Heavens be praised-relief is at hand! The USDA-APHIS will soon have available 2025 calendars with tips on biosecurity. This is a self-delusional exercise in rearranging deck-chairs on the Titanic.

For the edification of those deciding on policy we have lost 37 million hens in 2024 in addition to approximately 3 million turkeys and 5 million broilers with their breeders. It is evident that H5N1 HPAI is endemic in the U.S., is disseminated seasonally by millions of migratory birds and is spread over short distances by the aerogenous route. Power ventilated egg-production complexes are therefore highly vulnerable. Not even the most extreme and efficient structural and operational biosecurity will provide absolute protection in high-risk areas.

The USDA-APHIS has failed stakeholders in the egg and turkey industries who have experienced unprecedented losses and the consumers paying $6 and more per dozen for conventional eggs.  We have not received a report from APHIS based on sound epidemiologic studies since backdated 2023 superficial publications on risk factors in turkey and layer flocks relating to the 2022 phase of the ongoing epornitic.

Segments of he industry need vaccination now! Turkeys, replacement pullets and even mature laying flocks should be protected in high-risk areas. Discussion with APHIS personnel confirms a determination to continue a policy of attempting to eradicate endemic HPAI by  “stamping out” infected flocks ad seriatum. Results show this to be a Sisyphean approach. The reluctance to apply limited strategic vaccination is difficult to comprehend. This may be attributed to:-

• An institutional reluctance to admit that past policy and decisions were wrong
• Overt pressure by a segment of the industry to preserve exports at the expense of consumers and producers of eggs, ducks and turkeys
• A prevailing APHIS mindset that vaccination would be more expensive than depopulation. If this is the case then APHIS should make public their scientific and economic studies. We can then all evaluate the logic and assumptions underlying this doubtful justification to withhold vaccination as an adjunct to existing control measures
• And then it may be that some in positions of authority believe that the infection will just bun out as it did in 2015 albeit with a different strain

The 600 lb. gorilla in the corner is the possibility of a series of additional mutations in circulating H5N1 to become more zoonotic and pathogenic or even contagious as feared by virologists and epidemiologists worldwide. This is acknowledged to be a rare possibility but with extreme consequences. The more susceptible two to four million complexes we have and the inevitability of exposure, the greater will be the possibility of a more zoonotic strain emerging, especially with unprotected and susceptible workers involved in depopulation. Adaptation to mammals with contagion was evident in marine mammals along the Pacific littoral and in Antarctica---and then there have been 675 confirmed dairy herds in California.

This is wake-up time, sophistry and posturing have the makings of a slow-motion train wreck. The infection is not controlled. APHIS should accept reality and recognize the zoonotic potential of H5N1 considered by the WHO as the most likely emerging pandemic strain of human influenza.

The industry needs limited, strategic and controlled flock immunization applying commercially available vaccines now.  France has shown this approach to be feasible and effective.

Experiments conducted at the Scripps Research Institute funded by the National Institute of Health demonstrated the role of the Q226L mutation coding for viral hemagglutinin. The gene allows H5N1 virus to attach to receptors on cells lining the human respiratory tract.  The study was conducted on H5N1 A/Texas/37/2024 isolated from the first patient infected with the virus circulating in a dairy herd. Presence of the Q226L mutation does not necessarily represent the potential for human-to-human transmission (contagion) as this capability would require additional mutations. 

The Scripps finding is consistent with warnings expressed by virologists and epidemiologists that control of H5N1 infection in poultry and dairy herds should be intensified using all appropriate and available modalities.  The APHIS reliance on “stamping out” infections as they are diagnosed is clearly not working. This is evidenced by the extended duration of the current epornitic that has persisted seasonally since 2022 linked to the migration of waterfowl serving as reservoirs of the virus. 

Attempting to eradicate a seasonally and regionally endemic disease is a futile exercise.  Reliance on biosecurity is inadequate as a protective measure given the evident aerogenous spread of infection.  The alarming increase in the incidence rate of bovine influenza-H5N1 in dairy herds especially in the Central Valley of California attests to the impotence of control measures attributed to deficiencies in biosecurity. EGG-NEWS has also commented on the inadequate protection of workers with evident susceptibility to infection of epithelial cells of the conjunctiva and mucosa of the upper respiratory tract.

