Home Blog

Corn Rally Threatens Feed Costs: What Procurement Should Watch

rgultig
-
0
Corn Rally Threatens Feed Costs: What Procurement Should Watch

Corn prices are tightening faster than supply projections suggest, raising the risk of a sharp rally that could pressure livestock feed costs and meat sourcing budgets in the final quarter of 2026.

Supply Tightness Emerging in Plain Sight

For much of 2026, corn has traded in a $4.25–$4.50 per bushel range, a comfortable price for livestock producers and a relief for meat and dairy procurement teams after years of feed inflation. That cushion is beginning to vanish. The August USDA WASDE report revised 2026–2027 ending stocks downward to 1.653 billion bushels—a 15% drop from the prior year’s carryover—while simultaneously raising export forecasts by 75 million bushels as global demand absorbs U.S. grain more aggressively than expected.

Corn futures have rallied sharply since June, climbing to $4.66–$4.72 per bushel by mid-August, the highest price since May. Over the past 12 months, corn is up 21.73%, and in just the past month it gained 5.17%. These moves are not speculation-driven alone. Weekly U.S. corn export inspections jumped 81.7% year-over-year to 1.91 million tonnes, with Mexico, Japan, and Colombia among top buyers. U.S. cumulative corn shipments through August stand 26.1% ahead of the same period last year, underscoring structural demand that cannot be dismissed as noise.

Brazil’s second-crop corn harvest, meanwhile, was only 85% complete as of mid-August, well below the 94% average pace. The delay adds supply uncertainty in the second-largest global corn producer. Combined with tighter U.S. ending stocks and robust export demand, the fundamental picture is shifting from abundant to merely adequate.

Weather Risk Is Not Theoretical

The August USDA crop tour—the first large-scale field assessment of developing 2026 corn yields—provided early warning. Pro Farmer estimates put South Dakota corn yields at only 149 bushels per acre, down dramatically from last year’s 174 bushel forecast. Drought has stressed crops in Kansas, and heat damage continues in parts of the Corn Belt. These are not catastrophic figures, but they signal that the 180.7 bushel-per-acre national yield forecast embedded in USDA projections may be optimistic.

A Super El Niño is forming, a climate driver that historically correlates with production disruptions across key growing regions—the U.S., Argentina, and Europe. Europe suffered significant drought and a smaller corn crop in 2025, reducing exports by 700,000 metric tons and generating a localized 7.5% price gain in Q3 2025 even as global prices fell. If history repeats and another El Niño year produces crop losses across multiple regions, U.S. corn will be called upon to fill the gap—at higher prices.

Corn has traded above $8 per bushel three times in the past: 2008, 2012, and 2022. While $8 remains distant at current prices, the springboard for a rapid move is being compressed. Existing supply cushions are minimal. Export demand is unusually strong. Weather threats are escalating. The structural setup for a rally is firming.

What This Means for Feed Costs and Meat Procurement

Feed expenses represent 60–70% of operating costs in hog and poultry production and are a major component of dairy and beef profitability. A $1.00 per bushel increase in corn prices translates directly into $4.50–$5.00 per hundredweight of additional feed cost for hog producers and measurable margin pressure for beef cattle operations in feedlots.

Current USDA farm income forecasts project feed spending down 6.8% year-over-year to $65.6 billion in 2026, built on the assumption that corn prices remain near current levels ($4.40 per bushel season-average). If corn rallies to $5.00–$5.50 per bushel—a realistic scenario if weather disruptions occur in the autumn or if global demand continues to exceed supply—feed costs will rise sharply, eroding the cost advantage livestock producers are currently experiencing. That cost increase flows directly to meat and dairy procurement: higher feed costs force meat producers to either reduce margins or raise prices.

Procurement teams sourcing meat in Q4 2026 and into 2027 should monitor corn futures closely. Hedging strategies for meat contracts—locking in portion of Q4 and early 2027 sourcing at current prices before a potential rally—merit serious evaluation. The risk of a sharp feed cost spike over the next 90 days is materially higher than it was in June.

The Supply-Demand Squeeze Is Real

The narrative that U.S. corn is “abundant” because production is large deserves re-examination. Yes, the U.S. produced a record 17 billion bushels in 2025 and is forecast to harvest 16 billion bushels in 2026—the second-largest U.S. crop on record. But supply and demand operate at the margin. Demand is also rising. The USDA raised 2026–2027 corn usage projections to 16.33 billion bushels, a 75-million-bushel increase from June’s estimate, driven entirely by stronger export demand and robust ethanol usage targeting sustainable aviation fuel applications.

When supply at 16 billion bushels roughly equals demand at 16.33 billion bushels, carryover stocks shrink to 1.65 billion bushels—the tightest year-end balance in years. A 15% decline in ending stocks year-over-year is meaningful. Procurement teams accustomed to operating under ample supply conditions should shift to a tighter mental model. In a balanced market, small demand surprises or small yield misses trigger sharp price moves.

Strategic Sourcing Adjustments Now

Procurement professionals should adopt a tactical horizon of 90 days and a strategic horizon of 12 months. In the near term, monitor Pro Farmer crop tour updates, weekly corn export sales reports, and Brazilian harvest completion rates. These are real-time signals of supply flow. If export demand accelerates beyond current forecasts or if weather knocks yields below projections, corn could gap higher in a matter of weeks. Existing hedges for Q4 2026 meat sourcing—whether via futures contracts, cost-plus formulas tied to commodity benchmarks, or renegotiated supplier agreements—should be stress-tested against a $5.00 per bushel corn scenario. The cost impact on meat is quantifiable and material.

For 2027 sourcing strategy, consider diversifying protein sources or incorporating supply agreements that include force majeure clauses tied to specific corn price levels. Supplier negotiations over the next 60 days offer an opportunity to lock in price certainty before a potential autumn rally. Waiting for a dip may look prudent if prices fall further, but it also exposes the operation to the risk of a gap-move higher that closes the pricing window entirely.

FAQ

Q1: How much higher could corn prices realistically go?

Corn trades currently near $4.66–$4.72 per bushel. USDA break-even production costs sit near $5.00 per bushel for conventional U.S. corn growers. If a production shock hits (weather, geopolitical disruption to exports, or disease in major competing regions), prices could rally $0.50–$1.00 per bushel to $5.25–$5.75 within weeks. Historically, corn has moved from $4 to $6+ in a season when supply becomes materially tight. The question is not whether it can happen, but whether it will before the 2026 harvest cycle completes.

Q2: Is the end-of-season feed-cost relief permanent?

No. Feed spending is forecast down 6.8% in 2026 only because grain prices remain low. That forecast was built before recent export demand surges and supply estimate revisions. If corn prices rally, feed spending will rise sharply, eroding the 2026 cost advantage. Dairy producers are already facing tight margins despite lower feed costs—a $0.50 corn price move could swing them into loss. Hog and poultry producers have margins to cushion a move, but it will directly reduce profitability. Procurement teams should view 2026 feed-cost relief as temporary, not structural.

