Editor’s note: This is the third in a series of columns exploring how agriculture supply-and-demand fundamentals function differently than those of other businesses. In describing the model we use to analyze agricultural policies, the two previous columns examined the responsiveness of the production of grains, oilseeds, and fibres to changes in prices. We saw that
Crop prices and consumer food demand
Neither the production nor the consumption side of the total food supply equation responds quickly to price decreases
Adjusting production to lower prices is a slow process in crop agriculture
Aggregate crop production tends to remain steady in the face of lower prices, essentially locking in low prices for long periods of time
There are several reasons why farmers do not respond in textbook fashion to a reduction in prices by making a proportional reduction in production. Farmers must begin planning for a given crop at least two years before the marketing year for that crop comes to a close. Most of these decisions have to be made
The nature of agricultural supply
Farmers don’t respond to supply-and-demand signals in the same way as other business operators
As we lay out the social and economic model that provides the foundation for our analysis of agricultural policy in its myriad forms, we begin by looking at the economic characteristics of agriculture, particularly the areas where agriculture does not operate in the same ways as other businesses and industries with which most people are
Agricultural interests object to healthy eating recommendations
Thomas Vilsack, secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Sylvia Burwell, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) appeared before the House Agriculture Committee on Oct. 7 to respond to criticism of the “Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee” by members of the agriculture committee. Chief
Selective use of science won’t sell GMOs
Transparency is key to gaining credibility with the public
When it comes to issues like GMOs, antibiotic residues on meat, global warming, water pollution, and pesticide use and its residuals, participants on one or both sides of the issue make an appeal to science to bolster their position. Witness the recent article in the New York Times titled, “Food Industry Enlisted Academics in GMO
Considering the true cost of agricultural production systems
Externalizing the cost of production is becoming less acceptable to society
California is in the midst of a multi-year drought that has reduced the snowpack and rains that fill the reservoirs and irrigation canals that provide water for the cities of the state as well as agricultural production. The result is lower allocations and higher prices for all water users including agriculture. Some farmers have responded
Outright repeal of COOL defies consumer sentiment
It was how the meat-packing industry applied the law that caused the negative effects on imports
The fate of the U.S. COOL (country-of-origin labelling) program for beef, pork, and poultry hangs in the balance as Congress goes on its Independence Day recess. Given the May 18, 2015 WTO (World Trade Organization) ruling against COOL, the threat of $3 billion in retaliatory tariffs being imposed on U.S. products by Canada and Mexico,
Fight the video cameras with video cameras: Temple Grandin
Famed animal welfare advocate says well-run operations can welcome public scrutiny
Fixing the slaughter plants was easy,” Temple Grandin told the 2015 annual meeting of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). “But now I see problems that we are going to have to fix at the farm: lame dairy cows, emaciated dairy cows because somebody let them go too long, animal production to the point we
Analyzing the Smithfield deal
The Chinese meat products firm Shuanghui International has announced its acquisition of Smithfield Foods, which controls 26 per cent of U.S. pork-processing capacity and 15 per cent of U.S. pork production. The value of the transaction is estimated by Smithfield to be US$7.1 billion. A number of questions began to run through our heads. Good
COOL: Some are for it, some are not
More than a decade after mandatory country-of-origin labelling (COOL) was first included in the Farm Bill, the debate continues. We’ve examined a legal opinion by the legal firm Stewart and Stewart (S&S) — paid for by the National Farmers Union, the United States Cattleman’s Association, the Food and Water Watch, and Public Citizen’s Global Trade
Cyber-Savvy Farmer
