SUGAR AND SWEETENERS October 26, 2001 October 2001, ERS-SSS-232 Approved by the World Agricultural Outlook Board -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUGAR AND SWEETENERS is published three times a year (includes yearbook) by the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20036-5831. This release contains only the text of the report sss-232 tables and graphics are not included. Subscriptions to the printed version of the report are available from the USDA 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sugar and Sweetener Situation and Outlook. Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, September 2001, SSS-232. Contents Summary U.S. Sugar Current Year, FY 2001 Prices Policy Developments Forecast Year, FY 2002 Special Articles: U.S. and World Sugar and HFCS Production Costs, 1994/95-1998/99 The Brazilian Sugar Industry: Recent Developments Internet Access to Sugar-Related Data Report Coordinator Stephen Haley (202) 694-5247 FAX (202) 694-5884 E-mail: shaley@ers.usda.gov Principal Contributors Stephen Haley Nydia Suarez Database Coordinator/Graphics & Table Design Fannye Lockley-Jolly Editor Martha R. Evans Layout & Text Design Wynnice Pointer-Napper Summary On September 18, 2001, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) established the fiscal year (FY) 2002 tariff-rate quotas (TRQ) for imports of sugar at 1,288,983 metric tons, raw value (MTRV), or 1,420,861 short tons, raw value (STRV). The total includes a quantity for raw sugar of 1,117,195 MTRV, the minimum level to which the United States is committed under the World Trade Organization (WTO); a quantity for refined sugar of 34,000 MTRV; and a required quantity of 137,788 MTRV for Mexico under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that may be entered as raw or refined sugar. USDA has made the entire TRQ amount available to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) for allocation for import into the U.S. customs territory. Other imports for FY 2002 are projected to total 295,000 STRV, including 265,000 STRV under the combined Refined Sugar Re-export Program, the Sugar-Containing Products Program, and the Polyhydric Alcohol Program. Sugar derived from sugar syrup imports under the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule Code 1702.90.40 are expected to total only 5,000 STRV due to a recent U.S. Court of Appeals decision. High- tier tariff sugar imports for FY 2002 are projected at 25,000 STRV. On August 31, 2001, the USDA announced the Payment-in-Kind (PIK) Diversion Program, designed to reduce the Commodity Credit Corporation's (CCC) inventory of surplus sugar which costs $1.35 million each month. USDA projects FY 2002 (October/September) beet sugar production at 4.150 million STRV. This projection does not take into account the potential effects of the PIK Diversion Program, but does take into account the closing of processing plants in California and Washington State and other negative effects of low producer prices. Cane sugar production for FY 2002 is projected at a record 4.195 million STRV, about 3 percent above the estimated total for FY 2001. Production is projected to increase in Louisiana and Hawaii, be steady in Florida, and decrease in Texas. Sugar exports for FY 2002 are projected at 125,000 STRV. Deliveries to domestic food and other products manufacturers under the Sugar-Containing Products Re-export Program are projected at 85,000 STRV, and deliveries for the Polyhydric Alcohol Program are projected at 15,000 STRV. Total deliveries for FY 2002 are projected at 10.440 million STRV. After netting out deliveries made for the Sugar-Containing Products and Polyhydric Alcohol Programs, along with deliveries for livestock feeding (20,000 STRV), domestic food and beverage deliveries are projected at 10.320 million. The USDA will project FY 2002 ending stocks in the October World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report when more details about the PIK Diversion Program, sales to ethanol producers, and possible TRQ shortfalls become known. Beet sugar production for FY 2001 is estimated at 4.600 million STRV. Cumulative extraction of sugar from 2000-crop sugarbeets is estimated at 277 pounds per ton. Cane sugar production for FY 2001 is estimated at 4.072 million STRV. Production was strong in Florida and Texas, but dry conditions in Louisiana and Hawaii limited production. Production in Hawaii was also affected by mill closures. Sugar imports under the raw and refined sugar TRQ are currently estimated at 1.245 million STRV. As of September 4, 2001, sugar imports under the TRQ have amounted to 989,254 STRV, or about 79 percent of the amount estimated to enter for FY 2001. Sugar imports outside the sugar TRQ for FY 2001 are estimated to total 365,000 STRV, including 280,000 STRV under the combined Refined Sugar Re-export Program, the Sugar-Containing Products Program, and the Polyhydric Alcohol Program. U.S. sugar exports are estimated in the September 2001 WASDE at 125,000 STRV. Total deliveries for FY 2001 are estimated at 10.26 million STRV. Ending stocks are estimated at 2.065 million STRV, indicating an ending stocks-to-use ratio of 19.8 percent. Sugar stocks held by the CCC, net of expected sales to ethanol producers, are estimated at 740,000 STRV. U.S. Sugar On September 14, 2001, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its latest supply and use estimates for fiscal year (FY) 2001 and projections for FY 2002. On September 18, 2001, the USDA announced FY 2002 tariff-rate quotas for raw, refined, and specialty sugars. Current Year, FY 2001 Production Beet sugar production for FY 2001 is estimated at 4.6 million short tons, raw value (STRV). The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) estimates the sugarbeet crop at 32.436 million tons. After accounting for the effects of the Payment-in-Kind (PIK) Diversion program announced in August 2000, area harvested is estimated at 1.374 million acres. NASS estimates yield at 23.6 tons per acre. Beets sliced through July equaled 28,066,587 tons, an amount about 1 million tons less than last year's to-date total. The September 2000 - July 2001 cumulative extraction of sugar from sliced beets is estimated at 276 pounds per sliced-ton, which is close to the average recovery for the last few years. The extraction rate in the eastern producing areas (Michigan, Minnesota, and eastern North Dakota) was about 3.5 percent higher than the 1992-2000 average. The rate in the Red River Valley was close to a record, reflecting high sucrose levels and good harvest and beet storage conditions. The extraction rate in the western producing areas was about 10 percent below the 1992-2000 average; thus evening out the national average close to historical levels. It is projected that the September-August extraction rate will be about 277 pounds per sliced-ton. Adding estimated sugar production from the desugaring of molasses, the total is estimated at 4.6 million tons, adjusted to match the fiscal year. Cane sugar production for FY 2001 is estimated at 4.072 million STRV. Production was strong in Florida and Texas, but dry conditions in Louisiana and Hawaii limited production. Production in Hawaii was also affected by mill closures. Cane sugar production in Florida for FY 2001 was affected by the freeze in January and finished in early May at 