Tag: Food Security

The Russian wheat situation is somewhat different from Ukraine’s, which you may have read about in last week’s post. Despite the conflict, Russian wheat production and exports have shown remarkable signs of rebounding from the trade disruptions that accompanied the Ukraine invasion. Russia is still the number one wheat exporter in the world…and by a large margin. (Want to learn more about wheat? Click here to read an informative post.)

Russia & Wheat: We’re Number One

Various media reports place this year’s Russian wheat crop at 92 million metric tons, compared to a five-year average of around 78 million metric tons. This is despite lingering problems with drought in some production areas and spot shortages of high-priced inputs. (Global fertilizer supplies and prices remain a major concern.) The Russian trade ministry recently raised projected wheat exports for 2022-23 to 41.5 million metric tons.  Russia remains the number-one wheat exporter to the world, selling more than $7.3 billion in 2021.

Other trade sources report similar numbers and point out that Russia exported 24.9 million tonnes of wheat, 3.2 million more than a year ago. Exports more than doubled to 3.8 million tons last month from January 2022, before the invasion. Russian wheat shipments were at or near record highs in November, December and January, increasing 24 percent over the same three months a year earlier, according to British-American financial market data firm Refinitiv.

Russia’s investment in agricultural-related infrastructure and application of improved production techniques have helped drive the significant yield improvements essential to this growth.

Estimated crop yields of 3.2 tons per hectare in 2022-23, when compared to 1.8 tons per hectare as recently as 2012-13, powerfully reflect the commitment to continuing growth of both Russian wheat production and export capacity that have been underway and established for decades.

Russia has become the world’s leading wheat exporter not by accident…but by design.

Apart from the need to feed a population of 148 million, at least some of the drive to maintain and grow wheat exports today can be traced to Russia’s need for foreign exchange to help cover the costs of a potentially prolonged conflict. With energy demand from major customers in Europe reduced by a mild winter and astute European supply-management steps, reduced energy income must be offset somehow. Wheat exports offer an important alternative source.

Russian wheat & food security

But from the Russian perspective, optimism clearly may not be the operative word.  Maintaining exports of the agricultural commodities the world needs must remain a top priority for Putin, if only for national economic interests.  But as a further concern, Putin has to be sensitive to the absolutely critical role played by wheat in providing political stability across a large swath of the world on its southern border.

A staple around the world, wheat – and bread – provide basic nutrition for literally hundreds of millions of people, often in regions where the need for an affordable source of life-sustaining nutrition is most critical. Egypt is the number one importer of Russian wheat. Right now, they are in an economic crisis where one-third of their population lives below the poverty line.

Neighbor Turkey remains the largest per-capita consumer of bread in the entire world. Governments across the Middle East and Africa often provide generous consumer subsidies to assure it remains affordable and available. Elimination and reduction of these subsidies have been major factors cited in the “Arab Spring” uprisings of the early 2010s. To this day, a steady stream of wheat remains a top priority for these nations.

The larger issue of food security remains very much unresolved, despite the remarkable achievements of the past year in restoring the flow of wheat and other commodities from the Black Sea region. The global community will be watching closely for signs of what comes next.

But is it enough?

Capitalizing on the value of its wheat may not be a simple process, however. Much of the global community remains committed to imposing a high cost on Russia for its Ukraine actions. Shipping costs, primarily insurance, remain unsettled in the region, due to the lingering threat of further escalation in the conflict.

The continuation of the Black Sea Grain Initiative that opened the door for resumed exports also must be renewed this spring.

While the benefits to Russia of maintaining the agreement may seem obvious, observers nonetheless caution that the enormous pressures facing Russian leaders could prompt still more logic-defying actions.

Maybe just as important, the much of rest of the wheat-producing world seems intent on fighting to supply the world’s rising demand for wheat. Australia, for example, has enjoyed back-to-back record wheat crops, and in December reported a 50 percent increase in monthly wheat exports.

Significantly, Australian trade officials note that many of the country’s current export customers are the Middle East and African nations so dependent historically on Black Sea shipments.

And then there’s weather, finance, politics….

Reports of a renewed offensive by Russian troops have circulated widely, with evidence of an increase in Russian troops to about 500,000  and more equipment along the eastern Ukraine border and occupied territories. Heated rhetoric from the Kremlin has only added to the tension, and President Joe Biden’s recent daring visit to Kyiv has prompted yet another round of dire threats and warnings of an escalated conflict.

China’s top diplomat paid Putin a visit in February which sent nervous energy throughout the western world. National leaders worry that support from China and more aggressive action by Russia could expand the conflict still further, prompting more and more retaliatory response from the West.

The unspoken fear is the emergence of voices seeking to “weaponize food” – that is, to punish Russia by limiting or attempting to cut off Russian agricultural exports.

Leaders so far have recognized the enormous damage to food security everywhere in such a misguided effort. But if Russian aggression expands, the risk of overreaction is always a worry.

In such an environment, the risks associated with moving grains, oilseeds, fertilizers, and other commodities through the Black Sea corridor also might drive shipping and insurance costs even higher – and at some point, to unacceptable and uneconomic levels.

Russian political upheaval

The conflict has been expensive for Russia, in every way possible. The Hill reported the cost of the first nine months of the conflict alone at $82 billiion, including equipment losses of $21 billion.  At that level, the conflict is eating up as much as a quarter of Russia’s 2021 earnings.

Human costs have also been high. The protracted battle has created an enormous need for more Russian troops.  Six months into the conflict, Russian officials increased the size of their armed forces by 137,000, to 1,150,000.  U.S officials cited by the BBC estimate that between 169,000 and 190,000 Russian troops are involved in the conflict.  This spring it is estimated that at least 500,000 civilians will be called into action.

Speculation over possible changes in Russian leadership has become a global parlor game.  But ample credible evidence exists of frustration with the current situation, and reports of paranoia and competing leadership cabals can’t be dismissed. Should change occur, the question might well become whether a new regime would seek to unwind the conflict, or escalate it in search of a final victory, no matter the international consequences.

Wikipedia claims that “following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, more than 300,000 Russian citizens and residents are estimated to have left Russia by mid-March 2022, at least 500,000 by the end of August 2022, and an additional 400,000 by early October, for a total of approximately 900,000.”

The Moscow Times in May 2022 reported that 3.8 million Russians left the country in the first three months of the year alone. Whatever the actual figure of emigres, the exodus of Russian citizens during the conflict has been enormous.

A year ago, the world held its breath as Russian troops poured across the Ukraine border and sent global energy and commodity markets into a panicked spiral. Food security for millions seemed at greater risk than ever before, as vital exports of wheat, corn and oilseeds from Ukraine and Russia through the Black Sea corridor simply ceased.

What’s in store for wheat now?

But today, the picture seems to have changed. The Russian onslaught has been stymied if not totally repelled. Exports from the area have resumed, and energy and commodity markets have calmed a bit and retreated from record-high levels. Crop production in Russia has rebounded, and Ukraine producers have proven to be remarkably resilient in the face of continuing battle and devastation in important eastern agricultural regions.

So why are so many people still holding their breath about the ongoing conflict, and its potential threat to food security? The answer is simple.

Despite the signs of hope that have emerged over the past year, the list of potential threats remains substantial, each with dire consequences.

Solving all the remaining threats is a Rubik’s Cube of agronomic, economic, political and other decisions and actions involving the entire global community.

The complexity of the challenge can be seen in the open issues facing just one segment of the global agricultural system: wheat.

(Want to learn a little more about wheat before you dive in? Read this.)

What’s so important about wheat?

Wheat is the source of bread. Virtually every citizen of western society knows the simple common prayer at the heart of western religion and the social contract that makes civilization possible: Give us today our daily bread.

Six simple words express the essential role of wheat in the food security we require in our daily lives. The bread that wheat makes possible is one of our oldest foods – with evidence of a primitive form produced more than 17,000 years ago. Scientists tell us that bread became a dietary staple during the Neolithic era, 10,000 years ago.  The wheat we recognize today originated in the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, whose headwaters begin the mountains south of the Black Sea in today’s headlines.

Wheat is a cornerstone agricultural commodity. Flour is used to bake breads, cakes, pizza, tortillas, pasta, pastries and more – all the elements of the “daily bread” of human existence.

Bread remains something all of us both need and want in our lives, every day. It drives a relentless demand for wheat – a basic human need common to the entire western world.

Ukraine and wheat

This apparently incessant increase in demand for wheat may be one of the largest reasons for worry that persists about the Ukraine conflict.

Over the past year, the world has been told over and over again just how important Ukraine has become as a major supplier of grains and oilseeds to the global marketplace.

News of the courage and resiliency of the Ukraine producer and the entire national agricultural sector has been inspirational.

But the fact remains that the Ukraine agricultural sector’s rebound has been built on a pivot to greater emphasis on export of corn and oilseeds specifically sunflowers, more than wheat.

Regardless, Ukraine is still the 5th largest exporter of wheat, just behind the United States and France.

Reports from the U.S. Department of Agriculture show the devastating effects of conflict on Ukraine’s wheat sector:

The 2022-23 wheat crop just harvested showed a 37 percent decline from the previous year’s production, down 25 percent from their five-year average.

Not surprisingly, Ukraine wheat exports have dipped as well, falling from roughly 18 million metric tons last year to a projected 10 million in 2022-23, according to the Ukrainian Grain Association.

Ukraine wheat remains very price competitive, and the near-by European Union still relies on available rail and other transportation channels to buy as much as 45 percent of Ukraine wheat exports, the USDA estimates.

Ukraine’s uncertain future

The risks associated with the conflict continue to generate high shipping and insurance costs, and Ukraine trade officials seem content to focus undamaged resources and energies on more lucrative market opportunities for corn and oilseeds.

Imagine trying to farm when your country is at war. You know growing food is important, but so is your freedom. In a country slightly smaller than the size of Texas, it is hard to separate farming and fighting. In addition, wheat production overlaps areas of Russian invasion.

As a dire result, Ukraine has even less land as the Russians have taken over 3.8 million hectares of beautiful rich black soil of Ukrainian farmland and another 3.8 million are too close to the frontline, either destroyed, and/ or full of landmines.

In addition, even the land further away is difficult to manage because of financing, lack of working capital, and high fuel and fertilizer costs. All of this makes it difficult to sow seeds this spring.  Yet, it is a credit to human nature that the farmers are optimistic they will win the war.

It is expected that the fighting will pick up this spring. Russia is moving 500,000 recruited Russian troops in the area and the 60,000 Ukrainian troops have been training with NATO countries (watch operational update here). It seems that May will be a telling month.

Next week, D2D will explore the importance of Russia’s wheat exports and why they are important for global food.

