Long term consequences of changing global food consumption patterns on U.S. agricultural commodity export demand

Transcription

1 Long term consequences of changing global food consumption patterns on U.S. agricultural commodity export demand Deepayan Debnath, Wyatt Thompson, Michael Helmar, and Julian Binfield Deepayan Debnath is post-doctoral fellow, Wyatt Thompson is associate professor, Julian Binfield research assistant professor, Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Missouri-Columbia, and Michael Helmar is a Research Associate, University Center for Economic Development, University of Nevada, Reno. This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Agreement No Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture nor the University of Missouri. Selected paper prepared for presentation at the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association s 2014 AAEA Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, Minnesota, July 27-29, 2014 Copyright 2014 by Deepayan Debnath, Wyatt Thompson, Michael Helmar, and Julian Binfield. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies.

2 Abstract Developing countries now buy a larger share of U.S. agricultural exports than developed countries, and this new pattern of agricultural trade can have implications for the elasticity of U.S. export demand. This research estimates whether the U.S. export demand is becoming more price elastic or inelastic. A multi-market, multi-region partial equilibrium model is used to estimate the U.S. export demand for corn and wheat for the current crop year 2014/15 and projected year 2022/23. U.S. export demand for wheat is more elastic as compared to corn in the base period, suggesting that with the growing role of more price sensitive consumers in developing countries as well as the large share of the U.S. in corn markets. Export demands are found to become less elastic, or even inelastic, over a ten-year projection period if income growth is steady. Results support non-constant elasticities in medium- or long-run analysis, such as might be required for climate or food security research. Key words: agricultural trade, elasticities, export demand JEL classification codes: Q17, Q18 Introduction Income growth in the developing countries, including China, India, Mexico and countries in Southeast Asia, has resulted in increased demand for meats and dairy products. Urbanization is one of the key factors that dominate the food consumption patterns (DA, 2001). With increased urbanization and higher disposable income among urban residents in the developing countries, the demand for meat and dairy products will increase (DA, 2013). Increasing meat

3 demand creates rising demand for feed grains, including corn, and protein components such as soybean meal. On the other hand, in the developing countries an increasing demand for staple crops follows from population growth. China and India have significantly increased the per capita animal food consumption share, while per capita cereal consumption is highest among the African countries (FAO, 2012). Many of these developing countries have met this rising domestic demand at least in part by increasing imports. Economic growth in developing countries has contributed to the global agricultural food demand growth, and this trend might continue (OECD-FAO, 2013). Greater demand for agricultural commodities in other countries often results in an increase in U.S. agricultural exports. If the trend of rising income in developing countries persists, then this factor could be a key contributor to the projected growth of global food demand and U.S. export demand levels and price-responsiveness, going forward. Rask and Rask (2011) pointed out that with increasing population and per capita income there is a steady increase in food consumption across many developing countries. However these authors state that food production has varied greatly due to scarce land resources, agricultural productivity as well as agricultural policies, with the result that many of the developing countries are unable to the bridge the production-consumption gap and cannot able to reach food selfsufficiency. They argue that in order to meet the increasing food demand challenges by landpoor developing countries increasing trade is necessary. Msangi and Rosegrant (2011) using IFPRI s IMPACT model projected changes in global food consumption over the period. Their results showed that by 2030 per capita cereal consumption would be highest in the Middle East and North Africa, while changes in per capita meat consumption over those three decades would be highest in China followed by India and Brazil relative to all other modeled countries. Their study shows that, in order to meet increasing food demand in developing