2.055 million STRV. NASS estimates sugarcane for sugar in Florida at 16.354 million tons and acreage harvested at 427,000 acres, implying a yield of 38.3 tons per acre. Sugar yield is estimated at a high 4.81 tons/acre, although it would have been close to a record had not the freeze occurred. Cane sugar production in Louisiana for FY 2001 is estimated at 1.57 million tons. NASS estimates sugarcane for sugar at 13.811 million tons and area harvested for sugar at a record 465,000 acres, implying a yield of 29.7 tons per acre. Yields were limited by dry growing conditions. The harvest campaign ended in January with actual sugar production from October 2000 through January 2001 equaling 1.515 million STRV. It is expected that about 55,000 STRV of sugar from sugarcane to be harvested for FY 2002 will be produced in September 2001 and, therefore, be counted in the total for FY 2001. Cane sugar production in Texas is estimated at a record 206,661 STRV. NASS estimates sugarcane for sugar at a record 1.765 million tons and area harvested at 45,500 acres, implying a record yield of 38.8 tons per acre. The long harvest extended well into May, when over 16,000 tons of sugar were produced. Sugar yield is estimated at 4.54 tons/acre, a record; and the recovery rate is estimated at 11.71 percent (or 234 pounds/ton), also a record. Hawaii sugar production for FY 2001 is estimated at 240,000 STRV, down 78,000 STRV from last year. Part of the decrease is likely to be permanent due to closure of the two mills on Kauai that were run by AMFAC/JMB, and one of the mills on Maui run by Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar (HCS). There are now only two mills left in Hawaii. Although HCS expects to have the capability of processing the same amount of sugarcane with its remaining mill, the current harvest season has been difficult because of ongoing drought conditions. The firm on Kanai, Gay and Robinson, will be harvesting some of the old AMFAC/JMB acreage, but yields are expected to be low because of poor field conditions. Sugar production for FY 2001 in Puerto Rico was almost non- existent. Data made available to the USDA indicates that only 360 tons of sugar were produced in May 2001 for the entire FY 2001. Trade Sugar imports under the raw and refined sugar tariff-rate quota (TRQ) are currently estimated at 1.245 million STRV. As of September 4, 2001, sugar imports under the TRQ have amounted to 989,254 STRV, or about 79 percent of the amount estimated to enter for FY 2001. Sugar imports outside the sugar TRQ for FY 2001 are estimated to total 365,000 STRV, including 280,000 STRV under the combined Refined Sugar Re-export Program, the Sugar-Containing Products Program, and the Polyhydric Alcohol Program. High-tier tariff imports are estimated at 5,000 STRV, and sugar extracted from sugar syrup imports classified under HTS 1702.90.40 are estimated at 80,000 STRV. Sugar exports reflect shipments to foreign destinations made under the Refined Sugar Re-export Program. These exports for FY 2001 are estimated at 125,000 STRV, with more than 90,000 STRV having been exported through June (the third quarter of the fiscal year). Deliveries and Ending Stocks Deliveries to domestic food and other products manufacturers under the Sugar-Containing Products Re-export Program for FY 2001 are estimated at 85,000 STRV. Actual deliveries through July have totaled 79,075 STRV. Deliveries for the Polyhydric Alcohol Program are estimated at 15,000 STRV, with deliveries through July totaling 10,306 STRV. Deliveries for livestock feeding are estimated at 20,000 STRV, with deliveries through July totaling 17,169 STRV. Total deliveries for FY 2001 are estimated at 10.26 million STRV. After netting out deliveries made for the Sugar- Containing Products and Polyhydric Alcohol Programs and for livestock feeding, domestic food and beverage deliveries are estimated at 10.125 million. Food and beverage deliveries through July have totaled 8.254 million STRV. Beet sugar deliveries (for all uses), estimated at 3.839 million STRV, are 4.5 percent higher than last year through July. Refined cane deliveries, estimated at 4.472 million, are 1.9 percent lower than last year through July. Total industrial demand for sugar through July is estimated at 4.569 million tons (actual weight), up 0.9 percent compared with last year. Non-industrial demand through July is estimated at 3.189 million tons (actual weight), up 0.9 percent compared with last year. Ending stocks are estimated at 2.065 million STRV, implying an ending stocks-to-use ratio of 19.8 percent. The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) owns sugar as a result of nonrecourse loan forfeitures and sugar purchases made in FY 2000. As of September, the CCC holds about 790,000 STRV of sugar. The September 2001 WASDE estimates that the sugar sales to corn dry-millers for the production of ethanol will reduce CCC holdings by 50,000 STRV for FY 2001. Prices The fall-out from the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon will likely be felt worldwide for many years to come. The Coffee, Sugar and Cocoa Exchange was located at the premises of its parent body, the New York Board of Trade (NYBOT) at Four World Trade Center, and was destroyed when the two towers collapsed. The NYBOT resumed business on Monday, September 17 at its backup facility at Long Island City. Trading in each of the five commodities (cocoa, coffee, sugar, cotton and orange juice) is restricted to 1-1/2 hours daily, as there is only enough space for one commodity to be traded at a time. Despite the restricted trading hours, world sugar volume has been heavy, exceeding 40,000 lots on Wednesday, September 19. U.S. raw sugar prices (nearby futures, C.I.F., duty-paid, Contract No. 14, New York) averaged 21.10 cents per pound in August, having closed as low as 20.89 cents on August 29. By September 7, the #14 November contract had recovered to 21.05 cents/lb and then declined to 20.77 cents/lb by September 21. The refined sugar spot prices quoted in Milling & Baking New averaged 22.50 cents in August. World raw sugar spot prices drifted steadily during July and August, from a high close to 10 cents/lb at the beginning of July to 8.77 cents/lb at the end of August. In the first half of September, spot prices for world raw sugar were around 8.61 cents/lb. NASS reports the national return for growing sugarcane in the 2000/01 crop year at $26.30/ton, up from $25.60 the previous year. Expressed as a ratio relative to alternative crops, the real return to growing sugarcane has increased 4.2 percent. Figure 1 shows real sugarcane prices consistently rising since the 1996/97 crop year. Beet sugar prices have moved in the opposite direction. NASS reports that the national return for growing sugarbeets in the 2000/01 crop year was $32.90/ton, down $4.30/ton from the previous year. Expressed as a ratio relative to alternative crops, the real return to growing sugarbeets has decreased 9.5 percent. Figure 2 shows the decrease in 2000/01 as a reversal of a trend of higher prices since 1996/97. Policy Developments The USDA announced that beginning on June 1, 2001, the CCC would give processors holding CCC-owned sugar the option of receiving storage payments in sugar or in cash. The CCC also indicated that processors would be reimbursed from CCC stocks for liquid sugar