 60% since the peak in November last year) and geopolitical tensions. The report emphasized that after the Iran nuclear agreement is reached, "sanctions will be relaxed, including restrictions on Iran's oil exports". The World Bank reported that non-energy commodity prices fell 2 per cent in the second quarter and predicted that prices would average 12 per cent lower this year than in 2014 and 1.5 per cent higher in 2016 than this year. On the metals side, metal prices fell slightly in the second quarter, with iron ore prices down 2/3 from their 2011 highs. The World Bank forecasts metal prices this year to be 16% lower than 2014 on average, down from the 12% forecast in April. Agricultural prices fell 2.6 per cent in the second quarter as food commodities, particularly edible oils and cereals, fell sharply, reflecting further improvements in supply conditions and unaffected by adverse weather and El Niño concerns in North America. The World Bank predicts that agricultural prices this year will be an average of 11% lower than in 2014, down from the 9% forecast in April. In this report, the World Bank makes a thematic assessment of the role of China and India in global commodity consumption. Demand from China and India (to a lesser extent) has significantly increased global demand for metals and energy, especially coal, over the past two decades, but has had a small impact on food commodities, the report said. Among them, China's metal and coal consumption has increased to about 50% of global consumption, while India's metal and coal consumption accounts for 3% and 9% respectively. These two consumption patterns reflect the different growth patterns of China and India. And commodity consumption structure. 2015-07-24 15:39 | Author: Lian Jun | Source: China Economic Net-Economic Daily
-
Thailand's drought affects food production~ ~ Thailand faces drought, affecting agriculture production Tuesday, 14 July 2015 BANGKOK: Thailand is facing a drought across the country, particularly in the Chao Phaya Basin that has affected its agricultural production. However, water supply to industrial estates was not affected as they have their own supply, Gen. Anupong Paojinda, Minister of Interior told a news conference after the Cabinet meeting here on Tuesday. The Chao Phaya basin, which included four dams from the lower north until the central region, were severely affected due to the prolonged drought following the El-Nino effect. Gen. Anupong said farmers in the agricultural cultivation areas affected by the drought had been asked not to pump water from canals into their farmlands to ensure adequate water for domestic consumption. “The government will not take any legal action against errant farmers, but we will ask them to help by not diverting water from canals to their farmlands," he said. He said the Metropolitan Waterworks Authority and the Provincial Waterworks Authority had ensured that there would be no problem of water consumption until end of August. Meanwhile, Pitipong Puengboon Na Ayuttaya, Minister of Agriculture and Cooperatives, said the drought effect would last until next year, affecting crops in the Chao Phaya basin. Hence, some farmlands will not be able to do triple cropping of padi cultivation that they usually do, he added. - Bernama
-
Genetically Modified Food: How to Make Salmon 'Vegan"~ ~ Something fishy How to make farmed salmon into vegetarians Jul 11th 2015 | From the print edition THOSE who fret about overfishing and those who fret about genetically modified (GM) food are often one and the same. Such people will soon be impaled on the horns of a dilemma if Johnathan Napier of Rothamsted Research, an agricultural establishment in southern England, has his way. As he and his colleagues describe this week in Metabolic Engineering Communications, they are working on technology that could reduce demand for wild-caught fish considerably. It will do so, though, by feeding farmed fish with GM chow. Apart from the fact that they taste good, oily fish are also desirable because they are healthy fare. There are many things you can remove from your diet in order to improve cardiovascular fitness, but few that you can add. However DHA and EPA-two molecules often referred to as fish oils-buck this trend. They are known to lower blood pressure, to reduce the risk of heart arrhythmia and to slow the growth of fatty plaques that block arteries. Fish do not, though, actually make fish oils. They get them from their food. The synthesis is done by single-celled algae and the molecules then pass up the food chain to small, herbivorous fish and thence to large, carnivorous ones. For this reason, although it would be perfectly possible to feed farmed fish such as salmon on food grown on land, in practice they get healthy helpings of wild-caught species such as capelin and anchovies (pictured) that are not in great demand as human food, in order to boost their DHA and EPA levels. About 10% of what is pulled out of the ocean by fishing boats ends up this way. Dr Napier's idea was to take an oil-generating plant (he chose Camelina sativa, a cousin of rape), add a few pertinent genes from creatures that make DHA and EPA naturally, and see what happened. It sounds easy. In fact, it proved quite hard. But after several false starts he and his team came up with the magic formula: a fatty-acid-elongase gene from a waterborne moss called Physcomitrella patens, a fatty-acid-desaturase gene from Emiliana huxleyi, a planktonic alga, and so on, all put together as a single DNA package and delivered by a messenger called Rhizobium radiobacter, a bacterium that is able to inject bits of its DNA into plant cells. Tests in greenhouses went well, so last year the researchers planted some modified Camelina outdoors. Despite the drought in June and July, and the torrential August rains that followed, yields of DHA and EPA from these field crops were as good as those from the greenhouses. There seems no reason but prejudice, therefore, why the modified Camelina (a species picked in part because it cannot accidentally cross-fertilise with existing commercial oil-seeds) should not be grown on a much wider scale. Whether it would succeed, were that done, would depend on an environment at least as ruthless as that of the natural world-the marketplace. But the new crop should be cheap and can plausibly brand itself as environmentally friendly. Indeed, it may actually be healthier than the existing way of feeding farmed fish because, unfortunately for the animal at the end of this particular food chain (ie, Homo sapiens), DHA and EPA are not the only things concentrated by each step of the trophic journey. Heavy metals such as mercury also come along for the ride. The risks these metals pose can be exaggerated. You have to eat a lot of fish to be poisoned. But some people do worry-often the same people who worry about overfishing and genetic modification-and farmed fish fed the Napier way would be more or less mercury-free. Perhaps, then, it is not a dilemma that the worriers are facing. Maybe it is actually a trilemma.