Q3: What should procurement do now?

Lock in Q4 2026 and early 2027 meat sourcing at current prices if possible, particularly for volume categories like ground beef, pork, and chicken. Use commodity futures, pre-negotiated cost-plus formulas, or fixed-price supplier contracts to hedge against a rally. If the market dips further, the worst outcome is that you locked in slightly higher prices than the absolute low—a small insurance cost compared to the risk of a gap-move higher that eliminates pricing power. Strategic sourcing is about managing tail risk, and the tail risk to feed costs is clearly skewed to the upside.

Sources

  • USDA WASDE. “August 2026 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates.” August 12, 2026.
  • Pro Farmer Crop Tour. “Corn Yield Assessments, South Dakota and Corn Belt Region.” August 2026.
  • ADM Investor Services. “Ag Market View, August 19, 2026.” August 19, 2026.
  • USDA Economic Research Service. “Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook.” February 2026.
  • USDA Farm Sector Income Forecast. “Feed Spending Projections 2026.” Economic Research Service.
  • University of Illinois College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences. “Prospects for Swine Feed Costs in 2026.” farmdoc daily, February 13, 2026.
  • USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum. “Break-Even Prices for Corn, Soybeans, and Wheat.” 2026.
  • Trading Economics. “Corn Futures Price Data, August 2026.”
  • Roach Ag Marketing. “August 2026 USDA Supply & Demand Analysis.” August 12, 2026.

Plant-Based Now Costs Less Than Meat

rgultig
-
0
Plant-Based Now Costs Less Than Meat

Plant-based proteins now cost significantly less than meat at major supermarkets, driven by sharp animal product inflation reshaping procurement strategies across retail and foodservice.

The Price Inversion Arrives in Europe

It’s official: the premium price tag on plant-based food is gone. Research from ProVeg, published in August 2026, confirms what procurement teams suspected all year—plant-based protein now undercuts animal protein at nine major Dutch supermarket chains, by an average of 18%. On category staples like mince and milk, savings reach 30%.

The data is unambiguous. At Albert Heijn, Jumbo, Plus, and Dirk, the cheapest plant-based mince costs less per kilogram than conventional beef. Plant-based milk undercuts dairy milk at every chain tested. Even plant-based butter carries a 48% price advantage. This isn’t a promotional tactic or a regional anomaly. The inversion reflects structural cost dynamics that have reshaped global protein sourcing.

Across the Atlantic, the same pattern holds. A Good Food Institute analysis of Q1 2026 UK grocery prices found plant-based mince 29% cheaper than beef mince at Tesco, with plant-based meatballs running 41% lower. Canada and Finland data tracked over two years shows consumers are increasingly price-sensitive to meat products when costs rise, yet plant-based alternatives maintain relative affordability.

Why Animal Products Absorbed Inflation Harder

The explanation is neither complicated nor temporary. Animal agriculture carries far higher resource intensity than plant-based production. Feed, water, land, and energy inputs for livestock are compounded through climate pressure, geopolitical disruption, and disease. When inflation hits commodity grains and shipping, those costs stack across the entire production chain—feed suppliers, farmers, processors, cold chain logistics, and retail.

Plant-based proteins, by contrast, begin at a different cost floor. Dried legumes, soy, peas, and grain-based texturized proteins require fractionation and processing, but not the feed multiplication factor of animal agriculture. Beans and lentils, which have always been affordable staples in global markets, absorbed inflation far more mildly than beef or dairy. European beef prices surged 29–42% since 2019. UK meat prices rose roughly £1.18 per kilo year-over-year. U.S. beef mince jumped 23% in Q2 2026 alone.

ProVeg’s research director noted that own-brand retail innovation also accelerated the shift. Supermarket private-label plant-based products expanded SKU coverage and reduced complexity costs, allowing retailers to compress margins. By 2026, mainstream chains saw plant-based as a volume play, not a niche markup opportunity.

Where Plant-Based Still Costs More

The story has nuance. Not every plant-based category has crossed cost parity. Plant-based mayonnaise costs nearly four times as much as egg-based versions—a reflection of much lower volume and higher formulation complexity. Vegan yogurt and vegan kwark (Dutch soft curd cheese) remain double the price of dairy equivalents, constrained by smaller production runs and limited ingredient economies of scale.

On a broader basket of 14 items—adding categories like plant-based sausages, shaorma, and specialty spreads—the calculus reverses at some chains. Dirk supermarkets, for instance, stock plant-based versions across all 14 categories, but at prices that make the wider basket 25% more expensive than the meat-based equivalent. At Albert Heijn, the two baskets break even. The implication is clear: commodity parity exists for high-volume staples (mince, milk, butter, burgers), while specialty and processed plant-based products remain premium.

Procurement Implications for Foodservice and Retail

This shift carries immediate sourcing relevance. For contract foodservice, institutional catering, and quick-service restaurant procurement, plant-based inputs now merit the same cost-justification scrutiny as meat. Procurement teams evaluating build-to-cost menu innovation should compare landed cost per gram of protein, not unit price. Plant-based proteins often deliver higher functional yield in ground applications, lower shrink in chilled formats (when cold-chain discipline is locked), and no antibiotic-residue compliance burden.

Cold chain remains the critical control point for plant-based sourcing in 2026. Reefer logistics have been capacity-constrained through mid-year, making lane design and temperature-excursion SLAs structural cost buckets as important as commodity price. Buyers comparing plant-based and animal mince should define performance specs (water-binding capacity, cook loss, emulsification stability) and tie incoming supplier validation to lot certificates of analysis. Hidden costs in yield, rework, and cold-chain write-offs typically dwarf the commodity price delta.

For retail merchandising, the price advantage creates a volume opportunity. Shoppers who perceive plant-based as a premium category will now encounter parity pricing at checkout, removing a key barrier to trial. Private-label own-brand expansion—especially in categories like mince, milk, and burgers—will likely accelerate, further eroding brand-name premiums.

The Role of Resource Intensity

The deeper story is resource economics. Animal agriculture requires substantial grain and water inputs before a kilogram of meat reaches a retail shelf. Cattle beef production requires roughly 20 kg of feed to yield 1 kg of meat. That multiplication factor means grain price shocks are amplified downstream. Plant proteins bypass that conversion loss entirely—a kilo of lentils becomes a kilo of protein product with minimal processing.

Climate volatility has exposed this asymmetry. Droughts in major grain-growing regions increase livestock feed costs faster than they increase plant protein crop costs. Geopolitical trade disruptions to grain or animal feed routes ripple across meat supply chains. Vertical diversification in plant-protein production—soy, pea, and faba bean processing—has reduced supply chokepoints compared to the few major beef and dairy regions.

FAQ

Q1: Is the price advantage permanent or promotional?

The price inversion reflects structural inflation dynamics in animal agriculture, not temporary discounting. Meat prices are unlikely to deflate unless global grain and feed costs fall sharply. Plant-based pricing is anchored to commodity protein inputs (soy, peas, legumes) with separate supply chains and lower resource multipliers. Retailers are confident enough to stock plant-based as a regular price point, not a promotion. Procurement teams should model plant-based as a competitive input cost going forward.

