Potential Aluminum and Steel Tariffs Bring Angst to Farm Country

Market Intel / March 5, 2018

Credit: Pixabay/CC0 1.0 

Stop us if you’re heard this one before – a farmer, a heavy construction equipment operator and a vegetable canning company worker walk into a Senator’s office concerned about the impact potential tariffs on aluminum and steel imports would have on their business. This isn’t the setup to a bad joke; it’s what occurring today in Washington, D.C., after a March 1 announcement by the administration that tariffs of 25 percent and 10 percent may be applied to imports of steel and aluminum, respectively. The contractor is concerned because the price of steel impacts the cost of completing a construction project such as a bridge or high-rise condominium. The aluminum canning plant worker is concerned because the additional cost of aluminum could result in an increase in the cost of canned vegetables to customers. The farmer, who exports a large share of agricultural production to customers all over the world, is concerned that the foreign governments affected by the steel and aluminum tariffs will retaliate by increasing import tariffs on U.S. agricultural goods, making U.S.-sourced foods less competitive.

All of the visitors to the senator’s office make good points. However, here we focus on the farmer. According to industry publications, many of America’s farmers’ top international customers are also top producers of aluminum and steel. Table 1, with data provided from the U.S. Geological Survey, lists the top aluminum producing countries in 2016 and 2017. Table 2, with data from worldsteel.org lists the top steel producing countries in the same years. Followers of U.S. agricultural trade will notice several important trading partners among the list.

Table 1. World Smelter Production
Country 2016 2017
China 31,900 32,600
Russia 3,560 3,600
Canada 3,210 3,210
India 2,720 3,200
United Arab Emirates 2,500 2,600
Autralia 1,630 1,490
Norway 1,220 1,220
Bahrain 971 960
Iceland 855 870
Brazil 793 800
Malaysia 620 760
United States 841 740
Other Countries 8,100 7,900
World Total 50,820 52,050
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2018
Table 2. Top 10 Steel-Producing Countries
Country 2016 2017
China 786.9 831.7
Japan 104.8 104.7
India 95.5 101.4
United States 78.5 81.6
Russia 70.5 71.3
South Korea 68.6 71.1
Germany 42.1 43.6
Turkey 33.2 37.5
Brazil 31.3 34.4
Italy 23.4 24.0
Source: worldsteel.org

A review of trade data from USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service reveals that, the farmer in the senator’s office has the right to be concerned. Overall, 33 percent of U.S. agricultural exports in 2017 went to the top aluminum-producing countries. Even more stark, 39 percent of U.S. agricultural exports in 2017 went to the top steel-producing countries. Figures 1 and 2 show that for many states the stakes are even higher.

Sometimes, however, the country that produces the most of a particular item isn't as important as the country that produces a specific type of product, closer. A review of U.S. steel and aluminum  imports reveals that the U.S. imports a large quality of steel and aluminum from a number of countries that are not global top producers. The two that have garnered the most attention are Canada and Mexico. In 2017, Canada was far and away the largest exporter of both steel and aluminum to the United States. Mexico was a top five exporter of both aluminum and steel. But it doesn't stop there - both Japan and Taiwan, important market for U.S. agricultural exports were also among the list of the top ten exporters of steel in 2017. What does this all mean? It means that the share of U.S. agricultural exports that could potentially be subject to retaliation grows dramatically. About 70 percent of U.S. agricultural exports in 2017 went to countries that are top steel exporters to the U.S. Slightly lower, but still dramatic, more than 50 percent of U.S. agricultural exports in the same year went to countries that are top aluminum exporters to the U.S. Figures 3 and 4 highlight the potential impact at the state level.

The farmer is concerned because a lot of his business is on the line. And as the Farmers for Free Trade pointed out on Thursday, 

“The agriculture sector knows from experience that our ag exports are the first to be hit by retaliation. Whether it's our chickens in retaliation for tariffs on Chinese tires, or U.S. apples and wine exports as a result of a Mexican trucking dispute, historically, agriculture always has the biggest target on its back.”

In fact, FFT put together a report in February that outlined how agriculture is targeted in trade disputes. Details on what the White House has in mind are expected later this week. But for now, the farmer, the construction worker and the canning plant worker wait with baited breath.

Veronica Nigh
(202) 406-3622

Share This Article

Credit: hurdiantonia0 / CC0  

When agricultural disasters occur, the federal government has traditionally responded in one of two ways: ad-hoc disaster payments or assistance in purchasing federal crop insurance. For nearly two decades the preferred delivery mechanism for a majority of agricultural products has been the federal crop insurance program. Ad-hoc payments do still occur, especially for commodities not widely covered by crop insurance. Such was the case in 2018 following devastating hurricanes, droughts, floods and wildfires across parts of the U.S. in 2017. However, as work on the 2018 farm bill ramps up, it’s appropriate to review the benefits of federal crop insurance programs compared to ad-hoc disaster payments. Today’s article compares the farm safety net protection provided by crop insurance to ad-hoc disaster payments, and reveals a negative correlation between the need for ad-hoc disaster assistance and the use of crop insurance tools.

Full Article
Credit: iStockPhoto 

Every year USDA’s Risk Management Agency recalibrates crop revenue protection insurance policies to reflect updated market expectations of prices, price risk and revenue per acre. The crop insurance prices are determined by averaging Chicago Board of Trade (corn and soybeans) and Intercontinental Exchange (cotton) futures contract settlement prices during a month-long price discovery period. At the end of February USDA’s Risk Management Agency showed ‘in discovery’ spring prices for corn, cotton and soybeans at $3.96 per bushel, 76 cents per pound and $10.16 per bushel, respectively.

Full Article