4 countries, there could be huge export demand for U.S. agricultural commodities. U.S. agricultural commodity export demand has been significantly influenced by per capita income in importing countries (Mattson and Koo, 2005). Additionally, population growth in foreign countries also increases U.S. agricultural exports. For many previous decades, high income countries, including Japan and European Union, were the primary destinations of U.S. exports (Figure 1). However, in recent years import demand for U.S. agricultural commodities by these developed countries has been stagnant. On the other hand, U.S. exports to fast-growing emerging countries, including China, Mexico and India, have offset the weaker demand by the high income countries. In some countries like Mexico initial breakthrough for the U.S. exports was trade liberalization such as the NAFTA agreement from (DA, 2009). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (2011) states that developing countries constitute more than half of current U.S. agricultural exports. Middle-income countries such as Mexico and China are the largest two destinations for U.S. agricultural exports (DA, 2011). Figure 1 compares the U.S. agricultural exports to several key markets. Chinese imports of U.S. agricultural commodity has increased by an annual average of 37% from year 2004 to 2013, while for the same period Japan and European Union imports increased by only 5% and 7% respectively (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). Population will continue to grow in the developing countries, but the fastest growth is expected mainly in Middle-east and African countries (World Bank, 2012; DA-ERS, 2014). These regions represent important areas of growth for U.S. agricultural commodity exports (Figure 2). Over the last decades ( ) U.S. export to the Middle East and Africa has increased by 158% and 149%, respectively, from low initial levels (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). The question of evolving U.S. agricultural export demand also relates to market responsiveness to price changes, with implications for policy analysis and other research.

5 Growing future demand associated with rising income also implies changes in demand elasticities (OECD, 2010, 2012). This research suggests that, if rising global income leads to less elastic consumer demand, then a domestic policy shock might cause larger price impacts. The implication is that U.S. export demand might also become more inelastic. We do not know of any study that has made the point that changes over time in the composition of world markets alone can lead to changes in global market price response. Studies of global food demand project that market shares will change substantially in the near future (DA-ERS 2001, 2011, 2012 and 2013; OECD 2013). For example, DA (2011) anticipates that most of the additional demand for U.S. agricultural products will come from developing countries because of their higher income and population growth relative to developed countries. However, to our best knowledge those studies did not consider the consequences of changing food demand will have on U.S. agricultural commodity exports. Changes in country shares of global markets have implications for welfare and other calculations. Considering domestic policy analysis, changing export demand elasticity can affect price impacts of policy changes. If export demand is quite price-responsive and helps to make total U.S. crop market demand elastic, then estimated crop price impacts of increasing feedstocks used for biofuels and co-products will be smaller. If export demand is unresponsive to price changes and contributes to inelastic total demand for crops, then agricultural policies that tend to shift out supply will lead to larger decreases in crop prices. Extrapolating this problem of market composition from the case of U.S. export demand to total crop demand argues for greater caution when considering what elasticities to apply in long-term global agricultural market analysis. This concern is relevant to analysts who seek to address questions relating to food security trends or climate changes that might span many decades.

6 The primary objective of this study is to determine whether in the long run the U.S. export demands for key grains are becoming more or less price elastic given rising world income and changes in market composition. Conceptual Model There are several ways to measure the long run impact of changes in world food demand on U.S. commodity exports. In this study we compare U.S. export demand elasticities. By U.S. export demand elasticity, we mean percentage change in U.S. export demand associated with 1% change in U.S. domestic price. U.S. export demand is often calculated as the sum of the excess demand of the all other countries. Gardiner and Dixit (1987) propose this approach as the calculation approach. The intuition of this approach can be represented graphically (Figure 3). The export demand of U.S. (ED) equals the sum of other countries domestic demands (Di) less domestic supplies (Si) and the world commodity price is transmitted to the domestic market through the price transmission equation. If the ROW (rest of the world) composition changes over time so that countries with more or less elastic demand and supply occupy a larger share of that aggregate, then the lines of the right-most panel in this diagram would become flatter or steeper, respectively. Such changes would have the same impact on the shape of U.S. export demand. Moreover, as U.S. export demand is the difference between the fundamental demand and supply relationships in ROW, changes in ROW elasticities will be magnified if expressed as changes in the elasticities of U.S. export demand. If considering short-term crop markets with exogenous ROW and U.S. supply, for example, then the slope of U.S. export demand would necessarily equal the slope of ROW demand. In the short-run case, U.S. export demand would be more elastic (or less inelastic) than ROW demand given the smaller base values.