-
Global Soybean Production Cut to 0.316 billion TonsAccording to the latest report released by the private analysis organization Informa, the global soybean production in 2015/16 (September to August of the following year) is expected to be 0.3161 billion tons, which is lower than the earlier forecast of 0.3191 billion tons and 0.3205 billion tons in 2014/15. The report shows that the US soybean production in 2015/16 is expected to be 0.1036 billion tons, lower than the earlier forecast of 0.1059 billion tons, and 0.108 billion tons in 2014/15. Brazil 97 million tons, lower than the earlier forecast of 97.5 million tons, 2014/15 96 million tons. India 11.3 million tons, lower than the earlier forecast of 11.5 million tons, 2014/15 9.8 million tons. Argentina's soybean production forecast for 2015/16 remains unchanged at 57 million tons and 60.5 million tons for 2014/15. China 11.9 million tons, in line with earlier forecasts, 12 million tons in 2014/15. The report also shows that the global rapeseed production in 2015/16 (June to May of the following year) is expected to be 65.8 million tons, lower than the earlier forecast of 66.9 million tons, and 71.7 million tons in 2014/15. According to the report, Canada's rapeseed production in 2015/16 is expected to be 14.2 million tons, lower than the earlier forecast of 15.1 million tons, and 15.6 million tons in 2014/15. The EU-28 rapeseed production is expected to be 22.1 million tons, up from an earlier forecast of 21.6 million tons and 24.3 million tons in 2014/15. China 14.2 million tons, in line with earlier forecasts, 14.6 million tons in 2014/15. India 6 million tons, in line with earlier forecasts, 7.1 million tons in 2014/15. Global sunflower seed production in 2015/16 (June to May of the following year) is expected to be 39.1 million tons, in line with earlier forecasts and 39.5 million tons in 2014/15. The report shows that the output of sunflower seeds in the 28 EU countries is expected to be 8.5 million tons in 2015/16, which is consistent with the earlier forecast and 8.9 million tons in 2014/15. Ukraine 9.6 million tons, lower than the earlier forecast of 10 million tons, 2014/15 10.2 million tons. Russia 9 million tons, higher than the earlier forecast of 8.5 million tons, 2014/15 8.9 million tons. Argentina 2.6 million tons, in line with earlier projections, 2.8 million tons in 2014/15. 2015/7/9 World Wide Web
-
Agriculture's biggest opportunity may be in Africa, and China is on the move~ ~ The Biggest Opportunity In Agriculture May Be In Africa, And China Is Seizing It As the world population surges to 9 billion people by 2050 and demands on the global food supply soar, the greatest opportunity for profits in agriculture may be in Africa. Seventy percent of the world's uncultivated arable land is on the continent, according to Sara Menker, the founder of Gro Intelligence, an agricultural data company with offices in New York City and Kenya. And if there is any one country that is taking advantage of the opportunity, it's China. The People's Republic has bought up about 12 million acres of land to grow grains that get shipped back to China, Menker told a packed tent of 425 entrepreneurs, investors and agriculture executives at the Forbes Reinventing America AgTech Summit in Salinas, California on Thursday. “The world doesn't know about it because these are really quiet deals," she added. “These are large-scale farming operations in sesame, wheat, corn for export to China. It doesn't really interact with the African farmer. It doesn't get traded locally. It is purely for Chinese export ." Sara Menker, founder of Gro Intelligence, speaks at the Forbes AgTech Summit in Salinas, California on July 9. Sara Menker, founder of Gro Intelligence, speaks at the Forbes AgTech Summit in Salinas, California on July 9. Photo credit: Glen Davis / Forbes The Chinese investments are not bearing fruit just yet. There may be plenty of land in Africa, but much of the rural landscape isn't connected to ports by adequate infrastructure. That means new investors on the continent, which also include governments like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, have to spend billions of dollars clearing land and building roads before they can even start farming. Private Indian agriculture companies have had even more trouble getting started, Menker said, because they don't have huge government budgets to fund infrastructure improvements. “They have been less successful because the economics are really hard to deal with in the early stages," Menker said. “You have to deploy billions of dollars from the get-go ." But the investments don't appear to be slowing down. Menker predicts that much of the world's food will eventually come from Africa. “It's really about where opportunities are for new farmland exist," she said. “You'll see a lot more commercial production shift to different parts of the world ." http://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2015/07/09/the-biggest-opportunity-in-agriculture-may-be-in-africa-and-china-is-seizing-it/
-
Why climate talks should focus on agriculture~ ~ Why climate talks need to focus on agriculture Other sectors often dominate discussions, but climate-smart farming offers potent solutions, says Frank Rijsberman. Negotiators at the Paris climate talks in December (COP 21) will focus on reaching a truly universal and legally binding agreement to drive the world's transition towards resilient, low-carbon societies and economies. This is being talked about as humanity's last chance to avoid truly disastrous effects for our planet - the floods in the Philippines and persistent drought in Thailand are just two current examples of the types of events that climate change makes more likely. In parallel, the scientific community's focus will be on using and creating practical solutions to complex climate challenges. This week, scientists are gathering in France for a conference hosted by UNESCO (the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) to debate evidence-based solutions. Agricultural scientists are getting organised to increase their involvement in such climate meetings, which the energy and transport sectors often dominate. Food systems' high sensitivity to climate is well-known - maize production, for example, could fall by a whopping 40 per cent by the end of this century. Less widely recognised is that agriculture is also a major driver of climate change. Agrifood systems - systems involved in producing, processing and transporting food - are estimated to contribute at least a quarter of global, human-caused greenhouse emissions. It is therefore hard to imagine a successful climate treaty without agrifood systems as a central element. Agricultural scientists at this week's meeting will lay the groundwork for a more 'climate smart' agriculture, and wider