Q2: Which plant-based formats are most cost-competitive?

Commodity formats (mince, milk, burgers, commodity cheese alternatives) now cost less than animal equivalents at scale. Processed or specialty plant-based products (mayo, cream cheese, novelty sausages) remain premium. If procurement targets high-volume, high-velocity categories, plant-based offers clear cost advantage. Specialty or low-volume applications should still be evaluated on taste-hold and per-case yield, not commodity benchmarks.

Q3: Does cost parity apply globally or just Europe?

Price inversion is most documented in Europe and North America, where data transparency and research capacity are highest. UK, Netherlands, Germany, and Canada all show similar patterns. U.S. plant-based mince is cost-competitive in retail but hasn’t been analyzed at chain level as rigorously. The mechanism—animal feed inflation plus climate pressure—is global, so the trend should replicate across regions where plant-based supply is developed. Emerging markets with lower plant-based SKU availability may lag.

Sources

  • ProVeg. “Plant-Based Price Comparison Across Nine Dutch Supermarket Chains.” August 2026.
  • Good Food Institute Europe. “Q1 2026 Plant-Based Meat Price Analysis, Tesco.” May 2026.
  • Madre Brava Climate Advocacy Group. “European Meat Price Inflation and Plant Protein Cost Trends.” May 2026.
  • Green Alliance. “Plant-Based Protein Price Tracking, UK Retail.” May 2026.
  • Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB). “Beef Price Inflation, 2019–2026.”
  • Avendra International. “Plant-Based Food Trends 2026: Foodservice Operator Outlook.” March 2026.
  • Future Market Insights. “Plant-Based Protein Market Analysis 2026–2036.”
  • Food Institute. “Global Food Cost Data 2000–2025: Plant-Based vs. Animal Protein.” February 2026.

Iowa Soybean Yield Forecast Dips as US Crop Sets Record

rgultig
-
0
Iowa Soybean Yield Forecast Dips as US Crop Sets Record

USDA sees Iowa’s 2026 soybean yield slipping from last year even as record national acreage pushes total US production to an all-time high.

Iowa’s Yield Slips While Acreage and Total Volume Climb

USDA’s August Crop Production report puts Iowa’s 2026 soybean harvest at 603.26 million bushels across 9.73 million acres, up from 595.63 million bushels on 9.38 million acres in 2025. That volume increase comes despite a lower per-acre yield: USDA forecasts Iowa soybeans averaging 62 bushels per acre this season, down 1.5 bpa from last year’s 63.5 bpa average. Iowa’s yield still sits more than 9 bpa above the national average, underscoring the state’s position as the country’s top soybean producer even in a softer year.

The state-level dip is happening against a very different national backdrop. USDA’s broader August report puts national soybean production at a record 4.519 billion bushels, driven by planted acreage up 6.8% and harvested acreage up 6.6% year over year, even though the national average yield is forecast to decline slightly to 52.7 bushels per acre. In other words, the national record is a story of more acres rather than better yields, a pattern that mirrors what’s showing up in Iowa’s own numbers.

What’s Behind the Iowa Numbers

USDA’s weekly Crop Progress report, published the same week as the yield forecast, showed 93% of Iowa’s soybean crop had reached blooming as of August 9, running about a percentage point behind the five-year average. Pod-setting reached 72%, up sharply from 61% the week before but still trailing the five-year average of 76%. Overall crop condition remained solid, with USDA rating 77% of the state’s soybeans in good or excellent condition, well ahead of the 62% good-or-excellent national rating.

Agronomists across the state describe a season shaped less by a single dominant threat and more by localized weather extremes layered on top of generally strong crop development. Central Iowa saw beneficial rainfall accompanied by wind and lodging complaints in fields with tall, dense canopies, alongside scattered low-level disease pressure from downy mildew and bacterial pustule that isn’t treatable with fungicide. Southeast Iowa reported storm damage from hail and high winds in pockets, while other counties in the same region received comparatively little rain over the same stretch. Northeast Iowa saw more significant localized hail damage concentrated in a handful of counties, even as disease pressure across the wider region stayed moderately low. In the northwest, the story flips to dryness, with agronomists flagging D0 and D1 drought conditions on lighter soils and stressing that timely rainfall during pod fill and seed set will be critical to protecting yield potential through the rest of the season.

The Global Backdrop: A Record Crop Meeting a Reshaped Export Market

Iowa’s slightly softer yield is arriving at a moment when the broader soybean trade picture looks very different than it did a decade ago. Global soybean production has climbed steadily, reaching a projected 442.25 million metric tons for the 2026-27 marketing year, up from 428 million metric tons the prior year, keeping global supply growth ahead of what would otherwise be a tightening domestic stocks-to-use picture in the US.

China, the world’s largest soybean importer, has structurally shifted its buying toward Brazil over the past several years. Brazil supplied roughly 73.6% of China’s soybean imports in 2025, up from 71% in 2024, while the US share of China’s import market has fallen to around 15% to 23% depending on the measurement period, down from roughly 40% a decade ago. The gap is largely tariff-driven: Brazilian soybeans face only a 3% Chinese import tariff, while US-origin soybeans still carry a combined tariff of around 13%, made up of a 10% retaliatory duty layered on top of a 3% most-favored-nation rate. That price differential, estimated at $30 to $75 per metric ton in Brazil’s favor, continues to steer Chinese private processors toward South American origin even after diplomatic efforts to reset the trade relationship.

Those efforts have produced some movement. Following talks between the US and Chinese governments, China committed to purchasing 12 million metric tons of US soybeans in the current marketing year, a target traders say has now been fully shipped, along with a pledge to import 25 million metric tons of US-origin soybeans in the 2026-27 marketing year. That pledge would represent roughly 22% of China’s current import volume, a meaningful reallocation, but one that would require reversing years of structural investment Brazil has made in its own export logistics, including new northern port capacity built specifically to serve Chinese demand.

Buyer and Procurement Implications

For grain buyers, processors, and exporters, Iowa’s dip in per-acre yield is unlikely to be the swing factor for either domestic supply or price this season, given that record national acreage is more than offsetting the softer yield at both the state and national level. The more consequential variable for anyone pricing new-crop soybean contracts is how much of the 25-million-metric-ton Chinese purchase pledge for 2026-27 actually materializes against Brazil’s continued tariff advantage and expanded port infrastructure. Buyers with exposure to export basis should watch new-crop export sales data closely, since commitments were already running more than double year-ago levels entering August, a signal that could either validate a genuine shift in Chinese buying patterns or simply reflect front-loaded purchases against an uncertain back half of the marketing year. Given the tight 7% stocks-to-use ratio USDA is currently projecting for old-crop soybeans, any disruption to the pace of Chinese purchases, in either direction, carries more price leverage than it would in a year with looser US supply.

FAQ

Why did Iowa’s soybean yield forecast decline while national production hit a record?