7 A standard mathematical representation can be used to illuminate this key point further. The U.S. export demand is represented as the sum of the difference between demands and supplies of all other counties (subscript i): ED D S ) (1) i ( i i Taking the derivative of equation (1) with respect to U.S. domestic price, we get: ED Pr Di Si ( ) (2) Pr Pr i Multiplying equation (2) by Pr and dividing by ED ED Pr Pr ED Pr Di Si ( ) (3) Pr ED ED i Now, re-writing equation (3) in elasticity format, we get: ED Pr ED Pr Pri Di Si Pri Di Di Si Si ( ) (4) Pr Pri Pr i ED i ED Pr Pr Pr i i In the short-run case introduced above, we assume there is no supply elasticity. The last term of equation (4) drops out, and the short-run U.S. export demand elasticity is: D i ED Pr D (5) i i i ED Therefore, based on equation (5), the short-run U.S. export demand elasticity ( ED ) is the sum of the product of the price transmission elasticity ( Pri ), the domestic own price elasticity of D i demand ( D ), and the share of the total domestic demand of the total U.S. exports ( i ) ED across all rest of world countries.

8 In this study, a multi-market multi-region non-spatial partial equilibrium modeling framework is used to estimate the U.S. export demand elasticities and how they evolve with changing income and market composition. First, a forward-looking projection that assesses how wheat and corn trade evolve in the medium-term is identified. Because the model spans many commodities, including most crops and crop products, livestock and dairy, and biofuel and coproduct markets that are critical to the U.S. agricultural sector, the projections are consistent among markets. Because the rest of world model for wheat and corn represent many key producing and consuming countries in terms of their responsiveness to U.S. prices and to growing income and population, evolution in these countries shares of global wheat and corn markets should reflect the key factors identified in the introduction. Moreover, foreign demands are typically represented so that demands will tend to become less elastic as income rises, so this additional effect is captured. There are some limitations to this approach that will be highlighted in the discussion section, at the end of this paper. The analysis estimates the changes in the domestic demands of other countries due to 1% increase in U.S. wheat or corn prices. The results will show how changes in key U.S. grain prices affect ROW markets, and what that implies for changes in U.S. exports. These changes are converted into elasticities to calculate how this key parameter changes during the period. Moreover, because the results are based on a structural model, the effects can be decomposed into the driving factors, namely transmitted price effects, domestic demand responses, and market shares. Data and empirical model Data are obtained from many sources. U.S. price data are obtained from Grain and Feed Market News, DA Agricultural Marketing Service, while the export and import volume

9 related data are primarily obtained from DA Foreign Agricultural Service Production, Supply, and Distribution (PS&D) data set. Domestic prices of the agricultural commodities of the importer and exporter countries are obtained from FAO s FAOSTAT database. We approach this challenge using a structural economic model that represents U.S. and international main agricultural commodity, livestock and dairy markets. The most relevant components of this model are maintained by the University Center for Economic Development at the University of Nevada, Reno and the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri (FAPRI-MU). In this study, we estimate the export demand elasticities of selected U.S. crops, namely corn and wheat, based on the structural model. The changes in the demand and supply of each country for corn feed and food use and wheat feed and food use due to 1% increase in U.S. domestic of price of corn and wheat have been estimated for the key countries including China, Mexico, India, Japan, European Union- 28 and others. The structural model of international crops markets only is used to simulate the U.S. export demand elasticities for the first (2014/15) and the last (2022/23) year of the projection period. For this exercise, only this component is used, and prices that normally clear global markets are all held exogenous. U.S. export demand elasticities are estimated by introducing a 1% increase in the U.S. price for those particular years. This price shock results in an increase in exports or decrease in the imports by other countries, which ultimately changes U.S. exports. The role of different assumptions about income growth on market composition is tested directly. The structural model for the world commodity market is simulated with a slower rate of growth in the per capita income of major countries. The rate of income growth is reduced by one half relative to the rate in the initial case discussed above. To give a few examples, changes in growth rate for some of the selected countries are as follows: China has a growth rate of 10.3%

