SUGAR AND SWEETENERS YEARBOOK May 27, 1999 Month 1999, ERS-SSS-225 Approved by the World Agricultural Outlook Board --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUGAR AND SWEETENERS YEARBOOK is published annually by the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20036-5831. This release contains only the text of the SUGAR AND SWEETENERS report -- tables and graphics are not included. Subscriptions to the printed version of the report are available from the ERS-NASS order desk. Call, toll-free, 1-800-999-6779 and ask for stock # SUB-SSS-4033, $25/2 issues. ERS-NASS accepts MasterCard and Visa. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contents Page Summary U.S. Sugar Current Year, 1998/99 Forecasts for 1999/2000 Mexican Sugar High Fructose Corn Syrup HFCS and Mexico Level of U.S.-Mexico HFCS-55 and HFCS-90 Trade Special Articles Early-Season USDA Projections of Sugar Production List of Tables Autofax Access to Sugar-Related Data Internet Access to Sugar-Related Data. Report Coordinator Stephen Haley (202) 694-5247 FAX (202) 694-5884 E-mail: SHALEY@ECON.AG.GOV Principal Contributors Stephen Haley Nydia Suarez Database Coordinator/Graphics & Table Design Fannye Lockley-Jolly Layout & Text Design Wynnice Napper Approved by the World Agricultural Outlook Board. Summary released May 18, 1999. The next Sugar and Sweetener Situation and Outlook is scheduled for release on September 21, 1999. Text and summaries may be accessed electronically. For details on electronic access, call ERS Customer Service (202) 694-5050. Summary U.S. beet sugar production for 1998/99 is projected at 4.225 million short tons, raw value (STRV), down from 1997/98. The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) has estimated a record sugarbeet crop of 32.66 million tons, but the crop has a poor sugar content. U.S. cane sugar production for 1998/99 is projected at 3.848 million STRV. Florida is projected at 2.127 million STRV, 10 percent above the preceding record year. Louisiana is projected at 1.260 million STRV, slightly less than last year's record. Texas is projected at 104,402 STRV, a considerable improvement over the previous year. Hawaii is projected at 350,000 STRV, and the Puerto Rico cane sugar is projected at 7,000 STRV. Imports under the 1998/99 tariff-rate quota (TRQ) are projected at 1.412 million STRV in the May 1999 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report. Other imports are currently projected at 615,000 STRV, an increase of 120,000 STRV over the April 1999 projection due to an expected increase in imports of high-tier tariff sugar. Other import projections are for the Refined Sugar Re-export Program (175,000 STRV), the Sugar Containing Products Re-export Program (200,000 STRV), imports for the production of polyhydric alcohol (15,000 STRV), and the estimated sugar content of sugar syrups entering the United State s under the tariff heading 1702.90.40 (100,000 STRV). Deliveries in 1998/99 are currently forecast at 9.975 million STRV. Sugar exports under the Refined Sugar Re-export Program are currently projected at 175,000 STRV. Ending stocks are projected at 1.629 million STRV, resulting in an ending stocks-to-use ratio of 16.0 percent, above the trigger level for the cancellation of the May TRQ tranche. Beet sugar production for 1999/2000 is projected at 4.530 million STRV, up 7 percent from 1998/99. NASS' estimates of acreage intentions for sugarbeets exceeded last year's acreage planted by 50,000 acres. Analysis supports a U.S. yield projection of 21.0 tons per acre, implying a sugarbeet crop of about 31.8 million tons. With normal weather and technical improvements consistent with historical trends, sugar yield is projected at 3.00 tons an acre. U.S. cane sugar production for 1999/2000 is projected at 3.870 million STRV. Florida's cane sugar production is projected at 2.025 million STRV. U.S. cane acreage harvested for sugar is expected to be slightly above this year's level, and sugar per acre is expected to be lower but consistent with trend at 4.71 tons per acre. Louisiana cane sugar production is projected at 1.400 million STRV. Acreage harvested is projected to increase by 20,000 acres, and yields are expected to continue increasing. Texas' cane sugar production is projected at 100,000 STRV, Hawaii's is projected at 330,000 STRV, and Puerto Rico's is projected at 15,000 STRV. Nonquota imports for 1999/2000 are projected at 725,000 STRV. The largest component is high-tier tariff imports at 260,000 STRV. The remainder of other import projections are for the Refined Sugar Re-export Program (175,000 STRV), the Sugar Containing Products Re-export Program (175,000 STRV), imports for the production of polyhydric alcohol (15,000 STRV), and the estimated sugar content of sugar syrups entering the United State s under the tariff heading 1702.90.40 (100,000 STRV). The raw and refined TRQ for 1999/2000 will be announced later this year but must sum to at least 1.256 million STRV, the World Trade Organization's minimum. Deliveries for 1999/2000 are projected at 10.150 million STRV, and exports for the Refined Sugar Re-export Program are projected at 175,000 STRV. Projected total use for 1999/2000 sums to 10.325 million STRV, up 175,000 STRV over 1998/99. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) currently projects Mexican sugar production for the November 1999/ October 2000 marketing year (MY 1999) at 5.14 million metric tons, raw value (MTRV). Acreage is expected to be about the same as this year, although yields should be higher, about 72 metric tons per hectare. Sugar consumption is expected to be flat in MY 1999, about 4.2 million MTRV. Projected exports are 900,000 MTRV, about 6 percent lower than predicted exports in MY 1998. The Mexican Government has agreed to continue its financing assistance into MY 1999 to keep stocks at least 600,000 MTRV. Sugar stocks for FY 1999 are projected to be 629,000 MTRV. U.S. high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) production in 1999 is projected to increase by 4.6 percent to 9.572 million tons: 3.431 million tons for HFCS-42 and 6.141 million tons for HFCS-55. HFCS-42 production growth is projected at 4.1 percent, up from 3.4 percent in 1998. HFCS-55 production growth is projected at 4.9 percent, down from 6.6 percent in 1998. U.S. Sugar On May 12, 1999, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its revised estimate for 1998/99 and its initial projection for 1999/2000. Current Year, 1998/99 Production Beet sugar production is projected at 4.225 million short tons, raw value (STRV). The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) has estimated the sugarbeet crop at 32.66 million tons, 9.3 percent above the 1997/98 final production estimate.1/ ---------- 1/ Unless otherwise noted, sugarcane and sugarbeets are reported in short tons. ---------- Acreage harvested has been forecast at a record 1.452 million acres, 1.6 percent above the previous year. National yield has been forecast at a record 22.5 tons per acre. Although the size of the sugarbeet crop is a record, it has yielded low sugar content. Based on the estimated sugarbeet yield of 22.5 tons per acre, expected sugar per acre based on the statistical trend would have been 3.12 STRV. However, the actual sugar per acre is projected at 2.91 STRV, nearly 7 percent below expectations. Higher-than-average temperatures have introduced concerns, especially in the Red River Valley region, regarding additional sugar losses stored in piles. USDA analysis concludes that, while there has been some pile deterioration due to the unseasonably high temperatures, most beets have survived the winter intact, allaying concerns of further reductions in beet sugar projections. The slicing campaign in the Red River Valley is still expected to run through June. The California campaign has started, and sugar production from the desugaring of molasses and from thick juice stored during the slicing campaign in other regions will contribute to production for the remainder of the year. Cane sugar production is projected at 3.848 million STRV. Campaigns in Florida, Texas, and Louisiana have ended, implying mainland production of 3.491 million STRV. Production will continue for the remainder of the year in Hawaii and will