[Subheadline: Despite Progress, Resolution of Russia/Ukraine Conflict Remains Critical to Global Food Security  |   Keywords:  Russia, Ukraine, bread, wheat, food security, hunger, invasion, conflict, Black Sea, shipping, exports, emigration]

Xi and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) want China to have food independence. But they can’t. Each day, China must feed 20% of the global population on a land mass slightly smaller than the U.S. As a result, China has become the largest agricultural importer in the world. Overall, they import 12% of the global food trade and only export 5%. They are consumers of 27% of the world’s meat, 45% of global soybeans, and 18% of global corn.

China’s population has peaked out at 1.4 billion people today, but even with an expected population decline, that’s still a lot of people. Yet those who live in rural areas are still moving to cities. As their diets become more sophisticated, it is projected by 2025 that each Chinese citizen will consume 20% more meat at 116 pounds from just 99 pounds per year today. (This is compared to the U.S. at 225 per person.)

More meat on China’s table means more hogs and chickens, and a three-fold increase in milk consumption means more dairy cows – all waiting to be fed with more soybeans and corn.

On top of that, Chinese consumers are increasing their use of soybean oil for cooking. Put the pieces together and the enormity of the challenge facing China becomes readily apparent: China’s hopes for food security rest substantially on the need for help outside its borders.

Aside from food security, Xi is having a tough time. Just to mention a few things…

• Citizens all over China protested Covid lockdowns and encouraged Xi to resign. He discontinued restrictions, gave the Chinese their freedom, and it is anticipated that one-third of their population will end up with Covid and one million could die.
• GDP has declined from supply chain issues, a drop in real estate prices, lower infrastructure spending, and reduced corporate profits due to weak domestic demand.
• The world is watching and speculating about a possible invasion of Taiwan.
• Companies are leaving China to produce their goods in Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia.
• Chinese espionage is rampant. 
• …And finally, the crimes against humanity by the CCP toward the Uyghurs adds to the global dislike toward Xi and the CCP.

While we can’t read Xi’s mind, we can look at some of China’s decisions that give us insights into their strategy for food security.

The Five-Year Plan

Food security concerns were confirmed in March 2022 during the Five-Year Plan (2021-2025) presentation at the 13th National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC).

Here, Xi stressed that eating matters most, and food is the most basic necessity of the people.

Their Five-Year Plan may sound reasonable – but in reality, it is fraught with insurmountable challenges.

Their strategic plan called for annual grain production such as corn, rice, and wheat of no less than 650 million metric tonnes and meat production of 89 million tonnes. Meeting the production goals of this lofty plan demands a 102% increase in domestic grains. They are achieving their meat goals at 88 million metric tons, but how will they produce the volume of grain-based animal feed necessary to maintain that production level for meat?

Over the last few years, China has increasingly relied on imports of agricultural goods to meet these demands. In fact, they bought $33 billion of ag imports from the U.S. in 2021 – a 33% increase from 2020 – making China its top purchaser.

And China’s dependence doesn’t stop there. Brazil continues to be its top ag supplier with 22% market share in 2021. The U.S. is close behind with 18%, followed by the European Union with $24.4B in ag imports.

A future without food shortages requires an improvement in the quality and farmland and an increase in crop yields. The CCP is upgrading 16.5 million acres to withstand droughts and floods to produce higher yields through technology, irrigation, and pollution control.

But is their arable land fixable? China’s limited environmental regulations combined with an aggressive move to middle-class urbanization has polluted both the soil and water, creating major strains on-farm resources. Not to mention toxic human waste, agricultural and industrial chemicals can be found everywhere in the soil. The story is grim.

About 80% of food grown in China is produced by 250 million smallholder farmers, many of whom work very hard, albeit with limited machinery. So they struggle to grow their crops on a large scale like the U.S. and Brazil, as some of their yields are only 60% of full capacity.

To ensure these farmers can make a living and prevent them from poverty the CPP provides higher prices for food grown at home than that imported. To help their farmers, and to mitigate climate change, there is a minimum purchase price for wheat and rice. Overall, the price support was 14.8% of gross farm receipts.

“Water, water everywhere, and nary a drop to drink.”

Their arable land is not pristine. China has 20% of the global population but only possesses 6% of the world’s groundwater. About 40% of China’s agricultural land is polluted with unsafe water. Almost all of China’s lakes and rivers are also polluted and the wild-caught fish is not really edible. Their farmed fish isn’t so great either.

The Ministry of Water Resources tested 2,103 wells in three different watersheds and found that 80% of the groundwater is polluted with toxic metals and other contaminants. Another research study by Tsinghua University found that at least 100 million Chinese drink unsafe water with high concentrations of toxic chemicals which take centuries to degrade and cannot be easily detoxified by the human body.

Extreme weather in the form of floods and heat has also affected their food production. It has damaged at least 14 million acres of crops, ruined roads, and displaced millions of people.

GMOs will help. A little worm called the Fall Armyworm also arrived in China devastating about 2.7 million acres of crops in 26 provinces and regions. It attacked mostly corn but also wheat, ginger, sugarcane, and sorghum. While the worm started in the America’s, U.S. farmers are able to prevent crop failure due to GMOs, specifically Bt corn. Currently, China’s reconsidering its stance on GMOs.

Their pork industry was cut in half in 2018 by the highly contagious African Swine Fever. Pork is their favorite meat and China farms half the world’s pig population. In 2018, during the crisis, they lost almost 50% of their herd. While most of the herds have been built back up, this deadly virus took its toll on both the farmer and the consumer. Farmers had to rebuild their herds and the consumer paid $3.50 a pound compared to $1.50 before ASF.

Strategies to secure U.S. food supply

Acquiring U.S. land is one strategy to alleviate food security. Concern over China purchasing U.S. land is running high.  Even though they own just under 1% of U.S. land, their interest in U.S. agriculture has grown significantly since 2000. Since 2020, Chinese investors own about 192,000 acres valued at $1.9 billion. As of December 2020, 37.6 million acres of U.S. agricultural land is owned by foreign investors. That is 2.9% of cropland, pasture, forest, and other.

It is not the amount of land that is concerning but the location. As of December 2020, China has purchased over 352,140 acres of U.S. land. Part of this purchase included 370 acres in Grand Forks, North Dakota. A Chinese company called Fufeng Group purchased this land right next to the Grand Forks Air Force Base. Of course, this has sent off alarms among citizens and government officials alike.

Associated with the CCP, Sun Guangxin has spent the last five years buying up 140,000 acres in Texas for his own Blue Hills Wind Farm – right next to the Laughlin Air Force Base. Luckily, this was stopped by the Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act which is to prevent hostile nations from accessing Texas’s electricity grid and other infrastructure.

Mike Pence was reported to have said at the Heritage Foundation, “America cannot allow China to control our food supply.” In addition, three Republican senators wrote a letter to U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to review this purchase. The House Appropriations Committee voted to prevent China from buying more U.S. farmland. But in reality, it is hard to tell who is buying our farmland and some loopholes allow the Chinese to purchase our land through an American investor.

Chinese companies investing in U.S. companies

China’s Shuanghui Group purchased Smithfield Foods, which was the largest U.S. pork producer. Besides acquiring their technology, the purchase included 146,000 acres to house hog farms, processing plants, and feed mills. Since the acquisition, WH Group (formerly Shuanghui), now a state-run meat packing facility, purchased Clougherty Packing from Hormel and Kansas City Sausage, LLC. In addition, they have canceled contracts with U.S. grain co-ops and purchased their own grain elevators to feed their hogs.

This acquisition has helped China grow its pork outside China in the U.S. This makes it easier for them to purchase corn and soybeans in the U.S. and then feed their hogs in the U.S. The pork is cut and packaged here in the U.S. and then shipped to China. It also alleviates any corn and soybean tariffs China would have to pay for U.S. imports.

Similar U.S.- China channels like this can also offset China’s substantial demand for grain production. COFCO, a Chinese food processing company, partnered with GROWMARK a U.S. grain logistics company. This gives them access to grains exported to China via the Mississippi River. This important waterway exports 92% of U.S. agricultural exports and 78% of grains and soybeans.

Sea-borne exports had ended following Russia’s February invasion of Ukraine, disrupting international agricultural markets, which depend upon Ukraine for a significant portion of the corn, wheat, and sunflower oil moving in international markets. Prior to the Russian invasion, Ukraine’s agricultural exports reached almost $28 billion in value.

After the cessation of exports due to the invasion, an international agreement allowing the resumption of shipments through the Black Sea helped restore trade. But the Ukraine Ministry of Trade nonetheless has reported a decline of 30.7 percent in grain exports. Global commodity prices have receded from the peaks reached immediately after the invasion, but price volatility (coupled with comparable uncertainty in global energy markets) continues to worry inflation-conscious leaders far beyond the Black Sea theater.

A Refresher Course in Ukraine Agriculture

Dirt to Dinner first reported on the situation in Ukraine in January, including a recap of the significant role played by that country in global agricultural markets.

But as a reminder of why this subject remains so important to our global food system, here are some important facts:

• Agricultural products are Ukraine’s most important exports. In 2021 they totaled $27.8 billion, accounting for 41 percent of the country’s $68 billion in overall exports.
• In 2021, Ukraine was the largest global exporter of sunflower oil and meal; #3 in barley and rapeseed exports; #4 in corn exports; #5 in global wheat trade, #7 in soybean markets; #9 in sunflower trade. Ukraine exports at least 75% of total production of these top crops.

• Largest fertilizer producer in the European Union, with exports of mineral fertilizer and ammonia to nearly 70 countries worth more than $2 billion; exports account for roughly 10 percent of the global mineral fertilizer market
• 33% of the total population is engaged in agriculture
• Has 80 million acres of arable land (#10 globally)
• Prior to the invasion, it had 45,000 ag enterprises (55% gross output), and 4 million farming households. Agriculture also represented 11% of Ukraine’s GDP and 38% of total foreign exchange earnings
• Major export partners: #1 Russia, #2 China, #3 Poland
• Major import partners: #1 China, #2 Russia, #3 Germany, #4 Poland (energy)
• Most Ukrainian exports pass-through ports on the Black and Azov Seas: Odessa, Pivdeny, Chornomorsk, Kherson, Mariupol, and Berdyansk

Sources for bulleted data: National Investment Council of Ukraine; International Trade Administration; www.trade.gov, US AID, Successful Farming, USDA WASDE & PSD Database, USDA FAS.

What’s the current situation?

As has been widely reported, the invasion promoted an immediate shutdown of exports from Ukraine. Government officials, humanitarian groups, and others almost immediately began expressing grave concerns about the effect of the shutdown on the markets traditionally served through the Black Sea corridor.

Many of these customers included some of the most food-insecure populations in the entire world – markets across the Middle East and Africa, in particular. Ukraine alone provides more than 40 percent of grain distributed in the developing world by the United Nations World Food Program.

