Business Article - Reg Clause, Iowa State University
Advisory Council Profile - Chris Williams
Updates to www.AgMRC.org
How do I use this site?
State Profile - Oklahoma
Business Profile - South Dakota Soybean Processors and Minnesota Soybean Processors
New Research - Feasibility Template
AgMRC Highlight - Melons
Upcoming Events
The AgMRC Action is the official monthly publication of the Agricultural Marketing Resource Center - your source for value-added ag information. The AgMRC is a dynamic collaboration of university research and outreach specialists focused on collecting and interpreting information and creating new research to support value-added agricultural activities. All information contained in this newsletter can be found on the site, www.agmrc.org.
This newsletter features new updates, information and resources available at the Agricultural Marketing Resource Center (AgMRC) to assist producers, service providers, rural development specialists and others with value-added agriculture resources. AgMRC was formed as a national virtual resource center for value-added agricultural groups. AgMRC exists to provide producers and processors with critical information in a one-stop-shop to build successful value-added agricultural enterprises.
The Center's Web site, www.AgMRC.org, contains information on various commodities and products, including many market niches farmers can pursue. There is also information on how to start a business and selecting a business structure. Other topics include how to write feasibility, marketing and business plans.
The site contains links and AgMRC-developed pieces on everything from networks of ethanol cooperatives to organic beef producers to a value-added worm business. Directories list value-added consultants, value-added agriculture businesses and applicable laws specific to each state.
I encourage you to visit the AgMRC web site at www.agmrc.org and take a few minutes to learn some new facts about a commodity, do some research on developing a food business plan or see what is happening in your individual state.
Please let us know your thoughts and suggestions for the newsletter. The center's email is agmrc@iastate.edu or call us toll-free at 866-277-5567.
Sincerely,
Christa Hartsook,
Communications specialist, AgMRC
By Reg Clause, Iowa State University Extension Value-added Agriculture Specialist and AgMRC Match
Any business starting up or expanding into another area must answer the first question before moving on to creating a business model, business plan and executing the plan. Question: What is the case that can be made for this business?
This is the key question for top management or shareholders or lenders. They need to be able to "see" the vision of this idea in one rational picture. This is a bit more than a mission statement. It is certainly more than having a compelling technology. It is always more than simply describing a gross trend suggesting burgeoning demand.
For example, what if you have an innovative technology? Can you make the case that existing users will switch? Sure, you are different than existing technology. But, are you priced right? Is there sufficiently improved functionality to cause the users to switch? Will it make them money to switch? Do they have no choice because of some external change such as regulatory issues or liability?
These sorts of questions lead to a business case. In most markets in developed nations the supply systems are mature. Customers have a choice and their needs are currently met. So given that, an emerging business has to elbow out someone at the point of sale to get the customer to buy. That is the case at any level, retail, wholesale or whatever. One has to suggest to potential shareholders or lenders that there is a compelling case to be made that our new business/product/service is either: better than, cheaper than or different than.
But, there is one more crucial aspect to explain. While one or even all of those three marketing factors above may be met, you still have to explain quickly, "How will we make money?" That leads to the "Analysis of the Business Model.
The big question for a business, once a "business case" is made, must be: "How does this business make money?" This question is answered by understanding two things:
1) What are the issues critical to success in doing this particular business?
2) Which among these issues can we have the most control day to day?
This big question of how to make the money really aims at finding your point of differentiation as a business. In any sector there will be those who excel in certain areas which is how they make money. This is critical to understand because over time you must excel at some part of the business or you will be put out of business. If you are a high cost producer, you have to make that up somewhere else. Where? If you are an average cost producer, how will you ever do better than breakeven on the business? Probably, you won't. So, we must know going in how to answer the big question. Let's look at several value-added examples to determine how different issues affect profitability potential.
In a meat processing business it is critical that production through-put and yields be at or above industry benchmarks all the time. And this is an issue that can be controlled. But, it is controlled by making good choices of the individuals managing production and by setting good accountability methods in place. These decisions are largely strategic. And the outcome is largely "assumed." Plant layout and equipment is common to all plants. Worker productivity is pretty much the same. Beyond size and location, the production plant will likely not have a competitive advantage. In other words this will not be the area of the business where you make the money.