start soon in Puerto Rico. Florida cane sugar is projected at 2.127 million STRV. Current year production is projected over 10 percent above the preceding year, which was a record. NASS has estimated the sugarcane for sugar crop at 16.860 million tons on 429,000 acres. Sugar is projected at a record 4.96 tons, 8.5 percent above the preceding year. Growers benefitted from dry and very warm conditions throughout the growing season. Irrigation and effective management practices helped mitigate against drought conditions that affected other Florida crops. Because of the large sugarcane crop, the season ran 3 weeks longer than normal into the latter part of April. Louisiana cane sugar is projected at 1.260 million STRV. This year's total is slightly less than last year's record but is the second highest for the State . NASS has estimated the sugarcane for sugar crop at 11.6 million tons on 400,000 acres. Sugar per acre is projected at 3.15 tons, down 5 percent from the previous year's record 3.32 tons per acre. The region experienced very dry and hot conditions through most of the growing season and received drenching rain in the fall as several tropical storms passed through. Wet conditions pushed back the harvest, which was not completed until several weeks into January. Although individual growers may have experienced some losses, sources indicate that the cold tolerance of current sugarcane varieties helped the crop survive January conditions. Moreover, the sugarcane variety LCP85-384 has sparked a yield-enhancing revolution, which has produced the heavier sugar content. Investments in new chopper harvesters have been made at the same time, helping to mitigate lodging problems that can result with heavier cane. Texas cane sugar is projected at 104,402 STRV, a considerable improvement over the previous year's 79,569 STRV. The Texas producing area suffered through drought conditions for most of the season, but plentiful rain occurring in the fall contributed to increased sugarcane development. Although there had been some question regarding sugar content, results indicate that sugar tonnage per acre netted 3.26, up nearly 10 percent over the previous year. The milling season extended until the middle of April. Hawaii cane sugar is projected at 350,000 STRV. NASS does not forecast 1999 sugarcane acreage until June. However, local analysts conservatively forecast this year's sugar production to equal the previous year's 350,000 STRV. Through March, the fiscal year production has totaled 95,700 STRV, about 96 percent of the previous year through the same period. One source of concern has been the Pioneer mill on Maui. High costs have forced the owner (AMFAC/JMB Hawaii) to discontinue sugar production at the end of the season in September. Puerto Rico cane sugar is projected at 7,000 STRV. This low projection takes into account hurricane damage that put the Roig mill out of operation for this year. The only other mill, Central Agraso (formerly Coloso), will account for total Puerto Rican production this year. Imports Imports under the tariff-rate quota (TRQ) are projected at 1.412 million STRV in the May 1999 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report. This amount reflects the cancellation of January and March tranches (165,345 STRV each) that resulted when the ending stocks-to-use projections published in the WASDE for those months were above 15.5 percent. The cancellation of the May tranche, due to a projected ending stocks-to-use ratio of 16.0, is not reflected. The cancellation of the May tranche implies a downward revision of imports under the TRQ by 165,345 STRV. Other imports are currently projected at 615,000 STRV, up 120,000 STRV over the April 1999 projection. The projection of high-tier tariff sugar entering from Mexico caused the increase. Through April 1999, about 184 STRV high-tier tariff Mexican sugar had entered the United States. In May 1999, raw sugar amounting to about 15,432 STRV entered. Data available to USDA indicate that additional tonnage sufficient to bring the total to 120,000 STRV for the year now awaits entry. The incentive for traders to deliver high-tier tariff Mexican sugar into the United States is explained by several factors: low world prices below 6 cents a pound (No. 11 CSCE Contract, New York), a high-tier tariff rate for raw and refined sugar under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 13.6 cents a pound and 14.42 cents a pound, and the absence of price-based safeguards that apply to over-quota sugar from all sources except Mexico and Canada. The remainder of other import projections are for the Refined Sugar Re-export Program (175,000 STRV), the Sugar Containing Products Re-export Program (200,000 STRV), imports for the production of polyhydric alcohol (15,000 STRV), and the estimated sugar content of sugar syrups entering the United States under the tariff heading 1702.90.4000 (100,000 STRV). Deliveries, Exports, and Stocks Total deliveries, including deliveries for human consumption, sugar included in products for the Sugar Containing Products Re-export Program, deliveries for use in the Polyhydric Alcohol Program, and for feed use are currently forecast at 9.975 million STRV. Exports of sugar under the Refined Sugar Re-Export Program are currently projected at 175,000 STRV. Ending-period 1998/99 stocks are calculated as a residual of total supply (projected 11.779 million STRV) less total use (projected 10.150 million STRV). Ending stocks are, therefore, projected at 1.629 million STRV. The projected stocks-to-use ratio is 16.0 percent, above the trigger level for the cancellation of the May TRQ tranche. Prices U.S. raw sugar prices (nearby futures, C.I.F., duty-paid, Contract No. 14, New York) averaged 22.57 cents per pound during April, up just 2 points from the March average. The range for the month was 66 points, from a high of 22.98 on April 1 to a low of 22.32 on April 23, before closing on the 30th at 22.65 cents per pound. July No. 14 futures prices averaged 22.48 cents in the first 8 market days of May, with a maximum and a minimum price of 22.70 cents and of 22.27 cents per pound. Increasing U.S. sugar deliveries and the outlook for lower 1999/2000 U.S. sugar carryover stocks may have boosted nearby futures prices recently. Wholesale refined beet sugar prices (F.O.B. plant, Midwest markets) have come down 0.20 cents to 27.00 cents a pound in April, likely reflecting the pressure of a larger 1999 crop. World raw sugar prices, which have been in steady decline over the past year, bottomed out during the last week of April when the July contract traded as low as 3.93 cents per pound on April 28, a 14-year low. The bargain basement prices have attracted buying from Bangladesh and Iran, and interest from potential Russian buyers. Prices firmed somewhat at the end of the month when the July contract closed at 4.33 cents. Part of the reason for the firmer prices were the shipping delays at two major Brazilian ports. However, the outlook remains negative as bumper crops in major exporting countries continue to be met with weak demand. World raw sugar prices averaged 5.44 cents a pound in April, compared with 10.22 cents in the same month a year earlier. Forecasts for 1999/2000 Production Beet sugar production is projected at 4.530 million STRV, an increase of over 7 percent from 1998/99. NASS estimates of acreage intentions for sugarbeets by State sum to 1.548 million acres, exceeding last year's acreage planted by 50,000. Although NASS does not forecast acreage harvested until June, historically-based ratios between acreage harvested and acreage intentions by State support an early-season projection of 1.510 million acres for the United States. Analysis of State-level yields supports a U.S. yield projection of 21.0 tons per acre, implying a sugarbeet crop of about 31.8 million tons. With normal weather and technical improvements consistent with historical trend, sugar yield is projected at 3.00 tons an acre, implying total production of 4.530 million STRV. The sugar recovery rate is projected at 14.23 percent, nearly 10 percent above the projected rate for 1998/99, but below the rates for 1996/97 (15.04 percent) and 1997/98 (14.69 percent). Cane sugar production is projected at 3.870 million