Iowa’s yield fell to 62 bushels per acre from 63.5 last year due to a mix of localized hail, wind, lodging, and dryness across different regions of the state, but national production still set a record because planted and harvested acreage both rose nearly 7% year over year, more than offsetting a slightly lower national average yield.

Why has China shifted so much of its soybean buying to Brazil?

Brazilian soybeans face just a 3% Chinese import tariff compared with roughly 13% on US-origin soybeans, a combination of a 10% retaliatory duty and a 3% standard rate, creating a structural price advantage that has pushed Brazil’s share of China’s soybean imports above 73%.

Will China’s pledge to buy more US soybeans reverse the shift toward Brazil?

China has committed to purchasing 25 million metric tons of US soybeans in the 2026-27 marketing year, roughly 22% of its current import volume, but that would require offsetting Brazil’s tariff advantage and years of port and logistics investment built specifically around Chinese demand.

Sources

Air Cargo Rates Soften as Peak Season Fails to Show

rgultig
-
0
Air Cargo Rates Soften as Peak Season Fails to Show

Global air cargo spot rates fell 6% month over month in July, and shippers report almost no talk of peak-season charters heading into H2.

A Peak Season That Isn’t Showing Up

Global air cargo spot rates averaged $3.12 per kilogram in July, still 28% above year-ago levels but down 6% from June, according to freight rate analytics firm Xeneta. More telling than the monthly dip is what isn’t happening around it: the analytics firm’s chief airfreight officer reported that in nearly every conversation with the shipper community heading into the traditional Q3/Q4 peak, only one mentioned interest in booking peak-season charters. That near-total absence of charter demand is now the clearest signal the firm is pointing to for a softer second half of 2026.

The rate trajectory itself tells a story of premiums built during a supply shock now slowly draining away. Year-over-year spot rate growth has eased for two straight months, from a 41% peak in May to 38% in June to 28% in July, tracking a gradual unwind of the price spike that followed capacity disruption tied to the Middle East conflict in late February. But the decline is proceeding in increments rather than a sharp correction. Airlines built pricing power during the supply shock and have strong incentive to defend it, meaning rates are more likely to erode gradually than snap back to pre-conflict levels.

What’s Still Propping Rates Up, and What’s Pulling Them Down

Not every lane is moving the same direction. Transpacific routes remain the market’s strongest, with spot rates from both Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia to North America still running 33% above late-February levels, largely on the back of continued demand for AI-related goods, including semiconductors and computing hardware. That said, even this segment has cooled somewhat from the roughly 41% to 42% premiums recorded at the end of June, suggesting the AI-driven demand surge, while still elevated, has passed its steepest growth phase.

Other corridors are moving in the opposite direction and faster. Europe-to-North America spot rates have fallen 27% below late-February levels, helped along by ample belly-hold capacity from summer passenger schedules. The Asia-Europe corridor has been the weakest of all, with Northeast Asia to Europe rates down 13% month over month and China to Western Europe down 22% to roughly $4.15 per kilogram. That decline lines up closely with the European Union’s removal of its €150 duty-free threshold for low-value imports, a customs change that appears to be curbing the e-commerce-driven air cargo volumes that had been flowing out of China.

Overall demand growth is also decelerating. Global air cargo volumes rose 4% year over year in July, down from an 8% increase in June, while capacity has continued recovering from the Middle East-related disruption. Xeneta’s dynamic load factor measure, which tracks capacity utilization based on cargo volume and weight against available space, rose two percentage points year over year to 61%, indicating the market remains reasonably tight even as growth slows.

Why the Iran Conflict Still Matters to the Rate Curve

The current rate cycle traces directly back to the escalation of the Middle East conflict on February 28, which removed roughly 12% of global air cargo capacity overnight and pushed combined spot and long-term rates up 17% year over year in the first half of 2026. That capacity shock was severe enough that Xeneta reversed an earlier forecast calling for rates to decline 5% to 10% in 2026, instead now projecting a 5% to 15% increase for the full year. With the conflict still unresolved, ongoing fuel price volatility remains a live variable in how quickly, or slowly, rates continue to normalize. As Xeneta’s chief airfreight officer put it, the descent will likely come in small steps rather than the sharp jumps shippers experienced on the way up.

Buyer and Procurement Implications

For shippers negotiating air freight contracts into H2, the data supports a measured approach rather than an aggressive push for immediate rate relief. Airlines have clear incentive to slow-walk rate declines after a period of outsized pricing power, so procurement teams should expect gradual easing on most lanes rather than a return to pre-conflict pricing this year. The China-to-Europe corridor stands out as the one lane where a structural shift, driven by the EU’s customs change rather than pure supply and demand, may keep pulling rates down faster than elsewhere, making it worth renegotiating those contracts sooner rather than waiting for a broader market correction. On the Transpacific lane, shippers moving semiconductor, electronics, or other AI-adjacent cargo should expect continued rate premiums relative to other corridors, even as the pace of increase moderates. Given that fuel price volatility tied to the Iran conflict remains an open variable, locking in longer-term contract rates now, rather than betting on further spot market softening, may reduce exposure to another sudden capacity shock.

FAQ

Why are air cargo rates falling even though they’re still higher than last year?

Rates are unwinding gradually from a premium built up after Middle East conflict-related disruption removed roughly 12% of global air cargo capacity in late February, but airlines have strong incentive to defend elevated pricing, so the decline is happening in small increments rather than a sharp correction.

Which air cargo routes are seeing the steepest rate declines?

The Asia-to-Europe corridor is weakest, with China-to-Western Europe rates down 22% to about $4.15 per kilogram, a decline that coincides with the EU’s removal of its duty-free threshold for low-value e-commerce imports.

What’s driving continued strength on Transpacific air cargo lanes?

Demand for AI-related goods, particularly semiconductors and computing hardware moving from Northeast and Southeast Asia to North America, has kept spot rates on that corridor about 33% above late-February levels, even as the pace of growth has slowed from June’s peak.

Sources

Long Beach Posts Second-Busiest July

rgultig
-
0
Long Beach Posts Second-Busiest July

Long Beach moved 928,508 TEUs in July as exports jumped nearly 15% — here’s what’s driving the surge and what comes next for the port.

The Port of Long Beach handled 928,508 TEUs in July, its second-busiest July on record and fourth-highest monthly volume overall, even as total volume dipped 1.7% year-over-year — with export growth driving the strength behind an otherwise flat headline number.

The Numbers Behind the Surge

Imports were essentially flat, slipping just 0.1% to 467,461 TEUs, while exports jumped 14.8% to 104,843 TEUs. Empty container movements fell 7.4% to 356,205 TEUs — often read as a signal of future import strength. Through the first seven months of 2026, Long Beach has handled 5.76 million TEUs, up 1.2% versus the same period in 2025. Carriers report an unusually early peak season that began at the end of Q2, meaning July’s strength may pull volume forward rather than signal a stronger back half.