In response to the dire situation, national leaders responded by negotiating the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which allowed a resumption of shipments under controlled conditions.

Ukraine officials reported in early November that grain exports from the country had reached 15.1 million tons since the start of the 2022-2023 agricultural year that began in July. That includes roughly 8 million tons of corn, 1.2 million tons of barley, 5.7 million tons of wheat and smaller volumes of rye, flour and other agricultural commodities.

Exports levels for wheat still are down more than half from their peak, barley shipments down almost 75 percent, and rye down by more than 80 percent. But corn shipments have shown a strong recovery, and while the export volumes remain largely well below pre-invasion levels, the success of the Sea Grain Initiative has been a major step forward for Ukraine, Ukraine farmers, local consumers and foreign customers.

Prior to the recent Ukraine announcement, data from the United Nations already had shown the progress being made. UN estimated that more than 10.4 million tons of grains and other foods have shipped from Ukraine ports since the Initiative was signed in July.

The United Nations Joint Coordination Committee (JCC) notes that 19 loaded vessels await inspection in Turkey. Ukraine officials, however, place the total number of vessels having loaded under the agreement much higher – closer to 150 in all.

Meanwhile, as many as 110 vessels are poised to enter key Ukraine ports for loading, according to some media reports.

The growing signs of the success of the initiative allowing the resumption of sea-borne shipments have raised hopes of a return to more-normal commerce, despite the continuing conflict – with commensurate hope for greater food security for the needy nations dependent upon grain and oilseeds from both Ukraine and Russia.

International observers express cautious optimism that the agreement allowing resumed exports will survive, despite the political bluster from Moscow and the continuing hostilities. European politicians have speculated Putin’s saber-rattling might be simply a negotiation ploy to strengthen his hand in future international discussions and negotiations.

Political figures around the world decried Putin’s statement, accusing the Russian leader of attempting to “weaponize food.” President Joe Biden called his threat of withdrawing from the agreement “purely outrageous.”

When the initial outrage over Putin’s threat subsided a bit, officials also pointed to other more-encouraging signs. For example, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization recently announced the creation of a special project office in Ukraine dedicated to the success of the shipping agreement.

Rippling Effects

What may be overlooked in the discussion may well be the economic interests of Ukraine and its agricultural community.

Ukraine producers are wrapping up a harvest marked by the predictable effects of prolonged conflict. Ukraine agricultural officials report a total grain harvest of 50-52 million tons this year, down from the record 86 million tons recorded in 2021. The World Economic Forum estimates for the July 2022 to June 2023 season showed the predictable drops: 5.4 million tons of wheat, 7.7 million tons of corn, and 1.2 million tons of barley. (Last year’s export figures were 23 million tons of corn, 19 million tons of wheat, and 5.8 million tons of barley.)

The outlook for Ukraine’s oilseeds sector is equally dark. The numbers are more than a little mind-numbing to the average person. But the bottom line is clear: the conflict has seen one of the world’s largest players in global agricultural markets suffer some serious downturns in its economic interests.

International information group, Interfax, cited Ukrainian officials predicting the 2023 sunflower crop could be down as much as 43 percent, dropping to 9.4 million tons from 16.4 million tons last year. That would be the lowest production level in more than a decade.

Ukraine should harvest 14.86 million tons of oilseed crops this year, including 9.4 million tons of sunflower seeds, 2.87 million tons of rapeseed, and 2.59 million tons of soybeans, officials added.

About 96 percent of the harvested sunflower seed, or roughly 9 million tons, are expected to be processed, compared with 38 percent of the soybean crop (1 million tons) and 7 percent of rapeseed.

Ukraine will produce 4 million tons of sunflower oil this year, but strong global demand will prompt a draw-down of reserve stocks, resulting in total exports of 4.2 million tons.

Even so, that’s down almost a million tons from last year.

But what about the Ukrainian farmer – and consumer?

Despite the success of Ukraine’s efforts to drive out Russian invaders, farmers across the country face a difficult situation. In many regions, such as the Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Sumy regions, the devastation of battle has destroyed infrastructure, equipment, and even homes, leaving the entire population without the necessities of work and life.

For the survivors and those operating outside the areas of major conflict, the outlook is only marginally better. Economists and agronomists worry that the higher input prices that followed the invasion, coupled with the “minor” matter of continuing armed conflict and political turmoil, might reduce plantings for next season.

Planning and planting for the future have become a critical issue for the entire country. A hungry and desperate population must be fed. A significant sector of the national economy needs to revive. International agencies and universal goodwill won’t be enough.

Ukrainian producers face an enormously difficult future, and functioning if not thriving export markets offer the best hope not just for financial success but perhaps more so for simple survival.

Is it all doom and gloom?

Backed by help from the international community, Ukraine has made great strides toward resuming its leading role in global agricultural markets. That’s good news for consumers everywhere. The subtraction of this important contributor to global food security has been a major worry for the entire civilized world. The resumption of grain, oilseed, and other commodity exports from this critical part of the world should be reason for celebration.

But we’re not completely out of the woods, as recent bluster from Russia has made clear. The agreement critical to renewed Black Sea shipments remains fragile, and the world must remain diligent in supporting efforts to sustain it – and assure its success. Without it, we risk more than continued turbulence in the food and energy markets that dictate much of the cost of our food.

On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Life is full of unintended consequences. And unfortunately, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has provided classic proof of the old adage.

In this environment, daily events — military and political — have an increased influence over daily commodity supply, causing gyrations in prices that obscure buying decisions. Further complicating matters is filling the 7 million metric-ton gap created by the dramatic decreases in Russian-Ukraine wheat export levels. In short, prices are not only higher than historic levels, but also subject to wider swings.

Far beyond the carnage facing citizens of Ukraine, the world faces some very real and substantial costs from the war. We risk facing a hefty tuition bill for once again learning the unforeseen dangers too late.

The immediate threat to our global food system

The threat posed to our global food system by Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has been well documented. At the core of the threat is one simple truth: the world depends upon an interconnected network of agricultural trade. No country can credibly claim complete food self-sufficiency.

We’re committed to a system based on comparative advantage, in which all nations seek to exploit their natural advantages to supply the world with the commodities and food products they produce most efficiently.

If economics alone didn’t create such an integrated marketplace, our tastes would. Consumers everywhere simply want to have a wide variety of foods all the time, regardless of local growing seasons.

That fundamental reality of modern life has made Russia and Ukraine critical elements of the global food system.

The rich productive capacity of each nation has firmly established them as critical providers of a range of commodities, notably wheat, sunflower oil (see below chart), barley and corn.

The charts and graphs that accompany this post paint a sobering picture of just how significant Russia and Ukraine are to our modern food system – and suggest why both economic experts and political leaders are so concerned with more than just the carnage of battle.

The war’s rippling effects

When the flow of those commodities is interrupted – by war or any other factor – the effects ripple across the entire global food system. As just one example, the conflict has promoted a dramatic increase in insurance costs for shipping commodities in the region, effectively altering if not limiting trade flows. And the longer the interruption continues, the greater the uncertainty that fuels steady and often sharp increases in commodity prices.

How long prices will remain at current historically high levels is almost impossible to predict. Normally, high prices trigger increased production. But these aren’t normal times. Open conflict obviously will affect how much land in the embattled region is planted for next year’s crop.

Equally important, the corollary effects of rising energy prices also will complicate decision-making by producers everywhere who face dramatic increases in the cost of fuel for field equipment and especially the fertilizers needed to produce the best possible production levels.

Other producers of food grains, feed grains, and oilseeds around the world may not farm under the sounds of guns, but they can’t escape these high costs.

Production uncertainties – and price volatility – measured in months if not years will be among the most significant unintended consequences of the conflict. In the modern, interconnected food system, uncertainty translates into risk – and higher costs and higher prices for everyone.

The Threat of Immediate Hunger

But another, more pernicious effect of the conflict remains to be addressed: the very real threat of immediate hunger to millions – or more – of the world’s hungriest and neediest people.

Remember, wheat is the food of the here and now.

Most often, it’s the daily bread sustaining a majority of our world’s population, especially in the less economically developed areas of Africa, the Middle East, and other areas currently dependent on wheat from Russia and Ukraine.

And feed grains and meal from oilseeds are tomorrow’s food staples.

Oilseeds go into the feed rations that produce animal protein – a kind of investment in the protein-rich foods making up a greater share in more economically advanced markets.

But whether you live in an economically advanced country or lesser developed, disruptions of these commodities that threaten hunger become very real and very immediate for all.

 Sources: FAS/USDA; S&P Global Market Intelligence GTAS Forecasting

On the run? LISTEN to our post!

For more information on Ukraine’s ag system, check out our recent post, Ukraine: Quiet Pawn in Quest for Food Security

Putin and Russia are being canceled, to say the least. The most immediate and visible effect of the Russian invasion of Ukraine – beyond the awful carnage inflicted on the Ukrainian people – is a massive shift in global international relations. The world is watching Putin try to transform an independent nation into a satellite state loyal to Moscow — a transparent effort to re-establish the model of the old Soviet Union. And the world, except China, is stepping up to defend Ukraine.

The West has been fairly swift in launching a widespread and coordinated effort to inflict economic costs on Russia for its actions. Russia’s exports totaled $39b in November 2021. If every country cancels the bulk of their imports, it would be financially difficult for Russia to survive.

• Restrictions on Russian banking have made doing business more difficult and costly for them, with likely further declines in the Russian ruble.
• Further economic sanctions against the Putin regime and his oligarch cronies will add targeted economic penalties. The EU and the U.S. are even chasing these supporters out of countries where they have their yachts, as well as freezing some of their assets.
• Germany is cutting its dependence on Russia’s natural gas and coal and rethinking the timing of its green carbon-neutral strategy.
• Turkey is limiting Russian ships through the Bosporus from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea.
• A long list of European countries and the U.S. have banned Russian aircraft from their airspace.
• The U.S. banned exports of high-tech goods, such as semiconductor microchips, to curtail Russian defense production.
• Daimler Truck Holding, Volvo Car, General Motors and Harley-Davidson are all reconsidering their business dealings with Russia.
• Apple, Google and Nike, and energy companies such as BP, Shell, Equinor, and TotalEnergies, are starting to pull out of Russia.
• Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is freezing and eventually exiting from its $2.8 billion in Russian assets.

The list grows every day, and the overall effect is to make Putin and his oligarch pariahs in the larger community of nations, and to highlight what many see as a growing international polarization that pits democratic, market-oriented Western economies against the controlled societies built around socialist and communist principles.

As the conflict continues and the world’s attention remains focused on the day-to-day events, average citizens in the United States are likely to see the beginning stages of the consequences of conflict. The most apparent signal will likely come in higher energy costs, notably at the gas pump. 