donated to cranberry juice processors taking part in another USDA program designed to help cranberry producers. These disbursals of refined sugar were expected to be small. On May 31, 2001, USDA announced that it would sell up to 100,000 tons of refined sugar to ethanol producers with a 10,000-ton-per-purchaser limit. The USDA estimated that these sugar sales could produce a minimum of 15 million gallons of additional fuel. USDA noted that ethanol producers can absorb this sugar without negative impacts on the domestic corn market. On July 13, the CCC made its first offer to accept bids from corn dry-millers for the purchase of the sugar to be used ' as an accelerator to produce ethanol.' The USDA announced later that it had accepted bids for only about 7,500 tons of CCC-owned refined sugar. USDA announced a second tender but the results were again disappointing in that only two bids for a total of 1,575 tons were accepted. Also on May 31, the USDA announced that it would tender 20,000 tons of raw cane sugar for direct sale whenever the raw sugar price (No. 14, NY contract) equals or exceeds 22 cents per pound, and 20,000 tons of refined sugar whenever the market price equals or exceeds 25.25 cents per pound, Midwest. The USDA expects eventually to market a portion of the inventory at prices that maximize returns while not oversupplying the domestic sugar market. The USDA announced on August 31 a PIK Diversion program for the FY 2002 sugar crops. The primary goal is to reduce the CCC inventory of surplus sugar which is costing the USDA $1.35 million each month. Both sugarcane and sugarbeet growers can bid for sugar in the CCC inventory by offering to divert acres from harvest. Bids are to be ranked by the dollar value of the amount of sugar the grower will take to divert acres, calculated as a percentage of the amount of sugar in dollars per acre that the grower could generate, assuming normal yields. The program will be limited to a maximum payment-in-kind of 200,000 tons (actual weight) of CCC-owned sugar. Consistent with the Cost Reduction Options of the 1985 Food Security Act (FSA), individual growers are limited to a maximum $20,000 value in sugar. Sign-up began on September 10 and ends on September 21, with acceptance or rejection of bids to be made known on September 28. Forecast Year, FY 2002 Production NASS forecasts sugarbeet area planted for FY 2002 at 1.368 million acres, down from last year by 197,100 acres. This reduction reflects the closure of two processing factories in California and uncertainty in the Central Great Plains regarding the purchase of Western Sugar Company by the producers. It also reflects a decision to suspend operations for this year at the processing plant in Moses Lake, Washington due to high energy costs and low sugar prices. NASS forecasts sugarbeet area harvested at 1.331 million acres, an amount 43,400 acres less than last year's acreage adjusted down by PIK diverted acres. NASS forecasts sugarbeet production at 28.081 million tons, implying a yield of 21.1 tons per acre. The effects of the PIK Diversion program for FY 2002 will not be forecast by NASS until October. Based on NASS' 2001 sugarbeet yield projection of 21.1 tons per acre, and assuming trend productivity growth, national sugar yield is projected at 3.12 tons per acre. These assumptions imply beet sugar production for FY 2002 at 4.15 million STRV. Cane sugar production for FY 2002 is projected at 4.195 million STRV. Production is projected to increase in Louisiana and Hawaii, be steady in Florida, and decrease in Texas. Florida cane sugar production is projected at 2.01 million STRV. NASS forecasts Florida sugarcane acreage harvested for sugar and seed at a record 465,000 acres, an increase of 20,000 acres from last year. Although a return of more normal precipitation has counteracted dry conditions experienced earlier on in the growing season, NASS forecasts sugarcane yield at 36.0 tons per acre, down from 38.3 tons the year before. The forecast for sugarcane for sugar and seed production is 16.74 million tons. Assuming that this year's sugarcane for seed is about the same as last year's 4.0 percent, sugarcane for sugar production is forecast at 16.06 million tons. A normal sucrose recovery of 12.5 percent implies sugar production at 2.01 million STRV. Louisiana cane sugar production is projected at a record 1.76 million STRV. NASS forecasts Louisiana sugarcane acreage harvested for sugar and seed at 495,000 acres, a decrease of 5,000 acres from last year. Growing conditions have been good and NASS reports 70 percent of the crop in good to excellent condition in mid-September. With about 80 percent of the crop devoted to the high-yielding variety LCP85-384, NASS forecasts sugarcane yield at 33.0 tons/acre, up from 29.7 tons/acre in FY 2001. Assuming that this year's sugarcane for seed is about the same as last year's 7.0 percent, sugarcane for sugar production is forecast at 15.192 million tons, which, if realized, would be a record. Good growing and harvesting conditions, along with expected good sucrose content, imply a sugar yield of 3.82 tons/acre. Texas sugar production for FY 2002 is projected at 150,000 STRV, due basically to a shorter growing season after last year's record harvest extended into May. NASS forecasts area harvested for sugar and seed at 47,000 acres, slightly more than last year. The NASS yield forecast, however, reflects the shorter growing season and is forecast down 4.6 tons/acre to 34.0 tons/acre. Sugarcane for sugar and seed production is forecast at 1.598 million tons, a decrease of over 10 percent. Expected poor sugar content of the sugarcane crop implies a sugar yield of 3.25 tons/acre, a decrease of 28 percent. Hawaii sugar production for FY 2002 is projected at 270,000 STRV. The bulk of the harvest season takes place a year away; thus, the projection assumes a return to more normal weather conditions, especially on Maui. Puerto Rico sugar production is projected at 5,000 tons and assumes that at least one of the remaining mills will be operating in FY 2002 in spite of continuing financial difficulties. TRQ Imports On September 18, 2001, the USDA established the FY 2002 TRQ for imports of sugar at 1,288,983 metric tons, raw value (MTRV), or 1,420,861 STRV. The total includes a quantity for raw sugar of 1,117,195 MTRV, the minimum level to which the United States is committed under the World Trade Organization (WTO); a quantity for refined sugar of 34,000 MTRV; and a required quantity of 137,788 MTRV for Mexico under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). USDA has made the sugar available to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) for allocation for import into the U.S. customs territory. Mexico's total TRQ allocation is 148,000 MTRV, an increase of 32,000 MTRV over last year. Mexico's allocation is comprised of: (1) 7,258 MTRV under the WTO raw sugar minimum access commitment; (2) 2,954 MTRV of the 34,000 MTRV of refined sugar described above; and (3) a residual amount of 137,788 MTRV that can be exported either as raw or refined sugar. Under the terms of the NAFTA Side-Letter, Mexico's total allocation is equal to its net surplus production, up to a maximum of 250,000 MTRV. According to the NAFTA Side-Letter, net surplus production calculation is based initially on the difference between the