recognition of soil as a carbon reservoir with a major impact on the climate system. Climate-smart farming There are already good examples of agriculture turning climate smart. In Uganda, for example, prolonged drought and erratic rains threaten yields of coffee, the country's most important cash crop. And pests and diseases such as leaf miners, mealy bugs and leaf rust appear to be more common. Coffee is the main income of many farmers in the East African highlands. Research by CGIAR's International Institute of Tropical Agriculture and International Center for Tropical Agriculture has shown that areas below 1,300 metres are likely to become completely unsuitable for Arabica coffee production by the 2050s unless production systems are adapted. [1] The region stands to lose more than US$100 million in revenue every year, threatening not only national income but also the livelihoods of millions of smallholder farmers. CGIAR's scientists are addressing this concern by turning to bananas - a crop that many of the same farmers often depend on for both food and income throughout the year. Grown alongside coffee, the banana tree can offer shade and reduces the coffee crop's sensitivity to drought, hail and climate-related pests and diseases. Evidence suggests that banana-coffee intercropping can halve incidents of coffee leaf rust, and several on-farm studies in Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda have shown that it can increase incomes by more than 50 per cent. [1,2] The practice counts as climate smart because it helps the food system adapt to climate impacts, helps mitigate emissions (by reducing fertiliser use or capturing organic carbon in the soil), and protects food security (by producing more than one crop on the same land) - the 'three pillars' of climate-smart agriculture. In the past, governments, including those of Burundi and Rwanda, banned banana intercropping in favour of monocropping, in the mistaken belief that intercropping would reduce yields and incomes. And until recently, neither the public nor private sector researched this practice. CGIAR's researchers and partners are now working with authorities to recommend policy changes to at least allow intercropping, and with farmers to examine other ways to cope with higher temperatures. Turning to soils At this week's meeting, the French government, research institutes and CGIAR are also launching an initiative to scale up climate-smart agriculture with a focus on capturing carbon in the soil. Soil contains 2.6 times more carbon than the atmosphere. Plants capture carbon from the air as they grow, and this carbon-containing biomass material is then deposited and locked into the soil when the plants die and decompose. But standard agricultural practices release much of this carbon back into the air. On average, cultivated soils around the world have lost 50 to 70 per cent of their historical carbon stocks. Reversing this trend, at least partly, would shift agriculture from being part of the problem to being part of the solution. According to the French National Institute for Agricultural Research, raising carbon stocks in soil by 0.4 per cent a year would be enough to immediately compensate for global greenhouse gas emissions. Tools already exist to help contribute to this ambitious goal. They include intercropping with nitrogen-fixing plants to avoid unnecessary use of mineral fertilisers that emit greenhouse gases either when they decompose or during their manufacture; and they include growing trees (as part of agroforestry), which naturally capture a lot of carbon. No-till agriculture that causes minimum soil disturbance, therefore preserving carbon stocks, is another. Planting more cover crops, like the banana trees that shelter coffee crops, can also contribute biomass that nourishes soil. “The practice counts as climate smart because it helps the food system adapt to climate impacts, helps mitigate emissions, and protects food security - the 'three pillars' of climate-smart agriculture ." Frank Rijsberman Making our food more climate smart is part of a larger drive to properly recognise agriculture's role in adaptation to and mitigation of climate change, at COP 21 and in the climate treaty that will hopefully follow. Concrete solutions related to agrifood systems need to become part of follow-up actions such as the Green Climate Fund. Only then might the world succeed in keeping global warming within the two degree Celsius target and adapting agrifood systems to the changes that are already unavoidable. Frank Rijsberman is CEO of the CGIAR consortium. He can be contacted at @frankrijsberman References [1] Laurence Jassogne and others The impact of climate change on coffee in Uganda (Oxfam, April 2013) [2] Julia Ekong Putting banana-coffee intercropping research into action (Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, 2015)
-
Rising use of drones in agriculture~~Drone use on the rise by U.S. farmers Drone flying over field A hexacopter drone is flown by Intelligent UAS, during a drone demonstration at a farm and winery on potential use for board members of the National Corn Growers in Cordova, Md. on June 11, 2015. (AP / Alex Brandon) Mary Clare Jalonick, The Associated Press Published Monday, July 6, 2015 8:00AM EDT Last Updated Monday, July 6, 2015 12:14PM EDT CORDOVA, Md. -- Agricultural use of drones is about to take off in the U.S. after being grounded for years by the lack of federal guidelines. The small, relatively inexpensive vehicles could replace humans in a variety of ways: transmitting detailed information about crops to combines and sprayers, directing them to problem spots and cutting down on the amount of water and chemicals that a farmer needs to use in those areas. The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, a trade group, says agriculture could account for 80 per cent of all commercial drone use. Men watch iPad for drone test Mike Geske, left, from Sikeston, Mo., Bob Bowman, from DeWitt, Iowa, with Kevin Skunes, right, from Arthur, N.D., watch the display during a drone demonstration at a farm and winery on June 11, 2015 in Cordova, Md. (AP / Alex Brandon) The Federal Aviation Administration has approved more than 50 exemptions for farm-related operations since January. Companies with those exemptions say business has grown, helped by quick advances in the technology. Bret Chilcott of AgEagle, which sells unmanned aerial vehicles and the software to help operate them, says his company took its first orders last year. Now it has a backlog of several hundred orders. "Last year, users had to land their aircraft and then take the data to the computer," he says. "Now the data appears on your iPad or hand-held device a few minutes after flight ." That data could be pictures, 3-D images of plants, thermal readings of crops or animals