Russia’s top export category is fuel and energy, representing just over half of its total export value of $335 billion in 2020. Imports in May 2021 reached a record 26.2 million barrels, second only to Canadian shipments (over 125 million barrels in May 2021) and ahead of Mexico (22.6 million barrels in May 2021).

By February 2022, Forbes reported that Russia had eclipsed Canada as the largest supplier of imported gasoline for all of 2021. Russia’s Federal Customs Service also noted the United States purchased almost one-fifth of the country’s heavy-oil products, making it Russia’s largest single buyer.

In advance of the invasion, petroleum prices already had peaked above $100 per barrel. As of March 2, the AAA National regular gas price was $3.66 a gallon, up from $2.71 last year. California is now over $5.00 in some spots. Energy experts can’t agree on just how high prices will go – but agree that further increases are on the way.

Source: Forbes, US Gasoline/Energy Imports, 2-24-22.

U.S. efforts to expand domestic energy production could help bring more balance to the supply-demand picture. But expanding domestic energy production will take some time to ramp up and already faces numerous concerns from the green energy group.

Ag in the Energy Crosshairs

Higher energy costs will have a ripple effect across the entire U.S. (and global) economy, and agriculture promises to be among the hardest hit. Energy costs represent as much as 15 percent of total production costs for farmers, according to the Department of Agriculture.

Much of the energy is consumed as fuel for all the various machinery and equipment that drive the efficient production of crops and animals. But another factor becomes especially important for the ag sector: the enormous energy component of the fertilizers farmers around the world depend upon. Rising costs of diesel and gasoline will have an immediate effect on the economics of farming and ranching. But the longer-term implications for fertilizer costs may prove even more serious.

Russian natural gas is a key source of ammonia that serves as a building block for many nitrogen fertilizers. To add to its prominent role in global fertilizer markets, Russian exports of potash represent 21 percent of the entire global market for the product. (Neighboring Belarus accounts for another 21 percent of potash market.)

The prospect of losing access to these important energy sources concerns the entire ag sector – especially after a year of extraordinary increases in fertilizer costs, even before the threat of invasion fully emerged. Farmers already had seen anhydrous ammonia prices rise by 300 percent, urea by 214 percent and liquid nitrogen by 250 percent over the year before. Potash prices had increased by 213 percent, as well.

Such dramatic increases in energy-related prices – and the prospect of still higher costs to come – can’t be ignored. They threaten significant increases in the cost of production for cornerstone crops such as corn and soybeans, indicating that the food price inflation consumers have seen for the past year is likely to continue. The extent of those inflationary pressures – and the speed at which they spread through the food system – remain the subject of intense debate among economists around the world.

The significance of energy in determining the fallout from the Russian invasion on the average person reflects a bigger truth in modern international relations. We are seeing first-hand just how interconnected all nations have become in a global economy built around a global trading system.

A military threat can easily make a normally invisible economic relationship highly visible – and highly important to consumers everywhere.  This economic interdependence may offer a powerful tool to resolve the conflict.

It’s all about the trade

The outlook for U.S. farmers and consumers isn’t totally bleak, however. The response to the Russian invasion is built around the significant economic advantages enjoyed by the United States and its allies – and the leverage these advantages can apply to resolving the conflict and restoring more-normal international relations.

The value of Russian exports dipped in 2020, falling from $423 billion the previous year to $335 billion, according to Russian customs data.  Statistics also show a mutual trading dependence between the United States and Russia. U.S. imports of Russian energy and minerals create a significant trade deficit in goods. But Russian demand for U.S. services creates a trade surplus that helps offset the deficit.

Because we have lost our energy independence, the United States – and the EU – needs Russia’s energy offerings notwithstanding this invasion. But Russia needs U.S. machinery, automotive, aircraft, sophisticated electronics and medical equipment – over $9 billion in 2019, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC). Total imports from the United States reached $13.4 billion in that same year, according to the World Bank. Russia needs and wants what the United States has for sale.

Other statistics suggest the Russian economy needs the West – including the United States – far more than Putin would like to acknowledge.  On average, the United States generally imports more from its trading partners than it exports to them – roughly 62 percent imports, to 38 percent exports, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. However, the U.S. exports far more to Russia than it imports – roughly 82 percent exports, only 12 percent imports.

In other words, Russia needs the United States – and other western markets. The potential loss of trade promises to hit hard on a broad spectrum of Russian interests. (The notable exception is China, which remains Russia’s largest single trading partner.)

How Does U.S. Agriculture Fit into the Picture?

U.S. farmers also stand to benefit from the disruption to key global agricultural markets created by the invasion. Markets for wheat, barley and certain oilseeds may be among the commodities most affected by the invasion and its after-effects.

Russia is the third-largest producer of wheat in the world, with Ukraine rising rapidly in the mix. Together, the two countries also account for more than one-quarter of all global wheat trade and about 70 percent of the world’s total trade in sunflower oil. Ukraine also supplies 13 percent of the world’s corn exports, much of it bound for China, according to USDA. Agricultural export sales from Ukraine have been rising in recent years, climbing to $22.2 billion in 2020. Russian wheat exports mainly go to Egypt and Turkey but the rest of the countries such as Ethiopia, Cameroon, and Kazakhstan will be hard-pressed to afford rising wheat prices.

Trade at-a-glance – 2019 Russia/Ukraine Percent of Global Export Market Share:

• Sunflower Oil: 70%
• Wheat: 25%
• Coal: 14%
• Corn: 13%
• Crude Petroleum: 13%
• Mineral Fuels (coal, petroleum, natural gas): 11%
• Liquified Natural Gas: 6%

Disruptions to Ukraine’s exports of these and other farm commodities could open the door for U.S. growers, especially if restrictions on Russian trade emerge. Rising world prices would help offset the continuing rise in energy and input costs facing the U.S. and other producers. U.S. wheat production and exports have declined slowly in recent years, in part due to significant growth in wheat production around the Black Sea area. The conflict could be the trigger to reverse that trend.

Today, U.S. farmers account for about 6 percent of total world production and 12 percent of export markets. But with wheat prices currently at their highest levels since 2008 and the invasion promising to add fuel to the upward trend, the economic incentive to capture more of the world demand is very strong. Should the conflict expand beyond Ukraine, the risks become even higher.

Increased reliance on the United States as a major source of supply for wheat, corn, oilseeds and other farm commodities also could have another ancillary benefit to the global food system. As the conflict further complicates the regional and global export picture and the associated logistics, the relative stability and continuity of the U.S. food chain might help mitigate further disruptions to the global supply chain.

The U.S. farmer may well prove to be the global food consumer’s best ally in holding the line on further food price inflation.

On the run? LISTEN to our post!

What is at issue here? Why is Ukraine valuable?

The current tensions can be traced to a complex combination of geography, history, and geopolitics.

Ukraine is more than just the second-largest country in Europe, with a total area only slightly smaller than the entire state of Texas. It exists at a critical juncture between Europe and Asia – a geographic gateway between two cultures opening all the social, commercial and other opportunities created by trade and political interaction.

To begin, Ukraine offers an abundance of natural resources, including agricultural products such as corn and oilseeds, minerals and other staples of living. Its central location between European and Asian markets makes it a natural source of supply in both directions. Its river system and access to warm-water ports promise steady and reliable delivery.

And as any student of history will attest, such conditions attract a lot of outside interest. The roster of countries seeking to control or occupy Ukraine is a who’s-who of history: Scythians, Samaritans, Romans and many others figure into the country’s long national story.

In the 9th century, different Baltic cultures formed what came to be known as “Kievan Rus” – the first eastern Slavic state, centered in what is now the modern city of Kiev, and in the 11th and 12th centuries one of the most dominant states in all of Europe.

The name became the root word of the modern state of Russia, and by the 18th century, Ukraine was absorbed into the Russian empire. When the Soviet Union dissolved, Ukraine gained its official independence. In 2004, Ukrainians took to the streets in an “Orange Revolution” to demand western-style changes to national government, and in 2014 launched the Maidan Revolution to oust a pro-Soviet government.

Official estimates say as much as 17% of Ukrainians still speak Russian as their first language, especially in the eastern and southern areas proximate to the Russian border. Unofficial observers contend as much as one-third of the Ukrainian population retain a sense of Russian identity. Regardless of the actual numbers, the Russian presence in Ukraine in both body and spirit remains very much alive.

That reality has played out in the continuing uprisings regarding election results and the unchallenged re-annexation of Crimea by Russia in early 2014, immediately following the ouster of the pro-Soviet government. Crimea was part of the Russian Empire since 1783, and Kremlin officials used many familiar arguments of history and residual identity to justify the militarily unchallenged occupation.

What’s behind Russia’s aggressive posture?

Modern diplomacy would hold that the rest of the world should leave it to the Ukrainians to determine their own future. But as current events and the Crimean example indicate, larger forces are at play.

From the Russian perspective, much of Ukraine remains Russian and should be reunited with their natural and preferred choice in identity. Perhaps more important to Kremlin leaders, Russia simply can’t allow a further drift of neighboring, and former Russian, countries toward the West.

Soviet (and now Russian) geopolitical strategy long emphasized the need and value of a ring of buffer states between the “Mother Country and the decadent West.” The fall of the Berlin Wall ushered in an age of independence, notably still vibrant in the Baltic states. The idea of Ukraine remaining neutral or uncommitted to the West might be tolerable to Russian leaders. But a clear shift to the West by a massive and economically vital neighboring country in such a critical geographic position – through stronger economic ties, or worse, through membership in NATO – is simply unacceptable.

The fear of losing control of a country so rich in industry, agriculture and energy is a foundational geopolitical interest – and would prevent Russia’s status as a true superpower, not just in Asia but all of Eastern Europe as well.

So where does agriculture fit into the picture?

In many respects, Russia’s geopolitical ambitions mask a less visible but important issue in the Ukrainian conflict. It’s food security.

The world needs more food every day. Countries worldwide are hard at work thinking about how to assure access to enough food for their citizens. Many are actually hard at work doing something about it. And many of those see the enormous potential role Ukraine could play in that food security paradigm.

Ukraine’s most productive agricultural regions claim as much as a quarter of the earth’s “black soil.”

Often referred to as “chernozem,” this soil is built up over centuries of the growth and decomposition of grasslands, leaving a deep layer (10 inches or more) of soil rich in organic carbon. By comparison, the U.S. Midwest is down to about 3 inches. Beyond its highly fertile qualities, the unique nature of the soil often minimizes the need for extensive plowing or tilling.

As a result, the soil has maintained its fertility, making Ukraine one of the breadbaskets of the world growing corn, oilseeds, wheat, and barley.

This important agricultural production advantage has made Ukraine a significant factor in the global agricultural system – despite some lingering problems with how the production system is managed.