Where you can have a competitive impact is on pricing feedstock in and marketing product mix out. This is an area where excellent execution will create the margins for this business. Coordination of highly qualified staff will be necessary. Having a precise but rapid method to make decisions is vital. Production costs represented in the paragraph above will be important to creating margins. But, management will be hard-put to exceed the industry standard in this area. So, to succeed as a business, the focus must be on the trade of the inputs and outputs - price of input feedstock and price of product out. This is where you make money.
Someone entering the packing sector has to understand how they will differentiate themselves in order to make money. A small packer will have to create a different value proposition with the supplier, or the large packers will simply make the market and your business will have to live or die by that price. Because of size, you will mostly likely be an average or high cost producer. So, your best opportunity to generate the margin is likely to be on the product side. This is where you utilize relationships, clever marketing programs, brand and excellent logistics methods. Once again, staffing choices, coordination and decision methods will be your control. There is where you will make your money.
How does this relate to bio-diesel production? In this business model you are not in much control of the product marketing side. The petroleum industry essentially sets the base price so the bio-fuel is not operating in its own market. Jobbers are either
mandated to use the product or there must be an economic reason for them to use it, so there is little your company can do to affect that relationship. Certainly there are product attributes that may cause end users to demand bio-diesel, but at present it appears that attributes are not the clear demand drivers. Furthermore, your product will be undifferentiated from all others. Your bio-diesel business will have little control over the marketing outcomes. Quite different from the meat processing model, isn't it?
So, how about the feedstock side. Here you may have a bit more control assuming the plant is flexible enough to utilize a variety of inputs. But, there are handling and processing problems associated with each feedstock, which means your plant has to be more expensive and extensive to go beyond vegetable oils. Switching from one to another will inevitably depress plant efficiency to some degree because the switching affects throughput. Similarly, multiple-feedstock based lines will likely feel some negative effect on throughput efficiency and yield. That means the purchase price of feedstock has to reflect all those realities.
As with product marketing, in this business we find the feedstock purchasing may be a difficult area to generate truly competitive margins. This is an area to differentiate, but this adds complexity and certain problems so risk goes up along with the degree of
management difficulty.
So, in this business model it starts to look like the operation of the production plant itself may be much more critical. If we have little effective control ability on the input or output side, then we'll need to find an advantage in the plant operation itself. Strategic choices such as location and the size of the plant will become hyper-critical. These will determine your "cost to market" as well as your ability to get on the transportation grid effectively. Next is the actual plant operation. The effectiveness of your overall input/output model is an area where a competitive advantage might be gained.
These two examples begin to show the complexity of answering the question: "How will this business make money?" In any business model it is not enough to say we'll just do everything better than the other person. This is almost never possible. You must determine which area of the business you can most effectively control while doing your best with all the rest. Often we look to our product to differentiate ourselves in the business. But the most important point of differentiation is in knowing precisely where you make your money and beating the competition in that area every day. In any business there will be a place where you actually generate the profit and if you fail there, the business is threatened.
In this type of business the theory is that you have a unique product with special attributes. The reality will be that the production systems that support this special product are likely to be somewhat less efficient than the industrial pork systems. Also, because of the small size and organization of these businesses it usually means that the overall cost of processing and delivering the
product to customers will be higher than the large commodity systems.
Since the goal with the niche business is to get more net money to the producer, this business has to get a significant premium price for the product. That premium is the only means the business has to overcome the higher costs that exist throughout the supply chain. Marketing will be the hyper-critical point of management in this business model. But so is logistics a critical management issue. So, where an individual niche pork business will differentiate itself from others of its type will be in its success in marketing and logistics.
There is where both the opportunity and complexity come in to play. It is easy to market the fine cuts at a good premium. But, what about the other 80 percent of the hog? If those products go at commodity price, will that be enough to meet the goal of producer profits? Success at marketing the "whole set" at a net premium value is what will define how your business model looks. You will make your money in this business at a marketing level. But, how will you deliver this whole set to many different markets when you can't fill trucks clear up? The problem of efficient and effective delivery will become crucial to keeping these premium market relationships open to you. So, while the product is special, the way you make money is in marketing relationships and logistics in this case.
Again the big question: Where does your business make money?
Chris Williams is vice president of operations for 21st Century Producers, Inc. Prior to joining 21st Century he was the Director of the Value-added Center for the Kansas Department of Commerce. He was also on the staff in the agriculture economics department at Kansas State University working with value-added development and cooperative finance.