or other observations. Information that in the past took days to collect, or could not have been collected, can be gathered now in minutes or hours. In some cases, it can be integrated with data collected from other high-tech farm machinery. "In five years, we won't have to blanket a field with chemicals," Chilcott says. Still, most farmers cannot legally fly the vehicles yet. The FAA is working on rules that would allow the drones to be used regularly for business while maintaining certain safety and privacy standards. An FAA proposal would allow flight of the vehicles as long as they weigh less than 55 pounds (24 kilograms), stay within the operator's sight and fly during the daytime, among other restrictions. Operators would have to pass an FAA test of aeronautical knowledge and a Transportation Security Administration background check. Pilots of crop dusters and other planes that operate around farms are concerned the rules do not go far enough to ensure safety. "We can't see them," says Andrew Moore of the National Agricultural Aviation Association. His group advocated for the unmanned vehicles to include tracking systems or lights to help airplanes figure out where they are, but that was not included in the proposal.
-
Rights of U.S. Poultry Farmers Threatened~ ~ U.S. poultry farmers' rights are under siege By Willie Nelson and Marcy Kaptur July 7 Willie Nelson is a musician and the president of Farm Aid. Marcy Kaptur, a Democrat, represents Ohio in the House of Representatives. As Americans, we cherish our rights to speak freely, to assemble peacefully and to address our government representatives without fear of retaliation. But for tens of thousands of America's poultry farmers, those rights are under siege by the poultry companies that control much of their lives. In May of 2010, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and then-U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder traveled to Alabama for a hearing examining abuses and anticompetitive practices in the poultry industry. Poultry farmers at this and similar events described a widespread culture of fear. Growers reported retaliation in the form of canceled contracts, substandard chicks and feed, unannounced audits, rigged prices and expensive upgrade requirements if they chose to speak publicly or to their congressional representatives, or to organize with fellow growers to defend their interests. How can this be? The story of the modern poultry industry is one of corporate consolidation, where companies such as Tyson, Perdue, Pilgrim's Pride and Koch Foods exert almost complete control over farmers. In 1977, the top four U.S. poultry processing companies had a combined 17 percent market share. By 2012, that number was 57 percent. Many areas have only one processing facility where farmers can deliver their chickens, creating localized monopolies. This lack of competition means many growers have to accept whatever terms they are offered. Poultry processors can lure new growers to the industry with promises of a lucrative investment and an easy way to make a living. In these times of rural economic decline, it's an offer many rural residents cannot refuse. But farmers cannot enter the poultry business without a contract. And to secure a contract requires an initial investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars at a minimum. Many farmers go as much as $1 million into debt to construct a vast complex of automated chicken houses that can each house tens of thousands of birds. The company may show its hand only after the grower is on the hook for these costs: a take-it-or-leave-it contract that imposes significant costs and risks on growers and limits their ability to contest the deal or negotiate a better one in the future. In such cases, everything is on the line for these growers; many have put up their homes and land as collateral on their loans. Such situations are not only exploited by the industry but also are part of its operating structure and can leave growers trapped in a cycle of debt and under the thumb of the poultry giants. The result? The Agriculture Department estimates that growers earn about 34 cents for every chicken they raise, while poultry processing companies take in about $3.23 for the same bird. Under such a consolidated system, when local farmers are trapped in debt and intimidated from speaking out, the rights of free speech and assembly seem distant. The good news is that we have laws on the books to protect these farmers. All we have to do is enforce them. In the 2008 farm bill, Congress directed the USDA to develop rules to protect farmers from retaliation and stop deceptive and anticompetitive practices by processors. The USDA did as directed, using findings from the aforementioned workshops to develop strong rules protecting poultry growers' basic rights. One of these rules prohibits industry retaliation “in response to the lawful expression, spoken or written, association, or action of a poultry grower." In other words, growers have the right to speak freely and peaceably assemble. Other provisions prohibit deceptive or anticompetitive practices. The powerful meat lobby has pressured Congress year after year to block funding to enforce these rules. Today, farmers remain vulnerable to industry retaliation, discrimination and deception. A funding bill that would allow the USDA to protect farmers from these unfair practices has started to move in Congress, but the same powerful interests that stopped it before will not be far behind. Members of Congress need to hear from their constituents on this issue immediately. The First Amendment guarantees that Congress shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech, or . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The United States was built on these freedoms and Congress has a responsibility to protect them. Yet America's poultry growers are trapped in a system that punishes them for exercising these constitutional rights. As one family farm supporter and one member of Congress - and foremost as two concerned Americans - we humbly submit that this system needs to change. Read more on this topic: How a national food policy could save millions of American lives That turkey on your plate could use some more industry competition opinions
-