The impact of HPAI on the egg production segment extends beyond expenditure on control by APHIS and the extensive losses experienced by flock owners. Consumers now bear the brunt of the disease through escalation in the price of eggs.  In 2022, it is estimated that with an average $2 per dozen increase in price, consumers paid $15 billion more for their eggs than during the previous year when flocks were maintained at a level that was in balance with demand.  It is now apparent that a similar situation will pertain in 2024.

It is absolutely necessary for APHIS to backtrack on promoting biosecurity and stamping out infected flocks. It is time to recognize recognize the regional and seasonal endemicity of avian influenza H5N1 and introduce vaccination for replacement pullets and even laying flocks at risk to create an immune population. This will reduce incident cases and lower the probability of the emergence of a mutant, zoonotic strain of avian influenza H5N1.

Sometime in the not too distant future USDA-APHIS, the egg and turkey segments of the poultry industry, Congress, public health agencies and consumer groups will have to face the existential question—Are the risks and the consequences of a human pandemic worth maintaining a proportion of the export volume of broiler leg quarters?  The introduction of vaccination will not be a panacea. It will moderate the alarming and costly incidence rate in poultry. Above all creating an immune poultry population will provide a measure of security against emergence of a ‘swine flu’ or ‘Spanish Flu’ pandemic. Time is on the side of nature given large susceptible flocks and their concentration along major migratory flyways, coupled with the proclivity of single-stranded RNA viruses to undergo mutation.

*Lin, T., et al, A Single Mutation in Bovine Influenza H5N1 Hemagglutinin Switches Specificity to Human Receptors, Science doi:10.1126/science. ADT0180 2024

Conforming to the well-established principle of “too little-too late” the USDA-APHIS has eventually reacted to the concerning incidence rate of bovine influenza-H5N1.  On December 6^th the Agency issued a Federal order together with guidance requiring nationwide sampling of raw milk at farm, processing and distribution levels to detect herd infection with bovine influenza H5N1.

Recognized in March 2024 and present since December 2023, bovine influenza-H5N1 is not simply a “cow disease”.  The infection has zoonotic potential as evidenced by clinical symptoms and serologic evidence of infection among workers.  The presence of bovine influenza H5N1 is also implicated in transmission of infection to poultry flocks in Colorado, California, Michigan and Utah.

The federal order requires:-

• Sharing raw milk samples on request from dairy farmers, bulk milk transporters, transfer stations, and processing facilities that hold milk intended for pasteurization.

• Herd owners demonstrated to have infected animals must provide epidemiologic information for contract tracing and surveillance.

• Private laboratories and state veterinarians must report positive results to the USDA.

The program of milk testing by herd was initiated by both Colorado and California months ago. Surveillance was instrumental in reducing the rate of infection in Colorado that suffered extensive losses among poultry flocks attributed to spillover from dairy farms.  The situation in California is more complicated with an increasing incidence among dairy herds, especially in the Central Valley, a region of intensive production.

USDA-APHIS maintains that the Agency has “taken significant steps to better understand and control the viruses spread.”  This self-adulatory comment is questioned given that individual states have taken the initiative to implement surveillance programs six months before the current Federal directive.  It is acknowledged that in April, USDA issued a federal order requiring milk testing to be conducted before movement of lactating cows from affected herds across state lines.  This did nothing to prevent transmission of infection within state nor did it establish quarantines that would have prevented interstate movement of heifers nor movement of affected culled cows to processing facilities with the potential for dissemination of the virus.

It is indeed fortunate that pasteurization destroys H5N1 virus in milk and thorough cooking of meat from infected animals will prevent foodborne transmission of the virus.  It is recognized that USDA-APHIS limited authority on policy and regulations relating to prevention of disease within states, but leadership both from a scientific and regulatory perspective has been soundly lacking.