STRV, slightly above the projected total for 1998/99. This total reflects expectations regarding production from Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Florida cane sugar production is projected at 2.025 million STRV, down from this year's projected record, but it would still be the second highest in the State's production history. Cane acreage harvested for sugar is expected to be slightly above this year's level at 430,000 acres. Sugar per acre is expected to be down but consistent with trend at 4.71 tons. The mix of sugarcane varieties used in Florida is very well suited to local conditions. Irrigation in muck soils helps considerably in safeguarding the crop from drought conditions that cause havoc to other crops. Good management practices by growers and processors contribute as well. A structural upward shift in cane yields was evidenced in 1997/98. High cane yields continued in 1998/99 and are projected at 38.2 tons an acre in 1999/2000. The cane crop is projected at 16.4 million tons, slightly lower than last year's crop. Sucrose recovery is projected at 12.33 percent, or about 247 pounds per ton of cane. Louisiana cane sugar production is projected at 1.400 million STRV, up 11 percent from 1998/99. Acreage harvested is projected to increase by 20,000 acres over 1998/99 to 420,000 acres. The expected expansion is centered in the northern cane region where alternative crop prices have made the growing of sugarcane a much higher-valued alternative in spite of long trucking distances from mills. The continued expansion of the LCP85-384 sugarcane variety implies less of a percentage of sugarcane land in fallow: about 20 percent instead of the usual 25 percent. This results because the LCP85-384 permits a third stubble crop, thereby keeping more land in production. Increased acreage planted to the LCP85-384 has increased Louisiana cane yields above earlier trends. With LCP85-384's share of sugarcane acreage increasing to about 60 percent, cane and sugar yields are expected to increase as well. The projected cane yield is 29.5 tons per acre, up 0.5 ton over 1998/99. The projected sugar yield is 3.33 tons per acre, up 0.18 ton an acre from the year before. Texas cane sugar production is projected at 100,000 STRV. Projected acreage harvested of cane for sugar is 32.0, the same as 1998/99. Projected cane yield of 31.25 tons per acre is lower than 1998/99, however, because there is less acreage devoted to the cane crop. Sugarcane is projected at 1.0 million tons. Under normal conditions, an expected recovery rate of 10 percent would imply the 100,000 STRV production level. One concern, however, is that the current dry conditions resemble the extremely dry spring of a year ago. Hawaii cane sugar production is projected at 330,000 STRV. The key factor for Hawaii is the closing of the Pioneer Mill in Maui. This mill has produced about 20,000 to 25,000 in the mid- to late-1990s. A reduction of 20,000 STRV from the 1998/99 forecasted 350,000 STRV is the basis of the 1999/2000 Hawaii projection. A forecasting difficulty with respect to Hawaii is that the 1999 NASS forecasts of Hawaii acreage and production relate to 1998/99 rather than 1999/2000. The first NASS acreage forecast for 1999/2000 will not come until June 2000. Puerto Rico cane sugar production is projected at 15,000 STRV. The reconstructed Roig mill should be back in operation, which should put production back to levels in 1997/98. Nonetheless, the Puerto Rican sugar sector still faces high costs and problems stemming in part from the privatization of the mills. Imports Non-TRQ imports for 1999/2000 are projected at 725,000 STRV. The largest component of non-TRQ imports are imports entering at the high tariff. Most of these imports are expected to be sourced from Mexico. The NAFTA high-tier tariff for raw sugar (96 pol) is reduced from 13.60 cents a pound to 12.09 cents a pound in calendar 2000. The corresponding tariff for refined sugar (100 pol) is reduced from 14.42 cents a pound to 12.81 cents a pound. There are no price-based safeguards for sugar sourced from NAFTA countries, and world prices are expected to remain at low levels for the foreseeable future. It is probable that incentives for traders to import high-tariff Mexican sugar will be limited by the effect it has on the No.14 Contract raw sugar futures price. It is probable that the most important effect of increased Mexican imports will be to reduce the TRQ. The remainder of other import projections are for the Refined Sugar Re-export Program (175,000 STRV), the Sugar Containing Products Re-export Program (175,000 STRV), imports for the production of polyhydric alcohol (15,000 STRV), and the estimated sugar content of sugar syrups entering the United States under the tariff heading 1702.90.40 (100,000 STRV). The raw and refined TRQ for 1999/2000 will be announced later this year but must sum to at least 1.256 million tons. Deliveries and Exports Total deliveries are projected at 10.150 million STRV, an 1.8- percent increase over the previous year. Total deliveries include sugar included in products for the Sugar Containing Products Re-export Program (175,000 STRV), deliveries for use in the Polyhydric Alcohol Program (15,000 STRV), and for feed use (7,000 STRV). Deliveries for human consumption are calculated as a residual: 9.953 million STRV. Additionally, exports for the Refined Sugar Re-export Program are projected at 175,000 STRV. Projected total use for 1999/2000 sums to 10.325 million STRV, a growth of 175,000 STRV over 1998/99. Deliveries to industrial users are projected to increase by 2.5 percent, while deliveries to non-industrial users are projected to increase by only 0.8 percent. The share of industrial users' deliveries is projected to grow to 59.6 percent in 1999/2000, up from 59.2 percent forecast for 1998/99. Deliveries to confectioners, although down the first half of 1998/99 by over 4 percent compared with a year ago, are expected to recover. Deliveries for baking and cereal uses and for multiple uses are expected to continue their strong trend growth patterns. Mexican Sugar The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) currently projects Mexican sugar production for the November 1998/October 1999 marketing year (MY 1998) at 5.04 million metric tons, raw value (MTRV). The Mexican Government's sugar agency, Coaazucar, pegs production in its fourth sugar estimate somewhat lower, at 4.705 MTRV. Regardless of source, it is agreed that production is down from the previous year due to decreased yields resulting from extremely dry weather throughout most of the growing season. Also, the harvest season in Veracruz was delayed by excessively wet weather just prior to the normal harvest starting date. Labor shortages contributed to harvest problems in the states of Veracruz, Tamaulipas, and San Luis Potosi. Sugar consumption is projected at 4.24 million MTRV, with the soft drink industry demanding between 1.2 to 1.4 million MTRV. Sugar exports are projected at 955,000 MTRV. The Mexican Government helps to finance storage costs up to 600,000 MTRV. Ending stocks are projected at 759,000 MTRV. USDA currently projects Mexican sugar production for MY 1999 at 5.14 million MTRV. Acreage is expected to be about the same as this year, although yields should be higher, about 72 metric tons per hectare, assuming normal weather patterns. Producers are reportedly holding high inventories, and with low export prices, producers are not planning for major expansions next year. Sugar consumption is expected to be flat in MY 1999, about 4.2 million MTRV. Producers claim that stagnant demand growth is attributable to the replacement of sugar by imported and domestically-produced high fructose corn syrup. Although soft drink demand is expected to grow by 3 percent next year, most of the growth is in bottled water and diet products. Projected exports are 900,000 MTRV, about 6 percent lower than predicted exports in MY 1998. The Mexican Government has agreed to continue into MY 1999 its financing assistance in keeping stocks at least 600,000 MTRV. Sugar stocks for FY 1999 are projected to be 629,000 MTRV. In January 1999, negotiations between sugarcane producers, the Mexican Government, and the sugar industry produced an agreement that pays growers 57 percent of the wholesale reference price for a metric ton (mt) of standard sugar. The price was increased to 3,688.42 pesos per mt, FOB mill, or US$368.84 per mt. Growers receive 2,102 pesos per mt, up 5 percent from MY 1997. The reference price for MY 1999 will be 3,921.96 pesos per mt. High Fructose Corn Syrup The combined production of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) for 1998 is estimated at 9.15 million short tons, dry weight, 5.5 percent above 1997. 