As the leaves change color and the temperatures fall, traders in agricultural markets concentrate on production and usage figures for crops and livestock. With the delays in crop planting and the uncertainty surrounding trade, USDA has had a more difficult time than usual estimating the supply and demand projections for the various agricultural markets. However, these estimates are under intense scrutiny as farmers enter the fields for harvest and trade representatives from China and the United States meet. Each month, USDA updates the supply and usage projections, and the October update sent mixed signals through the markets.

If you follow news around the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), you have probably heard about small refinery exemptions (SREs) and E15. E15 is a small market—just over half of one percent of gas stations in the United States sell the fuel (RFA 2019). Meanwhile, SREs reduced the total RFS mandates by over four billion gallons from 2016 to 2018 (Irwin 2019). In this article, I argue that the battle over E15 is intricately related to SREs beyond the ‘great compromise’ the Trump administration is selling to the ethanol and oil industries.

The United States is one of the largest players in the international agricultural market. With the continued growth of its agricultural output, the US agricultural sector has relied heavily on export markets to maintain its competitiveness and profitability. In fact, projections show the United States will export $137 billion in agricultural commodities in 2020 (Daugherty and Jiang 2019).

Recent outbreaks of African Swine Fever (ASF) in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, South Korea, and especially China, have generated interest in how world commodity markets will adjust in response to pig herd losses due to the disease and to panic culling to avoid the negative impacts of the disease. This adjustment is complicated by the retaliatory duties of 25% and 60% that China has placed on US soybean and pork exports, respectively, and the duration of temporary exemptions on these tariffs on soybeans and pork. It is clear that a scarcity of pork will cause a reduction in pork consumption in impacted countries and a switch to alternative proteins. It is also clear that countries (such as the European Union and Brazil) who have direct access to China’s pork and chicken markets will see an increase in exports. What is less clear is the second-round impact of these adjustments. Will the United States ship more pork to markets vacated by the European Union and Brazil as these countries pursue lucrative markets in China? What is the net impact on US and world soybean and corn exports and prices? What would be the implications for the United States if China removes retaliatory duties?

The Iowa Departments of Agriculture and Natural Resources and Iowa State University initially developed the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy (INRS; ISU 2019a) in 2012 to provide a framework for mitigating point and nonpoint-source nutrient pollution across the state. A primary goal of the INRS is reducing total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) loads to Iowa streams by 45%, as established in the 2008 Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan (USEPA 2008). The INRS states that nonpoint sources contribute 92% of the TN loads that enter Iowa’s stream system each year, based on a previous statewide nutrient balance study (Libra, Wolter, and Langel 2004).