10 in the base case, and this is reduced to 6.5% in the scenario; the growth rate of India is reduced from 14% to 9.3%; GDP growth of Mexico is halved from 7.2% to 3.6%; and Japanese growth is changed from 3.2% to 1.8%. The same exercise is used to estimate U.S. export demand in the low ROW income growth case. Again, the U.S. price of wheat and corn are each increased by 1%, in turn, ROW prices and quantities are simulated, and the U.S. export elasticities are calculated for the lower income growth scenario from these results. Results U.S. export demand elasticities for corn and wheat are and for the year 2014/15 (Table 1 and 2). The relative elasticities are not entirely surprising. The U.S. accounts for a larger share of world corn markets in these data as compared to the share of wheat markets. Considering the ratio of quantities at the end of equation (5) and represented by the sum of the first two columns of the results, the denominator will tend to be smaller relative to the numerator for wheat than for corn, so the responses in other countries will be magnified when calculating the U.S. wheat export demand elasticity. The percentage change in domestic demand for corn and wheat for feed and food use due to 1% increase in the U.S. price ranges from (China) to (Japan) for corn feed use; from (China) to (Egypt) for corn food use; from (China) to (Mexico) for wheat feed use; and from (China) to (Egypt) for wheat food use. The main reason behind extremely low domestic demand response in China is because of their domestic policies that hinder price transmission of the changes in the U.S. or global price to their domestic market. The price transmission represents a key element of equation (5) that corresponds to the third column of the results. If the one percent price change in the U.S. is mostly transmitted into the country, then we expect the domestic price change to be about one percent, as well, and this

11 number would be about one. Deviations are likely even with strong price transmission because of adjustment possible due to quality differences or constant margins. Transmitted price effects in these results are often well below one, albeit not in all instances, and sometimes quite low as reflects policy or natural barriers to trade. We can also calculate an approximation of the domestic price elasticities of demand. For example, in case of Mexico wheat food and feed elasticities of demand can be calculated by dividing the percentage change in domestic consumption of wheat for feed and food use due to 1% increase in U.S. wheat price by the price transmission. This process only works in cases where there are price transmission, but the method can usefully proceed from the first step of the tables, namely the domestic price impact from a 1% change in, to the second step of domestic demand quantity change. Thus, for example, wheat for Mexico this calculation estimates the domestic price elasticities of demand for Mexico s wheat food and feed uses as (=-0.324/0.79) and (=-0.094/0.79), respectively. For the year 2022/23 U.S. export demand elasticities for corn and wheat would be and (Table 3 and 4). This result suggests that the changing market composition towards developing countries and increasing inelasticity of demands in these countries as their incomes grow can lead to less elastic U.S. corn and wheat export demand. This result comes about in part from the changes in composition of trade shares among countries that are differentiated by price transmission and domestic market elasticities. The result suggests that a growing share of trade accrues to countries whose domestic markets are less elastic, and that demand elasticities are becoming less elastic overall as incomes rise. In figure 4, we compare the percentage changes in domestic food and feed use for corn and wheat due to 1% percent increase in U.S. corn and wheat price between first (2014/15) and last (2022/23) year of projection for the major wheat and

12 corn producing and consuming countries. For 2022/23, overall domestic food and feed use for corn and wheat are more inelastic and this is mainly because of the higher demand for food and feed that is driven primarily by income growth during the ten-year period. The initial assumption is of good economic growth. The average annual GDP growth rate during the projection period ranges from 1.9% to 23.5%, and varies across the selected countries reported here. An alternative scenario assumes only half of this GDP growth over the ten-year period. Based on market projections with this assumption and using the same method as before, the U.S. export elasticities for corn and wheat are for corn and for wheat in 2022/23 figure 5. Comparing these estimated elasticities with the elasticities estimated based on the initial GDP growth rate assumption, both the U.S. wheat and corn elasticities are relatively more elastic when the growth rate of income is halved. In the presence of linear relationship between the domestic and international price, the main reason behind this finding is that with relatively lower GDP growth rate, the domestic demand for both wheat and corn would decrease resulting in lower demand for U.S. wheat and corn exports making the U.S. export wheat and corn export more elastic. Discussion and conclusion This research applies one way to estimate short-run U.S. export demand elasticities for corn and wheat for the years 2014/15 and 2022/23. U.S. export demand elasticities are estimated using a partial equilibrium model that represents the price transmission and domestic quantities of these commodities, and others, in many key countries. The percent changes in rest of world consumption of food and feed use of corn and wheat due to 1% increase in U.S. domestic price of corn and wheat also estimates demand elasticities given the degree of price transmission into foreign markets.

