Lead or the lead?

As usual we could lead this update with the newest on the Thai rice pledge scheme, loads of info to be had on this. But we're not.

Instead let's look at what would have been an unknown study on lead levels in rice. If not for what?

A popular way to scare away the foreign competition (from the US of A) is to label them unsafe.  The tool: studies into consumption rice lead levels. It revealed that  foreign rice has lead levels in excess of standards set by the US-FDA (but has no reference on domestic rice):

'New research has revealed that samples of imported rice sold in the retail markets in the U.S. contain levels of lead that are higher than permissible levels, according to a report by the BBC.

The study was conducted by Dr. Tsanangurayi Tongesayi of Monmouth University in New Jersey, US, and his team. The study found that lead levels in some samples exceeded the "provisional total tolerable intake" (PTTI) set by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by a factor of 120. High levels of lead can affect the kidney, brain and other parts of the human body.

Rice from Bhutan, Italy, China, Taiwan, India, Israel, the Czech Republic and Thailand were used in the tests, and almost the samples had high levels of lead. "When we compared them, we realized that the daily exposure levels are much higher than those PTTIs," said Dr. Tongesayi. "According to the FDA, they have to be more than 10 times the PTTI levels (to cause a health concern), and our values were two to 12 times higher than those 10 times," he told BBC News. Tests on imported rice from other countries are in the process'.

The  above was reported from Oryzae.com (Apr. 11). Further scaremongering: 

'According to the research, rice from China and Taiwan had the highest lead levels. One of the reasons why rice samples contained high lead levels is the fact that some countries use raw sewage effluent and untreated industrial effluent to irrigate rice fields, said Dr. Tongesayi. He added that there is a need for international regulations over production and distribution of food grains'.

But why are there high levels of lead in rice from Thailand? Or from Bhutan? 

The BBC then adds:

'Update 24 April 2013: This story has been amended to emphasise the preliminary nature of the results, which are under review both by the authors and the journal to which they were submitted for publication'.

And from Natural News (Apr. 21): 

'A recent scientific paper that concluded imported rice was heavily contaminated with lead has been suddenly withdrawn by its author. Natural News has confirmed from the author, Monmouth University Chemistry Professor Tsanangurayi Tongesayi, that the paper is "recalled until further notice."

...

Here's another clue worth considering in all this. In 2012, Consumer Reports published results of its lead analysis of 223 brands of rice. They also measured arsenic and cadmium in rice.
If you click the link above, the chart you'll see is shown in parts per BILLION. These numbers, in other words, are 1/1000th the value of numbers given in parts per million. As a reminder, 1000 ppb = 1 ppm.
If someone asks you, "Would you rather each 500 ppm of lead, or 500 ppb of lead?" the correct answer is ppb.
The Tongesayi team was announcing that it found rice to contain high ppm of lead. But the Consumer Reports team -- which of course has decades of experience running tightly-controlled lab analysis activities -- was only reporting lead at ppb in rice.
Somebody is off by a factor of 1,000. That's three orders of magnitude. And I'd bet my favorite pair of hiking boots it's not Consumer Reports'.

! 

IRRI wakes up (May 3): 

'“The most important issue for me at this point is to make sure the data is accurate,” Dr. Tongesayi said. “If it is not accurate we will obviously not publish the paper.”'

Too late?

Cambodia + rice

Cambodian rice exports are on the upswing. Oryza.com mentions (May 2) figures of +130% for the first 4 months! 

It also notes that Thailand is one of the principal destinations ...

Another destination is the Philippines according to Cambodia Daily (Apr. 8):

'Commerce Minister Cham Prasidh has signed a rice deal with the Philippines, as Cambodia tries to find new markets for its increasing supplies of domestically milled rice'.

The Cambodian Daily (Apr. 18)  reports on energy from biomass from rice:

'A U.S.-based energy company has announced that it is planning a biomass project using genetically modified rice in Cambodia, in a purportedly massive deal about which little information has been made public'. 