In a statement accompanying the release of the Federal order, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack stated, “This will give farmers and farm workers better confidence in the safety of the animals and ability to protect themselves and it will put us on a path to quickly controlling and stopping the viruses spread nationwide.”  Again too-little-to-late.

Dr. David A. Kessler warned of the need to effectively control avian influenza before mutations allow the virus to become zoonotic on an extensive scale or even to become contagious.  Writing in the New York Times, Kessler noted the failure of APHIS to control HPAI in poultry flocks, the alarming incidence rate in dairy herds and emergence of seasonal avian influenza in migratory marine birds and waterfowl in Asia, Africa, Australasia and Europe.

Dr. Kessler has earned impressive credentials both a physician and lawyer. He was the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration during the George H. W. Bush and Clinton Administrations and was scientific advisor to the Biden Administration during COVID 19.  He has served as the Dean of medical schools at Yale and the University of California, San Francisco where he now serves as a professor.

To date there have been less than 60 cases of H5N1 in humans, contracted from exposure to infected poultry flocks during depopulation and among workers on dairy farms exposed to contaminated milk. 

Extension of H5N1 from poultry to humans was first documented in 1997 in Hong Kong resulting in 18 infections with six fatalities. Extensive endemic H5N1 infection in Asia commenced in 2003 with seasonal outbreaks in poultry flocks on five continents since this time with serious epornitics in the U.S. in 2015 and ongoing from 2022.

Dr. Kessler warned of consumption of non-pasteurized milk and the need for structured surveillance of dairy herds. This is in effect in California and Colorado and is soon to be implemented in Pennsylvania.  Detection of infection in dairy herds should obviously be followed by quarantine including an embargo on movement of all animals from an affected herd for the duration of viral shedding.  It is axiomatic that necessary PPE should be supplied and correctly used to prevent human infection, Although symptoms of infection in exposed workers are mild, contracting H5N1 adapted to mammals may result in recombinant events or viral mutation to become more pathogenic in humans.

The list of APHIS-confirmed outbreaks of avian influenza in egg production, turkey and broiler flocks during November attest to the inadequacy of a “stamping-out” program based on the false premise that HPAI is an exotic disease.  The rapidly increasing incidence rate among flocks in three of the North American flyways denotes that the infection is both seasonally and regionally endemic, disseminated by migratory birds and possibly now resident species.  Ongoing cases of avian influenza among large populations of domestic poultry and dairy cattle will create the potential for mutations. This reality is characterized by Dr. Kessler as “increasing the risk that the virus mutates and evolves to allow human-to-human transmission that will be hard to stop.” 

According to Dr. Kessler there is an indication from isolates obtained from human cases in Washington State that the effectiveness of oseltamivir as an antiviral therapy has declined together with demonstration of a specific mutation in a California isolate that would reduce the effectiveness of paloxavir. At this time, the U.S. would be reliant on current antivirals and supportive therapy for patients. A stockpile of 5 million doses of H5N1 vaccine approved for humans is available with the possibility of an additional 5 million.  The E.U. has imported H5N1 vaccine from the U.S., now deployed for workers in poultry and fur-farms in Finland as a precautionary measure.

Dr. Andrew Pekosz of the Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health noted, “If we start to detect people with H5N1 with contact only with another person infected with H5N1, that will be a real danger sign.”  This would indicate contagion and raise the potential of a 1918 outbreak or even a less extreme version of the 2009 H1N1 ‘swine flu’ pandemic that claimed 250,000 lives worldwide.

Dr. Pekosz did however comment, “The good news is so far, no clear person-to-person transmission of any significant nature has been documented or detected.  This may only be a matter of time.”

The U.S. and world human populations would be best served by a change in APHIS policy allowing administration of available vaccines for egg production, breeder and turkey flocks in high-risk areas. Avian influenza is more than a bird problem. At present it is a potential human problem transcending the narrow issues of restriction on export of broiler parts.

Previous articles on this topic posted on EGG-NEWS can be retrieved by entering ‘avian influenza’ and ‘HPAI’ in the SEARCH block).