1/ --------- 1/ Throughout this report, high fructose corn syrup is reported in short tons, dry basis, unless otherwise noted. --------- HFCS-42 production is estimated to comprise about 36 percent of the total, or 3.296 million tons. The remainder (5.854 million tons) is comprised of HFCS-55 syrup. 2/ -------- 2/ In this report, the HFCS-55 comprises corn sweetener products whose fructose composition is 55 percent or higher. These products include HFCS-55 syrup, HFCS-55 solid, HFCS-90, crystalline fructose, and others. -------- Domestic deliveries of HFCS-42 grew by only 3.4 percent to 3.318 million tons. HFCS-55 deliveries grew by 5.1 percent to 5.561 million tons. HFCS-42 exports were small (39,000 tons), and were less than imports (61,000 tons). HFCS-55 exports grew by 36 percent to 349,000 tons and now comprise 5.9 percent of total estimated use, up from 3.7 and 4.6 percent in 1996 and 1997. HFCS production in 1999 is projected to increase by 4.6 percent to 9.572 million tons: 3.431 million tons for HFCS-42 and 6.141 million tons for HFCS-55. HFCS-42 production growth is projected at 4.1 percent, up from 3.4 percent in 1998. HFCS-55 production growth is projected at 4.9 percent, down from 6.6 percent in 1998. Actual first-quarter (January-March) data show strong HFCS-42 deliveries of 10.4 percent growth over the same period last year. Comparable first-quarter HFCS-55 deliveries, on the other hand, were only 1.7 percent, which compares with 3.8 percent growth for the first quarter of 1998--less than half as much. For the entire year, HFCS-42 domestic deliveries are projected at 3.436 million tons, representing 3.6 percent yearly growth. HFCS-55 domestic deliveries are projected at 5.756 million tons, representing 3.5 percent yearly growth, down from 5.1 percent for 1998. Exports are difficult to project but should continue to expand. Figure 1 shows HFCS-55 exports since 1996 to both Mexico and the world. Total exports have grown from 190,000 tons in 1996, to 257,000 tons in 1997, and 349,000 tons in 1998. In 1996, exports to Mexico comprised 71 percent of the total. Although exports to Mexico have continued to expand (153,000 tons in 1997 and 178,000 tons in 1998 according to U.S. Customs data), their proportion of total exports has declined: 60 percent in 1997 and 51 percent in 1998. With increased compensatory duties on U.S. Mexican exports (see below), export growth to Mexico will likely decrease (although January and February U.S. export data show the opposite). However, if trends to other importers continue, U.S. HFCS-55 exports should continue to grow despite a slowdown to Mexico. The current 1999 export projection is 429,000 tons, up 23 percent over 1998. Milling and Baking News reports some moderate strengthening of HFCS-42 spot prices. They were at a low of 9.9 cents a pound in the third quarter of 1998 but have risen to 11.33 cents a pound in the first quarter of 1999. Even so, the 1999 first-quarter average is below the comparable period for 1998, when the spot price averaged 11.53 cents a pound. Figure 2 shows the ratio of the HFCS-42 spot price to the Midwest wholesale beet sugar price, also reported in the Milling and Baking News. Although beet sugar prices have recently risen over 1998 levels, the HFCS-42 spot price has increased proportionally more, thereby causing the ratio of the two prices to rise to 0.42 from a low of 0.38 in the third quarter of 1998. A 0.42-ratio level is still low by historical standards: the ratio averaged 0.61 in 1995 and 0.50 in 1996 before dropping precipitously in 1997. Although the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not project HFCS prices, it would not seem likely that HFCS prices will return this year to the high levels achieved 3 and 4 years ago. The U.S. HFCS sector is still burdened by excess capacity, and it will take some time for demand to catch up with existing supply potential. Figure 3 shows net corn cost relative to the spot HFCS-42 price. The ratio fell below 0.30 in the third quarter and averaged 0.25 in the first quarter of 1999. From a cost perspective, HFCS producers would seem much better off relative to 1996, 1997, and even 1998. Although difficult to predict, net corn costs are not likely to vary much in 1999. USDA reports that 1999 intended corn acreage is down 2 percent, but weak feed demand will likely limit any upward price movements implied by reduced production. Byproduct prices (mainly corn gluten meal and feed) that offset the cost component of corn prices are at historically low levels and are likely to remain there. HFCS and Mexico There are two HFCS producing facilities in Mexico. ALMEX is located in the state of Guadalajara and is jointly owned and operated by A.E. Staley Manufacturing Company and Archer Daniels Midland. ARANCIA is located in the state of Queretaro, and Corn Products International, Inc. now has a controlling interest. Corn used in wet milling is imported into Mexico from the United States under a tariff-rate quota (TRQ) administered by the Mexican Secretariat of Commerce and Industrial Development (SECOFI). The TRQ for 1998 was 1,622,032 metric tons (mt), and 432,410 mt for the first quarter of 1999. Although there is no available public data, sources indicate that domestic HFCS production was between 220,000 and 300,000 mt in 1998. Output is not expected to expand significantly in 1999. Sources also indicate that domestic HFCS production displaced between 170,000 and 230,000 mt of sugar consumption in Mexico in 1998. Presumably, this same level of displacement would be expected in 1999 as well. HFCS imports from the United States face compensatory duties. The duties were applied by SECOFI in June 1997 when SECOFI alleged that HFCS was being dumped into the Mexican market. These duties were made permanent in January 1998 when the dumping allegations were substantiated. Duties were also imposed on HFCS-90 in September 1998 after SECOFI concluded that HFCS-90 was being imported in order to avoid previously-imposed duties on HFCS-55. (Because HFCS-90 is used by HFCS-producing facilities in Mexico to produce HFCS-55, the duties help to limit domestic HFCS production.) Table T-x shows compensatory duties by product and company. In February 1998, the U.S. Corn Refiners' Association (CRA) asked for a dispute settlement under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to review the duties. By late 1998, the five members had been named to the NAFTA panel. The panel will commence to review legal briefs submitted by the CRA and SECOFI in 1999. Parallel to actions undertaken for NAFTA, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced its intention on May 8, 1998, to invoke World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement proceedings. The USTR has made two formal requests for the formation of a WTO panel. The first request was blocked by Mexico. The second request was made on November 25, 1998, and could not be blocked by Mexico. Progress in the WTO is expected to be slow. In May 1998, the USTR initiated an investigation under section 302 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (the Trade Act), in response to a petition by the CRA, alleging that the Government of Mexico had denied fair and equitable market opportunities to U.S. HFCS exporters. The CRA argued that the Mexican Government had encouraged and supported an agreement between representatives of the Mexican sugar industry and Mexican soft drink bottling industry to limit purchases of HFCS by the soft drink bottling industry. On May 15, 1999, the USTR concluded its formal investigation phase as required by the terms of the section 302 statute without determining legally that the Mexican Government's alleged practices were actionable under section 301 of the Trade Act. However, the USTR noted that its investigation had raised enough questions about the actions of the Mexican Government to warrant further examination and continued consultation with the Mexican Government on issues related to trade in HFCS. In December 1998, the United States dropped a safeguard measure meant to protect the U.S. broomcorn broom industry from Mexican imports. As a result, Mexico dropped its retaliatory duties that had been put in place on U.S. HFCS imports as well as other U.S. agricultural imports. As a result, the 12.5 percent ad-valorem duty was reduced to the NAFTA-specified rate of 6 percent. Level of U.S.