Particularly the section on GM rice seems interesting: 

'According to the statement, Sino Bioenergy’s “super rice” seeds, which are produced in laboratories, “are disease resistant, high yielding genetically improved rice with the transgenic rice grain length increased by 25% over normal rice.”'. 

Oddly it points to the company's own seeds, though on it's website they don't mention rice seed as one of their activities. Are they going to be duped ...? 

Oh and the Cambodian Daily adds: 

'The company’s [Sino Bioenergy] listed phone number in Hong Kong connected to a person who declined to give her name, but said, “Sino Bioenergy is using our registered address. This is not their office.”'

!

Another company involved are Sky Energy. 

'To enhance Cambodian rice yields, the government should encourage private development of rice-seed production and focus its efforts on farmers’ education and regulations that ensure the quality of seed, industry experts say'. 

So reads an article by the Phnom Penh Post (Apr. 25). Oddly, private sector investment and rice seed are not a natural symbiosis globally and Cambodia is not different. There's simply not enough financial reward for the hard work of breeding. So why this call?  The article isn't clear. It does note:

'After a number of attempts, MAFF declined to comment.' 

Yawn.

Setting standards for rice: 

'Building an industry based on a uniquely Cambodian standard will give rice producers a clear target to work towards and instil confidence in buyers, said a panel of both government and private sector representatives at a rice quality workshop in Phnom Penh on Tuesday'.  

Source: Phnom Penh Post (May 2)

The Asiafoundation.org reports (May 1) on Cambodia's potential:

'If Cambodia’s rice export sector were to reach its full potential, it could produce 3 million tons of milled rice, with the total export value amounting to $2.1 billion (approximately 20% of the GDP) and an estimated additional $600 million (approximately 5% of the GDP) to the national economy. It would also boost employment and income for agricultural farmers who make up more than 70 percent of the population living in rural areas'.

It also knows where the problem lies:

'Most Cambodian farmers cultivate paddy rice once per year during the rainy season, while farmers in Vietnam’s delta region cultivate 3.5 times annually. Such low productivity is mainly a result of high energy prices and poor transportation infrastructure'.

Well, it forgets the value of irrigation, even during strict Communist times with little or no energy at all, the Mekong delta still could produce more than 1 crop a year. The two sources mention are only impediments in achieving global competitiveness.

The guru of SRI (System of Rice Intensification), Norm Uphoff, visits his favourite son, Cambodia (Cornell News, May 2): 

'In his remarks at the conference, the minister [ Cambodia's minister of agriculture, forestry and fisheries] reported that use of SRI methods in Cambodia has expanded from small trials done by 28 farmers in 2000 to more than 200,000 farmers. Yields are 50 to 100 percent higher for paddies using SRI, and those yields are achieved with lower production costs. As a result, he said, farmer incomes from rice production can be doubled or more with SRI'.

Thailand is facing a crunch in supplying the world with maize and cassave. So now all of a sudden the Thai's are doing their best to open the borders for this produce (Phnom Penh post, Apr 23): 

'In order to boost the Kingdom’s trade performance and improve the quality of lives of farmers along the Thai-Cambodia border, Thailand has agreed to remove import restrictions on Cambodian cassava and maize'. 

Expect restrictions to be re-imposed once the export markets of Thai turn.

Woeful

An editorial from the Bangkok Post (Apr. 4) asks the government to admit defeat

'Come clean [on rice pledging]

Finally, the government has agreed to accept the hard truth that it can no longer buy every grain of paddy from rice farmers as promised when it launched the populist rice pledging scheme two years ago'.

The Thai government are hopeful (The Nation, Apr. 6) of offloading 6-7 million tons of rice this year:

'As the government is able to continue to release rice from the stockpiles, he said, the country should be able to get some return the total outlay of Bt410 billion during two years of the pledging programme'.

But, says the Bangkok Post (Apr. 7), exporters are in the camp of the non-believers: 

'Korbsook Iamsuri, president of the Thai Rice Exporters Association (TREA), said it remains difficult to assess whether the government could sell its rice stocks, as it has yet to call an auction for exporters'.