Food security in Central Africa~ ~ China, Africa and Food Security David H. Shinn 07.09.15 China and Africa together constitute more than a third of the world's population. China is Africa's largest trading partner and an important source of investment and aid. As a result, the China-Africa relationship has significant implications for global food security. Neither China, with 1.4 billion people, nor the 54 countries of Africa collectively, with 1.1 billion people, are food self-sufficient. Although they both export food, they have become net food importers. The 2015 Global Food Security Index ranked 109 countries on the basis of food affordability, availability, and quality and safety. China ranked 42 on this index. Of the 32 African countries ranked, only South Africa scored higher (number 41) than China and 31 countries scored lower, most of them near the bottom of the ranking. This index suggests there is considerable room for both China and Africa to improve food security. Climate change will make even more difficult the ability of China and Africa to contribute positively to global food security. I need to underscore one note of caution in this analysis. Some of the statistics used refer to agriculture generally and do not distinguish between food crops and cash crops such as cotton, sisal, and tobacco. Challenges for China China has done a good job of maximizing food production in view of its large population, about 20 percent of the world's total, and limited farmland, about 9 percent of the world's total. The number of undernourished people in China decreased from 254 million in 1990-1992 to 158 million in 2010-2012. Agriculture accounts for 43 percent of the workforce in China. But China is approaching, if it has not already exceeded, the maximum production of food that it can obtain from its land. Total arable land and permanent cropland actually fell between 1991 and 2009. A growing population, continuing urbanization, and the effects of negative environmental practices on farmland are making it increasingly difficult for China to meet its need for food. As incomes rise in China, per capita consumption of food products also increases. Challenges for Africa Africa has the potential to increase significantly its food production. Agriculture (including non-food items) constitutes 40 percent of Africa's exports and 70-80 percent of employment. Yet African agriculture is in decline; its food production per capita decreased by 15 percent from 1960 to 2005. Africa went from being a net exporter of food in the early 1960s to a net importer in the 2000s. The number of undernourished people in Sub-Saharan Africa increased from 170 million in 1990-1992 to 234 million in 2010-2012. Theoretically, Africa could improve its food production with better technology, infrastructure, training, and agricultural inputs. For example, only 4 percent of Africa's cultivated land is currently irrigated. Most important, Africa is the location of an estimated 60 percent of the world's uncultivated land. But Africa must overcome many challenges before it can become a net food exporter. Sub-Saharan Africa has the fastest growing population in the world and the most rapid rate of urbanization. Each year these demographic facts complicate Africa's ability to achieve food self-sufficiency, not to mention a food export capacity. Most African countries have serious land tenure issues that have stymied the development of agricultural projects. Many African countries must improve their agricultural policies, eliminate trade barriers among African countries, reduce corruption, and/or end conflict before they can reasonably expect to increase food production. Due to the absence of adequate water sources, irrigation is not an option in many areas; it is also expensive and comes with environmental downsides. Even Africa's large tracts of uncultivated land need to be considered with great care. By cultivating these lands, will forested carbon sinks be eliminated? Is the soil truly productive or largely worn out? Does it receive reliable rainfall? By farming these virgin lands will farmers face serious diseases? Will people have to be forcefully removed from the land before it can be farmed efficiently? Is the uncultivated land located in a conflict zone? Having 60 percent of the world's uncultivated land is not as meaningful upon closer examination. Climate Change And then there is the wild card of climate change facing both China and Africa (and the rest of the agriculturally productive world). I will focus on climate change in Africa, which I know better. The experts say that the impact of climate change on Africa will be greater than on most other global regions and it will be more negative than positive. In most of Africa, temperatures are already close to, and sometimes exceed, the optimum with regard to crop growth and yield. Global warming has occurred across Africa and it is certain that temperatures will continue to rise, posing increasing constraints on agricultural production and creating a variety of other challenges. Near-term increases in annual mean temperatures are expected to be higher in the tropics and sub-tropics of Africa than in the mid-latitudes. By the 2030s, Africa will experience a temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This is expected to result in a higher risk of drought in Southern, Central, and West Africa but a decreased risk in East Africa. Between 2030 and 2050, crop yields in North Africa may decrease by up to 30 percent and there will be severe implications for farmers' livelihoods and regional food security. By the 2030s, crop growing in mixed rain-fed, arid-semiarid regions will experience failure about one in four years as compared to about one in five years today. Some crops will experience no yield decrease while others such as sorghum face significant negative impacts in the western Sahel and Southern Africa. By 2050, a drying trend in Southern Africa will accompany increased frequency and severity of severe storms, drought, and flooding. Increasing temperatures will result in reduced yields of all major food crops and a loss of area that is currently suitable for growing these crops. Greater variability in rainfall is expected, which will increase the risks for dry land farming. In fact, increased rainfall variability may be the biggest challenge farmers confront as they tend not to be risk takers and are reluctant to invest their meager capital in a crop that has little predictability. The intensity of storms and poor water infiltration will result in the inability of soils in many areas to absorb extreme rainfall. There will be poor groundwater recharge in areas where rainfall decreases or becomes more variable. Farming systems will move progressively towards the margins. Semiarid croplands may become rangelands and semiarid zones may turn into deserts. Fish stocks will seek colder water. Pastoralists will move livestock to greener pastures. By 2050, climate change will result in higher food prices for all staple crops such as maize, rice, and wheat. Higher prices may diminish the demand for food, hence resulting in lower caloric intake. Some studies have already found a correlation in Africa between warmer temperatures and increase in conflict, although this factor is less important than many other social and economic conditions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded with medium confidence in 2014 that “climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts in the form of civil war and inter-group violence by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks." Early agricultural adaptation policies by governments and the private sector could, however, do much to mitigate the downsides of climate change. China and Africa would not seem to have much in common in efforts to combat global warming and climate change. China is heavily industrialized and now accounts for about 30 percent of global CO2 emissions, the highest percentage for any country. Africa's 54 countries are mostly agricultural and account for less than 4 percent of global CO2 emissions; it tends to function as a carbon sink. In spite of these differences, the United Nations Environment Programme, China, and Africa created in 2008 a cooperative effort to enhance the capacity of African countries to address environmental challenges in the context of climate change through technology transfer, demonstration projects, and capacity building programs. It is in China's interest to align its climate change policy with developing countries; the question is whether China and Africa share the same climate change policies. China-Africa Agricultural Relationship The China-Africa agricultural relationship includes both food and non-food products; China's interests seem to be about equally divided between the two categories. The engagement takes place in the form of China's agricultural aid projects in Africa, Chinese investment in agricultural enterprises that are intended to make a profit, and China-Africa trade in agricultural products. China's policy message to Africa is that Chinese agriculture has been successful through a combination of market reforms, trade, and foreign direct investment. China believes it has useful lessons for Africa and if these lessons can be applied in African countries, there will be an increase in food production that will benefit the global community, including China. Most of the experts who have looked at this relationship have concluded that so far China is not making a special effort to obtain long-term leases on large tracts of land in Africa, the so-called “land grab” accusation. The signals from China on this controversial issue have not, however, always been consistent. In 2007, the head of China's Export Import Bank declared that his institution would be prepared to provide financial assistance to Chinese farmers to settle in Africa. Although the government of China quickly distanced itself from this assertion, other Chinese officials subsequently alluded to this possibility. Because of objections from Africans to the concept of huge foreign controlled agricultural projects, especially those with large numbers of non-African farmers, China's official policy continues to steer away from this idea. China's Agricultural Aid to Africa Agriculture has been a mainstay of the China-Africa aid relationship. Between 1960 and 2010, China completed 220 agricultural aid projects in Africa. In the 1950s, China relied heavily on the development of agricultural cooperatives that emphasized new techniques and better agricultural inputs. Large state farms were also a common feature of China's program. China's projects were not always successful and often lacked an adequate understanding of African agricultural conditions and traditions. At the end of the 1970s, China began to rely on a contract system that used Chinese companies to manage its agricultural projects. This market-oriented aid system subsequently led to agricultural investment projects in Africa by Chinese companies. In the 21st century, China launched a multi-faceted program that included agricultural demonstration centers, sending of agricultural technicians and experts, holding of training courses, and participation in the Food and Agriculture Organization's action programs on food security. The technology demonstration center has become the dominant feature of China's agricultural aid program to Africa, combined with the sending of experts. Since 2006, China has set up 15 centers and plans to establish another 7. While it is too soon to assess the contribution of the centers, the initial reports are mixed. A study of the centers in Mozambique and Benin found that the research and training offered did not respond to the demand in the host country but more to the strategy of the Chinese companies in charge of the center. In addition, the centers did not work in an integrated way with the national agricultural research efforts of the two countries. Current Chinese agricultural aid includes infrastructure construction, food production, livestock breeding, technology exchange, scholarships, and the storage and transport of agricultural products. Chinese banks also finance agricultural development projects. From 2010 to 2012, 52 percent of China's global foreign assistance went to Africa, but only 2 percent was devoted to agricultural projects. It is impossible to measure the overall success of these aid projects, but China has improved its agricultural aid programs as it learns from its successes and failures. Chinese Agricultural Investment in Africa Direct investment in agriculture has not yet become an important part of China's strategy in Africa. Many of the media reports on Chinese land leases in Africa are exaggerated or inaccurate; on the other hand, China has been more active in agricultural investment in Asia and Latin America. As of 2013, China approved almost 2,400 large and medium-sized investments in Africa for Chinese companies. Only 86 of these investments in 27 African countries were specifically related to farming. They included food crops, cash crops, and animal husbandry but not all of these proposals materialized. While China's direct investment in African agriculture grew from $30 million in 2009 to $84 million in 2012, it constituted only about 3 percent of China's total direct investment in Africa. On those occasions when Chinese companies obtained leases for food production in Africa, there is little evidence that the goal is to grow food for export to China. Most of the food production meets local and regional demand. Some of the smaller land leases, especially vegetable gardens, are designed to supply a component of the Chinese community in Africa. Solid field work on Chinese land leases in Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Mozambique offers useful insights on this controversial subject. Since 2008, the Ethiopian government has licensed 32 Chinese agricultural investments, of which 18 are small vegetable farms. Four are edible oil and processing operations, three sugar cane production and processing, three pig farms, two poultry farms, one mushroom farm, and one rubber plantation. Most of the vegetable, pig, and