Mexican Government's projection of sugar production in metric tons, raw value, less the sum of projected consumption of sugar in metric tons, raw value, and projected consumption of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in metric tons. According to the original NAFTA agreement (Appendix 703.2.A.13), the projection for the coming marketing year is to be adjusted for a correction factor. The correction factor takes into account the amount by which actual net production surplus is different than projected net production surplus in the most recent marketing year for which net producer surplus status was projected. In calculating the correction factor, neither the projection nor the actual net production surplus is to exceed the ceiling applicable for the year (i.e., 250,000 MTRV for FY 2001 to 2007) or be lower than 7,258 MTRV. Pursuant to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, USDA has established the FY 2002 raw sugar TRQ at 1,254,983 MTRV, or 1,383,382 STRV. This sum is equal to the WTO minimum access quantity 1,117,195 MTRV (which includes an allocation of 7,258 MTRV for Mexico) plus Mexico's NAFTA allocation of 137,788 MTRV. Certificates of Quota Eligibility (CQE) will be issued to allow Brazil, the Dominican Republic, and the Philippines to ship up to 25 percent of each country's initial allocation at the low-tier tariff during each quarter of FY 2002. Argentina, Australia, Guatemala, and Peru will be allowed to ship up to 50 percent of their initial allocations in the first 6 months of FY 2002. Mexico will be permitted to ship up to 15 percent, 35 percent, 35 percent, and 15 percent of its NAFTA allocation during the first, second, third, and fourth quarters of the fiscal year, respectively. Allocations not entered with the U.S. Customs Service during any quarter or 6-month period may be entered in any subsequent period. For all other countries, CQE corresponding to each country's allocation may be entered at the low-tier tariff at any time during the fiscal year. The USDA established the FY 2002 refined sugar TRQ at 171,788 MTRV, or 189,364 STRV, for which the sucrose content, by weight, in the dry state, must have a polarimeter reading of 99.5 degrees or more. The refined sugar TRQ is comprised of three components. The first component is the minimum level of 22,000 MTRV to which the United States is committed under the World Trade Organization. Included in this amount is of 10,300 MTRV allocated to Canada as a result of an agreement reached with that country and another 2,954 MTRV of refined sugar allocated to Mexico. Included in the minimum is 1,656 MTRV reserved for specialty sugar, to be made available for import on October 30. The second component is an additional 12,000 MTRV for specialty sugar. This amount is reserved for organic sugar and other specialty sugars not currently commercially produced or available in the United States. This portion is made available for import on November 28. The total specialty sugar is 13,656 MTRV, and except for properly certified organic sugar, must be packed in bags of 50 kilograms or less. All specialty sugar must have a polarity of at least 99.5 degrees and be accompanied by a specialty sugar certificate. The third component of the refined sugar TRQ is Mexico's NAFTA allocation of 137,788 MTRV. It is included because under the terms of NAFTA, Mexico can export either raw or refined sugar to the United States. The sum of raw and refined exports cannot exceed the NAFTA allocation of 137,788 MTRV. Non-TRQ Imports Other imports for FY 2002 in the September 2001 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report are projected to total 295,000 STRV, including 265,000 STRV under the combined Refined Sugar Re-export Program, the Sugar-Containing Products Program, and the Polyhydric Alcohol Program. This projection includes the remainder of about 14,300 tons granted to the C&H Sugar Company for FY 2002 as a result of a Settlement Waiver that permits the company to import up to 100,000 tons of raw sugar during FY 2001 and 2002 after surrendering CQE to the USDA for an equivalent amount of sugar. High-tier tariff sugar imports for FY 2002 are projected at 25,000 STRV. This amount includes Mexican refined sugar presently held in U.S. Customs bond. The USDA is not currently projecting additional Mexican imports at the high-tier NAFTA tariff rate. On August 30, 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a decision by the Court of International Trade that has the effect of reclassifying sugar syrups imported at low tariff under HTS 1702.90.40 into a new tariff classification with a much higher duty. The Court decided that sugar added to molasses in the syrup manufacturing process was a ' foreign substance,' and that the U.S. Customs Service should be given deference in deciding what constitutes a ' foreign substance.' Barring further developments, the USDA projects that sugar derived from the syrup will augment supply in FY 2002 by only 5,000 STRV due to the Court decision. This represents a decrease of 95,000 STRV from the projection in the August 2001 WASDE. Exports, Deliveries, and Ending Stocks Sugar exports reflect shipments to foreign destinations made under the Refined Sugar Re-export Program. These exports for FY 2002 are projected at 125,000 STRV. Deliveries to domestic food and other products manufacturers under the Sugar-Containing Products Re-export Program are projected at 85,000 STRV, and deliveries for the Polyhydric Alcohol Program are projected at 15,000 STRV. Domestic food and beverage deliveries are projected at 10.320 million, representing growth of 1.9 percent from FY 2001. Projected ending stocks are the difference between projected total supply and projected total use. Total supply is constituted by beginning stocks, production, and imports. Total use is constituted by exports and deliveries. The USDA will not officially project FY 2002 ending stocks until the October 2002 WASDE, when more details about the PIK Diversion Program, sales to corn dry-millers for ethanol production, and possible TRQ shortfalls become known. Special article U.S. and World Sugar and HFCS Production Costs, 1994/95-1998/99 Stephen L. Haley-----1/ -----1/ Agricultural economist with the Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service. ----- Abstract: LMC International periodically publishes its estimates of world sugar and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) costs of production. The data go back to 1979/80 and The 2000 Report extends the data through 1998/99. This article reports on yearly trends in costs for various categories of raw cane and beet producers. The categories include low-cost producers and major exporters. World HFCS cost trends are also traced out. Several diagrams directly compare regional U.S. costs of production with those of other countries for both beet and cane sugar. Components of these costs show where certain U.S. advantages may lie vis-a-vis other countries. Keywords: Beet sugar, cane sugar, costs of production, high fructose corn syrup. Introduction LMC International periodically publishes its estimates of world sugar and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) costs of production.