If all fails, exporters have a solution (The Nation, Apr. 9): 

'A source from a giant rice-export company said the government should release its older stockpiles for use in feed-meal production, to make way for new-harvest rice that will need to enter the warehouses.
"The government needs to clear its rice stocks urgently, in particular rice from previous harvests since 2005 because it is deteriorating in quality. These rice stocks could be used for supplying feed-meal producers," said the source'. 

Blasphemy? Why not name the source ...? 

Bloomberg has a good article (Apr. 18) on the rice-pledge saga. Note: 

'Rather than sell the rice on the open market—and risk embarrassment as private dealers see the haircut the government is taking—Thailand is trying government-to-government deals that allow buyer and seller to keep prices secret.

...

The Thais are selling into a soft market. “There is just no demand for this rice,” says Jac Luyendijk, CEO of SAT Swiss Agri-Trading. “You have to dump it.” Swiss Agri-Trading now buys about 30,000 tons of Thai rice, down from about 200,000 tons before 2011'.

Separately Bloomberg (Apr. 20) sums up the pro's of the scheme and estimates the costs: 

'Given the extra income for farmers, which is also helping to increase consumption in many rural areas, the government is unlikely to completely abandon the scheme despite the cost, but the rice pledging scheme is seeming to be like a snowball. At the beginning, the problem doesn’t look so big. An extra 45 billion billion for such increased income is something that the government would be prepared to take a hit on. However, unless there is a change in the international market, exports are likely to decline again, production to increase (and thus increased costs), and more rice stockpiles. If costs are 140 billion for October 2012-September 2013, what will they be for the following year'

The loss has just increased, as the price has just eased  ...

Adding to Thai woes are the price of the bhat whereas if you want to sell on the international market the price is in $ US. So with the bhat increasing one can blame failure on the international finance. Bangkok Post (May 1): 

'Commerce Minister Boonsong Teriyapirom has blamed the soaring baht for hampering government-to-government (G-to-G) rice export deals'.

And even more. Bangkok Post, May 3: 

'The Thai baht's rally to the highest level in 16 years is hindering exports from the world's biggest rice shipper, curbing the government's efforts to diminish record state stockpiles and threatening to increase its losses.

...

"Any success in offloading stocks will result in heavy losses for the government," said Darren Cooper, a senior economist at the London-based International Grains Council, which monitors global markets and promotes food security. "So the baht strength will merely add to what are likely to be very hefty losses."'

A plus:

'Higher rice reserves in Thailand may help increase global inventories to a record 173 million tonnes, according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation, which forecasts that world production will exceed demand for an eighth year'.

Outmarketed?

More foreign misunderstandings? The Nation (Apr. 17) reports that China based importers are mixing the expensive Thai rice with that of cheaper (and lower ?) grades. Consumer protection is still in it's infancy in China so don't expect the government to step in.

'"Although Thai jasmine rice is highly favoured by Chinese consumers, its too-high price during the past few years has encouraged traders to mix it with other grains. This is to ensure that we [traders] get some profit from rice selling because, if the price is too expensive, traders will get a lower return," he [Shua Hong Bing, a rice wholesaler and retailer operating in Beijing and Shantou] said. Consumers prefer to buy cheaper rice even though they know the grains have been mixed, because the price of pure jasmine rice is too high for them when it comes to their daily staple, he added.

...

The combination ratio is generally 8:2 or 7:3, with the Thai jasmine rice blended with smaller amounts of cheaper grain.

...

Fang Yi Ming, a 73-year-old housewife, said her family had always favoured Thai jasmine rice since she was very young. However, with the rocketing price of Thai rice, she has had to adjust and now consumes mixed rice.
"I can hardly find pure 100-per-cent jasmine rice in the shops, as most of it has been mixed. Even in restaurants, they have turned to cooking mixed rice or using Vietnamese rice because it is cheaper while having a similar taste to Thai jasmine rice," she said'.

Ms Ming seems to possess more economic sense than the whole Thai government!  