The transition from the state-managed approach of the old Soviet Union days has been a difficult and often frustratingly slow process. Despite ambitious plans to modernize the system to capitalize on the country’s enormous natural advantages, political resistance to change remains firmly in place in select areas, notably among some officials still rooted in the philosophy of the old Soviet-controlled system.

Civil unrest and outright street battles between independence-minded progressives and traditionalists still clinging to a Russian heritage haven’t helped attract investment or accelerate comprehensive change.

But the protracted political back-and-forth can’t mask Ukraine’s enormous productive potential – and the role the country could play in meeting the food security goals of major international players, such as Russia and China. In addition to the geopolitical ambitions of so many countries, the attractiveness of Ukraine as a major source of food needs can’t be overstated.

Studies by academicians and various international organizations vary in their estimates of just how much untapped potential resides with Ukraine’s agricultural sector. One analysis reported by the International Trade Association placed just the country’s total grain output potential at 140 million tons – more than 60% above current levels. Improvements in production of food and feed grains could pave the way to similar explosions in productivity in the production of oilseeds, animal proteins, vegetable crops – and more.

Remember, nations can exert control through many means, not just the use of military force. Economic ties also can bind nations together, and both Russia and China have been actively seeking to use economics as well as troops as a key part of their foreign policy agenda. Note that over the past three years, Russia has quietly assumed the role of Ukraine’s number-one trading partner and largest export market. China is number two.

How does this affect me?

Political disputes and threats of conflict are nothing new, and it’s easy to dismiss something unfolding halfway around the world from our dinner tables. But we all have a stake in how this is resolved. Make no mistake, Russia and China are searching to expand their borders and food security cannot be taken lightly. If Russia succeeds in dominating Ukraine, when and where does it stop?

From Russia’s perspective:

• National security
• International standing
• Practical economics: access to energy, food, minerals
• Food security

From the West’s perspective:

• National sovereignty
• Human rights and self-determination
• East-West balance
• Investment/economic opportunity

And for the food consumer…

The immediate risks to the average food consumer are small. Our global food system continues to function well overall. As important as Ukraine is on the global food system, any significant disruptions to the global food picture are unlikely.

The bigger risk is long-term consequences of outright conflict and punitive economic sanctions. Conflict in any part of the Middle East could easily lead to further complications in unraveling the supply chain issues still lingering post-Covid. Higher energy costs in particular would work through the food system (and the entire economy), raising the prices we pay every day.

There’s also the risk of unintended consequences. Past international disputes have led to punitive actions that proved counterproductive in the long term. For instance, Germany halting the Nor Stream 2 pipeline, which brings natural gas from Russia to Europe, could influence natural gas prices around the world.

Restrictions on the flow of money and goods are double-edged swords. Ask any farmer how well past trade embargoes and trade restrictions have worked for producers and rural communities – and how those costs rippled back through the food system. Food consumers need to call for cool heads to prevail in international disputes, for everyone’s sake.

When Covid swept through our nation, it took red meat, milk, and a lot of toilet paper with it — showing shortages of products across the supply chain. With Thanksgiving so close, can we expect the same thing with our turkeys?

5. The Number of Turkeys Grown Did Not Change

Covid brought turkey production down a few percentage points this year by impacting supply and demand, thus slowing down parts of the supply chain. This created a back-up at the processing facilities in spring and early summer, which in turn did have an effect on the weight of some turkeys, however not enough for us to see any difference in the grocery stores.

When production slowed down, turkeys had to keep getting fed, so they gained more weight than companies originally thought they would, but it did not change the number of turkeys grown. We will still see the same amount of turkeys on the shelves at the same weights we usually see them.

4. Retailers Settled On Amounts and Prices Before Covid Hit

Every January, retailers negotiate with turkey producers on how many frozen turkeys they want to buy for the upcoming Thanksgiving and at what prices they will pay per pound. In late summer, they do the same thing for fresh turkeys.

This means that retailers will carry the same amount of turkeys, at a similar cost as they do every year since these decisions are pre-set.  Right now, frozen turkeys are already on the shelves and will continue to be stocked right up until Thanksgiving day. Fresh turkeys are just starting to appear now. So, there is no reason to go out and stock up on turkeys. There is plenty to go around!

3. Size May Matter

Many believe there will be a higher demand for smaller birds this year because Thanksgiving gatherings will be with immediate families rather than extended. Due to this projection, any families may keep dinners small to limit the spread of COVID-19.

Conversely, others believe that consumers will still get the same big turkey they normally do because they want to go all out this year due to a lack of normalcy. And, you know what big turkeys mean? More leftovers!

So, if you do want a small turkey or any of a certain size, it may be smarter to shop for one earlier rather than later. But, if you’re like us and still want that big turkey to have lots of yummy leftovers, shop as you normally would—both sizes will be available!

2. Frozen vs. Fresh

Like we said above, the amount of frozen and fresh turkeys hasn’t changed. Similarly, the window for producing fresh turkeys hasn’t changed either. The difference is that fresh turkeys have a limited shelf life. Between leaving the warehouse to being stocked at the grocery store and getting home to the consumer, there is a smaller window for fresh birds prior to needing to be cooked.

There is a common misperception among consumers that fresh is better. However, this is not always true, as there are definitely upsides to frozen. More nutrients may be retained in frozen birds, moisture is locked in so frozen turkeys tend to be less dry, and there is less of a chance for bacteria growth and food poisoning since the bird is stored in a temperature-controlled environment and the consumer controls the defrost process.

So if you’re thinking of getting a fresh bird this year, reconsider frozen. You may be surprised!

1. Do NOT Panic-buy!

The supply of turkeys from last year vs. this year has remained the same, so there is no reason to stock up on turkeys.

Both producers, processors, and grocery stores have done everything possible to make sure that every American has a turkey on their Thanksgiving table this year. Panic-buying will only cause local shortages — so shop smart, shop calmly, and make this holiday the best one yet!

For more information, check out the full article on Thanksgiving turkeys here. And be sure to safely cook your turkey with our tips here!

On the run? Listen to our post!

Wandering the seafood counter in the grocery store can be overwhelming. There’s a global map at your fingertips of Pacific cod, Ecuadorian mahi-mahi, U.S. Gulf shrimp, New Zealand mussels, and Chilean swordfish. For a healthy dinner, should you choose fresh or frozen, or farmed or wild-caught? Conversely, when ordering online, are specific items like frozen wild Icelandic ocean perch or ahi poke cubes tasty? And how do you navigate sustainability and eco-friendly labels?

In the U.S., the fall season is highlighted with October as National Seafood Month. And with the approaching holidays, what better time to eat healthy, sustainable seafood and learn how wild-caught seafood can help to meet global food demand? We can use this information to make a difference in improving the health of our global oceans.

Challenges facing our ocean and seafood supply

As our population grows, we are faced with an enormous challenge of meeting the increased demand for overall protein.

By 2050, projections for global population and income growth suggest a future need for more than 500 megatonnes (Mt) of meat each year for our consumption – a substantial increase from today’s needed volume of 360 Mt.

To put this in perspective, this increase equates to producing the weight of approximately 780 billion servings of salmon, or about 16 million school buses, each year.

Seafood can actually provide a solution to these protein demands — one that can have a much lower carbon footprint than land-based meat production and fewer impacts on biodiversity.

Making healthy seafood choices depends on being informed, but it doesn’t have to be overwhelming – in fact, it can be simple.

Let’s start with a quick guide to define common seafood terms seen in our grocery stores:

• Sustainable marine fisheries provide some of our best tools to ensure healthy oceans while producing seafood. For instance, U.S. marine fisheries are scientifically monitored, regionally managed, and legally enforced under strict sustainability standards.
• Wild-caught, or wild capture, refers to seafood directly caught or “harvested” from the sea, rivers, or other natural aquatic habitats. This includes sustainable marine fisheries, like wild cod.
• Farm-raised means that the seafood was not captured in the wild, but grown in a farm, pen, or other systems. These systems can either be on land or in water.
• Aquaculture refers to the broader category of farming aquatic species (both fresh and saltwater). The use of the term “aquaculture” generally encompasses farming that occurs both on land or in the sea, such as land-based tilapia farms.
• Mariculture exclusively refers to species farmed within the marine environment or saltwater, such as seaweed or mussels grown on ropes in the ocean, or salmon pens near coastal areas. Mariculture is the correct term for sea-specific farming, even though “aquaculture” is often used here.

Aquaculture is a fast-growing part of our food system that can provide increasingly sustainable options for consumers and – when done right – can offer ecosystem restoration benefits for the planet. The below chart shows wild-capture fisheries as relatively stable when compared to aquaculture’s increase in supply, as reported by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

Sustainable wild-capture marine fisheries

Globally, wild-capture fisheries are unbelievably unique in that no other large-scale food sector continuously removes a comparable sheer volume of wild animals from any natural habitat on earth. This demonstrates the incredible capacity of our oceans to regenerate so future generations may reap its benefits.

Wild-caught seafood holds enormous potential for increasing food supply, yet is heavily dependent on improving management practices in the ocean. Wild-capture provides both an opportunity and a threat to our oceans. Threats include overfishing, unsustainable labor practices on ocean vessels, throwing away bycatch, destruction of habitats (e.g., coral reefs), and ocean pollution.

Although these challenges exist, the status of world fisheries is far from a completely “doom and gloom” situation. Sustainable interventions provide our best opportunity to reform our global seafood system and create thriving, healthy marine ecosystems. If we effectively manage fisheries, marine ecosystems and species can recover.

Recent research supports this good news for well-managed global fisheries. New research published in early 2020 examined the status of 882 global fish stocks (the term for defined populations of fish) and found big improvements, especially in developed countries.

There are also bright spots in smaller-scale fisheries around the world. For example, Kenyan fisherwomen recently closed nearshore reef areas with the goal of helping octopus species recover. Upon returning to fish, the women caught far more octopus, leading to greater sales. Community-based interventions like this can support population recovery, protect valuable habitat, and even improve the livelihoods of coastal fishermen and women.

Who monitors sustainable fisheries?

Before being sold at the grocery store, seafood is produced and regulated by a diverse group of fishermen and women, scientists, fish processors, lawmakers, technology providers, and NGOs. Each group tackles ocean challenges and drives seafood products towards sustainability.

Seafood eco-labels are one mechanism to ensure sustainability – and they can help guide you at the grocery store. For example, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) provides third-party assurance of seafood sustainability and supply chain traceability. Look for the MSC blue fish label to feel confident that your seafood purchase comes from sustainable sources. In addition, large retailers have made seafood and fishery sustainability commitments, from Whole Foods to Wal-Mart, which can help drive improvements down the supply chain.