The domestic U.S. prices of corn and soybeans are in large measure determined by export volume in relation to demand and availability. For the 2014 crop USDA project 38 percent of soybeans and 14 percent of corn will be exported. Policy decisions following the 2024 general election and fiscal legislation to be passed by the 119^th Congress will determine future prices of corn and soybeans, given relatively constant volumes of production through 2026.  The change in Administration will witness the imposition of tariffs on our USMCA neighbors and the People’s Republic of China based on pre-election promises and subsequent statements.  This will inevitably result in countervailing tariffs by exporters to the U.S. placing commodity exports at a disadvantage to other suppliers.  

During the first term of President Trump, a spokesperson for the American Soybean Association optimistically stated that if China reduced imports from the U.S., it would obtain supplies from other producing nations, creating equivalent export opportunities for the U.S.  This self-serving presumption was based on finite world production and constant demand. The statement ignored the reality that Brazil has been able to vastly increase soybean production albeit through deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest.

In 2023, it is estimated that Brazil supplied China with close to 70 million metric tons of soybeans compared to approximately 22 million tons from the U.S.  During 2022, exports from Brazil increased by 12 million metric tons to the disadvantage of the U.S.

In 2018, China imposed a reciprocal 25 percent duty on U.S. farm products, impacting the considerable reliance of China on the U.S for 40 percent of their soybean imports.  This proportion has declined to 18 percent with Brazil supplying the difference. Despite the signing of the Phase 1 Trade Agreement, China has reduced both total pork production and concurrently has restricted inclusion of soybean meal in hog diets.  Policymakers in China recognized their dependence on soybean imports to maintain a supply of pork, the major animal protein.  China increased domestic production of soybeans to 20 million metric tons in 2024 and is making greater use of locally manufactured synthetic amino acids in hog diets.

Events in Brazil during mid-January point to the future dependence of China on Brazil to the exclusion of the U.S.  President Xi Jinping attended the G-20 Leaders’ Summit in Rio de Janeiro on November 18^th and 19^th.  Subsequently he traveled to the nation’s capital, Brasilia, and met at length with President Luiz Inacio ‘Lula’ da Silva and his top officials to negotiate and conclude 37 trade agreements.  These included the purchase of soybeans and fruit, and exports of electrical vehicles and batteries and to obtain satellite technology establishing a relationship between SpaceSail of China and Telebras of Brazil.

Brazil and China will pay for each other’s purchases in their respective currencies, eliminating the U.S. dollar.  Attempting to coerce nations to continue using the dollar as suggested by the incoming Administration through imposing punitive tariffs will be unsuccessful and will have severe and lasting consequences.

A trade war with China and even with our USMCA neighbors as recently suggested will result in a sharp decline in exports of soybeans and corn with a resulting depression in domestic prices. It is doubtful whether the U.S. could establish new markets at prices that would compensate for the loss of China and Mexico as major importers.

Domestic poultry and hog producers would benefit from lower prices but would forego exports to China and possibly USMCA neighbors.  This reality together with predictions of CME prices below cost of production has delayed passage of the 2023 Farm Bill. A major stumbling block has been the revision of price supports for agricultural commodities.  If farmers are to be compensated for losses that arise as a result of geopolitical decisions by the Administration, it will represent a detrimental increase in the national debt. Effectively, consumers and their succeeding generations will bear the cost of a misguided trade and tariff policy.

Notwithstanding the pre-election issues of open borders, ‘democracy’ and women’s health, disaffection with prices of everyday essentials symbolized by eggs was the major driver of the landslide election victory by the President-Elect and Republican down-ticket candidates.

The price of eggs became the focus of food inflation among voters. Notwithstanding, the reduction in the inflation rate from nine percent in late 2023 to under three percent by November 5^th, the electorate rejected the statistics and were motivated by high costs associated with groceries, automobile insurance, rentals, mortgage payments and credit card interest.  Despite the fact that inflation has declined, the perception that the economy was mismanaged overruled other considerations, motivating the selection of the top-of-the ticket and members of the House and Senate, even down to the proverbial city dog-catcher. 