-----2/ ----- 2/ The study is copyrighted and the results for specific countries or regions may not be quoted or published without prior approval of LMC International. Starting in 2001, LMC International will offer an on-line internet service for subscribers that will provide more frequent updates of its cost of production estimates. For more detailed information regarding LMC services, contact: AndreaKavaler, LMC International, 1841 Broadway, New York, NY 10023. Tel: (212) 586-2427, or analysis@lmc-ny.com. ----- The data go back to 1979/80 and The 2000 Report extends the data through 1998/99. Field, factory, and administrative costs are detailed for 41 beet producing countries and for 63 cane producing countries. HFCS production costs are presented for 19 countries. Articles in previous Sugar and Sweetener Situation and Outlook reports have described data through 1994/95. This article updates the earlier articles and continues the focus on comparisons of U.S. costs of production with those from other countries. There are many limitations in the use of production cost estimates. For instance, the LMC data refer to estimated averaged costs within individual countries. Economists generally argue that marginal costs are more relevant in predicting supply response changes due to changes in output prices, government support, input prices, and the like. Knowledge of industry structures and specific production technologies in use are also necessary for predicting supply response changes when underlying price and cost variables change. Nonetheless, costs of production estimates provide very useful information. They typically form the basis for comparing competitiveness in production across regions and countries. They aid in the calculation of government support to sugar/sweetener industries in many countries. In addition, trends in production costs can be compared with long-term trends in world prices to evaluate the viability of production in markets that may be liberalized. Costs of production estimates are also useful in analyzing the consequences for sugar and sweetener industries of changing government support and of the formation of regional preferential trading areas such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). U.S. cane and beet sugar producers argue that they are cost- efficient even though their production costs usually exceed the world price of sugar. They say the world market for sugar is sufficiently distorted by other producing and consuming countries' policies that the world price is a biased measure against which to compare domestic costs. Therefore, the producers claim other producing countries' costs of production relative to their own provide a more valid comparison of cost efficiency. This article reports on yearly trends in costs for various categories of raw cane and beet producers. The categories include low-cost producers and major exporters. World HFCS cost trends are also traced out. Several diagrams directly compare regional U.S. costs of production with those of other countries, for both beet and cane sugar. Components of these costs show where certain U.S. advantages may lie vis- a-vis other countries. The article also briefly describes the LMC approach to estimating production costs for beet and cane sugar and HFCS (see box). Box text Cost Estimating Procedures LMC bases its estimates on an engineering cost approach. Its computations account for the physical inputs of labor, machinery, fuel, chemicals, and fertilizers used in alternative technologies employed in field and processing operations. The data, therefore, represent actual average costs and do not necessarily reflect minimum attainable costs. Cane and beet sugar costs are presented at three different stages. The first comprises field costs. It covers land preparation before planting to the delivery of beets or cane to the processing mill. Estimates are made for labor, capital, and all fuel, chemicals, and fertilizers used in the field. The second stage is the factory stage. For cane, this covers all costs from the initial arrival to the delivery of raw sugar into bulk storage at the mill. For beets, these costs account for everything through the delivery of refined white sugar into storage at the factory. For both cane and beets, all byproduct credits are applied against factory costs. As with the field costs, estimates are divided into their labor, capital, and fuel and chemical components. The third stage represents administrative and overhead costs that cannot be adequately included solely as a field or factory expense. HFCS costs are calculated somewhat differently. Unlike for sugar, the purchase of the raw agricultural product (i.e. corn) is represented as a factory cost. The close links between growers and processors that typify the sugar industry are largely absent in relations between grain farmers and corn wet-millers. For that reason the cost of producing corn is not included in the analysis as is the cost of growing beets and cane. The process by which HFCS is produced provides several additional products, including ethanol, corn oil, feed products, starches, related sweeteners, and other chemicals. Because of the joint product nature of the production process, LMC tracks HFCS production costs at two stages. The first is the processing of corn into a starch slurry. This process is common to all starch-based products. The second stage is the conversion of the starch slurry into HFCS. Byproduct credits are separated out from the costs of processing and applied against corn costs, thereby reducing the net cost of the raw material. Administrative costs are implicitly included in the processing costs, and therefore are not separated out as with sugar. The data are reported in terms of U.S. dollars using official exchange rates. It is possible, therefore, for a country to become a low-cost producer by a depreciation of its currency, and the opposite when its currency appreciates. (Although not reported here, LMC uses various deflators when reporting country estimates in order to give a clearer picture of changing costs.) Capital costs are estimated on the basis of replacement costs. Real interest rates are used in the valuation of capital, and capital gains are excluded from revenue calculations. Because the benefits of capital goods investment flow over a number of years, using current exchange rates may bias depreciation charges. LMC instead links the cost of capital to the U.S. index of capital goods prices, denominated in U.S. dollars. The ideal case for tracking land costs is to attach value to the land in its next alternative use, i.e. opportunity cost. This procedure is more easily followed for beets, where there are almost always returns from the cultivation of cereals and other crops. Information from land rental systems can be used to attach a value to land use. Where this procedure may prove difficult, costs associated with getting land suitable for cane cultivation is treated as a separate production process. End of box text Cost of Production Estimates Raw Cane Sugar Results of the LMC study are shown in two tables. Table A-1 shows production cost estimates averaged for various groupings of sugar and HFCS producing countries from 1994/95 to 1998/99. Table A-2 compares cost of production ranges for the same groupings plus the United States and a production- weighted world estimate range. The lowest cost cane producers were Brazil (Central/ South