Let’s look at the details of how MSC certification can spur action that benefits communities and the ocean ecosystem. The spiny lobster in the Bahamas is one of the island nation’s most important fisheries. Each year, around 6 million pounds of spiny lobster tails are sold in the $90 million fishery. Through a collaboration of stakeholders determined to ensure the sustainability of the fishery, the spiny lobster fishery became the first Bahamian, Caribbean fishery to obtain the recognized MSC seal of sustainability. Even after certification, this fishery must demonstrate continual improvements to ensure sustainability, such as refining the assessments of lobster populations and continuing to work on decreasing illegal fishing.

© Jeff Yonover / TNC

On the other hand, another important fishery in the Bahamas, Queen Conch, is experiencing a decline. Conch not only supports thousands of Bahamian fishers but is a national cultural emblem. It is featured in typical dishes and even displayed prominently on The Bahamas coat of arms. Bahamian conch is in decline due to overfishing, which has led to fewer individual conch in the water that can reproduce. A music video called “Conch Gone” draws attention to the plight of conch and the need for conservation measures – and what may happen if we aren’t careful. Today, scientists, fishermen, and government officials in the Bahamas are working to address challenges in the conch fishery.

Eyes on the ocean to ensure sustainability

Seafood certifications and regulations such as the U.S. Seafood Import Monitoring Program or E.U. Catch Certification Scheme provide mechanisms to reduce illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing practices. And new technologies are revolutionizing the ways we monitor compliance on the water and collect information.

Recent advances in electronic monitoring (EM), essentially video cameras, sensors, and GPS on fishing vessels, can provide verifiable data on where and how fish are caught and what types of fish are brought on board, including bycatch of unintended species, like sharks or turtles.

An example of EM in action can be found in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, a region that produces approximately 60% of the world’s tuna. This region also harbors incredible marine biodiversity, including sharks, turtles, and many fish species.

© Tim Calver / TNC

EM data from fishing vessels can be combined with data on locations of protected animals, such as sea turtles, to identify hotspots where fishing may threaten them. This information can be used to avoid certain areas while fishing in others – a win-win for sustainable tuna fishing and marine conservation. In addition to Western and Central Pacific nations, more and more countries are adopting EM at scale, including the Seychelles and New Zealand.

What you can do

The future of seafood can be bright if we acknowledge the challenges instead of shying away from them. Educating ourselves and purchasing seafood from sustainable sources supports businesses that are doing the right thing and can contribute to ensuring healthy oceans. Our choices directly impact the future of sustainable seafood and our oceans.

Here are a few ways we can make a difference:

• Diversify your plate! Branch out from the familiar salmon and shrimp with other choices that are lower on the food chain, such as sardines, or bivalve shellfish such as clams or mussels. These less popular species can be really good for the ocean and good for you – and may often be more friendly on your budget. Friendly new recipes and seafood health tips can be found in the #EatSeafoodAmerica campaign by the Seafood Nutrition Partnership.
• Find a local seafood supplier. To support local businesses and get fresh or frozen seafood delivered to you, check out Local Catch, an easy-to-use seafood finder to help you find local seafood in your area or learn about community-supported fisheries (or CSFs, a similar concept to a CSA produce box, but with seafood).
• Order seafood online. Many seafood businesses have been heavily impacted by COVID-19 but are adjusting to online ordering when restaurant demand is lower. Look for websites that offer pick-up or home delivery, and help support their businesses during these challenging times. You can check out sites like Vital Choice, Monterey Abalone Co., and CrowdCow
• Look for eco-labels or use a guide. Look for the Marine Stewardship Council blue fish label to ensure sustainability. Or, when considering new seafood choices, Seafood Watch has a user-friendly app to use at restaurants or the grocery store.
• Learn more about the connections between seafood, healthy oceans, and the science behind wild-capture fisheries. Scroll through this interactive publication by the FAO about the global state of fisheries and aquaculture. Follow work by The Nature Conservancy and its partners to implement sustainable fishery management reforms around the world. For science updates, check out this Sustainable Fisheries blog by scientists at the University of Washington.

Below are some of our favorite ways to help those in need right now. From Relief Funds and Volunteer Programs, to making Small Gestures While You Shop, Dine, and Post on Social Media – we can all contribute to making things better for those who have lost their jobs, loved ones, and all those experiencing hardships during this pandemic.

Though this list mostly focuses on workers in the restaurant industry, we also encourage finding ways to help local operations and industries near and dear to you. For instance, if you’d like to help a farmer you know by connecting them to business-saving resources, take a look at the USDA’s Farmer Funds page and read our post about FarmLink, an organization connecting farmers to food banks. By extending our hand to those in need, we find connection and fulfillment in surprising ways.  

Relief Funds

Restaurants and Restaurant Workers

Relief Funds are being set up for various efforts, such as direct donations to unemployed restaurant workers and independent restaurants. Inevitably, the economic burden from this health crisis most directly affects those workers who are in the most vulnerable financial situations, as they are not considered essential workers and are at the greatest risk of being laid off. Here is a list of funds to consider that particularly resonated with us.

The James Beard Foundation is a foundation that celebrates, nurtures, and honors chefs to make America’s food culture more delicious, diverse, and sustainable for everyone.

The Open for Good campaign, set up by JBF, is designed to help independent restaurants survive this crisis and help them thrive long-term by providing financial assistance.  (@beardfoundation)

One Fair Wage Emergency Coronavirus Tipped and Service Worker Support Fund puts cash in the pockets of impacted restaurant workers, car service drivers, delivery workers, and personal service workers. Specifically targeting hourly workers facing unprecedented economic hardships, this fund provides direct, urgent financial assistance to those most directly impacted by food industry closures. (@1fairwage_official)

Another Round Another Rally is a fund set up to offer relief grants of $500 to food hospitality workers, ranging from dishwashers, busboys, chefs, and sommeliers who lost their jobs or had their hours cut because of COVID-19. They are offering a range of ways to tailor your financial support, either by scholarship opportunities, direct financial assistance from the grants, or emergency help. (@anotherroundanotherrally)

Independent Restaurant Coalition is a way to make a difference at the local level. This coalition is designed to provide supporters a way to donate directly to their local restaurants and restaurant workers. They do this by connecting you to your local community and uniting voices to speak directly to lawmakers about decisions regarding industry policy—what they are calling critical investments to bring our economy back. (@indprestaurants)

Restaurant Workers’ Community Foundation COVID-19 Emergency Relief Fund is created by and for restaurant workers. Their mission is to support hospitality workers who are disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Before COVID, over 40% of this workforce was living on poverty-level wages, and now, many are unemployed—exacerbating an already challenging financial plight in an industry fraught with high turnover and poor job mobility. This underserved and vulnerable population needs our help now more than ever. (@rwcfusa)

Leave this field empty if you're human:

Communities and Families Most Vulnerable

Poverty-stricken communities that relied heavily on aid and resources before COVID-19 are feeling the effects of this pandemic ten-fold. Many families, children, and the elderly who cannot work or rely on schools or organizations for meals and support are in great need of additional assistance. Here are a few organizations that are doing their part to help both locally and globally to assist these communities in need.

Dream Center is a Los Angeles-based outreach program that was suggested to us by our readers. This program offers free assistance to communities struggling with basic needs, including food and clothing donations. Dream Center also uniquely allows you to “Adopt a Block”, which provides the opportunity to directly help 23 underserved communities that have been identified as highest risk. (@ladreamcenter)

Midwest Food Bank is one of hundreds of food banks throughout the nation helping to fight hunger. This faith-based organization’s goal is to alleviate malnutrition and starvation locally by providing food relief to those in need.

This national food bank has over 32,000 volunteers who collect, pack, and distribute food. You can consider donating food, funds, or if local, your time. (@midwestfoodbank)

Feeding America is a larger, more global foundation that bases its work on the statistic that 1 in 9 people in the U.S. struggle with hunger, equating to over 37 million people. To combat this, Feeding America is creating the nation’s largest network to connect people in need of food. Target is a major supporter and partner of the foundation, helping to meet the needs of hundreds of thousands of families. (@feedingamerica)

No Kid Hungry focuses on children at risk of losing healthy, balanced meals otherwise provided through their local school system. The organization estimates that over 438 million school meals have been missed because of the pandemic, making it more important than ever to provide families the meals that they need, as well as emergency grants to food banks and community groups. (@feedingamerica)

Meals on Wheels delivers so much more than just food. Founded by a small group of Philadelphia citizens in 1954, the organization supports senior citizens by extending independence and health as they age through food provisions. This has been hailed as one of the most effective social movements in America. Currently, MOW provides meals to over 2.4 million seniors annually in almost every community around the country. (@mealsonwheelsamerica)

Volunteer & Connect

Volunteering is so much more than just providing help and support. Volunteering is good for the soul. Not only are we helping those less fortunate, but our role as volunteers provides a sense of pride and accomplishment. There is nothing like the feeling of giving back to others.

Here are some great resources for those of us looking to get involved by lending their time or expertise.

National Service is an incredible resource that provides ideas on how to serve your community based on your ability. They provide links to various food banks and food pantries that require volunteers to assist with food sorting and delivery.

They help guide you to your local school systems that may require a helping hand. Furthermore, they bring to light the need for blood donations for those hospitalized. Outside of donating time and blood, they also provide ideas for those who wish to stay home but also help, such as: donating medical supplies and equipment, donating clothes to local charities, and reaching out to loved ones who need added emotional support.

All for Good is another wonderful platform that aggregates how and where to get started with volunteering, both out of the home and at home. They recognize that there is a desire to help others and give back, while also prioritizing safety – they provide a comprehensive list of ways you can help your community without leaving the house.

They have also created a search function that allows you to search locally within your zip code for projects and connections. Furthermore, their platform is also designed to help startup projects and missions by providing a launch point to get their philanthropy off the ground.

Shopping Habits

Hard to imagine that ordering your favorite sushi rolls for delivery or picking up a meal at your local pizzeria could make any sort of real impact, right? Wrong! Small acts of changing the way we spend money and being deliberate in our spending can offer support for local eateries and make a huge difference in the lives of those food-industry workers impacted by COVID-19. Here are a few ways the Dirt to Dinner team has changed the way we shop for food, in hopes of providing monetary support to our favorite restaurants and their employees.  

Consider Take-Out

Some restaurants have come up with creative ways to serve their loyal customers and entice spending. For example, see if your local pizza joint is offering an at-home pizza-making kit that you could pick up and enjoy preparing with the whole family. Or see if your favorite weekend spot is providing food plus a wine pairing, for a special at-home dining experience.

Considering take-out goes beyond just the restaurant, as some businesses are partnering with various delivery services to help keep both the storefront and the drivers employed. A delicious win-win if you ask us!