Not only are Chinese consumers turning their backs on expensive jasmine rice, the Bangkok Post (Apr. 17) notes that farmers in the Isaan are changing the varieties they grow. With the for farmers profitable rice pledging, farmers are now looking at fast ways to cash in: shorter duration varieties with high yields.

Brooding

Research on economic returns of hybrid rice in U.S.A. points to economics on hybrid cultivation being sound: 

'Researchers Lawton Lanier Nalley, an associate professor of agricultural economics at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, and his research assistant Nathaniel Lyman concluded that hybrid rice cultivars are found to have significant yield advantages over the best-performing conventional alternative'.

This could well be the case in high management input systems with good information available and consumer ignorance ... 

However for Asia this is often not the case, management is poor, plot sizes small, inefficiencies elsewhere and at the end consumer preference lies elsewhere .. 

The American researchers conclude that hybrid rice growing has better economic returns in the state of Arkansas (Agro Professional, Apr. 19). That's if the price is not discounted .... Which it is.

GM rice / hybrid rice, still not enough rice is being produced according to agenda's for futurologists. Yuan Longping (of hybrid rice fame) will now have to search for super rice (China Daily, Apr 9): 

'China will launch a special scientific research project to develop a new super rice strain, expected to produce a bumper harvest of 14.9 metric tons a hectare, Minister of Agriculture Han Changfu said on Tuesday'.

Elsewhere Mr Longping has been promoting waterfalls of rice (Globalpost.com, Apr. 15) : 

'Ping likened these grains into cascades of water that stream toward a bounty, have potential yield of 13.5 tons per hectare'. 

Lots of flowery text to mask the hybrid source. The underlying thought is that science and technology will save us from oblivion. Not economical sense. Nor consumer power.

An odd article from Pakistan's Nation (Apr. 22): 

'Public sector institutes like Rice Research Institutes of Kala Shah Kaku and Dokri have failed to develop new successful and popular hybrid rice varieties during the last several decades of their existence.
As a result the basmati export is decreasing day by day'.  

But is this the case? 

'Experts said that massive electricity loadshedding and gas management has hit its business like never before. As per estimates, power loadshedding has reduced the milling capacity by 50 per cent. Gas management has been exceptionally delayed drying process. Both of them have very badly affected the entire chain — drying, husking and milling — up to 50 per cent, making it hard for them to meet export orders even when they have them.
Two other factors are high domestic prices and loss of Iranian market, which was the biggest for Pakistani rice.' 

Economics thus. Note that hybrids will do nothing to help exports ...

Competition

Myanmar's rise to prosperity through rice production. Assisted by Japan. Japandailypress (Apr. 15): 

'Japan is helping to boost Myanmar’s quest to regain its status as a top rice exporter by importing long-grain rice from the former military ruled Southeast Asian country for the first time in 45 years. Even more importantly, companies like Mitsui are investing in rice production to ensure the longevity of the industry. Myanmar Rice Industry Association Chairman Chit Khaing said that Japan is very enthusiastic about investing in the country’s rice industry'.

Vietnam is considering (Vientamnet, Apr. 18) more investment in plants which can produce parboiled rice, an interesting niche?

And more

IRRI's Bas Bouman has more (Apr. 30). A plead to follow in the steps of the EU?

'So, why did I dwell so much on this Mansholt Plan? Well, despite its controversial aspects and despite the differences in location and times, I see some striking similarities between a number of conditions besetting European farmers then and those besetting rice farmers in Asia today. Asia has about 120 million rice farms with average sizes of mostly 1 to 2 hectares only. Returns to rice cropping are low, with values of US$200–600/ha/season being most common. So, even with a farm size of 2 ha and two rice crops a year, income from rice farming is only $800–2,400/year. So, how can any family live off the income from rice farming? The fact is, they don’t, and most farming families have additional off-farm income. In recent years, labor migration from rural to urban areas has accelerated tremendously in many rice-growing areas of Asia. Since it’s usually the able-bodied young men who migrate, the remaining farming population is aging and “feminizing.” Already, women contribute at least half of the total labor inputs in rice production, and now they increasingly have to take on decision-making and management roles as well as doing tasks that were traditionally men’s work (e.g., land preparation, spraying of chemicals, and fertilizer application). Despite this labor outmigration over the last decades, farm size has kept on decreasing and the number of farms increasing. So, just as in the 1960s in Europe, we have to wonder about the future of farming in Asia—and then specifically in the rice sector. With so few prospects of earning a decent income, who will produce our rice in the (near) future?'