regions), Colombia, Guatemala, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. As a group they accounted for about 15 percent of world sugar production. The averaged total costs per pound remained steady over the period, with a low of 7.43 cents in 1994/95 and a high of 8.18 cents in 1996/97. Major cane sugar exporters were Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Guatemala, South Africa, and Thailand. Together they produced about 29 percent of the world's sugar. Averaged unit costs ranged from 9.73 to 10.72 cents a pound. These costs were low but about 2.6 cents higher than the lowest cost producers. The LMC data show unit costs for U.S. cane producers ranged widely from 11 to 23 cents a pound. This range was about twice as high as that of the lowest cost producers, and about 3 to 5 cents higher than the major exporters. The range of U.S. cane costs encompass the weighted world average range of 12.33 to 13.34 cents per pound. Beet Sugar Low-cost beet sugar producing countries were Belgium, Chile, the Netherlands, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Together they accounted for 9 percent of the period's beet sugar production. Unit costs per pound ranged between 19.69 and 21.74 cents. There was no significant trend over the period for the low-cost producing group. It is interesting to compare the lowest beet sugar costs to the lowest cane costs. To make the numbers comparable, the raw cane sugar costs were converted into their refined equivalent using a method used by LMC. These numbers appear in tables 1 and 2 beneath the results for raw cane sugar. As can be seen, the lowest cost cane producers have a cost advantage over the like-defined beet producing group. Yearly averages differ between 10.0 and 11.5 cents a pound. Major beet sugar exporters were Belgium, France, Germany, and Turkey. (Ukraine used to be a major beet sugar exporter, but its exports have dropped precipitously since 1996/97.) The major beet exporters produced about 9 percent of the world's sugar. Their units costs ranged between 21 and 31 cents per pound. The United States emerges as a relatively low-cost producer of beet sugar. Costs in the eastern producing regions of Michigan and Ohio, and Minnesota and North Dakota ranged between 15 and 25 cents a pound during 1994/95 to 1998/99, or about 37 percent less than the weighted world average. Costs in the U.S. western regions (Northern Great Plains, Central Great Plains, the Pacific Northwest of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, and California) ranged between 19 and 34 cents a pound, or about 17 percent less than the weighted world average. High Fructose Corn Syrup Weighted world HFCS (55 percent, dry weight) costs averaged between 11.8 and 16.8 cents a pound during 1994/95 to 1998/99. The United States was clearly a low-cost producer, with unit costs ranging between 9.8 and 14.5 cents per pound. HFCS costs in the United States were lower than comparable ranges for either cane sugar, white-value equivalent, or beet sugar, regardless of where produced. Implications for the United States Table A-2 shows U.S. costs of production were above the world average for cane sugar but below the average for beet sugar and HFCS. Figure A-1 shows cane sugar costs separated into field and factory components. The United States is presented as a whole and in its regional cane producing areas of Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and Hawaii. The competitiveness of the U.S. cane sector has been enhanced by relatively lower factory costs, which were only 4 percent higher than the weighted-world average. Florida's factory costs averaged 36 percent lower than the weighted-world average. Overall, U.S. cane sugar production costs were made higher by relatively high field costs, about 18 percent higher than the world average field costs. U.S. beet producing regions include the Great Lakes region (Michigan and Ohio), Red River Valley (Minnesota and eastern North Dakota), Northern Great Plains (Montana, northwest Wyoming, and western North Dakota), Central Great Plains (Colorado, Nebraska, and southeast Wyoming), the Northwest (Idaho, Oregon, and Washington), and the Southwest (California). Unlike cane sugar costs, all U.S. regions produced at less cost than the weighted-average of all other beet countries (fig. A-2). In terms of total costs, the Red River Valley was the lowest cost producer, while costs in the Central Great Plains were the highest. As with cane, the United States had a relative advantage in factory costs, which appeared especially low in the Red River Valley (30 percent of the world average). Also as with cane sugar, the U.S. had high field costs relative to factory costs. The Western growing areas had markedly higher field costs than the Eastern regions. Still, all field costs were below comparable weighted-world averages. References Haley, Stephen L. 'U.S. and World Sugar and HFCS Production Costs, 1989/90 - 1994/95,' Sugar and Sweetener Situation and Outlook Report. Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, SSS-223, May 1998. Hoff, Frederick L., Luigi Angelo, James Fry. 'World Raw Cane Sugar, Beet Sugar, and HFCS Production Costs, 1979/80- 1984/85,' Sugar and Sweetener Situation and Outlook Report. Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, SSRV12N1, March 1987. Lord, Ronald C., Robert D. Barry, and James Fry. 'World Sugar and HFCS Production Costs, 1979/80-1986/87,' Sugar and Sweetener Situation and Outlook Report. Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, SSR14N2, June 1989. LMC International. The LMC Worldwide Survey of Sugar and HFCS Production Costs: The 2000 Report and On-Line Service. Oxford, England, Dec. 2000. Special Article The Brazilian Sugar Industry: Recent Developments Christine Bolling and Nydia R. Suarez-----3/ -----3/ Agricultural economist with the Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service. ----- Abstract: Brazil is among the world leaders in the production of sugarcane, sugar, and ethanol (fuel alcohol). In addition, it is among the most efficient of all major sugar producers. The country also produces and exports a diverse number of sugar products. Since Brazil can produce either sugar or ethanol from sugarcane, it is one of the few countries that can adjust sugar production rapidly to potential world sugar shortfalls and high international prices. In 2000, less than half of its cane production was ground for sugar. Keywords: Brazil, sugarcane, sugar, ethanol, production, exports, prices. Introduction Brazilian sugar and ethanol are taking on considerable importance as negotiations of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) get underway. The U.S. sugar program and import tariffs on ethanol are important bargaining points to Brazil. As one of the world's largest sugarcane producers, Brazil has considerable influence over the international sugar market. Brazil is also one of only a few countries that produce ethanol from sugarcane. The balance between ethanol and sugar production in Brazil immediately affects international sugar prices. Nearly 4 years ago, Brazil produced so much sugar that sugar prices in the international market fell to fewer than 5 cents per pound. Production in 2000/01 was scaled back because of adverse weather, but is expected to rebound in 2001/02. This paper looks at sugarcane production trends in