November 5^th has passed, and the trifecta is a reality.  The question now is how the economy will fare under the incoming Administration.  Deregulation with removal of restraints on mergers and the elimination of onerous “woke” regulations should have a stimulatory effect on the economy.  Reduction in government spending, especially in wasteful projects and activities as evidenced by USDA giveaways, should be beneficial in establishing a balance between revenue and expenditure.  Adjusting tax rates will benefit both entrepreneurs and corporations with a short-term benefit to shareholders and ultimately to consumers.

There will however be negative impacts if some pre-election promises are implemented.  Imposition of tariffs on imported goods and especially those directed against the People’s Republic of China will be inflationary.  It is axiomatic that tariff wars reduce trade and hence U.S. exports. As prices for imported products escalate, domestic producers will increase prices to match those of imported goods.  Protectionism also limits innovation and expenditure on research and development.  Any observer of economic history will be aware of the effect of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act on exacerbating and extending the Great Depression.

Deportation of illegal immigrants especially those with criminal convictions is justified. It should be recognized that law-abiding foreign workers are necessary, especially for agriculture, given that a proportion of the U.S. population drawing social security and SNAP benefits appear disinclined to take the jobs performed by guest workers. Obviously, the solution is to radically improve immigration legislation and to provide both seasonal and extended-duration visas to workers, preferably with a path to permanent residence as in Canada. Mass deportation would be disruptive and extremely expensive and is fraught with practical problems including undesirable impacts on nations in Central America.

Imposition of tariffs on Mexico could seriously affect agricultural exports since our USMCA partner represents a major importers of corn and soybeans in addition to broiler leg quarters, shell eggs and egg products. The agricultural and industrial structures of the U.S, Canada and Mexico are so integrated that inappropriate and precipitous actions could have severe and far-reaching unintended consequences.

Notwithstanding pre-election rhetoric, it is hoped that economic realities over the coming four years will be tempered by reality and practicality. We look forward to the positive aspects that will benefit the economy. It is anticipated that the more extreme potential negative aspects will be subject to both Executive and Congressional review and restraint.

At the end of the day, voters will have to decide whether they are better off at the 2026 mid-terms and the 2028 general election than they were in 2024.  The price of eggs has become an election issue so APHIS had better backtrack on their reluctance to approve regional vaccination to protect egg production and turkey flocks. Politicians will be basing their campaigns on the cost of food and everyday living. The availability and hence price of eggs will be a symbol of the cost of feeding families and will be a determinant of voter satisfaction.

As we move into the midpoint of the fourth quarter, it is evident that the U.S. poultry industry is facing a recurrence of seasonal avian influenza. Outbreaks have claimed 21 million hens year to date with the fall cases amounting to five million hens over six weeks in five states. Effectively APHIS has not changed its approach to control the infection since the 1985 outbreaks in Pennsylvania and adjoining states.  Since this time, the impact of HPAI has increased exponentially with expansion of the egg and turkey industries that have been the most affected but with disease having the potential to decimate broiler production.

It is evident that diagnosis of HPAI has been facilitated by recent technological advancements including PCR and lateral flow immunodiffusion assay kits.  From bitter experience, state and federal agencies are now able to rapidly confirm HPAI and then quarantine and dispose of infected flocks.  Notwithstanding experience in depopulating large caged-hen and aviary egg production complexes, it may take more than five days to euthanize and dispose of a flock comprising one million or more hens.

It is time that APHIS recognized that HPAI is at least seasonally and regionally endemic with migratory waterfowl and marine birds serving as reservoirs and disseminators of virus each fall and spring. Given the duration of the current epornitic it is possible that domestic, resident avian and mammalian species may perpetuate infection that can be transmitted to commercial poultry.