13 Short-run U.S. export demand elasticities for corn and wheat for the years 2014/15 are and -3.45, respectively. Reimer, Zheng and Gehlhar (2011) estimated the short-run U.S. corn and wheat export demand elasticities for the period as and -0.45, respectively. Both studies indicate that U.S. corn export demand elasticity is elastic. However, short-run U.S. wheat export demand elasticity is also elastic in this study, while Reimer et al. find inelastic U.S. export demand elasticity for wheat in the short-run. One possible explanation for the difference is the estimation period. The on-going income growth in developing countries is found here to affect price elasticity of aggregate demand and trade shares in a ten year period. In particular, we estimate short-run U.S. export demand elasticities for corn and wheat for the year 2022/23 as and -2.79, respectively. Thus, the backward-looking statistical estimates provided by alternative methods might not be fully applicable for forward-looking analysis. This paper is of particular interest to the policy makers and trade economists who are interested in understanding the impact of changes in world food demand on the U.S. farm sector. U.S. agricultural exports are no longer dominated by high-income countries now that developing countries have grown to play a larger role. We draw out some of the implications for short-run U.S. export demand elasticities for two major crops. The short-run export demand elasticities are vital to any analysis of U.S. market response to price changes, and to policy discussion relating to the U.S. wheat and corn exports. For example, decreasing export elasticities will tend to draw down overall U.S. demand elasticities for these crops, so a policy that affects supply will lead to larger price impacts. This paper highlights the potential for changing trade elasticities. The importance for forward-looking analysis of policies or shocks to supply or demand is clear from basic market and welfare analysis. Further work could extend this effort in any of several directions. Key

14 improvements to this research would be to detail the role stocks play which, although included in the model for accurate short-run market analysis, are not outlined here to conserve space. Alternatively, carefully elaborated demand analysis could offer insight to the path rest of world demand elasticities might follow as per capita income rises. More fundamental extension would be to add more commodities or to extend this analysis in order to estimate long-run elasticities. A change in perspective that some audiences might welcome would be to consider aggregate demand elasticities from a global perspective, as might befit food security or climate change analysis, rather than focusing on U.S. trade elasticities for a U.S. audience.

15 References Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Rome, Italy. Gardiner, W.H., and P.M. Dixit Price Elasticity of Export Demand: Concepts and Estimates. U.S. Department of Agriculture, ERS. Foreign Agricultural Economic Report No. 228, Washington, DC. Mattson, J.W., Koo, W.W., Characteristics of the Declining U.S. Agricultural Trade Surplus. Agribusiness & Applied Economics Report No Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND. Msangi, S. and Rosegrant, M.K., Feeding the Future s Changing Diets: Implications for Agriculture Markets, Nutrition, and Policy. Selected paper presented at the 2020 Conference: Leveraging Agriculture for Improving Nutrition and Health, New Delhi, India. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), World Wheat Price Volatility Selected Scenario Analyses. OECD, Paris, France. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Demand Growth in Developing Countries. OECD, Paris, France. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (OECD-FAO), Agricultural Outlook OECD and FAO, Paris, France. Rask, K.J., and Rask N., Economic Development and Food Production-Consumption Balance: A Growing Global Challenge. Food Policy (36):

16 Reimer, J.J., Zheng X., and Gehlhar, M.J., Export Demand Elasticity Estimation for Major U.S. Crops. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics (44-4): United States Department of Agriculture (DA), Economic Research Service. Changing Structure of Global Food Consumption and Trade. Agriculture and Trade Report. WRS- 01-1, Washington D.C. United States Department of Agriculture (DA), Economic Research Service. NAFTA at 15: Building on Free Trade. Outlook No.: WRS Washington D.C. United States Department of Agriculture (DA), Economic Research Service. Income Growth in Developing Countries Can Increase U.S. Exports. Amber Waves, Washington D.C. United States Department of Agriculture (DA), Economic Research Service. Long- Term Prospects for Agriculture Reflect Growing Demand for Food, Fiber and Fuel. Amber Waves, Washington D.C. United States Department of Agriculture (DA), Economic Research Service. Developing Countries Dominate World Demand for Agricultural Products. Amber Waves, Washington D.C. United States Department of Agriculture (DA), Foreign Agricultural Service. U.S. Agricultural Product Exports by Country. Washington D.C. World Bank, World Population Growth, Washington D.C