“I grew up on a central Kansas farm where I farmed with my brother for 10 years while in high school and through college,” Williams said. “I became involved in value-added agriculture because I truly feel that agriculture has set a course where farmers will need to participate more closely with agribusiness to manufacture the products that we consume from our crops and livestock. It has been a goal of mine to assist producers and making the transition and investment in further processing.”
Williams sees value-added agriculture headed toward a time where existing value-added businesses will develop strategic relationships with each other and other industry participants. “We still see a lot of areas where systems can be improved by working directly with producers.”
"AgMRC will need to become a recognized resource and technical service provider to those seeking to enter the very challenging and competitive arena of value-added ag,” Williams said.
Williams and his wife Ann have two sons.
Current members include:
Duane Acker, Talycoed II, Atlantic, Iowa;
Mark Hanson, Lindquist & Vennum, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minn.;
Elizabeth Hund, Rabobank, San Francisco, Calif.;
Steve Hunt, U.S. Premium Beef, Kansas City, Mo.;
Stanley R. Johnson, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa;
Jeff Kistner, CoBank, Omaha, Neb.;
Barry Kriebel, Sun-Maid Growers, Kingsburg, Calif.;
Richard E. Rominger, Rominger Farms, Winters, Calif.;
Kenneth Rutledge, Dakota Turkey Growers, Aberdeen, S.D., and
Chris Williams, 21st Century Producers Inc., Manhattan, Kan.
A paper written by the Agricultural Issues Center at the University of California was added to the site under public policy. “Commodity Policy and California Agriculture” explores governmental programs that influence California agriculture.
To read this paper, visit http://www.agmrc.org/business/publicpolicy.html.
New links were added for azuki beans, biodiesel, bison, commodity lamb, elk, ostrich, popcorn, sweet corn, white corn, wool and worms.
A new business profile was added to the maple syrup page. Thiel Maple Syrup produces 250 gallons to 300 gallons of syrup per season as part of their entire farming operation.
A value-added dairy processing feasibility report was added from the Kansas Department of Commerce. Included in the study are an overview of the dairy industry in Kansas, current trends and the entire process of dairy processing. Breakouts on cheese, fluid milk, ice cream, non-fat dry milk and organic milk are described.
To view this report, visit http://www.agmrc.org/dairy/dairycommodity.html.
"Co-location of Industries with Small Livestock Slaughter Facilities in the Midwest” was also added to the commodities and products section, under beef. This publication was written by Iowa State University Extension Value-added Agriculture program for the North Central Initiative for Small Farms and the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. The report examines the potential for co-location of industries next to small, multi-species slaughter plants.
To view this publication, visit http://www.agmrc.org/beef/beefcommodity.html.
Updated sections in markets and industries include food consumer trends, food direct marketing, food market trends, natural foods and organic food.
A listing from Stagnito Communications, which publishes The National Provisioner was added. These lists give the top beverage companies; dairy, fruit and vegetable companies; the top 100 meat processors; the top 20 potato chip brands and the top 50 private label brands.
Visit http://www.agmrc.org/markets/foodindustrystructure.html.
State pages updated in the directories section include Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana and Nebraska.
The information on www.agmrc.org is divided into different areas of an agricultural business.
>>To find information on a specific ag commodity in which you have interest, click on Commodities and Products. Different niches for each commodity will be under the main headings of each.
>>To find information on market trends, such as the organic industry or food consumption statistics, as well as broad industry structure information, click on Markets and Industries.
>>To find “how-to” information to develop or expand your ag business, click on Business Development.
>>Specific consultants, state contacts and laws and value-added businesses can be found in the Directories and State Resources section.
>>Upcoming value-added ag events are located in the Upcoming Events calendar.
Value-added projects involving many different agriculture commodities are developing across the state of Oklahoma.
“Grape vineyards are a new enterprise that we are hearing a lot about here, not only for the purpose of wine making, but for fruit juice also,” said Sally Vielma, Oklahoma USDA Rural Development. “Goat producers across the state have shown interest for both dairy and meat goat projects. One of Oklahoma's newest value-added projects is a planning grant for meat goat producers to start a processing plant. A few groups have expressed interest in working with buffalo ventures.”