Despite seasonal reoccurrence of the infection since 2022, APHIS has pursued a futile policy of attempting to “stamp out” the infection.  This approach would be justified if an exotic viral disease were to be imported into the U.S. and introduced onto a single farm through defective biosecurity.  Eradication would be possible with rapid diagnosis and expedient depopulation and disposal of carcasses.  The reality of HPAI is far different from the situation envisaged in the APHIS conceptual model. With respect to HPAI, “stamping out” in the classic sense is inappropriate, outdated and inconsistent with epidemiologic reality. 

APHIS has at its disposal personnel with experience in field epidemiology. Despite this resource, the Agency has not conducted thorough epidemiologic investigations relating to the mode of transmission of virus from migratory bird reservoirs to farms.  The belated and incomplete publications on outbreaks during 2022 failed to identify what is evident to poultry health professionals in North America. It appears that the infection can be transmitted over distances of up to a mile by the aerogenous route. APHIS has failed to publish on any structured evaluation of environmental variables that may influence transmission or viability of H5N1 virus including humidity, wind movement, cloud cover or temperature.  A number of scientific studies have confirmed the possibility of aerogenous transmission as reported in EGG-NEWS during the past year.  If it is accepted that avian influenza virus can be transmitted on entrained dust or soil particles then even the most rigorous structural and operational biosecurity will not provide absolute protection for power-ventilated houses as denoted by the circumstances associated with a number of outbreaks.

It is questioned whether APHIS administrators actually want to know how the virus enters farms.  To accept that the infection is seasonally and regionally endemic and is transmitted by air movement over as yet undetermined distances, presumes that stamping out will not be possible. Seasonal reintroduction of H5 and H7 influenza viruses predicates a new approach.

Attempting to eradicate avian influenza in commercial flocks by serial depopulation imposes a cost on the public sector through indemnity and logistics.  Producers lose income while replacing flocks. Welfare advocates including legislators have condemned extensive depopulation including VSD. The cost of uncontrolled infection for consumers is immense, overshadowing direct costs for control. Depopulation of over 50 million hens during the 2022-2023 epornitic resulted in a constant reduction in the national flock by at least 10 million laying hens resulting in a conservative incremental cost of $2 per dozen spread over 12 months.  With domestic sales of shell eggs and products amounting to seven billion dozen, consumers paid an incremental $15 billion as a result of the prolonged and uncontrolled infection.  A similar situation is playing out in 2024 with the total flock approximately 12 million under the pre-HPAI level of 326 million.

The adaptation of H5N1 avian virus to dairy herds has created an additional problem for the poultry industry in addition to milk producers.  To date, there have been 492 diagnosed cases of bovine influenza among dairy herds.  This figure is in all probability an undercount given the reluctance of states other than California and Colorado to impose rigorous surveillance programs based on assay of bulk milk.  California has diagnosed 278 cases within three months despite a program of rapid diagnosis with mandatory quarantines.  Bovine influenza-H5N1 is a risk to poultry as evidenced by spillovers to farms in Michigan, Utah and Colorado and possibly in the Central Valley of California.  APHIS has yet to release the results of epidemiologic studies that presumably have been conducted on the transmission of H5N1 strain B3.13 in the dairy industry.

The zoonotic aspect of H5N1 influenza virus is a growing concern.  Although a reassortment    event may result in a strain with both human and avian genes becoming infectious to humans, additional mutations will be required for contagion necessary to precipitate an epidemic.  The consequences of an H5 influenza pandemic would far exceed the economic and health effects of the SARS-CoV-19 pandemic. The quicker that the virus can be suppressed in the commercial poultry industry, the safer our population will be.

Creating immune poultry populations especially in areas with a high density of egg or turkey production and with large in-line complexes will reduce the financial impact of avian influenza and mitigate against emergence of a zoonotic strain.  The World Organization of Animal Health accepts the principle of immunization as an adjunct to biosecurity and quarantine to control the infection.  France and Mexico have successfully deployed vaccination to reduce incidence rates.   It is axiomatic that avian influenza is the Newcastle disease of the 2020s.  This infection was as catastrophic with respect to commercial production in the 1960s as avian influenza is at the present time.  Newcastle disease is effectively controlled by vaccination. Vaccination is obviously not perfect since nothing in biology is absolute. 