17 U.S. agricultural product exports Billions $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $ Japan Korea, South European Union-28 China Mexico Figure 1. U.S. agricultural product exports to selected countries Source: U.S. Census Bureau Trade Data (2013)

18 U.S. agricultural product exports Billions $9 $8 $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 $0 Africa Middle East Figure 2. U.S. agricultural product exports to Middle Eastern and African countries. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Trade Data (2013)

19 Price U.S. Exports World Trade Price Transmission ROW $ Price Price Si S ES P/Pi ED Di D Quantity Quantity ROW Currency Quantity ED Net Trade Figure 3. World trade equilibrium: U.S. market, world market, exchange rate line (1:1), price transmission to the domestic market (P/Pi), and rest of the world (ROW) market.

20 Percentage change in domestic corn Feed Use 2014/15 Percentage change in domestic corn Feed Use 2022/23 Percentage change in domestic corn Food Use 2014/15 Percentage change in domestic corn Food Use 2022/ Percentage change in domestic wheat Feed Use 2014/15 Percentage change in domestic wheat Feed Use 2022/23 Percentage change in domestic wheat Food Use 2014/15 Percentage change in domestic wheat Food Use 2022/23 Figure 4. Comparison between the percentage changes in domestic food and feed use for corn and wheat due to 1% percent increase in U.S. corn and wheat price between first (2014/15) and last (2022/23) year of projection for the major wheat and corn producing and consuming countries

21 Corn Export Demand Elasticities 2022/23 Wheat Export Demand Elasticities 2022/23 Corn Export Demand Elasticities 2014/15 Wheat Export Demand Elasticities 2014/ corn export demand elasticities wheat export elasticities Scenario Baseline Scenario Baseline Figure 5. Comparison between the U.S. corn and export elasticities for 2014/15 and 2022/23 (a) baseline: Actual projected GDP growth rate and (b) Scenario: GDP growth rate decreased by 1/2 from the actual projected GDP growth rate.

22 Table1. Corn food and feed share of domestic demand to U.S. total exports, price transmission elasticities of corn, percentage change in domestic food and feed demand for corn and U.S. export elasticity of corn in 2014/15 Corn: Feed share of domestic demand to total exports Corn: Food share of domestic demand to total exports Price transmission elasticities: Corn Percentage change in domestic corn feed use* Percentage change in domestic corn food use* Argentina N/A Brazil Canada China Egypt EU India Indonesia Japan Mexico Nigeria U.S. corn export demand elasticities -1.46

23 Table 2. Wheat food and feed share of domestic demand to U.S. total exports, price transmission elasticities of wheat, percentage change in domestic food and feed demand for wheat and U.S. export elasticity of wheat in 2014/15 Wheat: Feed percentage of domestic demand of total exports Wheat: Food percentage of domestic demand of total exports Price transmission elasticities: wheat Percentage change in domestic wheat feed use* Percentage change in domestic wheat food use* Australia Brazil Canada China Egypt EU India Pakistan N/A Japan N/A N/A Mexico Nigeria U.S. wheat export demand elasticities -3.45

24 Table 3. Corn food and feed share of domestic demand to U.S. total exports, price transmission elasticities of corn, percentage change in domestic food and feed demand for corn and U.S. export elasticity of corn in 2022/23 Country Corn: Feed share of domestic demand to total exports Corn: Food: share of domestic demand to total exports Price transmission elasticities: corn Percentage change in domestic corn feed use Percentage change in domestic corn food use Argentina N/A Brazil Canada China Egypt EU India Indonesia Japan Mexico Nigeria U.S. corn export demand elasticities -0.91

25 Table 4. Wheat food and feed share of domestic demand to U.S. total exports, price transmission elasticities of wheat, percentage change in domestic food and feed demand for wheat and U.S. export elasticity of wheat in 2022/23 Country Wheat: Feed percentage of domestic demand of total exports Wheat: Food percentage of domestic demand of total exports Price transmission elasticities: wheat Percentage change in domestic wheat Feed use Percentage change in domestic wheat food use Australia Brazil Canada China Egypt EU India Pakistan N/A Japan N/A N/A Mexico Nigeria U.S. wheat export demand elasticities -2.79