-Mexico HFCS-55 and HFCS-90 Trade One issue that complicates trade discussions with Mexico is the uncertainty with regard to the level of U.S. HFCS shipments to Mexico. Exports reported by the U.S. Customs Service do not correspond to those reported by SECOFI. Figure H4 shows HFCS-55 and higher shipments as reported by both sources, along with the corresponding tariff codes. In this figure, shipment quantities are reported in 1,000 mt and are not converted to dry weight equivalence. The 1996 levels are close to each other: 157,930 mt for U.S. Customs and 159.77 for SECOFI. The gap widened considerably in 1997: 179,820 mt for U.S. Customs and 338,510 mt for SECOFI. The SECOFI import amount is 88 percent higher than that reported by U.S. Customs. The gap narrowed to about 38 percent in 1998: 207,090 mt reported by U.S. Customs and 285,450 mt reported by SECOFI. Interestingly, the U.S.-sourced numbers show increases in export levels in spite of Mexican compensatory duties for both 1997 and 1998. The Mexican data show a decrease of over 53,000 mt from 1997 to 1998. Early-Season USDA Projections of Sugar Production By: Stephen L. Haley 1/ ------ 1/ Agricultural economist, Specialty Crops Branch, Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service. ------ Abstract: This article examines methods used in the early projection period (May-January) by the Interagency Commodity Estimates Committee (ICEC) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for forecasting sugar production. This early period is important because it includes the time when the sugar tariff-rate quota is established and when the first tranche is either allocated or canceled. The quantitatively-based techniques that the Economic Research Service provides as input to the ICEC process are discussed. The article describes estimation techniques for forecasting sugar yield per acre. It also describes the influence of technological improvements on increasing sugar yields and the influence of weather. USDA within-season estimates of sugarcane and sugarbeet yields are analyzed. Keywords: beet sugar, cane sugar, forecasts, projections, sugar production, sugarcane, sugarbeets. Early-Season USDA Projections of Sugar Production Each month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) publishes its projections of sugar supply and utilization for the preceding, current, and upcoming (May to September) fiscal years in the World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report. Personnel from several USDA agencies, who constitute the Sugar Interagency Commodity Estimates Committee (ICEC), have the responsibility of making projections. These agencies include the World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB), the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), the Farm Service Agency (FSA), and the Economic Research Service (ERS). The representative from the WAOB chairs the committee. The projections are closely followed by industry participants (producers and consumers) and by policymakers. The projections are instrumental in determining the volume of tariff-rate quota (TRQ) imports, including the tranches scheduled for January, March, and May. The first fiscal year (October/September) sugar production, consumption, non-TRQ import, and export forecasts are made 5 months before the start of the fiscal year (FY) in the May WASDE. A complete projection of U.S. sugar supply, utilization, and ending stock levels is made in October after the volume of TRQ imports is established subsequent to the September WASDE. The ICEC meets monthly and updates the projections as new information becomes available. The periods during which projections are made and revised can be divided into early and later stages. These stages are distinguished by the type of data and analysis available on which to make the projections. Prior to the February ICEC meeting, there is not enough Sweetener Market Data (SMD) from FSA to provide an accurate gauge of the current WASDE projections. Up to then, information from a variety of sources, including the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), is carefully analyzed, using statistical techniques and econometric forecasting methodologies in establishing and updating projections. The February SMD report information through December, the end of the fiscal year's first quarter. By then, cane sugar production from Louisiana is largely complete, and enough beet sugar production has taken place to allow for a comparison with what is projected. After February, actual production, consumption, and trade data from SMD play an increasingly important and larger role in revising projections. The purpose of this article is to examine more closely the methods used in the early projection period, especially August through January, for forecasting sugar production. August is a good starting point for analysis because it is the first month that NASS makes yield and production forecasts for sugarbeets and sugarcane.1/ ------ 1/ As explained below, projections of sugar yield per acre rely on yield forecasts from NASS. Although sugar projections are made starting in May, it is not until August that actual effects of weather are quantified through yield forecasts in a useful way for making sugar projections. ------ The August-to-January period is important because it includes the time when the TRQ is established (i.e., immediately after the September WASDE) and when the first tranche is either allocated or canceled. Both have direct implications for the quantity of raw sugar imports available to U.S. refiners. The emphasis is centered on the quantitatively-based techniques that ERS uses as input into the ICEC process. Although actual projections made each month are not necessarily the same as those suggested by the techniques examined herein, the ERS projections focus discussion in the ICEC meeting and help the committee to arrive at a consensus. Projections for Sugar Production in FY 1999 The ICEC relies heavily on NASS reporting and forecasting during the early part of the sugar production projection cycle. Although NASS does not forecast sugar production, it reports on the production of the primary sugarbeet and sugarcane crops from which the sugar is extracted. The ICEC must join together NASS-generated forecasts of beet and cane production with information about extraction rates. NASS does not report on sucrose content of the primary crops, and is silent on other factors that may influence the sugar extraction rate. NASS publishes prospective plantings of sugarbeets at the end of March, or about 6 months before the start of the upcoming FY. This and other information, plus an analysis of production trends, are major inputs into the initial sugar production projection made in the May WASDE. In June, NASS makes its first acreage harvested forecast for sugarbeets and sugarcane and revises its acreage planted forecast for sugarbeets. It is not until August that NASS makes yield and production forecasts. NASS continues updating and publishing its forecasts of acreage harvested, yield, and production through January for sugarbeets (although there is no report for December) and through March for sugarcane. Revisions are published in June. Figure A-1 shows WASDE beet sugar production projections for August 1998 through February 1999. Beet sugar was projected at slightly under 4.38 million short tons, raw value (STRV), in August. As NASS' forecasts of the size of the beet crop increased, the beet sugar projection was raised, first to 4.42 million STRV in September and then to 4.5 million STRV in November. However, by February, beet sugar production through December from SMD were