Brazil. Changes over time in sugar and ethanol production, consumption, and trade, will also be examined, with a view of prospects for trade and international prices in the near future. Brazilian Sugar Production Brazil vies with India to be the world's largest producer of raw sugar. In 2001/02, Brazil is forecast to produce 272 million metric tons (MMT) of sugarcane, while India is expected to produce 300 MMT. Brazil produces both raw sugar and ethanol from its sugarcane. As a result, it is one of the more flexible countries in responding to changes in the international sugar market. Brazil's sugarcane production hit its peak in 1998/99 at 320 MMT. The 2001/02 crop is expected to rebound 6 percent from last year's reduced crop, but it will not approach the record because of the smaller harvested area and declines in crop management during the past 3 years. (fig. B-1). Sugarcane production is concentrated in the Center-South region. Moreover, cane area is expanding into the state of Sao Paulo, which has traditionally grown citrus. Sugarcane replanting has also occurred at an unusually higher pace. The average renewal rate is approximately 20 percent, compared with the usual rate of 15 to 16 percent of total sugarcane area. The yields from sugarcane (measured by total reducing sugars) have also increased with the development of new and more productive sugarcane varieties. The Northeast region produces less sugar. However, because of the economic importance of the sugar industry to the region, the central government allocates Brazil's total annual premium priced U.S. sugar import quota allocation to the Northeast. Higher cost growers in the Northeast region receive a small subsidy for production. Brazil is Among the Top Cane Sugar Producers Although nearly half of Brazil's cane is grounded for ethanol, Brazil is consistently among the world's top three sugar producers. Brazil has two distinct sugar producing regions-- the Center-South and North-Northeast, with important differences in agronomic and government policy orientation. The Center-South region is dominated by the state of Sao Paulo, which alone accounts for 60 percent of the country's sugarcane production. This region supplies three-quarters of the country's cane, over 70 percent of the sugar output, and approximately 90 percent of the ethanol. The harvest season is normally May through November, although cane cutting in some years has begun in mid-April to ease tight ethanol supply situations. The North-Northeast accounts for less than 20 percent of Brazil's sugarcane production, approximately 25 to 30 percent of the country's sugar output, and about 10 percent of its ethanol. The states of Pernambuco and Alagoas dominate production, accounting for 80 percent of regional sugar and ethanol production. The harvest season is normally September through April and because of hilly terrain and poorer soils, production in this region is less mechanized than in the Center-South. Both field and factory costs in this region are higher than in the Center-South; however, the cost differential between the regions has narrowed considerably. Production of processed sugar rebounded from a low of 17.1 MMT in 2000/01, to 18.5 MMT in 2001/02, but it will not reach the 1999/2000 record of 21.1 MMT. For cane sugar production to increase, milling capacity in the Center-South region would require additional investment. Mills already have a long production season, operating from April to December. Production costs in the Center-South region are low in comparison with other countries, reflecting efforts to improve efficiency in all phases of the production process. The continued depreciation in the value of the real (Brazil's currency) makes Brazil even more competitive in the international sugar market. The value of the real relative to the U.S. dollar has declined by more than 50 percent from a year ago. Ethanol Has Been the Primary Use of Cane Sugar Brazil's interest in ethanol production dates back to the petroleum crisis of the early 1970s, when petroleum deficiencies forced Brazil to find alternative sources of fuel in order to avoid an economic slowdown. Brazil was innovative by turning to the biomass of sugarcane as an alternative energy source and began developing its ethanol industry, mostly through government support and control. As international petroleum prices declined, the government relinquished most of its control; with Petrobras, the state oil company, ending its monopoly over ethanol distribution in the late 1990s. Currently, ethanol production is regulated by government decree. Each year, a Presidential Decree sets a range (currently 20 to 24 percent). The actual percent is determined by the Alcohol Interministerial Committee (CIMA) comprised of representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Mines and Energy, and the Ministry of Industrial Development and Commerce. The Brazilian Government set total alcohol content in the gasoline at 22 percent as of May 31, 2001. The production of cane sugar is a residual from ethanol production, and, in most cases, sugar and ethanol are produced in the same mills. Most of the ethanol is produced in the Center-South. Ethanol requirements are expected to increase in the near future as international petroleum prices increase. The future level of sugar exports depends heavily on the fate of the domestic alcohol industry, which has no government production limits and is the major driver of sugarcane production. Total alcohol production for 2000/01 is anticipated to be 10.6 billion liters (5.6 billion liters of anhydrous alcohol and 5 billion liters of hydrated alcohol). The demand for ethanol is complicated because it is segmented due to cross trends between hydrous ethanol and anhydrous ethanol uses. Because of the petroleum crisis of the early 1970s, Brazil turned to vehicles that use hydrous ethanol and the demand for fuel peaked in 1989. As a result the demand for hydrous alcohol has declined. Anhydrous ethanol, which is blended with gasoline at either a 20/80 to 24/76 ratio, has become more popular in recent years. High- energy prices in 2001 have made ethanol a more attractive alternative, pushing a greater proportion of the blends to 22 percent. The increasing use of anhydrous alcohol in gasoline surpassed the declining use of hydrous ethanol in 2000. Because of these trends, ethanol demand will likely be 9 to 10 billion liters in the near future, but well below the record of 1996. The blending of anhydrous ethanol with diesel fuel, where the technical incorporation rate may be up to 4 percent, could boost ethanol demand. Ethanol prices were liberalized on February 1, 1999, and subsidies paid to hydrous alcohol producers were reduced from 0.98 reals per liter to 0.45 reals per liter. To redress the imbalance between supply and demand for alcohol at the time, the Brazilian Government immediately authorized Petrobas to purchase 400 million liters. The National Fuel Agency also bought 100 million liters. In addition, the Brazilian Government has the prerogative to change the alcohol/gasoline blend and the ban on methyl-tertiary-butyl- ether (MTBE). Prices for both anhydrous and hydrated fuel alcohols have declined in real and dollar terms. As of September 2001, anhydrous fuel alcohol was priced at 23 cents per liter, 4 percent lower than a year ago in real