We are all too aware of the trade restraints associated with vaccination.  If, however, the infection emerges in high-density broiler production areas of the U.S. or if Brazil, the major world exporter of broiler products, encounters (or admits) to infection among commercial flocks, the approach of blanket national restrictions would fall away. Importing nations should be guided by the World Organization for Animal Health principles of compartmentalization and regionalization and controlled application of vaccination.  The incidence rate of avian influenza in the U.S. with the costs to both private and public sectors and the obvious futility of applying a “stamping out” program predicates immunization using available vaccines on a limited and controlled basis.  Turkeys and commercial egg production flocks, especially in areas of high risk, should receive priority consideration.  Vaccination of broiler breeder flocks or even commercial growing birds would be based on cost to benefit studies taking into account risks of infection, the financial impact of losses and also trade considerations that may have been overstated.

What is evident is that the program APHIS has following for three years is flat just not working.  Hope that migratory birds will cease shedding is not a viable strategy.  Current administrators of APHIS should step back from their present policy and restraints and reconsider the limited application of vaccination to protect flocks at the greatest risk based on the history of regional exposure.

Any representative or spokesperson for APHIS or colleagues who wishes to defend the status quo or advance the principle of limited and controlled vaccination is welcome to submit a comment to be posted.

Both in the plurality and by state, the incoming President and his Administration have a clear mandate.  Let us hope that stability in both domestic and foreign policy will prevail and that prosperity will improve.  Initial indications from the stock market suggest approval of policies advocated during the pre-election period.  The concurrent rise in interest rates predicts that borrowing will escalate and that the national debt will continue its upward trajectory to become a problem for our children and grandchildren.

The overwhelming consideration for the agricultural sector will be the proposed imposition of protective and in some cases punitive tariffs that will restrict exports of commodities.  With respect to soybeans, Brazil and Argentina represent efficient competitors with adequate production. With the loss of the market represented by China and some other nations, prices will fall to the disadvantage of row crop farmers but will benefit livestock producers including broilers, turkeys and eggs.  Since the broiler industry exports leg quarters, basically a commodity, most importers who are unaffected by U.S. tariffs will continue to buy the product, based on need and price.

The imposition of tariffs will increase the price of imported equipment, especially over the short term, but will ultimately encourage local manufacture and fabrication.

There will be profound changes in policy and operation at USDA.  It is hoped that the lame duck session of the 118^th Congress will produce a viable Farm Bill, delayed since 2023, with most provisions having expired at the end of September.  Benefits that have been extended to minorities and small producers in the form of special programs that are essentially giveaways will cease under the new Administration, focusing on productivity and rationality and less on ideological considerations.  The move towards “restructuring” the meat and poultry industries will disappear with large plants operated by the major producers continuing to provide the bulk of red meat. Numerous current antitrust activities will be terminated with replacement of extremists in the FTC and DOJ, exercising their respective sociopolitical agendas.

The question of immigration will require balance.  It is hoped that a comprehensive review of policy will lead to enactment of fair and constructive legislation.  While it is considered appropriate to deport criminals and those who have illegally entered the Nation, it must be remembered that agriculture relies on foreign labor.  Legal routes to entry and employment must be revised and extended but should also be strictly enforced.

The incoming Administration has a mandate to govern according to the platform presented to the electorate.  Let us hope that both the Executive and Legislative branches recognize their responsibilities to the Nation to work cooperatively for the benefit of the total economy and especially the agricultural community responsible for our health and prosperity.

God bless America!

As the U.S. faces a pivotal national election, the future economic well-being of the U.S. should be the overriding decision in assigning votes, overriding political rhetoric.  The economy of the U.S. is sound by any economic measure.  The GDP of our Nation comprises 50 percent of the other G7 nations combined, up from 40 percent in 1990. Per capita GDP contribution is 30 percent higher than for the E.U. and 60 percent higher than Japan, according to a review of the U.S. economy in the October 19^th edition of The Economist.