Infrastructure Investment Behind the Numbers

Long Beach is pursuing a 2050 vision targeting a doubling of annual container volume to 20 million TEUs, backed by $3.3 billion in planned capital investment over the next decade. The port approved new clean-air strategies including $40 million in joint funding with the Port of Los Angeles for a regional zero-emissions truck-charging network, and is developing the Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility — designed to triple on-dock rail capacity and cut rail dwell times from four days to just 24 hours.

What This Means for Procurement Teams

An early peak season means back-half volumes may soften. With carriers reporting cargo arriving ahead of the traditional schedule, shippers relying on Long Beach for Q4 delivery windows should confirm current booking assumptions rather than assuming typical seasonal patterns will hold.

Export capacity is genuinely improving, not just import capacity. The 14.8% export jump is a meaningful signal for US exporters using Long Beach as an outbound gateway — worth reassessing routing decisions if export capacity or cost had previously been a constraint.

Rail dwell time improvements are coming, but not yet. The Pier B facility’s promised drop from four-day to 24-hour rail dwell times is still under development — procurement teams shouldn’t build current planning around that improvement until it’s operational.

What This Means for Food & Beverage Supply Chains

Long Beach and its adjacent Port of LA handle a meaningful share of US refrigerated and perishable trade, so this data carries real relevance beyond general cargo shippers.

The export growth is worth watching closely for F&B exporters. A 14.8% jump in outbound volume is a broadly positive signal for US food and beverage exporters routing product through Long Beach — including meat, dairy, produce, and wine shippers who rely on West Coast gateways for Asia-Pacific and other export markets. Worth confirming with your freight forwarder whether this reflects genuinely improving vessel space and pricing for reefer/perishable exports specifically, since general container trends don’t always track one-to-one with refrigerated capacity.

An early peak season affects perishable timing differently than dry cargo. For F&B importers and exporters working with time- and temperature-sensitive product, the early peak season carriers are reporting matters more than it does for durable goods — a pulled-forward peak can mean earlier booking deadlines and tighter reefer plug availability than in a typical year. Confirm current vessel schedules directly rather than assuming historical seasonal booking windows still apply.

Rail dwell time improvements will matter significantly for perishables once live. The promised drop from four-day to 24-hour on-dock rail dwell at the Pier B facility would be a meaningful development for any F&B shipper moving refrigerated cargo inland by rail — faster dwell times directly reduce spoilage risk and cold-chain cost. Since this remains under development, don’t build current cold-chain planning around it yet, but it’s worth tracking as a genuine future improvement for temperature-sensitive supply chains specifically.

FAQ

How busy was the Port of Long Beach in July 2026?

Long Beach handled 928,508 TEUs, its second-busiest July on record and the fourth-highest monthly volume in the port’s history, despite a 1.7% year-over-year decline overall.

Why did exports grow while imports stayed flat?

The report doesn’t specify a single driver, but the 14.8% export increase significantly outpaced the roughly flat import volume, suggesting strengthening demand for US-origin goods moving through the port specifically.

What is the Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility?

It’s a Long Beach infrastructure project designed to triple the port’s on-dock rail capacity and reduce rail dwell times from four days to 24 hours, though it remains under development.

Sources

  • Port Technology International, Port of Long Beach Posts Second-Busiest July
  • WorldCargo News, July Surge for Long Beach
  • FBJNA, Port of Long Beach Sees Second-Busiest July

Record Grain Stocks Buffer World Against Super El Nino

rgultig
-
0
Record Grain Stocks Buffer World Against Super El Nino

Decades of yield gains and near-record grain inventories are positioning the global food system to absorb this year’s “super” El Nino far more smoothly than similar events in the past, even as the pattern gathers strength.

A Stronger Food System Than 1997 Or 2015

World farm production has consistently outpaced both consumption and population growth since the 1980s, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, driven by higher-yielding crop varieties, expanded fertilizer use, and improved irrigation and crop protection across staples like rice, wheat, corn, and soybeans. Andrew Whitelaw of Australian agricultural consultancy Episode 3 frames the shift as a change in resilience rather than immunity: even during drought conditions, better irrigation management and crop science now allow marketable yields where past events caused outright shortfalls.

The comparison to history is stark. During the severe El Nino episodes of 1997-98 and 2015-16, crop losses fed directly into food shortages, inflation, and slower economic growth — sugar and palm oil prices spiked after drought hit Brazil, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand, Southeast Asian rice exporters curbed shipments as supplies tightened, and Australian wheat export losses forced southern African countries to import more corn. FAO Chief Economist Maximo Torero credits improved forecasting and market transparency with giving governments more lead time to prepare than they had in past cycles.

This El Nino Is Already Building

The World Meteorological Organization confirmed this El Nino developed in early July, and NOAA forecasts it will intensify through the October-to-December window before persisting into April 2027. Chris Hyde, a meteorologist at satellite data firm SkyFi, said expectations point to one of the strongest El Nino events on record, if not the strongest ever observed — meaning the bulk of the dryness impact is still ahead rather than behind.

The early damage is already visible. India is contending with a deficient monsoon, drier conditions are forecast across Australia’s key wheat regions, and crops in Indonesia and Thailand are showing moisture stress. S&P Global’s commodity research arm projects meaningful wheat production declines in both Australia and the US, a slight dip in India’s wheat output, and reduced soybean production in Brazil and Argentina, while Malaysian palm oil output is expected to fall even as Indonesia’s holds roughly steady. Separate Bloomberg analysis flags Southeast Asian palm oil — source of about 90% of global supply — as particularly exposed to El Nino-driven dryness, with downstream effects already factoring into inflation forecasts in markets like Brazil, where food costs are contributing to year-end inflation projections as high as 5.03%, well above the central bank’s target.

Inventories Are Doing The Heavy Lifting

The core buffer against this event is sheer volume of stored grain. India, which accounts for 40% of global rice exports, is holding so much rice that it’s running short of storage capacity for stockpiles exceeding a full year of total global rice exports. China holds nearly half of the world’s wheat stocks, a reserve that should limit import demand even if Australian drought cuts into supply. Global palm oil stocks sit near historic highs, though Indonesia’s aggressive biodiesel program is expected to draw those inventories down somewhat in coming months.

Independent analysis from ING reinforces the same read: while grain reserves currently provide a comfortable cushion against supply shocks, a scenario where those reserves get drawn down heavily during the event would leave markets meaningfully tighter once El Nino passes — a risk worth monitoring rather than dismissing, even if the base-case outlook stays contained.

New Export Powerhouses Have Reshaped Supply

Structural shifts in global agricultural trade over the past three decades have added supply sources that simply didn’t exist at scale during the 1997-98 event. Brazil has become the world’s largest soybean exporter, with shipments up more than 13-fold since 1997/98, while Russian wheat exports have surged to 48 million tons from roughly 1 million tons over the same period. Those two exporters alone represent a meaningfully larger and more diversified global supply base than existed during the last comparably severe El Nino.

