By:
Chuck Woods (352) 392-1773 x 281Source(s):
Timothy Hewitt thewitt@mail.ifas.ufl.edu, (850) 482-9941
David Mulkey wdmulkey@mail.ifas.ufl.edu, (352) 392-1845, ext. 406
Thomas Spreen thspreen@mail.ifas.ufl.edu, (352) 392-1881, ext 209
John VanSickle sickle@ufl.edu, (352) 392-1881, ext 221
P.J. van Blokland pjvanblokland@mail.ifas.ufl.edu, (352) 392-1845, ext 408
William Messina wamessina@mail.ifas.ufl.edu, (352) 392-1826, ext 308
GAINESVILLE, Fla. — As aftershocks from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks continue to ripple through nearly every sector of the economy, the outlook for Florida agriculture isn’t all bad, according to a series of new reports from the University of Florida.
“Tourism, consumer confidence and state tax revenues have all been hit hard, but impacts on Florida agriculture are likely to be less dramatic due to the basic nature of products produced by the industry,” said David Mulkey, agricultural economist with UF’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS).
Mulkey, who coordinated production of the seven reports, said, “The demand for food and natural resources products is still there, and we have not experienced any interruption in the inputs — such as fertilizer, pesticides and labor — needed by producers. In fact, the cost of some of these inputs may actually drop because of lower interest rates.”
On the negative side, however, if energy supplies are disrupted, oil costs will increase, which would drive up fuel, fertilizer and chemical costs, he said.
Thomas Spreen, professor in UF’s food and resource economics department, said demand for “not-from-concentrate” citrus products, which are produced almost exclusively in Florida, is sensitive to consumer income. Uncertain economic conditions and possible disruptions in trade could affect exports to Canada, Europe, Japan and Mexico.
“Additional attacks in the United States or elsewhere would further disrupt commerce, thereby affecting the economies of the U.S. and other nations, particularly our major trading partners in Europe and Asia,” Spreen said.
Moreover, he said President Bush’s proposal to liberalize trade may be delayed until current hostilities have subsided.
“It might be some time before economic and trade issues regain the prominence they have held in recent years,” Spreen said. “The push for trade promotion authority to negotiate the Free Trade Area of the Americas will probably be delayed. Since Florida citrus producers strongly support existing U.S. tariffs on orange juice, a delay in expanding trade would not be unwelcome.”
John VanSickle, professor of agricultural economics, said the state’s vegetable industry should see a normal year of operation with only minor impacts.
“The demand for U.S. fresh vegetable exports may suffer, but that export demand is small relative to overall domestic demand,” he said. “The largest foreign market for U.S. grown vegetables is Canada, and there should be only a minor — if any — impact on that market.”
VanSickle said higher security, coupled with delays and increases in the cost of moving produce across U.S. borders, could actually have a positive impact on Florida producers. “It may cause a small decline in the supply of foreign produce that competes with U.S. produce in domestic markets,” he said.
He said trade issues will be discussed at UF’s upcoming First International Agricultural Trade and Policy Conference, Oct. 31 to Nov. 1 in Gainesville.
Meanwhile, the economic outlook for Florida agronomic or row crops such as peanuts, soybeans, sugarcane and tobacco has been only marginally affected by the events of Sept. 11, said Tim Hewitt, professor at UF’s North Florida Research and Education Center in Marianna.
“The overall crop outlook already was unfavorable before the attacks and it has remained the same,” he said. “In most cases, supply and demand conditions have caused prices paid to producers to remain low. Large supplies seem to be the norm for most commodities while demand has remained sluggish.”
In the wake of the Sept. 11 events, the seven economic outlook reports were issued by UF/IFAS faculty, and they are available via UF’s Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at the following Web site: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu
Terrorist Attacks In New York City and Washington, D.C.: Implications for the U.S. Economic Outlook, by P.J. van Blokland, professor in UF’s food and resource economics department, Gainesville. (EDIS document FE 311)
Terrorist Attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C.: Implications for U.S. Trade Policy, by William Messina, Jr., coordinator of economic analysis in UF’s food and resource economics department, Gainesville. (EDIS document FE 312)
Terrorist Attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C.: Implications for the Florida Citrus Industry, by Thomas Spreen, professor in UF’s food and resource economics department, Gainesville. (EDIS document FE 313)
Terrorist Attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C.: Implications for the Florida Vegetable Industry, by JohnVanSickle, professor in UF’s food and resource economics department, Gainesville. (EDIS document FE 314)
Terrorist Attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C.: Implications for Florida Agronomic Crops, by Timothy Hewitt, professor at UF’s North Florida Research and Education Center, Marianna. (EDIS document FE 315)
Terrorist Attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C.: Implications for the Florida Tourism Industry, by Allan Hodges, assistant-in, and David Mulkey, professor in UF’s food and resource economics department, Gainesville. (EDIS document FE 316)
Terrorist Attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C.: Implications for State Government Revenues in Florida, David Mulkey, professor, and Henry Cothran, associate-in in UF’s food and resource economics department, Gainesville. (EDIS document FE 317)
-30-
0