much lower than anticipated and inconsistent with the 4.5-million STRV projection from January. The projection, therefore, was lowered to 4.4 million STRV. At this point, projecting beet sugar production left the early stage when another set of information (i.e., SMD) became useful. Figure A-2 shows changes in beet sugar projections and in NASS' forecasts of acreage harvested and yield from August through January. The variables each month are shown as proportions of the corresponding January amount, so all variables converge at the value of 1.0 in January. NASS' forecasts of acreage harvested do not change much--less than 1 percent downward over the period. The yield forecast shows greater variation and upward movement, 5 percent from August to January. The beet sugar projection also shows variation and upward movement, but less than the yield. Also, the sugar projection is imperfectly correlated with the yield. The strongest correlated period between sugar production and yield appears between October and November. Figure A-3 shows WASDE cane sugar production projections through March for each of the cane producing regions, except Puerto Rico, which is not covered by NASS. Hawaiian production is spread out through most of the year. The harvests in Florida and Texas begin later in the fall and can extend into March and beyond. The harvest in Louisiana usually starts in late September/early October and is typically over by the end of December. Developments late in the season influence NASS forecasts, and thus are not reflected in sugar production projections until later. Also, NASS does not separate out cane for sugar from cane for seed until December. One way is to allocate cane use in the previous year's shares in computing cane for sugar. Figure A-3 shows a rather flat profile, especially through November. The largest increases take place in Florida in December and January as the cane harvest gets in full swing. The Louisiana cane sugar projection was increased in December. Compared with Florida, a greater proportion of the Louisiana cane crop had been milled into raw sugar, and therefore, there is less uncertainty regarding the volume of total production. Figure A-4 shows changes in monthly forecasts of sugarcane acreage harvested, yield, and cane sugar, all relative to the March level (similar to Figure A-2). The profiles are fairly flat through November. Both yield and cane sugar increase from November to December, and all three increase from December to January. (NASS increased its forecast of Louisiana acreage harvested from 385,000 to 400,000 acres.) ERS Early-Season Projections of Sugar Production Figure A-5 illustrates the primary method ERS uses to project sugar production during the early season. The method derives from the separation of production into two multiplicative components: acreage harvested and sugar yield per acre. As explained, acreage harvested forecasts are made by NASS and typically do not vary that much during the forecast season. Sugar yield has several features that can be projected based on available data. The first feature is technical change. Over time, improvements in several areas have been made that consistently and predictably increase the degree of recovered sugar per acre. These areas include milling technology improvements, new mill capacity expansions, harvesting improvements in the field, better disease control, improvements in controlling pests and weeds, etc. Also, for beets, there is the additional recovery of sugar from the desugaring of molasses. Besides technical changes, sugar per acre is influenced by weather-related events. One way to analyze weather-related effects on sugar yield is to first consider the effect of weather events on primary product yields (cane and beet yields). The effect of weather is typically strong on primary product yields, and the relationship of primary product yields to technical improvements is less certain than it is for sugar yield. Technically, this means that there is low correlation between technical improvements influencing sugar yields and primary product yields. This low correlation permits interpretation of changes in primary product yields as chiefly related to random weather events that change year-to-year. 2/ -------- 2/ Times-series analysis reveals that Florida cane yields have been increasing about 0.22 ton a year since 1980 but that only 32 percent of yearly yield variation can be explained by the upward, technically-induced time trend. Louisiana cane yields show no consistent trend from 1980 to 1997, although yields since the mid-1990s have been growing due to the adaption of new enhanced cane varieties. Texas yields show no trend, and Hawaiian yields have been declining, probably due to the retirement of large amounts of productive land from sugar production. Almost all State beet yields show no trend, and there is no trend discernable in aggregate U.S. beet yields. -------- The explicit model representation for sugar yield is: This equation can be estimated with times-series data to show how sugar yield has been increasing due to technical improvements (coefficient B) and how yearly variations in beet or cane yields have influenced sugar yield (coefficient C). 3/ -------- 3/ Low correlation between primary product yields and time facilitates the interpretation of coefficients "B" and "C". Otherwise, statistical correlation (called multicollinearity) would lessen the reliability of the statistical measures used to measure the significance of the hypothesized relationships embedded in the coefficient values. -------- With estimates for A, B, and C, and with NASS forecasts of beet and cane yields, a projection of sugar yield can be made. This number can in turn be multiplied by the NASS acreage harvested forecast to provide a projection for sugar production. Lack of available data restrict the level of disaggregation in the analysis. There is only a national beet sugar equation because beet sugar production is reported only on a national level (although NASS forecasts sugarbeet production on a State level). The beet sugar equation can be estimated net of the effect of desugared molasses to isolate on the effect that the other technological factors have on improving beet sugar yield. This estimation can be done because USDA has estimates of the sugar produced from the desugaring of beet molasses. Regional cane sugar equations can be estimated because cane sugar production is reported regionally. Table A-1 shows regression equation estimation results. The "B" and "C" coefficients are shown, along with standard errors, and computed t-statistics. T-statistic values above 1.96 generally mean that one can reject the hypothesis that the corresponding coefficient is insignificantly different from zero. Also shown is the adjusted r-squared (R2), an indicator of how much of the variation in sugar yield is accounted for by variations in the explanatory trend variable (i.e., technical change) and by beet or cane yields (weather). The closer to 1.0 the R2 is, the better. Estimation results are generally good. The adjusted R2s are high, especially for the cane equations. The beet sugar adjusted R2s are not quite as high (0.55 to 0.61), partly influenced by aggregation over a wide set of differing producing-area conditions. The "B" coefficients are significantly greater than zero for all equations except Texas and Hawaii. All "C" coefficients are significantly positive, as hypothesized. The coefficient for beet sugar, net of desugared molasses, is less than half the value of the corresponding coefficient in the beet sugar equation. This would seem to indicate that, on average, beet molasses desugaring has accounted for about half of trend growth in beet sugar yield. The sugar yield equations are used to project sugar per acre. The projection is multiplied by NASS forecasts of acreage harvested to project sugar production for the cane regions and for U.S. beet sugar. The statistical properties of the equations can be used to provide confidence intervals (i.e., upper and lower bounds) for the projections. A qualification to the approach involves the accuracy of within-season yields relative to the final estimates. The final yield estimates are those used in the sugar yield equations, but the