Plant science has compounded that structural shift. Drought-tolerant corn hybrids, widely adopted across Africa and the Americas since 2015, are helping farmers maintain yields through erratic rainfall, while heat- and drought-tolerant wheat varieties have gained traction in India and Australia. Short-duration rice varieties are helping South and Southeast Asian farmers manage increasingly unpredictable monsoon timing. Digital tools unavailable in 1997 — satellite crop monitoring, seasonal climate forecasting, high-resolution soil moisture mapping, and GPS-guided fertilizer application — are giving today’s farmers a level of input precision that wasn’t possible during past events, with AI-powered advisory platforms increasingly integrating all of that data into planting and pest-management recommendations.

Geopolitics Remains The Wildcard

Even with a structurally stronger food system, experts caution the optimism has limits. Torero specifically flagged reduced agricultural input use tied to the Strait of Hormuz crisis and elevated fertilizer prices as factors that could still worsen conditions through the back half of 2026. The Strait, which carried roughly a fifth of global crude oil and LNG supply before the Iran conflict disrupted it in February, has driven up fuel and fertilizer costs in a way that compounds El Nino’s direct agricultural impact rather than operating separately from it. Separate research from ORF Middle East frames this convergence of conflict-driven trade restriction and looming super El Nino as a genuinely novel compounding risk, noting container shipping rates already running roughly 40% above pre-crisis levels and constrained urea and phosphorus fertilizer exports layering directly on top of the weather risk.

Buyer And Procurement Implications

For F&B procurement teams, the dominant signal here is that a strong El Nino is not automatically a repeat of 1997 or 2015 — record inventories in rice, wheat, and palm oil provide real insulation, and buyers shouldn’t assume the kind of sharp shortage-driven price spikes seen in past comparable events are the base case this time. That said, the fertilizer and fuel cost pressure tied to the Strait of Hormuz disruption is a separate, compounding risk layered on top of the weather story, and buyers should treat those two factors independently when assessing exposure rather than assuming grain reserves alone will offset elevated input costs.

Buyers sourcing wheat should watch Australian and US production forecasts closely given the projected declines in both markets, while diversifying toward or confirming supply continuity from Russia, whose wheat export capacity has grown enormously since the last comparable El Nino. Palm oil buyers should monitor Malaysian output specifically, since Indonesia’s production is expected to hold steadier, and should factor in Indonesia’s biodiesel program as a separate demand pull on inventories independent of the weather pattern itself. Given that the strongest phase of this El Nino isn’t expected until Q4 2026 into early 2027, procurement teams have a meaningful forward-planning window before the most significant disruption risk materializes.

FAQ

How does this El Nino compare to the severe events of 1997-98 and 2015-16?

Meteorologists expect this to be one of the strongest El Nino events on record, potentially the strongest ever observed, with the most significant dryness impact still ahead in the fourth quarter of 2026 and early 2027. However, near-record grain inventories, drought-tolerant crop varieties, and new major exporters like Brazil and Russia mean the global food system is structurally better positioned to absorb the shock than during past comparable events.

Which crops and regions are most at risk from this El Nino?

Wheat production in Australia and the US is expected to decline, along with soybean output in Brazil and Argentina and palm oil production in Malaysia. India, Indonesia, Thailand, and Australia are already experiencing dryness affecting planting and crop development.

What other factors could worsen the food supply outlook beyond El Nino itself?

The Strait of Hormuz crisis, tied to the ongoing Iran conflict, has disrupted fuel and fertilizer supplies and pushed up input costs independently of the weather pattern, and experts warn this compounding effect could weigh on production more than El Nino alone would.

Sources

  • Reuters, “Decades of farm gains, inventories strengthen food system against ‘super’ El Nino,” Aug. 11, 2026
  • S&P Global, “INFOGRAPHIC: El Niño may lead to global food supply volatility in 2026-27”
  • ING Think, “El Niño casts a shadow over agri markets, but global food fears may be overblown”
  • Bloomberg, “Super El Niño Risks Emerging Markets in Asia, Africa and Latin America”
  • ORF Middle East, “Impacts of an Impending ‘Super’ El-Niño on Global Supply Chains”

Monster Beverage Hits 52-Week Low — But Numbers Deceive

rgultig
-
0
Monster Beverage Hits 52-Week Low — But Numbers Deceive

Monster Beverage stock touched a 52-week low of $45.72 this week, but the headline number is misleading — a 2-for-1 stock split took effect the same day, meaning the “low” reflects a mechanical price adjustment rather than a genuine decline in value.

The Split Behind The Headline

Monster’s board approved a 2-for-1 forward stock split, structured as a 100% stock dividend, back on July 8. Shareholders of record as of July 24 received one additional share for each share held, distributed after the close of trading on August 10, with the stock beginning split-adjusted trading on August 11. At the time the split was declared, shares were trading near a 52-week high of $99.15, having delivered a 57% return over the prior year. Comparing the new, halved post-split price against the prior 52 weeks of un-adjusted trading data is what technically registers as a fresh low, even though the split itself changes nothing about underlying shareholder value.

This is Monster’s sixth forward stock split since its IPO, a pattern closely tied to its long-running partnership with Coca-Cola, which took an equity stake in Monster as part of a 2014 asset swap that handed Coca-Cola’s energy drink operations to Monster in exchange for Coca-Cola’s non-energy assets. Regular forward splits have historically kept the share price more accessible even as Monster’s underlying market value has climbed roughly 24,000% since 2005.

Earnings Actually Beat Expectations

The split landed alongside genuinely strong second-quarter results. Monster reported adjusted earnings of $0.60 per share against a $0.58 consensus, and record net sales of $2.54 billion — the first time quarterly sales crossed $2.5 billion — against an expected roughly $2.42–2.43 billion, a 20.2% year-over-year increase. Diluted EPS rose 19% to $0.59, and net income climbed 19.6% to $584.5 million. International sales were the standout driver, growing 34.6% to $1.16 billion and now accounting for 46% of total revenue, up from 41% a year earlier, with Monster gaining share across Europe, Latin America, and Asia Pacific.

Several major Wall Street firms raised price targets in response: Morgan Stanley lifted its target to $110 from $103, UBS moved to $105 from $104, and Deutsche Bank raised its target to $100 from $98, with Goldman Sachs maintaining its Buy rating. Morgan Stanley specifically flagged a high-single-digit Red Bull price increase in the US effective August 1 as a near-term positive for Monster, since it gives the category leader room to raise prices alongside its top competitor without ceding relative value.

Where The Real Pressure Points Are

Beneath the headline beat, some underlying metrics softened. Distribution expenses surged 44.9% to $118.8 million — 4.7% of net sales, up from 3.9% a year earlier — largely reflecting higher freight and fuel costs, with total operating expenses growing faster than revenue for the quarter. Gross margin actually improved slightly to 55.9% from 55.7% a year earlier, helped by pricing actions and product mix, though that gain was partly offset by higher aluminum can, freight-in, and geographic mix costs.

The clearer soft spot was the Alcohol Brands segment, where revenue dropped 15.2% year-over-year to $32.2 million, continuing to underperform the company’s core energy-drink business. Analysts have also flagged valuation as a factor that could amplify stock volatility around any operational hiccup going forward: even before the split, Monster’s forward price-to-earnings ratio sat near 37, a roughly 16% premium to its own five-year average multiple.