And if you were worried about whether take-out is safe, it is! According to the FDA: “ There is currently no evidence of food, food containers, or food packaging being associated with the transmission of COVID-19.” They recommend that if you are concerned, the best thing to do is to wash your hands after removing food from packaging and before meals. The CDC echoes these sentiments.

Purchase Gift Cards

As we look to the future of what life will look like after COVID-19, we can’t wait to get back to our favorite corner bistro to get our hands on that famous burger or specialty dessert that we have been missing for months.

Buying gift cards from a restaurant is a wonderful way to support businesses now and also to give you an outing to look forward to later– talk about a silver lining! It also puts much-needed cash in the hands of struggling food service employees.

You can also consider gifting gift cards. Right now, buying a birthday gift that consists of clothes, or something for the home seems meaningless, as we likely have no outings to attend or dinners to host—why not buy a gift card to a favorite restaurant to celebrate the occasion at a later date?

Tip Generously, When You Can

Tips, especially cash tips, are a sincere and actionable way to say “thank you!”, not just for service, but also for the workers’ decision to put their health and that of their family members at risk so we can enjoy a delicious meal. Consider bumping up your tip to 25% or 30%. We promise you, a little bit goes a long way.

Use your platforms to raise awareness

Restaurants and food services that can open are doing their best to stay that way! This means that their budgets for marketing are nonexistent – but you can help. Take a photo of your favorite eatery and post it to your social pages. Give the restaurant a great review on Yelp or Google. Tweet a photo of your delicious meal and tell your followers to try it for themselves! If you see a restaurant trying to promote a new item or a special deal, help them out by re-posting or sharing their story.

Helping to mobilize the community is a simple, effective way to show your support for restaurants outside of donations. If you are financially struggling, this is a costless way to lend a hand! Something you can do right now is to take a look at the handles we have included above in our Relief Funds section and consider following these organizations. That way, you can show your support by raising awareness and stay up-to-date with initiatives and efforts they are working on.

Actionable Change

While a $5 donation, buying a large pizza, or sending a tweet might seem like nominal actions, they add up and become greater than the sum of their parts. Do what you can with what you have. When made by the collective, these small gestures can change lives.

If you have a foundation or a relief fund that is near and dear to you, please email us at connect@dirt-to-dinner.com and we will include it in our list.

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, you may have gone into your local grocery store and noticed that the full range of fresh produce you’re accustomed to seeing is no longer available. It could be limited supplies of some apple varieties, only one type of lettuce, or no table grapes. What you are experiencing is the disruption of a very complicated supply chain that brings a highly perishable agricultural product from all corners of the world to your local supermarket. All made much more challenging by the multi-faceted complications of COVID-19.

The issue is made more challenging when you consider that in 2018, Americans spent $678 billion on food from full-service and fast-food restaurants, compared to the roughly $628 billion spent at grocery stores, according to USDA. Furthermore, Politico reports that about 40% of fresh produce grown in the country goes to food service, and the remainder to retail.

So in reality, you have two unique supply chains: one serving retail, and one serving the food service sector.

The Produce Supply Chain

According to Nielsen, U.S. fresh produce sales at the retail level was $61 billion in 2018. The product, whether it’s fruit or vegetable, originates on a farm. That farm could be in the U.S, Mexico, Canada or another country in the world. Starting almost at the time of harvest, if not before, the product is picked and, in some cases, grown with the end destination in mind.

Take a banana for example. If it’s going straight from the farm to a restaurant, it will be picked close to ripeness. If it’s going to the grocery store, it will be picked well before ripeness so it has a chance to ripen in the home. Even the container size is different. If it’s going to a food-service distributor like Sysco, it will go in a bulk container without specialized packaging. Broccoli is a good example where it will be bagged for a restaurant and just loose for the consumer in a grocery store.

Or, for instance, the frozen blueberries used in Wyman’s brand of products are bred to be hardier to last through the freezer period. On the other side, you have a different variety of blueberries from Driscoll’s that are made to last in the clamshell packages you find at the market.

Distribution along the Chain

For retail, it’s often branded along the way, whether that be a prominent name familiar to many consumers, or a retail store brand. Retailers often have their own specs for size and quality of certain produce items. For example, Walmart might even have a different grade for different markets based on demographics. As a side note, a system for tracing the product through the supply chain for food safety purposes is similar whether it’s for retail or food service.

Large brands, such as Driscoll’s or Sunkist, typically have contracts to supply retailers and major food-service distributors with their products. They assure product supply by either operating their own farms, but often have contracts with many growers to produce and deliver specified products directly to the major brands. The specs typically include the variety and quantity to be grown, time frame for delivery, and compliance with food safety and specific Good Agricultural Practices.

Mid-size, smaller, and independent growers may sell to multiple distributors, or even directly to retailers. Local retail markets are especially important when produce is in-season. For example, locally grown tomatoes, blueberries and peaches are delivered to retailers less than 100 miles away, as is the case with Heinen’s grocery stores in the Midwest. Also, seasonally, an important outlet for produce are local farmers markets.

How has COVID-19 Impacted Produce?

The impact of COVID-19 on the procurement process is manageable. Most relationships for purchasing are grounded in contracts, along with the need to communicate by phone and e-mail, something that can easily be done from a home office or other alternative.

But a bigger challenge is the highly perishable nature of fresh produce. When a product, say tomatoes, are ripe in the field, they need to be harvested within a short window of several days. If the retailer or food-service distributor is not able to take delivery, you can’t just put the crop on hold and pick it up in a week.

Labor for harvesting the crop is also carefully timed to match the predicted ripening and picking date. If a crop is delayed for harvesting due processing delays or closures, the crew may already be scheduled to move to the next crop or farm.

Transportation plays a huge role in the fresh produce supply chain. In the United States, most fresh produce moves by truck. The most perishable of products, like raspberries, can move by air if the market demands it and the customer is willing to pay for it.

At the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, trucks were in tight supply and freight prices were elevated as many industries competed for a limited number of trucks in the system. Most fresh produce requires refrigerated trailers to travel longer distances, which are always in demand. The supply and demand of trucks are now in more equilibrium as the supply shifts have become more transparent.

Directing Supply to Those in Need

The government also regularly procures fresh produce for military institutions, schools, universities, and aid agencies. With the passage of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act in mid-April, the government will play an even larger role by providing $100 million per month to fund produce distributors and growers to deliver directly to food banks, food pantries, churches, and non-profit organizations serving citizens in need.

The purpose is to provide an alternative way of getting food directly from the field to the neediest at this time of lost jobs, furloughs and disrupted economies. This is a completely new venture for the U.S. government, and everyone will be watching closely to see if this can take some pressure off the current supply chain.

And food banks are now operating with fewer volunteers due to social distancing requirements intended to prevent further spread of the coronoavirus. So, this combination of lack of storage and staffing means that not all produce that is left in the field can make its way to food banks or related distribution routes. The industry has been stepping up and providing refrigerated trucks for use at food banks where possible.

Will the Waste Continue?

So, all this brings us back to a hard truth. The distribution of fresh fruits and vegetables is a complicated endeavor, made even more difficult by the many constraints added by the COVID-19 pandemic. While there are some incidences of produce going to waste in the field, these will only be temporary as the supply chain adjusts to whatever this ‘new normal’ turns out to be, similar to what the meat industry is experiencing, as well.

But our part in helping the produce industry during this time is by eating your 5-7 servings of fruits and vegetables every day. Not only does this help the industry to better find its supply-demand equilibrium, but it’s unquestionably good for us, as well. Strengthening our immune systems with healthy, nutrient-dense foods is more important now as it’s ever been. Just make sure not to fall into the panic-buying trap so there’s enough for everyone in your community.

Remember when we all went grocery shopping in the beginning of COVID?  The grocery store shelves were practically empty. I couldn’t find black beans or even plain pasta. The milk and meat sections were bare. We certainly do not want that to happen again – going to the grocery store is stressful enough given our masks, sanitizers, and maneuvering our carts to a socially acceptable distance. Let’s not allow the news about meat plant closings force us back into ‘panic buying’ habits.

Rest assured, there is enough meat to go around…if we shop responsibly. Here’s why.

Meat Update

Due to COVID-19 among facility workers, it’s no surprise that things look a little grim. As of the week of May 4th, about 40% of hogs, 35% of beef, and 12% of chickens were not processed, which is where livestock meat is separated into cuts, and then packaged for distribution to grocery stores and food service operators.

The country’s largest meat suppliers, JBS, Hormel, Tyson, Conagra, Cargill, and Smithfield, have all suspended or shut down operations at one or more of their meat processing plants across the country. We shouldn’t worry too much because when some close, others open. All of the meat plants will not shut down at the same time.

President Trump invoked the Defense Production Act that designates chicken, pork, and beef plants as critical infrastructure under the law. This also ensures that workers are first in line for PPE (personal protective equipment). In addition, the CDC wrote general requirements for meat processing plants to operate under COVID-19.

New Meat Protocols

At the end of the day, every single meat company is working hard to keep their employees safe with appropriate distancing and PPE.

Right now, meat facilities are taking the highest precautions. They have put up plastic barriers, given all employees enough masks, increased the cleaning and social distancing in common areas like the lunchroom and locker rooms, kept high-risk population at home, and are taking employee temperatures before they enter the facilities and during their breaks.

Smithfield Foods reported in their recent press release, “media and other reports pitting the company against its employees are flat out wrong. There is no such division. The company and its team members all want the same thing: to protect employee health and safety while also safeguarding America’s food supply.” (image to the right: Plastic shields at Smithfield Foods, the largest global pork producer)

Employers are also increasing the worker’s pay. For instance, Tyson Foods is providing $120 million in bonuses and increasing health benefits for frontline workers, and Cargill added $2.00 an hour to all jobs.

How does the meat supply work?

Our food system is a resilient, finely-tuned machine. It operates more like the SpaceX shuttle by Elon Musk than a Wilbur and Orville Wright bi-plane. On average, Americans eat 227 pounds of meat every year, or  about 9 ounces a day. Before COVID, we could plan on 120,000 cattle, 400,000 pigs, and 25 million chickens getting processed every single day to meet U.S. and export demand.  It is a tremendous system. Think about how much planning goes into creating a consistent and safe food supply for grocery stores, restaurants, hotels, coffee shops, schools, institutions, and fast-food franchises all across the country.

If you ate a juicy hamburger this past Saturday, the calf was conceived in July 2017 and born in April 2018. It then took approximately two years from the time it was born until it came to your plate.

The hog supplying the bacon and sausage you recently had for breakfast was bred last July and took about six months to grow.

Conversely, the chicken you ate on Sunday night was a new egg only eight weeks ago – and took six weeks to grow from an egg to a chicken. Because of these timetables, you cannot just turn on or off the spigot with cattle and pork the same way you can with poultry.