So female lead agriculture is not good? And small is not beautiful? 
Well, look at what Mansholt plan produced: huge reserves of untradable commodities. A bit like the Thai rice pledge scheme. 
Mechanization comes through changes in labor (opportunity) returns, not through government plans. Bigger farms through economic processes.

IRRI's Samarendu Mohanty has a good overview (Apr. 11) of the situation of rice prices in the near future. Three factors to account for. China's domestic price policies, Thai government willing to sell below price and the monsoon.

Ill tidings?

Umm, we have a problem

Thai government involvement in their rice market was predicted to be ill-conceived; the surprise lies in the fact that it has taken so long to become apparent.

On the face of it, guaranteeing farmers a base price for their produce, always seems to be working for farmers. With rice growing in Thailand traditionally dominated by smallholders, it's them who stood to profit. But the higher prices guaranteed by the government may not have always trickled down.

However the plan to guarantee the prices hinged on the ability to market the produce. Governments are known to be poor market players and the fact that they created a near-monopoly is certain to contain its' hiccups.

Now, the rice pledging scheme is regarded as a disaster, according a report run by the Bangkok newspaper the Nation (July 26, 2012):

'Rice industry, already lost the title of world's top exporter to India, is heading for disaster in the next few years due to a lack of proper strategic management of the rice-pledging scheme and the country's exports, the Thai Rice Exporters Association said yesterday'.

Why? Because of the high stock position the government has as well as with the drop in export value, further pledging would only be possible if the government would start to destroy the current stock. Exporting has become infeasible; the gap left by the Thai government willing to wait for higher prices has been taken by many other nations who will be less willing to let the Thai steal their newly gained markets.

'The industry is approaching a deadlock situation, as the government and millers would be unable to shoulder the high volume of rice in the stockpiles if the pledging continued. The Kingdom would lack the financial resources if taxpayers had to shoulder rice-price subsidisation on a never-ending basis, he said.

Vichai [honorary president of the Thai Rice Exporters Association] said the excessively high price of Thai rice had forced some exporters out of business, while millers would also have to pull out if unable to sell to exporters and being faced with overstocking because of their having to handle government stocks'.

Surprisingly the Bangkok Post turned up to the same press conference and seems to come to a milder view, failing to produce any of the quotes above; their summation:

'Thailand's rice industry will collapse unless the government takes more constructive actions by releasing rice from its huge stockpiles, chief of a local rice exporters association warned'. 

Less political is their editorial from the same day which accuses the Commerce Ministry of 

'lack of transparency and perceived penchant for secrecy'. 

It adds wide-scale corruption, now that wasn't expected. Their call for action:

'What is puzzling and incomprehensible is why the ministry is still holding up the rice stocks and not steadily releasing them from the warehouses through open bidding in a transparent manner. In this way, the price would not be suppressed too much and the loss not so prohibitive'.

And today the Bangkok Post surprises it's readers with some old news:

'Thailand is set to lose its status as the world's top rice exporter to India, ending nearly 50 years in the top spot, says the US Department of Agriculture'.

The report dates are July 12. But then again there's really nothing to report on. You not no 1? Live with it, nobody really cares.

Despite this the government is brimming with confidence:

'In a separate press briefing, Yanyong Phuangrach, the commerce permanent secretary, voiced confidence that full-year rice exports will reach 9.5 million tonnes.

"Of this, 3 million tonnes will be government-to-government (G-to-G) contracts," he said.

The total includes contracts with Indonesia (1.5 million tonnes), Iraq (660,000 tonnes), Ivory Coast (240,000 tonnes) and various other African countries (2-3 million tonnes) plus 1.5 million tonnes on the premium rice market.