This article noted the inherent advantages enjoyed by the U.S. including energy resources, a vast consumer market and relative to the E.U., fewer restrictive regulation leading to the rise of companies applying high technology.  The U.S. dollar remains the world’s reserve currency. According to the International Monetary Fund the U.S. dollar comprises sixty percent of the reserves held by central banks.  Given the strength of agriculture and industry coupled with adoption of innovative technology and sound management, the average American worker generates $171,000 in economic output compared to $120,000 in the E.U.  Our productivity has increased 70 percent since 1990 compared to 30 percent in Europe and 25 percent in Japan.

We weathered the global fiscal crisis of 2008 avoiding a fiscal meltdown . We responded to the COVID pandemic with massive spending that cushioned the economy and prevented extensive social hardship.  The resulting inflation was however “tamed” by successively increasing the benchmark interest rate without generating unemployment and achieving a “soft landing” without creating a recession as has occurred in previous cycles.  The fiscal stimulus packages resulted in the U.S. recovering from the pandemic more quickly than other industrialized nations. The balanced recovery has placed the U.S. in a more favorable situation than its peers and competitors.

Ironically, factors that have contributed to the strength of the U.S. economy including immigration have been demonized in the pre-election period. A regulated flow of immigrants is necessary to offset a decline in population growth.  Qualified entrants have most certainly contributed to economic well-being in a variety of sectors including high technology, health and manufacturing.  Unskilled workers have supported agriculture and are necessary to perform work that U.S. citizens are disinclined to do. 

On the negative side, life expectancy in the U.S. has declined due to health issues centering on obesity, gun violence, opioid addiction and an unacceptable rate of child mortality.  Older Americans have a lower life expectancy after 65 than their peers in the E.U.

Despite the remarkable progress over the past three decades, there are clouds on the horizon and the U.S. may suffer from injudicious politically inspired economic decisions.  The debt-to-GDP ratio has nearly tripled since the outbreak of the global financial crisis of 2008 attaining 103 percent at present.  Economists forecast deterioration in this parameter with the debt-to- GDP ratio peaking at 160 percent within three decades unless spending is curtailed.  In 2016, the national debt stood at $25.6 trillion, rising to $32.6 trillion in 2020 and now stands at $35.8 trillion. Interest on the national debt represents seven percent of GDP at present but could soar to 12 percent in 2035.

Economic platforms proposed by the two competing presidential candidates promise little to reduce debt.  One candidate intends to reduce taxes on overtime earnings and tips representing $118 billion over ten years in addition to providing tax breaks on car loans. Proposed SALT deductions could boost national debt by $1 trillion over 10 years. These pre-election promises are intended to attract support from voters in pivotal states.  The other candidate is promising $25,000 to aspirant homeowners coupled with a program to erect three million dwellings togetherwith substantial tax breaks directed to the “middle class”. Many of the proposals from both candidates will probably never eventuate given that they must receive Congressional approval.

Economists have condemned the intention to place high tariffs on imported goods in an attempt to replace taxes with tariffs.  In addition, punitive tariffs applied as a surrogate for diplomacy will reduce agricultural exports and will severely impact rural communities that support an essentially isolationist policy without realizing the implications.

Pre-election rhetoric promising high tariffs and massive deportations and considerations such as interference by the White House in the Federal Reserve will create self-inflicted wounds.  Unrestricted spending on social programs and a continuation of antitrust activities including opposition to large and efficient meat and poultry production will be detrimental to specific sectors of the economy and to the nation at large. 

Irrespective of the outcome of the election, the winner must address the growing budget deficit that is now equivalent to seven percent of GDP.  Ultimately, our well-being will be dependent on productivity and population growth. Fiscal programs presented by both candidates for the Presidency are unworkable and unrealistic.  Let us hope that these are merely empty political gestures to win votes. Irrespective of the outcome of the election the incoming Administration in 2025 will have to adopt sound fiscal policies. Congress will have to be more accommodative, less partisan and willing to pass legislation through compromise in order to advance the economic well-being of the Nation and its citizenry.