Category Context: A Warmer Summer Helped Peers

Broader beverage category data adds useful context. Nielsen data analyzed by Bernstein showed soft drink volumes in Western Europe grew 6.5% in the four weeks ending July 12, a sharp acceleration from flat growth in the prior period, driven largely by hot weather boosting bottled water and carbonated soft drink sales, particularly in the UK and France. That kind of seasonal tailwind benefits the broader beverage category Monster competes in, even though Monster’s own results reflect company-specific dynamics — the split, rising distribution costs, and alcohol segment weakness — more than category-wide weather effects.

Buyer And Procurement Implications

For beverage retail and foodservice buyers, Monster’s underlying fundamentals — record revenue, 20%-plus sales growth, and multiple analyst price target increases — suggest the brand’s shelf presence and consumer demand remain strong despite the confusing headline price action. Buyers negotiating category placement or promotional terms with Monster should treat the post-split share price as a non-event and focus instead on the company’s actual operating trends, particularly the rising distribution cost base tied to freight and fuel, which could eventually factor into wholesale pricing or promotional flexibility if the trend continues.

The Red Bull price increase Morgan Stanley flagged is also worth watching for category buyers more broadly: if Monster follows with its own pricing action in response, as some analysts expect, buyers negotiating shelf and cooler space across the energy drink category should anticipate a broader repricing across top brands rather than an isolated move from a single competitor. Buyers with exposure to Monster’s alcohol segment products should note the continued revenue softness there, which may warrant closer inventory and demand monitoring compared with the core energy drink lineup.

FAQ

Why did Monster Beverage stock hit a 52-week low right after beating earnings?

The apparent low was caused by a 2-for-1 stock split that took effect August 10–11, which halved the per-share price. Compared against un-adjusted historical trading data from before the split — when shares were near a 52-week high of $99.15 — the new price technically registers as a fresh low, even though it doesn’t reflect any decline in the company’s actual market value.

Did Monster Beverage’s second-quarter results beat or miss expectations?

They beat expectations. Adjusted earnings of $0.60 per share topped the $0.58 consensus, and revenue reached a record $2.54 billion against expectations of roughly $2.42–2.43 billion, marking 20.2% year-over-year sales growth. Several analysts raised their price targets following the report.

What parts of Monster’s business showed weakness in the latest quarter?

The Alcohol Brands segment saw revenue drop 15.2% year-over-year to $32.2 million, and distribution expenses jumped 44.9% to $118.8 million on higher freight and fuel costs, causing operating expenses to grow faster than revenue even as gross margin improved slightly.

Sources

  • Investing.com, “Monster Beverage stock hits 52-week low at $45.72,” Aug. 11, 2026
  • Investing.com, “Monster Beverage approves 2-for-1 stock split”
  • Investing.com, “Earnings call transcript: Monster Beverage tops Q2 2026 forecasts as sales hit record”
  • StockTitan, “Monster Beverage Reports 2026 Second Quarter Financial Results”
  • TradingPedia, “Monster Beverage Rallies on Split, Earnings, Upgrades,” Aug. 11, 2026
  • The Motley Fool, “Wall Street’s Latest Blockbuster Stock Split Has Arrived”
  • 24/7 Wall St., “Monster Beverage (MNST) Earnings Report Q2 2026”

Seafood Trade Reroutes Around Geopolitical Chaos

rgultig
-
0
Seafood Trade Reroutes Around Geopolitical Chaos

Wars, tariffs, and shipping chokepoint attacks have pushed seafood exporters into longer routes and new markets, and industry analysts say the reshuffling is becoming a permanent feature of the trade rather than a temporary disruption.

Shipping Routes Have Fundamentally Lengthened

The Strait of Hormuz, a corridor that carried roughly a quarter of the world’s seaborne crude oil and petroleum trade in 2025, has been effectively closed to routine commercial shipping since late July, following the collapse of a brief reopening under a June US-Iran agreement after renewed attacks on commercial vessels. Gulf ports including Jebel Ali, Dammam, and Jubail remain affected, pushing rerouted cargo toward a handful of alternative entry points like Jeddah and Salalah that are now absorbing significant congestion.

The Red Sea corridor tells a similar story. Houthi attacks on commercial shipping, ongoing since late 2023 despite coalition naval operations, have made the route effectively uninsurable at standard rates for most carriers, forcing widespread diversion around the Cape of Good Hope. That reroute adds roughly 8 to 12 days of transit time and has pushed full-container-load rates up an estimated 30% to 60% on affected lanes. Geopolitical economist Dr. Nomi Prins, speaking at Seafood Expo Global in Barcelona, put a finer point on the seafood-specific impact, noting shipments from India and Southeast Asia can now take 10 to 14 days longer to reach destination markets, adding fuel costs, storage costs, and fresh refrigeration risk to cargo already loaded and in transit.

Tariffs Are Redrawing Who Supplies The US

Trade policy has become as disruptive to sourcing patterns as the shipping disruptions themselves. Rabobank seafood analyst Gorjan Nikolik points to the shrimp trade as the clearest example: higher US tariffs on Asian producing nations gave Ecuador a near-overnight competitive edge, given the country’s existing advantages in lower mortality rates, larger production scale, proximity to the US, and dollarized economy. The result, in Nikolik’s words, is that Ecuador has moved from the second- to the first-largest shrimp supplier to the US market in a short span.

That advantage isn’t without cost for Ecuador itself, though. The country’s National Chamber of Aquaculture estimates its shrimp producers are now paying roughly $20 million per month under a 15% US tariff that took effect August 7, with total 2026 tariff payments already reaching an estimated $45 million. Because many Ecuador-US shrimp contracts are structured as Delivered Duty Paid, exporters — not US buyers — are absorbing those costs directly, including cash bonds posted at US customs to guarantee tariff payment, creating a real liquidity strain even as the country gains overall market share.

Whitefish And Shrimp Markets Are Reshuffling Globally

Beyond tariffs, sanctions have restructured entire product categories. Russia’s gradual decoupling from Western seafood markets has redirected pollock that once flowed into Europe and North America toward China and domestic Russian consumption, while the US has effectively removed Russian whitefish from its market altogether. Nikolik describes the result as a broad redistribution of global whitefish supply that has created clear winners — American whitefish producers now operate in a less crowded domestic market, and Norwegian cod farmers may be benefiting from higher European whitefish prices tied to the added cost and complexity of importing Russian product.

Shrimp exporters have pursued similar redirection where tariffs or sanctions closed off traditional markets. India has increasingly shifted shrimp exports toward China, though Nikolik notes this comes at a real cost: Indian exporters “leave a lot of money on the table” moving from highly processed, higher-value US-bound product to less-processed shipments commanding lower margins in China. Indonesia has stepped up shrimp exports to France and Spain, and Norway has expanded sales to Japan and China to reduce US market dependence — in each case, analysts note exporters have leaned into markets where existing relationships and positioning already existed rather than building entirely new ones from scratch.