Each category has a unique supply chain that brings specific challenges to bear as we face COVID-19. There are hundreds of thousands of farmers, growers, and operators that grow the animal or bird. When the system operates smoothly, all the animals go from the processor to the food distributors and then directly to the grocery store and food service. But when disruptions like COVID hit the chain, challenges arise that our food supply has to address. In the case of meats, the bottleneck occurs at the processing level.

Slower processing: The effect on poultry, pork, and beef

When meat processing volume slows down, it creates an excess of animals on the front end.

Poultry. Chickens take such a short period of time to grow that farmers can hold off on hatching the eggs to let the chicken supply flow through before starting the next flock. But then you might end up with too many eggs.  Many breeders have euthanized some of their chickens already.

Pork. Pigs are a different story. Most of the pig farms breed and grow their pigs for the entire six months. A pig cannot just be put out to pasture to wait it out. A pig takes up room – a lot of it – and the next crop of piglets is being born every day. The only option here is for the farmer to begin euthanizing either their piglets or the mature hogs.

Beef. The beef industry can slow down the supply as the cows can remain in a holding pattern on the range, in the feedlot, or on the ranch. The feedlots can reduce the cows’ feed enough to keep them from gaining weight.

There is no doubt about it: farmers and ranchers are hurt by having to hold on and feed them – or worse – in the case of pork – euthanize them.  Until we are clear of COVID-19, the USDA announced a $19 billion relief program to help farmers, ranchers, and distributors who have been adversely affected.

But if the supply is slowing, won’t we run out of meat?

With production slowing from bottlenecking at the processing level, consumers are starting to fear that a decrease in meat production will mean a decrease in availability of meats at their grocery stores.  However, the economy is leveling out meat demand. With the U.S. GDP falling almost 5% in the first quarter, it is estimated that more drops are on the horizon, with a 30% anticipated decrease by the end of the second quarter.

The stock market is providing a very real and very scary read on the health of various industries. In the last few weeks, the S&P has seen price drops of between 8 to 25% due to decreased earnings. And at least 30 million American are applying for unemployment.

Why is this important?  As many industries get hit hard and workers get furloughed or let go, many of us are forced to adjust our spending to meet a tighter budget. Generally, when incomes drop, one of the first food-related budget cuts are expensive red meats; the second is pork, and finally chicken. For instance, we might switch from a filet to ground beef. Or, we might stretch meat to last longer by making casseroles and soups. This is why the USDA is forecasting an increase in chicken production, but a decline in beef and pork.

Prices will be higher because of the disrupted supply. At the week ending on May 1, the 85% lean hamburger you ate on Saturday night cost $3.74 a pound compared to $3.59 last year. But a much more expensive filet mignon at $12.23 a pound has experienced an 18% price increase from just last week.  Conversely, the bacon you had for breakfast is 10% cheaper than last week. But the pork tenderloin you might buy for dinner is 5% higher than the week before, and 14% higher than last year. Yet your wallet is relatively safe with the chicken breast for Sunday night’s dinner, as the value pack dropped by 5% since last week.

Retail versus Food Service

The money we spend on food in this country is allocated almost 50/50 between direct-to-consumer retailers, like the grocery store, and to food service operators, restaurants, cafeterias, and the like. Today, the food once headed to your favorite corner bistro is being rerouted to your neighborhood Stop & Shop. Yes, thankfully, our food system is flexible, and set up in a way that enables it to change allocations from food service to retail relatively quickly.

It’s unlikely that the same volume of meat purchased at food service will entirely be picked up by demand at the grocery store. America has approximately 660,000 restaurants closed or operating at limited capacity right now. Just at the end of March, the restaurant industry lost approximately $25 billion in sales and 9 million people lost their jobs. Even the top-two fast food enterprises, McDonald’s and Starbucks, are seeing a significant impact on their revenue.

Should we run and fill our freezers?

There will still be enough meat in the grocery stores for you to meet your protein requirements of 80 – 100 grams a day, depending on your activity level. Your favorite cuts might not be available, and some might be more expensive, but there will be enough. To help manage this, stores like Kroger’s and Costco are encouraging customers to limit meat purchases to 3 to 5 items per visit.

We have enough meat moving through the system and the meat supply chain is resilient and adaptable. If you run to fill your freezer for the next months’ worth of meals, you will just be putting more pressure on the grocery stores to stock their shelves and more pressure on the meat lines to increase their supply. And within your community, you’re also denying your fellow neighbor their selection.

Whether our meat turns into a toilet paper crisis – that is up to each one of us.

First, we walked into supermarkets and found empty shelves. The milk section is cleaned out, but we read about dairy farmers pouring milk into the ground. It was hard to find fresh fruits and veggies, like bananas and potatoes, yet we would see breathless television reporters showing us fields of produce being plowed under. And most recently, we’ve been reading about more and more meat processing plants shutting down.

The Chairman of Tyson Foods told us the meat supply chain is broken. Dire warnings of upcoming shortages of meat for supermarket shelves pop up almost every day, it seems. Experts tell us farmers, ranchers, and others across the food chain are facing losses measured in the billions of dollars.

No, it is not broken. Our food supply chain is resilient and innovative, but right now, it is being forced to make some substantial adjustments to a very changed world, and it will take some time to work out all the necessary modifications.

A Dramatic Change in Production

The heart of the matter is basic economics: the global pandemic has fundamentally changed how we buy our food. The whole system functions much like a carefully choreographed and extraordinarily complex ballet to ensure that we get the products we want at prices we can afford.

The path from dirt to dinner includes farmers, ranchers, transportation to food processors, then consumer product companies, grocery stores, restaurants, schools, hotels, and much more – all interconnected and dedicated to providing a steady stream of the food we eat every day. Much of the turmoil we see in our food system today reflects a massive disruption to the ballet’s staging.

The pandemic has skewed demand in all links of the food supply chain to make the current system look more like a square dance with tractors than Swan Lake.

Our Food Supply Channels

We sometimes forget; over the past 20 years or so, we have significantly increased the amount of food we eat outside our homes. We have two basic types of “demand” for food – one focused on the retail market, the other on the food service sector. Before the pandemic, we consume about half of our food dollars for at-home meals and the other half in restaurants, fast food outlets, specialty shops, and a burgeoning array of food providers.

The food service industry is defined as eating at restaurants ordering take-out, dining at hotels, schools, hospitals, corporate offices, the military…just to name a few. Our carefully choreographed food chain is structured to serve those two segments.

Our food system has developed the unique tools and processes needed for both at-home and food service channels. Each channel demands somewhat different tools and processes. And each reflects a massive investment in channel-specific machinery and equipment, and careful development of processing, transportation and storage systems.

Adjusting to a “New Normal”

When lockdowns and social distancing effectively closed the food service industry’s ability to provide dine-in eating and curtailed school lunches, hotels, and other mass feeding programs, we lost a significant portion of the “demand-pull” these food operations create. As important and valuable as home food delivery, food banks, and other charitable outlets for food are, they just can’t make up for the loss of demand from this critical food-service side of the system.

In some situations, operations didn’t have the storage capacity, processing and handling equipment, the right packaging, the right distribution systems, or some other element of the system important to handling the changed demand pattern. In some cases, the food supply simply backed up, as is the case when meat facilities began slowing down.

The disruptions to a finely-tuned system of just-in-time delivery left some producers and other parts of the food supply chain with nowhere to go. At the same time, all workers need to be kept safe, with social distancing and necessary protective equipment.

The carefully executed ballet for our pre-COVID world needed some modification and adjustments in response to our new demand patterns. But we don’t need a whole new ballet – we just need to make changes to our system and take advantage of the existing flexibility.

Americans in the food production industry are improving the food supply chain every day to make sure it gets to all of us. How much of that change remains in place in a post-COVID world is yet to be determined. But if history is any guide, the system will adapt to whatever we as consumers want.

At D2D, we are going into depth with the meat, dairy, and produce sectors to help clarify some of the misperceptions from the media and provide some context to our current food supply chain and what changes are taking place to make sure we have the food we want and in plentiful supply.

This week, we’re taking a look at how the meat industry is working to meet demand…as long as it doesn’t become fashionable to hoard it like we did with toilet paper…

TELL US YOUR IDEAS! WIN SOME D2D GEAR!

HOW DO YOU FIGHT FOOD WASTE?

Tweet @dirt_to_dinner with your best food waste ideas. Use the hashtag #D2DFightsFoodWaste

Or visit our Facebook Page and write on our wall!

Imagine this…you have a vegetable garden about the size of a football field where you grow fruits and veggies for your family. Now, once you’ve harvested the entire football field, take everything produced from the goal post to the 35-yard line and throw it all away!

Yep, put that beautiful bounty straight in the trash. According to the USDA, food waste in the U.S. is estimated at between 30-40%.

Food loss and waste has certainly become a hot topic around the world. We’ve made significant progress in raising public awareness while also implementing improvements across the food chain to decrease overall food loss. But, the problem still remains: how can we reduce the amount of food going to waste while the world grows larger and hungrier every day?  

We see the subject of food waste more and more: on television, in newspapers and magazines, and in the places we shop for and consume food.  It’s of growing importance to everyone along the supply chain: food producers, handlers, transporters, processors, manufacturers, distributors, retailers and restaurants, food banks and food pantries, and, especially, a growing number of concerned consumers.

Where is the greatest opportunity for improvement?  Where can we have the most immediate positive impact in addressing food loss and waste?

Most observers point to simple human behavior.

In our previous post, “Such A Waste,” D2D discussed the annual loss and waste along the entire food supply chain. Much of the public attention to food loss and waste sensibly focuses on the way food is packaged, sold, or otherwise used.

But statistics show that the greatest portion of food loss and waste in the United States and other developed economies can be traced to what we as consumers do every day.

The decisions you make about the food you purchase and prepare for your family, how you store it in your kitchen, and how you deal with the leftovers from food preparation and meals can make a significant impact on the amount of overall food waste.

And let’s go back to the imaginary vegetable garden for a second. Don’t forget about the resources inevitably wasted with food waste. Think of the pesticides, fertilizer, and water to keep those crops alive in the field— that’s money and natural resources flushed down the drain!

source: Business Insider

So how much water is wasted when you throw away produce that may have gotten lost in the back of the refrigerator? When you throw away an orange, you are throwing away a portion of the 13.8 gallons of water it took to grow that orange.

Yes, it is true that the majority of that water is eventually returned to the atmosphere through evaporation and transpiration, however, it is important to acknowledge the number of resources that go into something as simple as one orange— and how quickly those resources can be wasted! And if we think about this waste on a global scale, the amount of wasted resources gets even bigger.

Here is where YOU can come into the picture. Back to the football field— take all the food from the goal post to the 12-yard line – that is about how much food is wasted at home. In fact, just about every household wastes almost $1,000 in food each year!

Strategies to help reduce food waste