poultry farms are designed to supply local Chinese and international restaurants/hotels. The only large proposal among the 32 licensed by Ethiopia is a 33,000 hectare palm oil plantation and a 30,000 hectare rubber plantation. There is no indication that either of these large projects has moved forward. There are more licensed agricultural investments in Ethiopia by companies from the United States, Ethiopian diaspora, Europe, Israel, or Saudi Arabia than from China. The Democratic Republic of Congo offers some of the most discussed Chinese “land grabs” in Africa. In 2007, ZTE Agribusiness signed an agreement with the government of the DRC to develop 100,000 hectares for a palm oil plantation. This announcement led to numerous press reports of a much exaggerated project. Poor road infrastructure forced ZTE to scale back the 100,000 hectare project to several smaller ones. As a result, it now has a 200 hectare oil palm plant nursery and two additional farms of 246 hectares and 600 hectares. The China Overseas Engineering Group Company applied for 100,000 hectares of farmland in the DRC. In 2009, after failing to get approval from the DRC's Ministry of Agriculture, it abandoned the proposal. The Hubei Dadi International Corporation also encountered land problems as it tried to implement a project. It eventually abandoned a 300 hectare farm and a much smaller vegetable and pig farm due to land disputes. The Hubei Dadi International Corporation changed its business model from farming to agro-processing and trading of agricultural machinery. Finally, reports of Chinese land leases in Mozambique have resulted in confusion, misinformation, and legitimate concerns. China Grain and Oil Group agreed to invest $12 million in a soybean farm. The company brought seedlings and machinery from China that were not suitable for local conditions and had to abandon the project. ACE Agriculture and Aquaculture has a 600 hectare rice farm that has been plagued by an inadequate irrigation system. China-Africa Cotton Mozambique adopted a business model that provides inputs and training to local farmers in return for the purchase of raw cotton. In this manner, it avoids the problems of leasing land. The largest and most controversial project is being implemented by Wanbao Africa Agriculture Development Limited, a private Chinese company, which received a concession for 20,000 hectares of farmland. As of 2014, the company was growing rice on about 6,000 hectares and maize on 1,000 hectares. Wanbao provides the agricultural inputs and trains Mozambican farmers in Chinese techniques. It also subcontracts its land to four Chinese state-owned agribusiness companies. In 2013, the managers of the project faced a protest by about 400 Mozambican farmers who claimed they had been deprived of their land. Wanbao has plans for significant additional agricultural investments. Chinese investments in Mozambique's agricultural sector are increasing and diversifying. China-Africa Trade in Agricultural Products While China has been Africa's largest trading partner since 2009, agricultural products have not been a significant part of the trade in either direction. From 2009 to 2012, China's agricultural exports to Africa grew from $1.6 billion to $2.5 billion. During the same time, China's agricultural imports from Africa grew from $1.2 billion to $2.9 billion. China's agricultural imports from Africa constitute about 2.5 percent of China's total agricultural imports and only about 1.5 percent of its total food imports, the single most important item being sesame from Ethiopia. Africa's agricultural exports to China constitute about 3 percent of Africa's total agricultural exports and have the lowest compound annual growth rate of any trade category with China. China's average most-favored-nation tariffs on agricultural goods are a relatively high 22.5 percent, which discourages imports, although China allows some agricultural products from Africa's poorest countries to enter duty free. China is increasing its food imports from Africa, but most of the agricultural imports remain cash crops such as cotton and tobacco. Most of China's agricultural exports to Africa are food products. In fact, China exports more food to Africa than it imports from Africa. China imports most of its agricultural products from the United States, Brazil, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Argentina. China's agricultural exports go primarily to Japan, Hong Kong, the United States, South Korea, Vietnam, and Malaysia. Africa is not currently a significant source of food for China or recipient of food from China. The Future of China-Africa Agricultural Relations The fact that China does not now depend on Africa in any meaningful way for food does not mean this will continue to be the case. China increasingly will require more food imports as land is lost to development, water shortages become more severe, arable land quality deteriorates for environmental reasons and due to climate change, and more Chinese move into the middle class. Chinese leaders are not optimistic the country will be able to achieve additional growth in the agricultural sector. China's $650 billion sovereign wealth fund, the China Investment Corporation (CIC), is already shifting its focus to invest in agriculture and global food supplies in a strategic move that reflects the priorities of the country's new leadership. The head of CIC announced in 2014 that the fund will pay particular attention to agricultural sectors such as irrigation, land transformation, and animal feed production that have been neglected by large institutional investors. If Africa becomes a more efficient producer of food and China's food demands continue to outstrip domestic supply, China can be expected to turn increasingly to Africa to meet its demand just as any other food deficit nation would do. If Africa becomes food self-sufficient and develops an export capacity, Africans control the farmland, and African farmers raise the crops, food exports to China should not raise any concerns. Chinese capital investment in such circumstances could make a positive contribution to global food supply and, at the same time, directly benefit Chinese consumers. If, however, Africa remains a food deficit region, exporting significant quantities of food to China grown on Chinese-financed investment projects will raise serious questions. This will be the case even if Africa earns foreign exchange from the projects that it could use to purchase food. Likewise, if China sends significant numbers of Chinese farmers to Africa to operate its investments for growing food or cash crops, the African reaction will likely be highly negative. Both China and Africa face important agricultural policy choices. This article is adapted from a lecture originally delivered at Yale University.