So far, the ministry has yet to export any rice under the G-to-G deals.

...

"The pledging programme is aimed at raising rice prices, and the government has achieved that goal," he said. "We do not mind carrying losses."'.

We shall see. It also adds this mystery:

'Niphon Poapongsakorn, president of the Thailand Development Research Institute, questioned the sources of locally sold and exported rice.

Thailand produces 30 million tonnes of paddy, but 17-18 million tonnes are in the state's stock, he said.

His suspicion is the pledged and exported rice may have come from Cambodia and Vietnam'.

More markets

Meanwhile in Cambodia, the government is facing it's own struggles in seeking markets. Phnom Penh Post (July 18,2012)

'“We have no interest in the Philippines market any more as their government has issued a new policy that by 2013 the country should be able meet its own supply requirements for milled rice and may even export some starting next year. We do not need to rely on the Philippines — there are other markets”, he [Cham Prasidh, the Minister of Commerce for Cambodia] said during a meeting at the National Assembly yesterday'.

One ploy is to dust off the idea to counterbalance OPEC with a rice-exporting association of exporting countries (Phnom Penh Post 19 July 2012) 

'“The five countries [Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam and Burma] will be the world’s food supplier – what we could call the food basket of the world,” said Minister of Commerce Cham Prasidh. “We would be able to supply the whole world. We would not increase prices but try to find a way to facilitate trade with [other countries].”

Hun Sen has theorised that the rice-exporting power of such a bloc could become a bargaining chip in negotiations with OPEC, according to the minister'.

Theory and practice, hmmm. 

Well it didn't work 5 years ago and nobody believes in it now, so not much to expect. Anyway there is no mention of where this current interest is coming from. 

But guess what? It's Bangkok that needs the cooperation. This is just another way of trying to maintain current prices (Bangkok Post 12 July 2012).

'The hope is cooperation will help to raise prices and attract farmers' offspring in the region to the career'. 

Hope and prayers.

By the way, how did Laos get involved?

Locally, the Phnom Penh Post (17 July 2012) reports on a local mill to be established with Indian backing: 

'Long Grain Co Ltd announced the deal last week for a $20 million investment in a new rice mill in the Oddong district, about 40 kilometres from Phnom Penh'.

Hybrids and trade

An interesting article from Pakistan which seeks to explain that the drop in rice export value is attributed to the growth in coverage under hybrid rice.

'The export of rice in terms of volume has declined by 9.1 percent during 2011-12 over the previous years largely because of promotion of hybrid rice by the private sector instead of Basmati rice.

...

An official of Ministry for Food Security and Research on condition of anonymity attributed the decline in rice export to the promotion of hybrid rice in the country. 

...

He said farmers preferred growing hybrid rice due to its high yield and if the government failed to arrest this trend, the production of local Basmati, pride of the country, could dwindle considerably and the country's rice exports could be seriously affected. Hybrid rice is neither a valuable product in the international nor in the domestic market'.

Other crops

Not only is rice facing downwards market conditions combined with cross-border difficulties, so does cassava, as reported by the Phnom Penh Post (23 July 2012)

'The decease is a result of that previous year’s yield fetching a low price and farmers having no place to store cassava after harvesting, resulting in damage to the produce and a lower quality yield which traders showed no interest in, he said.

In April a shipment of 1,600 tonnes of cassava was blocked at the border to Thailand but was eventually let through once the traders had been granted expediated licenses for the sale of cassava.

Other difficulties have plagued Cambodian cassava growers, such as Thailand requesting Cambodia to curb its exports to the neighbouring kingdom in an effort to maintain Thailand's own high prices'.

Rubber seems to be less affected with dropping prices, as the export volume of Cambodian rubber has increased (PPP, July 26, 2012):

'The Ministry of Commerce’s statistics show rubber exports increased 1,106 tonnes from 21,511 tonnes to 22,617 tonnes in the first half of the year, though the value decreased 28 per cent year-on-year from US$102.2 millions last year to $73.5 million for the first half of this year'.