Producers and groups in Oklahoma have several options to turn to for assistance in developing their projects. Oklahoma's support system consists of USDA Rural Development for funding and technical assistance, Oklahoma State Department of Agriculture for funding of projects and research, and Oklahoma State University for research, technical assistance and feasibility information.
“One of the most positive aspects that the good project groups have going for them is the support that they can receive from our office,” Vielma said. “We can give them the necessary understanding of the purpose of the program and guidance on how to interpret and respond to the scoring criteria (for federal grant applications).”
Vielma said that many of the individual producers and most of the producer groups are in a very preliminary phase of a project when they contact USDA Rural Development in Oklahoma. In most cases, there is still research that needs to be done before the producer(s) would be ready to start into a value-added project.
“The majority of clients are looking for a way to supplement their agricultural operations,” Vielma said. “Many of the clients are looking for grant funds to do their value-added project, to start it. Some people are looking for a way to fund an idea that they have been just wanting to research more. A good number of calls are producers that want to know if their idea would be considered ‘value-added’.”
Vielma went on to say that when a producer or producer group comes to them in the planning stage seeking value-added assistance, they can advise them to study the scoring criteria for the Value-added Producer Grant program. “We feel the scoring criteria are very specific and cover the essentials for a good project,” Vielma said. “By explaining to the producers what goes into a competitive value-added application, we have shown them what a viable, sustainable project involves.”
“The majority of producer groups are in the planning stage, working towards a feasibility study and business plan,” Vielma said. “Some of the independent producers have some form of feasibility study and business plan that they have prepared themselves, but come in looking for help with marketing. A few independent producers have approached us for a working capital grant. Most of these producers do not have a feasibility study or business plan prepared that would be acceptable for a working capital grant. This is where we can help them.”
For more information on USDA Rural Development in Oklahoma, vist http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/ok/.
Leading one business is enough to keep most chief executive officers busy. Rodney Christianson, however, leads two companies as CEO and says that it is a "win-win" situation.
The two companies under Christianson's leadership include South Dakota Soybean Processors (SDSP) and Minnesota Soybean Processors (MSP). South Dakota Soybean Processors, which was organized in 1993 and began operations in 1996, is a successful, producer-owned soybean business striving to add value to its members' crop. When a group of Minnesota soybean producers formed a cooperative in 2000, Minnesota Soybean Processors (MSP), to build a soybean crushing plant with 100,000 bushel capacity in Brewster, Minn., SDSP provided the co-op with a business plan and construction management team in exchange for a fee that was equal to 10 percent of the equity raised by MSP. At least 80 percent of that fee is reinvested as equity in the plant at a rate of $2 per share. SDSP also entered into an agreement to provide marketing and management services, including day-to-day control of the plant.
"We looked at the [opportunity] and decided it was something that fit our business and industry," Christianson says. The SDSP board of directors also made available $1 million in interest-free loans to SDSP members who wanted to invest in MSP. For every $4 invested in MSP, SDSP provided a $1 loan. Collateral for the loan is the retained patronage returns not yet redeemed back to the members from 1998 to 2000. For example, if a member wanted to purchase 2,500 shares of MSP stock (i.e., deliver 2,500 bushels to MSP) at a $2-per-share charge, this would require $5,000. However, a producer would only be required to pay $3,750 in cash. The additional $1,250 would be covered by the loan and would be paid off by the future redemption of retained patronage refunds.
Christianson said that pooling resources produces positive results. "This agreement provides the groundwork to benefit both farmer owned units. Farmers working together can capture a greater share of the food dollar. We have been able to achieve a win-win strategy," Christianson, CEO of both entities said. "Pooling resources, and jointly operating the two family, farmer-owned plants will create greater economies of scale and allow the two to work in unison."
SDSP's state-of-the-art soybean crushing plant east of Volga, S.D., began operations in late 1996. The plant was built to crush 16 million bushels annually and has since expanded to 28 million bushels. The expansion in 1998 cost $1.8 million and was funded primarily through earnings generated in 1997. Local soybeans are annually processed into about 600,000 tons of soybean meal, 157,000 tons of crude soybean oil and 49,000 tons of soybean hulls. South Dakota Soybean Processors had been profitable since it began operations in 1996.