-
OECD and FAO forecast higher food production and low food prices in the future~~OECD - FAO expect stronger production, lower prices over coming decade Rising incomes in developing world spurring demand for food, dietary changes Strong harvests should lead food prices lower. A shopper picks fruit in a Barcelona market. 1 July 2015, Paris - Strong crop yields, higher productivity and slower growth in global demand should contribute to a gradual decline in real prices for agricultural products over the coming decade, but nonetheless, prices will likely remain at levels above those in the early-2000s, according to the latest Agricultural Outlook report produced by the OECD and FAO. Lower oil prices will contribute to lower food prices, by pushing energy and fertilizer costs down, and removing incentives for the production of first-generation biofuels made from food crops .. The OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2015-2024 projects that agricultural trade will increase more slowly than in the previous decade, while its share of global production and consumption will be stable. The Outlook points to further concentration of agricultural commodity exports among a few exporting countries, coupled with a dispersion of imports over an ever-larger number of countries - trends that make it imperative to ensure the smooth functioning of international markets. The growing role of a relatively small group of countries in supplying global markets with key commodities could increase market risks, including those associated with natural disasters or the use of disruptive trade measures. Major changes in demand are expected in developing countries, where population growth, rising per capita incomes and urbanization will increase demand for food, according to the report. Rising incomes will prompt consumers to continue diversifying their diets, notably by increasing their consumption of animal protein relative to starches. As a result, the prices of meat and dairy products are expected to be high relative to crop prices. Among crops, the prices of coarse grains and oilseeds, used for animal feed, should rise relative to the prices of food staples. Presenting the joint report in Paris, OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría said: "The outlook for global agriculture is calmer than it has been in recent years, but there is no room for complacency, as we cannot rule out the risk of new price spikes in the coming years ". "Governments should take advantage of the current conditions to concentrate on developing policies that raise productivity, boost innovation, better manage risk and ensure that robust agriculture systems benefit consumers and farmers alike," Mr Gurría said. Calling the Outlook's projection that developing countries are likely to continue to improve the caloric intake of their populations "good news," FAO Director-General José Graziano Silva also noted that least-developed countries "remain significantly behind advanced economies; this is cause for concern, as it means hunger in these countries could persist ." "And malnutrition is an issue: developing countries now have to face problems of overweight, obesity and other diet-related non-communicable diseases," he added. Commodity Highlights The build-up of high cereal stocks over the past two years, combined with low oil prices, should lead to a further weakening of cereal prices in the short term. Slowly rising production costs and sustained demand should strengthen prices again over the medium term. Strong demand for protein meal will drive further expansion of oilseed production, according to the report. This should result in meal being very important in the overall profitability of oilseeds, and would favour further expansion of soybean production, especially in Brazil. Higher sugar demand in developing countries should help prices recover from low levels, leading to further investment in the sector. The market outcome will depend on the profitability of sugar versus ethanol in Brazil, the globe's leading producer, and could remain volatile as a result of the sugar production cycle in some key Asian sugar-producing countries. Meat output is expected to respond to an improvement in margins, with lower feed grain prices set to restore profitability to a sector that has been operating in an environment of particularly high and volatile feed costs for most of the past decade. Worldwide fisheries production is projected to expand by almost 20 percent by 2024. Aquaculture is expected to surpass total capture fisheries in 2023. Exports of dairy products are projected to further concentrate among four prime sources: New Zealand, the European Union, the United States and Australia, where opportunities for domestic demand growth are limited. Cotton prices should be suppressed in the short term by the drawdown of large stocks in China, but they are projected to recover and stay relatively stable for the remainder of the outlook period. By 2024, both real and nominal prices are expected to remain below the levels reached in 2012-14. Ethanol and biodiesel use is expected to grow at a slower pace over the next decade. The level of production is projected to be dependent on policies in major producing countries. At lower oil prices, trade in biofuels should remain small as a share of global production. Outlook for Brazil This year's Outlook contains a special focus on Brazil, which is poised to capture most of the trade expansion to be generated by import demand growth, particularly from Asia. Brazilian agricultural growth is projected to be driven by continued improvements in productivity, with higher crop yields, some conversion of pasture to cropland and more intensive livestock production. Structural reforms and a reorientation of support towards productivity enhancing investments, for example in infrastructure, could foster these opportunities, as could trade agreements that improve access to foreign markets. Brazil has made outstanding progress in eliminating hunger and reducing poverty. Prospects for further reductions in poverty through agricultural development are growing, for producers of some food crops as well as producers of higher-value products such as coffee, horticulture and tropical fruits. The Outlook says that Brazil's projected agricultural growth can be achieved sustainably. While additional supply will continue to come more from productivity gains than area increases, pressure on natural resources can be alleviated by environmental and conservation initiatives, including support for sustainable cultivation practices, the conversion of natural and degraded cropland to pasture and the integration of crop and livestock systems.