within-season forecasts of final yields are used for within-season projections of the sugar yield. First-yield forecasts are made in August, 2 to 4 months prior to the harvest. Each month closer to the harvest provides additional information for making the forecasts more accurate. Given times-series data on forecasted yields and final estimates, it is possible to indirectly quantify how much is learned with the passage of time to the harvest season. Within-Season USDA Yield Forecasts The model used to measure pre-harvest yield forecast accuracy is: Desirable estimation results would be that coefficient "A" is equal to zero, that coefficient "B" is equal to one, and that a very high degree of the variance in the final yield is explained by the estimated equation. Table A-2 shows results for U.S. beet yields, and table A-3 shows results for regional U.S. cane yields. The tables show estimates for coefficients "A" and "B", along with their standard errors and two sets of t-statistics. The first set relates to the hypothesis that "B" is significantly different from zero. A value of 1.96 or above is sufficient to conclude that the hypothesis is correct. The second t-statistic relates to the hypothesis that "B" is significantly different from one. A t-statistic less than 1.96 would indicate that this hypothesis cannot be rejected. The tables also show the adjusted R2 (explained above) and the Schwarz Information Criterion (SIC). The SIC is an estimate of the 1-step ahead out-of-sample prediction error variance. A smaller SIC relative to other SICs within a grouping indicates that the equation is a better predictor of the final yield estimate. It would be expected that the closer-to-harvest yield equation would explain more of the final yield variance (higher adjusted R2) and be a better predictor (lower SIC relative to earlier month yield forecasts). Month-to-month growth in adjusted R2 and the decline in SIC are rough indicators of how much information is learned between months in successfully forecasting the final yield. Table A-2 shows results for U.S. beets, aggregated across States and also at individual State levels, from August through November. Aggregate U.S. results are the most useful because the beet sugar equation (table A-1) makes use of only the aggregate U.S. beet estimate. All "B" coefficients are significantly greater than zero, but rise to levels significantly above one. There is consistent growth in adjusted R2s, from 39 percent in August, to 63 percent (September), 71 percent (October), and 93 percent (November). The SICs fall each month closer to harvest. There is an especially large drop going from October to November, as much of the harvest winds down and information about it becomes known and incorporated into the forecast. Table A-2 also shows results for individual States. Results in six of the 10 States are very similar to the aggregate results. These States include Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, and North Dakota. With each passing month the adjusted R2s increase consistently, and there is a relatively large drop in the SIC going from October to November. The "B" coefficients are all significantly greater than zero, and statistically very close to one (unlike the aggregate U.S. result). California results are close to fitting the pattern, but there is not much difference between October and November--practically the same values for adjusted R2s and for the SIC. Hard-to-forecast States include Idaho, Oregon, and Wyoming. Until November, all R2s are low and only rise between 45 to 60 percent by November. Table A-3 shows results for the U.S. cane regions. Results for mainland producing areas of Florida, Louisiana, and Texas show a pattern of relatively low adjusted R2s until January. The largest decreases in respective SICs take place in January as well. These results indicate that hard-to-predict late-season developments are crucial to cane yield forecasting. Steadier Hawaiian results (i.e., more gradual changes in adjusted R2s and SICs) are reflective of production taking place throughout the year. Thus, late season developments matter less in yield forecasting. The "B" coefficients for Hawaii, Louisiana, and Texas (except August) are all significantly greater than zero. The "B" coefficients for Florida are only significantly greater than zero in September and January. In conclusion, results indicate that more is known earlier in the season for sugarbeets than for sugarcane, even relative to the respective harvest periods for each. However, once beet or cane production is known with high certainty, implications for cane sugar production seem to be known with greater certainty than for beet sugar production: the test statistics for the cane equations in table A-1 are better than those for beets.4/ ------ 4/ Another source of uncertainty for beet sugar production derives from the early-campaign harvesting of the beet crop. If beets are harvested in September and processed that same month, the production gets recorded in the previous year's totals. Crop and fiscal years are now the same and do not begin until October 1. A small amount of Louisiana cane sugar production is typically processed in September as well. ------ An explanation is that cane is processed into raw sugar sooner after harvest than are the beets. Beets are stored in sheds and piles for a longer period during which sucrose deterioration can take place. This is especially true for the Red River producing area, where processing from crops harvested in October can continue on into May and June of the next calendar year.List of Tables Page World Production, Supply, and Distribution 1. World production, supply, and distribution, centrifugal sugar World and U.S. Sugar and Corn Sweetener Prices 2. World refined sugar price, monthly, quarterly, and by calendar and fiscal year 3. World raw sugar price, monthly, quarterly, and by calendar and fiscal year 4. U.S. raw sugar price, duty fee paid, New York, monthly, quarterly, and by calendar and fiscal year 5. U.S. wholesale refined beet sugar price, Midwest markets, monthly, quarterly, and by calendar and fiscal year 6. U.S. retail refined sugar price, monthly, quarterly, and by calendar and fiscal year 7. U.S. wholesale list price for glucose syrup, Midwest markets, monthly, quarterly, and by calendar and fiscal year 8. U.S. wholesale list price for dextrose, Midwest markets, monthly, quarterly, and by calendar and fiscal year 9. U.S. spot price for HFCS-42, Midwest markets, monthly, quarterly, and by calendar and fiscal year 10. U.S. producer price index for HFCS and sugar, monthly 11. U.S. consumer price index for sugar and selected sweetener-containing products 12. Sugarbeet prices, by State and United States, 1980-97 13. Sugarcane prices, by State, 1980-97 U.S. Sugar Supply and Use 14. U.S. sugarbeet crops: Area planted, acres harvested, yield per acre, and production, by State and region 15. U.S. sugarcane: Area, yield, production, output, recovery rate, and sugar yield per acre, crop years 16. U.S. beet and cane sugar production (including Puerto Rico), fiscal year and share of total 17. U.S.sugarbeet area, yield, and production, 1990-1998 18. U.S. production of beet sugar and cane sugar by State, monthly, quarterly, fiscal, calendar, and crop year 19. U.S. cane and beet sugar deliveries, monthly, quarterly, and by fiscal and calendar year 20. U.S. sugar deliveries for human consumption by type of user, quarterly and calendar year 21. U.S. sugar imports under tariff-rate quota (TRQ), by country 22. U.S. sugar stocks held by primary distributors, by quarters 23. U.S. sugar (including Puerto Rico) supply and use, fiscal years 1981-85 24. U.S. sugar (including Puerto Rico) supply and use, fiscal years 1986-91 25. U.S. sugar (including Puerto Rico) supply and use, fiscal years 1992-2000 26. Monthly estimates of fiscal 1997 U.S. sugar supply and use 27. Monthly estimates of fiscal 1998 U.S. sugar supply and use 28. Monthly estimates of fiscal 1999 U.S. sugar supply and use 29. U.S. beet pulp exports, by major destinations, calendar year Mexican Sugar Supply, Use, and Prices 30. Mexican production, supply, and distribution, centrifugal sugar 31. Mexican sugar prices, monthly, 1995-99 Corn Sweetener Supply, Use, and Trade 