terms and 34 percent lower in U.S. dollar terms. Likewise, hydrated fuel alcohol prices at 26 cents per liter are 7 percent lower in real terms and 36 percent lower in U.S. dollar terms than they were a year ago. Brazil is a Large Consumer of Sugar With the fifth largest world population and a long tradition of high per capita sugar consumption, Brazil is one of the world's largest consumers of sugar. Brazil ranks fifth as a sugar-consuming nation, with annual consumption measured at 9.45 million tons. Per capita consumption is about 50 kilograms of sugar per year and has increased nearly 10 percent in recent years as more sugar is used in processed products. Consumption of sugar largely reflects Brazil's population growth. Food manufacturers, including those that produce carbonated drinks, chocolate, ice cream, crackers, and pasta (massas) account for approximately 35 to 45 percent of domestic sugar consumption. The remaining 55 to 65 percent is direct consumption. Given the economic importance of sugar in the national diet, the Brazilian Government has regularly given priority to the industry to ensure that production is sufficient to cover consumers' needs. Sugar for export, while vital to the national economy, has been secondary. Sugar retail prices in September 2001 were 23.53 reals per 50-kilogram bag, slightly lower than the previous year and have hovered at their present level since August 2000. In dollar terms, sugar prices at 17 cents a kilogram, are 32 percent lower than a year ago. Brazil is Also a Large Sugar Exporter Brazil exports approximately 100,000 to 200,000 metric tons to the United States, but has a much larger role in the world market. In 2000, Brazil exported about 7.7 MMT of sugar, raw value. Russia and Nigeria were the largest importers of Brazilian sugar and sugar products. In 2001, Brazil is forecast to export about 9.5 MMT. There are major factors that make Brazil a strong competitor in the world market. In 1999, freight rates fell in the wake of the Asian financial meltdown, making shipping to distant Asian markets such as South Korea, Malaysia, and Indonesia more attractive. Looming in the horizon are increased freight costs in 2002. The continued devaluation of its floating currency increases the attractiveness of Brazilian sugar. Lax fiscal discipline forced Brazil to change its currency regime from a crawling-peg currency to free- floating in January 1999. After the 60-percent devaluation of the real in early 1999, currency fluctuations subsided for nearly 2 years. In early 2001, the real began to weaken again. By mid-September 2001, the currency had devalued to 2.67 reals per U.S. dollar or about 36 percent since January 1, 2001. The devaluation also cushioned the effect of the fall of dollar-denominated sugar prices, making them less apparent than in other countries with stronger currencies. Brazil is enhancing its export ability by improving transportation and loading facilities. In 1999, four new automated sugar terminals began operating in the southern port of Santos. This has reduced costs and speeded up the flow of exports to the world market. Brazil is the second largest quota holder to the U.S. market and ships that U.S. sugar quota from the northern ports of Maceio and Recife. If the Brazilian sugar industry processes record amounts of sugar and attempts to export them, however, it puts enough pressure on the international market that world sugar prices might fall, adding to millers' financial difficulties. World prices will have to rebound for Brazilian sugar mills to be profitable and increase exports. Conclusion Brazil is among the world's largest producer and exporter of sugar and has a significant effect on world sugar prices. Brazilian Government policies supporting economic liberalization are likely to stimulate greater sugar production and result in increased Brazil sugar export availability. Brazilian sugar can be expected to remain competitive in the world market because of increased internal efficiencies as Brazil deregulates its industry, modernizes its ports, and reduces its transportation costs from the mill to the port. However, the main determinant of growth in sugar output and exports is likely to be government policies affecting production and use of ethanol. These policies may be affected by trends in international prices of crude oil, as well as by Brazil's approach to environment issues such as air quality. References LMC International, 'Brazil: Outlook for Ethanol Demand and Implications for Sugar Exports.' Sweetener Analysis, 12 pp., March 2001. F.O. Licht, 'Australian Sugar Industry Fears Rising Brazil Threat.' F.O. Licht's International Sugar and Sweetener Report, pp. 213-219, Vol. 131, No. 14, Apr. 26, 1999. ABARE Research report 99.14, 'Sugar, International Policies Affecting Market Expansion.' pp. 52-69. Buzzanell, Peter, and John C. Ronney, 'The Brazilian Sugar and Ethanol Industry: Performance and Prospects.' Sugar and Sweetener Situation and Outlook Report, Economic Research Service, July 1988. Brazil Attache Sugar Reports, various issues. Internet Access to Sugar-Related Data Home Pages Sugar and Sweetener Briefing Room:-- http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/sugar U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA):--http://www.usda.gov Economic Research Service (ERS):--http://www.ers.usda.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 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://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/so/view.asp?f=specialty /sss-bb/ ERS Sugar Yearbook Data (May 2001): http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/sdp/view.asp?f=specialty/89019/ Sugar Statistical Compendium (1991): http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/sdp/view.asp?f=specialty/91006/ U.S. Corn Sweetener Statistical Compendium (1993): http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/sdp/view.asp?f=specialty/94002/ Farm Sector Cost of Production: Sugarbeets: Analysis, 1998- 99:http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/CostsandReturns/car/beets2.h tm Data, 1981- 99:http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/CostsandReturns/car/Beets3.h tm Sugarcane: Data, 1981- 96:http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/CostsandReturns/car/cane3.ht m World Agriculture Supply and Demand Estimates Report (WASDE): http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/waob/wasde/wasde.htm February 2001 Outlook Forum: http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/waob/oc2001/speeches/speechpa ge.htm Agricultural Baseline Projections Tables: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/data-sets/baseline/2001/ Sugar: U.S. Sugar Re-export Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS): http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/imports/ussugar.html Foreign Agricultural Service Report from Foreign Countries (includes sugar reports): http://www.fas.usda.gov/scriptsw/attacherep/default.asp Sweetener Market Data, Farm Service Agency (FSA): http://www.fsa.usda.gov/ao/epas/dsa/sugar/coversu.htm Final Report of the Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture: http://www.usda.gov/oce/21st-century/index.htm Weekly Weather and Crop Bulletin: http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/waob/jawf/wwcb.html END_OF_FILE