We're not reading the crop report. We're reading an article written using the crop report. Those are two very different things.

I'm honestly scratching my head over here because this is bordering on being deliberately obtuse. Chinese purchases of US agricultural products is a high-level plank of any US-China trade deal and a very likely agenda item on any trade summit.

This also isn't new. What do you think trade agreements are, exactly? My favorite example is a US trade dispute with Australian wheat producers in the 2000s. US wheat is subsidized. Australian wheat basically isn't but is still cheaper. So, to avoid WTO repercussions, the US said Australian wheat was a biohazard risk and that's why it couldn't be imported.

This dispute was ultimately resolved as part of a wider agreement that created a new visa (E3) specifically for Australians wanting to work in the US.

Tariffs too are a tool of and a bargaining chip in trade agreements.

> Australian wheat basically isn't

It is, but is generally post facto instead of pre facto, which may be why you don't recognize it as such? In the US, subsidies are given by covering a portion of crop insurance premiums. When crops fail, the insurance covers the losses. Whereas Australia waits until crop failure occurs and then provides assistance to affected farmers "bailout"-style.