Farm406

Farm406 Spring 2018 Iss 5

Issue link: https://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/958929

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 33 of 59

farm406 34 wo words define Montana's 2017 production landscape: moisture underperformance. In fact, the June– August period was the ninth driest on record since 1900 for much of Montana, and the second driest in northeast Montana and northwest North Dakota. And while most attention has focused on the impacts on wheat and cattle markets, Montana and North Dakota pulse producers were not spared. USDA data indicates that this year's pea and lentil yields in the two states were 27–52% lower than those in 2016, and 18–46% lower relative to a ten-year average. Overall, production of pulse crops decreased by 38–54% relative to 2016. Perhaps one small bright spot in the hot and hazy 2017 pulse market was the slight increase in both lentil and pea prices around the harvest period, an almost certain market reaction to anticipated supply reductions. This led to a cautious optimism that a return to normal production conditions in 2018 and relative stability in pulse prices throughout the marketing year could aid farm businesses recovery after a disastrous 2017. But then came the curveball from India. On November 8, 2017, India imposed a 50% tariff on all pea imports. Then, on December 21, 2017, India further imposed 30% import tariffs on lentils and chickpeas. Both sets of market restrictions were largely unexpected, but are expected to have major impacts on the state of pulse markets in 2018 because India is by far the largest importer of U.S. and Canadian pulse crops. For example, data from the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service indicate that over the past five years, the U.S. exported nearly 40% of its pea crop, 34% of its lentils, and 26% of its chickpeas to Asian countries (primarily India). Similarly, nearly 28% of Canada's pulse crop—which is significantly larger than that of the United States—was exported to India. After a Tough Year, Pulse Markets Heading into Uncertain Times By Anton Bekkermen T Figure 1 Notes: Data are from the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. Figure constructed by author.

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Farm406 - Farm406 Spring 2018 Iss 5