Dockworkers Begin Strike at East and Gulf Coast Ports

Oct 02, 2024

By Ryan Hanrahan

The Associated Press’ Tom Krisher and Tassanee Vejpongsa reported early Tuesday morning that “dockworkers at ports from Maine to Texas began walking picket lines early Tuesday in a strike over wages and automation that could reignite inflation and cause shortages of goods if it goes on more than a few weeks.”

“The contract between the ports and about 45,000 members of the International Longshoremen’s Association expired at midnight, and even though progress was reported in talks on Monday, the workers went on strike. The strike affecting 36 ports is the first by the union since 1977,” Krisher and Vejpongsa reported.

CBS News’ Kate Gibson reported Monday that the affected ports “handle more than 68% of all containerized exports in the U.S. and roughly 56% of containerized imports, according to industry data. So even a short strike would cause significant disruptions in regional trade flows.”

How Would Agriculture be Affected?

AgWeb’s Jim Wiesemeyer reported previously that the “dock workers’ strike Oct. 1 on the East Coast and Gulf Coast would not significantly impact grain export facilities.”

“The strike would have limited impact on bulk grain exports, including corn and soybeans. Bulk grain export facilities would not be affected by the strike as these facilities typically operate with different labor arrangements, such as their own employees or different labor unions,” Wiesemeyer reported. “…While bulk grain exports would be largely unaffected, the strike would impact containerized agricultural exports: Soybeans, soybean meal, and other agricultural products exported via containers would be affected.”

“In 2023, container shipments of soybeans through East and Gulf Coast ports totaled around 100 million bushels, compared to nearly 1 billion bushels of bulk soybean exports from the Gulf,” Wiesemeyer reported.

“While grain export facilities may not be directly impacted, there could be indirect effects on grain producers: The strike would significantly impact exports of chilled or frozen meat, eggs, and other livestock products, which are primarily shipped in containers,” Wiesemeyer reported. “Any harm to the U.S. livestock industry would indirectly affect soybean and grain farmers, as these industries are interconnected. East and Gulf Coast ports accounted for 44% of U.S. waterborne pork exports and 29% of waterborne beef exports in the first half of this year. New York/New Jersey, Wilmington and Charleston were the largest East/Gulf ports for pork exports and Houston was largest for beef.”

Fox Business’ Suzanne O’Halloran reported Monday that “the strike by workers at ports from Texas to Maine will reportedly hammer U.S. farmers already dealing with an economic downward spiral.”

“‘We don’t need another hit right now. And this is definitely going to have an impact on agriculture,’ Kip Tom, former United States ambassador to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture during the Trump administration, told FOX Business,” according to O’Halloran’s reporting. “…A strike would have a domino effect on container availability, storage, rail and truck cargo as well as food supply.”

Politico’s Grace Yarrow reported Monday that “nearly 200 agriculture groups warned President Joe Biden of the potential fallout of such a strike in a letter sent to the White House Friday, asking for help to mitigate the economic toll of the strike and other transportation challenges. The letter, headed by the National Grain and Feed Association, highlighted that ‘the impact on the supply chain will quickly reverberate throughout the agricultural economy, shutting down operations and potentially lowering farmgate prices’ if the strike takes effect.”

Overall Economic Effects

Overall, “a strike would reduce U.S. economic activity by between $4.5 billion and $7.5 billion for every week it continues, according to analysts at Oxford Economics,” Gibson reported. “The investment research firm estimates it would take up to a month to clear the backlog of shipments that pile up while ports remain shut.”

“Although West Coast terminals could absorb some cargo diverted from eastern ports, they couldn’t handle it all, nor could the U.S. rail system, experts say,” Gibson reported. “Should a strike persist longer than a month or so, some companies could face shortages of parts and other inputs. Much of the raw materials that go into a range of products flow through the East and Gulf Coast ports, such as cotton, wood and copper. The auto and pharmaceutical industries, which maintain lean inventories, could be affected, while port shutdowns in Miami and Norfolk could affect tobacco companies.”

“In addition, a strike could hamper shipments of products such as bananas, manufacturing components and plywood, interrupting the flow both of consumer goods and industrial parts for factories,” Gibson reported. “Fresh meat and other refrigerated food could spoil, resulting in shortages and increased prices.”

Source : illinois.edu

Video: The 15-Year Bet Behind Every New Variety!

Canada is trying to decide how much agricultural research capacity it can afford to lose. Brian Rossnagel believes the better question is whether the country can afford to rebuild it.

The longtime barley and oat breeder makes the case with a simple fact about his profession: the consequences of today’s decisions may not become visible for 10 or 15 years.

“Pick the right parents. That’s the biggest thing,” Rossnagel says. “If you pick the wrong parents, you’re not going to get anywhere—and you don’t know that until 10 years, 15 years later.”

That warning carries particular weight as Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada moves to reduce spending and streamline parts of its science operations. The department’s 2026–27 plan anticipates the loss of approximately 665 positions by 2028–29 and says some research will be reduced where capacity exists in academia or industry. AAFC says the changes will make its science operations more cost-effective over the long term.

For Canada’s seed industry, Rossnagel’s career illustrates what is at stake.

This fall, the retired University of Saskatchewan breeder will be inducted into the Canadian Agricultural Hall of Fame. During his 35-year career at the Crop Development Centre, he helped develop more than 100 barley and oat varieties, including CDC Austenson—one of Western Canada’s most widely grown feed barleys. His induction recognizes not only those varieties, but the collaboration and research system that made them possible.

Rossnagel is quick to emphasize that none of it was the work of one person.

“The first thing I thought about was all the other people who contributed to whatever success I and my program had over the years,” he says. “We know that it’s not an individual who does this. It’s a group—a team.”

That team extends well beyond the breeder whose name appears beside a variety. It includes technicians, pathologists, quality specialists, statisticians, regional testing sites, seed growers and industry partners. It also includes the breeders who came before and those who will carry the germplasm forward.

CDC Fraser barley, for example, moved through three breeding careers. Its parents came from Brian Harvey’s program. Rossnagel advanced the material after Harvey retired, and Aaron Beattie later guided it through registration and release.

That kind of handoff is normal in plant breeding. The person who makes the original cross may never see the resulting variety reach farmers.

It also explains why lost research capacity cannot simply be switched back on when budgets improve.

“If you shut it off, it’s very, very difficult—and particularly costly—to start it up again,” Rossnagel says. “If you have to start from scratch, it’s going to be at least 10 years before anybody notices whether you’re getting anything done or not.”

The concern is not simply how many experimental lines Canada can process. Modern equipment, statistical tools and genetic technologies allow today’s breeding programs to evaluate tens of thousands of lines—far more than Rossnagel could handle when he entered the field in the early 1970s.

But efficiency and automation do not generate every idea.

“If you pare back down, and instead of having six or seven individual scientists concentrating on wheat breeding, you go down and say three people could handle all this, well, that’s half the ideas gone,” he says. “Particularly if you happen to lose the three people who had the really neat and innovative ideas, boy, that’s a problem.”

It is a timely distinction for Canadian agriculture. Consolidating programs may preserve the volume of material moving through a system, at least initially. It may not preserve the diversity of thinking, regional knowledge or willingness to pursue unconventional crosses.

That regional knowledge matters because Canadian agriculture is not one uniform production environment. A variety suited to southern Alberta may face different disease, moisture and maturity pressures than one grown in Manitoba, Ontario or Atlantic Canada.

“Agriculture is applied biology,” Rossnagel says. “Biology, all around the Earth, moves from the poles to the equator. It does not move from Newfoundland to B.C. like politics do.”