32. U.S. wet-milled use of field corn, crop year 33. U.S. high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) deliveries (including Puerto Rico), quarterly, fiscal, and calendar year 34. U.S. high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) production (including Puerto Rico), quarterly, fiscal, and calendar year 35. U.S. high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) supply and use (including Puerto Rico), calendar year 36. U.S. dextrose supply and use (including Puerto Rico), by calendar year 37. U.S. glucose supply and use (including Puerto Rico), calendar year 38. Net cost of corn starch to U.S. wet-millers, Midwest markets 39. U.S. corn sweetener exports to Mexico and Canada, fiscal years 1993-99 40. U.S. corn sweetener imports from Mexico and Canada, fiscal years 1993-99 41. U.S. HFCS trade with Mexico and Canada, monthly 1989-99 42. U.S. corn refinery exports U.S. Imports of Sugar Syrups 43. U.S. total imports of sugar syrup, harmonized tariff code 1702.90.4000, monthly 1993-99 U.S. Costs of Production 44. Sugar beet production cash costs and returns, 1997-98 45. Sugar beet production economic costs and returns, 1997-98 46. Beet sugar: Processing costs per net ton of sugarbeets and pound of refined sugar, by cost item and area, 1996 crop 47. Beet sugar: Processing costs per net ton of sugarbeets and pound of refined sugar, by cost item and area, 1997 crop U.S. Molasses Supply, Utilization, and Prices 48. Feed and industrial molasses, U.S. production, inshipments, imports, and exports, 1992-97 49. Feed and industrial molasses: estimated utilization, 1992-97 50. U.S. molasses blackstrap prices 51. U.S. imports of molasses, by country, 1989-98 U.S. Maple Syrup Production, Prices, and Trade 52. U.S. maple syrup production, imports, exports, and prices, calendar year 53. U.S. maple syrup production and value, by State, calendar years 54. U.S. maple syrup exports, by country, calendar year U.S. Honey Production and Trade 55. U.S. honey production, imports, exports, stocks, and average price, calendar year 56. Honey: Number of colonies, yield, production, stocks, price, and value, by top producing State s and United States, 1986-98 57. U.S. honey imports, by importing country, calendar year U.S. Consumption of Caloric Sweeteners 58. U.S. (including Puerto Rico) total consumption of caloric sweeteners, calendar year 59. U.S. (including Puerto Rico) per capita consumption of caloric sweeteners, calendar year Special Article Tables A1. Regression results: Sugar yield per acre, 1980-97. A2. Regression results: USDA monthly forecasts of U.S. beet yields, 1980-98 A3. Regression results: USDA monthly forecasts of U.S. cane yields, 1980-97 List of Figures Figure 1 U.S. HFCS-55 Exports to Mexico and the World, 1996-98. Figure 2. Ratio of HFCS-42 Spot Price to Beet Sugar Price, 1995-99 Figure 3. Net Corn Cost as Proportion of HFCS-42 Price Figure 4. U.S. HFCS-55 Shipments to Mexico, January-December Figure 5. U.S. Raw Sugar Prices Figure 6. World and U.S. Raw Sugar Prices Figure 7. U.S. Beet and Cane Sugar Production Figure 8. U.S. Wholesale Refined Beet Sugar Prices Figure 9. U.S. Sugar Production and Net Imports Figure 10. U.S. Sugar Consumption Special Article Figures Figure A-1. FY 1999 WASDE Beet Sugar Projections Figure A-2. FY 1999 Sugarbeet Acreage Harvested, Yield, and Sugar Figure A-3. FY 1999 WASDE Cane Sugar Projections Figure A-4. FY 1999 Sugarcane Acreage Harvested, Yield, and Sugar Figure A-5. Projecting Sugar Production Prior to Cane/Beet Harvest Autofax Access to Sugar-Related Data (ERS) From your fax machine, call (202) 694-5700 and listen to voice prompts to have the following documents automatically downloaded to your fax machine. You may request up to three documents in one phone call. Directory Identification Numbers and Titles: Sugar and Sweeteners: 12626 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates for Sugar 12627 3 pages (1) Wholesale refined beet sugar prices, Midwest market, 1960-present, monthly, quarterly, annual, fiscal (2) U.S. raw sugar price, duty-fee paid, New York, 1960-present, monthly, quarterly, annual, fiscal (3) U.S. retail refined sugar prices, 1975-present monthly, quarterly, annual 12628 5 pages (1) Wholesale list prices for HFCS-42, Midwest market, 1975-1995. monthly, quarterly, annual, fiscal (2) Wholesale list prices for HFCS-55, Midwest market, 1981-1995, monthly, quarterly, annual, fiscal (3) Wholesale list prices for glucose corn syrup, Midwest market, 1975-present, monthly, quarterly, annual, fiscal (4) Wholesale list prices for dextrose, Midwest market, 1975-present, monthly, quarterly, annual, fiscal (5) U.S. producer price index for HFCS and sugar, monthly, annual, 1986-present 12629 2 pages (1) World raw sugar prices, 1960-present, monthly, quarterly, annual, fiscal (2) World refined sugar prices, 1980-present, monthly, quarterly, annual, fiscal 12630 2 pages (1) U.S. and world sugar prices starting 1990-present, monthly, quarterly, annual, fiscal 12631 3 pages (1) Net cost of corn starch to U.S. wet-millers, Midwest markets, 1985-present 12632 3 pages (1) U.S. Sugar (including Puerto Rico) supply and use, fiscal years, 1980/81-present 12633 10 pages (1) The Beet Sugar Industry of Minnesota and North Dakota: Current Situation and Prospects, by Ron Lord, September 1994 Sugar and Sweetener Situation and Outlook Report 12634 Text Boxes, Graphs, and Tables, September 1997 S&O Report, 10 pages "HFCS Trade Dispute With Mexico," by Jacqueline Salsgiver; "Origin of the U.S. Sugar Import Tariff-Rate Quota Shares", by Nydia Suarez; and "Changing Structure of the U.S. Refined Sugar Market," by Ron Lord and Robert Barry, September 1997 Sugar and Sweetener Situation and Outlook Report For more information on specialty crops, contact the following subject matter specialists: Sugar & Sweetener: Fannye Jolly, (202) 694-5249 Vegetables: Gary Lucier (202) 694-5253; Tobacco: Tom Capehart (202) 694-5311 Fruit & Tree Nuts: Susan Pollack (202)694-5251 & Agnes Perez (202)694-5255 Industrial Uses and Alternative Agriculture: Lewrene Glaser (202) 694-5246 Internet Access to Sugar-Related Data Home Pages Main Data Directory: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/cgi-usda/agency.cgi?ers U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA): http://www.usda.gov Economic Research Service (ERS): http://www.econ.ag.gov Office of the Chief Economist, USDA: http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/ World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB): http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/waob/waob.htm National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS): http://www.usda.gov/nass/ Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS): http://www.fas.usda.gov/ Reports ERS Sugar & Sweetener Situation and Outlook Reports (including text of Reports): http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/specialty/sss-bb ERS Sugar Yearbook Data (September 1998): http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/data-sets/specialty/89019/ Sugar Statistical Compendium (1991): http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/data-sets/specialty/91006/ U.S. Corn Sweetener Statistical Compendium (1993): http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/data-sets/specialty/94002/ Farm Sector Cost of Production: Sugarbeets: Analysis, 1996-97: http://www.econ.ag.gov/briefing/fbe/car/beets2.htm Data, 1981-97: http://www.econ.ag.gov/briefing/fbe/car/beets3.htm Sugarcane: Analysis, 1995-96: http://www.econ.ag.gov/briefing/fbe/car/cane2.htm Data, 1981-96: http://www.econ.ag.gov/briefing/fbe/car/cane3.htm World Agriculture Supply and Demand Estimate Report (WASDE): http://www.usda.gov/oce/waob/wasde/wasde.htm February 1999 Outlook Forum: http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/waob/outlook99/99speeches.htm Sugar: U.S. Sugar Re-Export Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS): http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/sugar/sugarpg.html Foreign Agricultural Service Report from Foreign Countries (includes sugar reports): http://www.fas.usda.gov/scriptsw/AttacheRep/attache_frm.idc Sweetener Market Data, Farm Service Agency (FSA): http://www.fsa.usda.gov/ao/epas/dsa/sugar/coversu.htm END_OF_FILE