"Anything that we do, first of all we have to pass the test - do we remain financially strong or do we get better financially because of what we're going to do?" Christianson says. "If we make this investment, will it then allow us to pay a larger value-added payment?"
It has paid back to producers approximately 70 percent of all income each year, retaining about 15 percent to be paid back in future years. It keeps 15 percent as retained earnings for future growth. The first shares of stock purchased in 1993 and 1994 for $2 each have appreciated in value. Its stock share price traded locally at $2.49 in 1998, $2.86 in 1999, $3.03 in 2000 and $2.67 in 2001. Later stock sales at $2.25 and $2.50 have also increased in value. In addition, the local basis for soybeans had narrowed by about 25 cents per bushel since the plant opened.
In 1999, SDSP acquired exclusive rights to supply soybean oil to Urethane Soy Systems Company Inc. (USSC) of Princeton, Ill., for use in manufacturing SoyOyl, a polyol made from soybean oil which is a key chemical used in making polyurethane foam. USSC holds a patent on SoyOyl®, which reacts with other chemicals to form foam in either flexible or rigid form.
Flexible foam is typically used in furniture, carpet padding, automotive interiors and footwear. Rigid foam is found in insulation, simulated wood, flotation and packaging material. Substitutes for the product include traditional petroleum-based polyols.
"The soybean industry is very competitive, and we need to keep track of what's going on in our industry," Christianson says. Since 1996, SDSP has had three board retreats and revised the core strategy three times. At its last board retreat in 2000, SDSP developed a five-year strategic plan. The goals of this plan were to: 1) maintain its competitive advantage in processing soybeans at the lowest possible cost; 2) move its products up the value-added food chain; and 3) develop strategic alliances to help meet its goals and objectives.
SDSP plans to add an additional 20,000 bushels of daily capacity to further its ability to process soybeans at the lowest cost. The co-op is committed to generating 50 percent of its revenues from high-margin, value-added products. This means further refining soybean oil.
"We were fortunate to be awarded a USDA Rural Development [Value-Added Ag] grant of $500,000 to investigate the possibility of vertically integrating into manufacturing soy diesel, refining vegetable oil or soy protein concentrates such as lecithin," Christianson says.
Minnesota Soybean Processors is a value-added cooperative that seeks to take soybeans to the next level of value. Its prime motivation is to pass as much soybean processing profits directly to the farmer as possible. The Minnesota Soybean Processor's mission statement is: "To provide the maximum value-added return to our investors by combining the latest soybean processing technologies with proven management."
MSP has 2,300 farm members that provided $31.5 million in equity to build the 100,000 bushel capacity soybean processing plant in Brewster, Minn., which is scheduled to begin operations in November 2003. It also received a $500,000 USDA VADG grant to help complete its equity drive and conduct a market evaluation of its products.
In fall 2003, MSP announced it would build a 30-million gallon biodiesel refinery. Starting in 2005, Minnesota biodiesel legislation will mandate a 2 percent blend of biodiesel for diesel fuel sold in Minnesota. It is said that the mandate will create a demand for 16 million gallons of biodiesel annually. With the addition of the biodiesel refinery, MSP says they will invest more than $70 million and create more than 50 jobs in rural Minnesota.
A new feasibility template produced by Oklahoma State University was added to the AgMRC Web site. The template allows producers to input their own data and run various cost scenarious with those numbers.
A feasibility study can be defined many different ways. In general, a feasibility study is an examination of the production and marketing processes on an enterprise or project to determine the likelihood of success. Basically, it is answering the question, "Should I do this?” A feasibility study helps a company or individual decide whether or not a project is financially feasible, economically feasible, and physically feasible. A completed feasibility study is an ideal document for planning purposes and can be used to secure necessary financing. However, it is not just start-up businesses that need to conduct feasibility studies. It is important to conduct a feasibility analysis any time a firm considers significant change to its present operation.
The first step is understanding the components of a feasibility study, and then understanding how to read the results. A feasibility study can be divided into two major parts: An analysis of production processes and marketing projections directly associated with the project and an analysis of outside environmental conditions that also influence the project success.
This part of feasibility analysis is designed to provide information to determine the financial and economic viability of the venture. The information is likely to be required for loan applications and helps determine whether the enterprise can earn required profits and generate enough cash flow to repay the loan. Analysis can be divided into market determination, raw product supply and production process.
Market determination will identify whether a market exists for a product or service, this should be done before any other steps are taken. Sales volume and price are one of the most critical inputs in a feasibility study. In forecasting sales information it is important to consider historical trends and to consider potential reaction from market competitors.
The sales forecast should also consider the time it will take to build awareness and acceptance. In the feasibility template the first year sales projection, sales price and sales growth rate are entered on the input page. Advance users may also want to turn off the protection feature on the market projection worksheet and enter specific sales estimates for each year of operation.
The raw product supply analysis determines the availability of raw product inputs for the proposed enterprise. For example, an analysis of an ethanol plant would examine the availability of corn or other grains that will be processed.
Determination of the production process analyzes the production components of the proposed activity. It assesses specific facility needs, capital requirements, cost and quality of labor needed, necessary financing and potential costs and returns associated with the business venture.
This part of the feasibility study analyzes the availability of facilities and services, which the firm feels, are essential to create an acceptable environment in which the plant can operate and its management force can live. One thing to consider in this part of the feasibility analysis is the availability of a site with required physical characteristics, access to major production area of the raw product, access to necessary transportation services and availability of the site on acceptable financial terms. Local services in the community are another major consideration. The study should consider the availability and cost of electrical power, gas service, telephone service, water and sewer service, fire protection, postal service, financial services, and educational facilities. The weight put on these factors in the study depends on the degree of use the proposed facility expects to make of each service. Other considerations are property taxes, tax rates, zoning ordinances, building codes, and pollution and sanitation regulations.
To access the feasibility template on the AgMRC site, visit http://www.agmrc.org/business/pdf/feasibilitytemplate.xls.
Melons belong to the family Cucurbitaceae, which also includes cucumbers. Their history can be traced to 3000 B.C. in Persia and 2000 B.C in Greece and Egypt. Melons are a good source of vitamins K, C, and (for orange-fleshed varieties) beta-carotene.
The United States is one of the world's leading producers and consumers of melons. Total per capita melon consumption in the United States has increased over past decades. It peaked in 1999 at almost 30 pounds. Cantaloupe has had the steadiest increase in demand. It reached peak consumption in 2001 at 11.2 pounds per person. Honeydew demand has fluctuated from one to two pounds per person from the late 1970s until 2001. Watermelon consumption remained steady at about 13 pounds per person from 1995 to 2001.
Watermelon production accounted for 60 percent of the total domestic melon production, cantaloupe, 33 percent, and honeydew, seven percent. Melon production totaled 6.8 billion pounds in 2001. Watermelon supply in the domestic market was 4.6 billion pounds (including imports, which accounted for 12 percent of the supply). Cantaloupe imports made up 32 percent of domestic supply and honeydew imports made up about 28 percent of the domestic supply in 2001.
California produces 82 percent of the honeydew melons produced in the United States. In 2002, California production was 3.7 million cwt.
Florida was the most important U.S. watermelon producer, supplying 19 percent of the United States' watermelons. Texas (17 percent) ranked second, followed by California and Georgia (13 percent each).
California cantaloupe production totaled 13.4 million cwt., totaling 58 percent of the U.S. cantaloupe production. Other big producers of cantaloupes were Arizona (19.3 percent) and Texas (11.1 percent).
In 2002, U.S. melon exports reached a value of nearly $99 million, up from $68.4 million in 1990. More than 85 percent of the exports went to Canada. U.S. exports to Canada increased from $56.1 million in 1990 to $84.7 million in 2002 (Figure 1).
The United States is a net importer of melons. The total value of U.S. melon imports in 2002 was $258 million, up from $127.5 million in 1989. Cantaloupe imports were valued at over $139.9 million in 2002 and originated mainly in Costa Rica, Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras. Watermelon imports originated almost exclusively in Mexico and were valued at $47.5 million. More than one-third of total U.S. melon imports originated in Mexico in 2002 (Figure 2).
U.S. melon tariffs depend on the type of melon and the season of imports. For imports from countries with which the United States maintains normal trade relations, the tariffs for watermelons range from 9 percent to 17 percent. Cantaloupe imports are charged 12.8 percent or 29.8 percent, and tariffs for other melons range from 1.6 percent to 28 percent. Trade partners without normal trade status with the United States face a tariff of 35 percent.
For more information, visit http://www.agmrc.org/fruits/melons.