Processing And Infrastructure Investment Are Slowing

The trade disruption is also reshaping where seafood gets processed. European processors, traditionally significant suppliers of smoked, breaded, and other value-added seafood to North America, now face tariff disadvantages relative to direct shipments from Nordic producers, weakening the economic case for processing within mainland Europe before export to the US.

More broadly, Nikolik says businesses are increasingly postponing investment in new processing facilities, cold storage, and distribution infrastructure because they can no longer confidently forecast future trading conditions well enough to justify the capital commitment — a cooling-off in US market development that he says was much more active before the current wave of disruption began.

Cost Increases Take Years To Fully Surface

One of the less visible dynamics Nikolik flagged is how slowly higher input costs move through seafood production before reaching consumers. Elevated fuel prices affect not just shipping but fishing operations, the fertilizer used to grow aquafeed ingredients like soy, and processing costs throughout the chain. Because farmed shrimp reach market in roughly three months while farmed salmon takes about two and a half years, a geopolitical shock today can continue pushing costs through the supply chain for years afterward, with retail contracts, inventory cycles, and feed production all acting to slow the transmission further.

Technology And Traceability Are Becoming Non-Negotiable

Both Nikolik and Prins point to technology investment — refrigeration, digital traceability, packaging innovation, and AI — as increasingly essential rather than optional as supply chains stretch longer and more complex. Regulatory pressure is reinforcing that shift directly: Europe’s CATCH system, now covering the import of all wild-caught seafood, is pushing exporters toward digital systems capable of documenting sourcing and movement across the full supply chain, adding compliance requirements on top of the logistics challenge itself.

Buyer And Procurement Implications

For F&B buyers and importers, the tariff-driven shift toward Ecuadorian shrimp is likely to continue, but buyers should watch for potential price pass-through as Ecuadorian exporters absorb mounting tariff costs under DDP contract structures — that cost pressure may eventually surface in negotiated pricing even though it isn’t showing up as a direct surcharge today. Buyers with existing Russian whitefish supply chains, or downstream contracts tied to that product, should treat current sourcing patterns as effectively permanent rather than temporary, given the structural nature of the market’s decoupling from Western buyers.

Procurement teams should also build longer lead times into contracts touching Middle East or Red Sea shipping lanes, given that the current 8-to-14-day transit extensions show no near-term sign of reversing, and should confirm with suppliers whether temperature-sensitive cargo has adequate cold-chain coverage for the extended Cape of Good Hope routing. Given that cost increases from today’s disruptions may not fully surface in pricing for up to two to three years — particularly for longer-cycle species like salmon — buyers negotiating multi-year contracts should factor in a wider cost-escalation buffer than historical patterns would suggest is necessary.

FAQ

Why are seafood shipments taking longer to reach markets?

Attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz have forced many carriers to reroute around the Cape of Good Hope, adding roughly 8 to 14 days of transit time depending on the origin and destination, along with higher fuel, storage, and refrigeration costs.

How have US tariffs changed shrimp sourcing?

Higher tariffs on Asian shrimp producers have made Ecuador significantly more competitive, pushing it from the second- to the first-largest shrimp supplier to the US. However, Ecuadorian exporters are now absorbing an estimated $20 million per month in tariff costs themselves under common contract structures.

Why do geopolitical shocks affect seafood prices for years afterward?

Rising fuel and input costs work their way slowly through the supply chain via feed production, farming cycles, and retail contracts. Because shrimp reach market in about three months but salmon takes roughly two and a half years to raise, a single disruption can continue affecting prices for several years after the initial event.

Sources

  • Responsible Seafood Advocate, “Longer routes, smarter logistics: how the seafood trade is adapting in an era of geopolitical chaos,” by Rob Fletcher, Aug. 11, 2026
  • SeafoodSource, “US tariffs costing Ecuadorian shrimp producers USD 20 million a month, national aquaculture chamber claims”
  • CNBC, “Strait of Hormuz and drone threats to global shipping”
  • Congress.gov / CRS, “The Strait of Hormuz: Security Developments and Impacts on Oil, Gas, and Other Commodities”
  • Suaid Global, “Red Sea Shipping Crisis 2026: Rates, Reroute, Transit”
  • WTO, “Strait of Hormuz and global trade”

JBS Names Family CEO Amid $102M Quarterly Loss

rgultig
-
0
JBS Names Family CEO Amid $102M Quarterly Loss

JBS has named Wesley Batista Filho as its next global CEO, returning the founding Batista family to the top job just as the world’s largest meatpacker posted a surprise $102 million quarterly net loss.

A Carefully Planned Succession

Wesley Batista Filho, 34, will take over as global CEO effective January 2027, succeeding Gilberto Tomazoni, who has led JBS since 2018 and will move into a vice chairman and senior adviser role. On the company’s earnings call, Tomazoni described the transition as one the board had been planning carefully “from a position of strength,” framing it as continuity in strategy and leadership rather than a response to the quarter’s financial pressure. Batista Filho echoed that framing directly, telling Reuters the transition should be straightforward given his eight years of internal leadership experience across the group’s businesses.

Batista Filho is the son of Wesley Batista, who together with brother Joesley Batista controls J&F Investimentos, the family holding company behind JBS. He joined the company in 2011, working across beef and poultry operations in Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Canada before taking the top job at JBS USA in 2023. That US role put him at the center of the company’s most persistent operating challenge in recent years: managing a business unit strained by the tightest American cattle supply in decades, work colleagues on the earnings call specifically credited him for as he transitions to the global seat.

This marks the family’s first return to the CEO chair since founder José Batista Sobrinho stepped back, and comes after the Batista brothers’ 2017 involvement in a Brazilian corruption investigation tied to a sealed plea agreement — both were arrested over insider trading allegations, later acquitted, and returned to JBS’s board in 2024. Investors reacted cautiously to the announcement itself: US-listed shares fell roughly 5.8% after the CEO news broke, before dropping a further 2% in extended trading once the earnings results followed.

Record Revenue, Unexpected Loss

JBS posted net revenue of $23.9 billion for the second quarter, a company record and ahead of the $22.9 billion analysts had expected in an LSEG poll. Despite that top-line strength, the company reported a net loss of $102 million, reversing a $528 million profit from the same quarter last year and badly missing the $379 million profit analysts had forecast.

The loss wasn’t primarily an operating story. JBS attributed it to non-recurring items, including roughly $172 million in premiums, interest, and costs tied to tender offers for bonds and Brazilian local debentures, along with antitrust settlement costs. Adjusted EBITDA came in at $1.43 billion, down 18.5% year-over-year but essentially in line with the $1.44 billion analysts expected, and the company noted this was still its highest-ever second-quarter EBITDA figure. The adjusted EBITDA margin compressed to 6.0% from 8.4% a year earlier, and management pointed to a difficult year-over-year comparison, since the poultry division had posted record results in the second quarter of 2025 that this year’s numbers were measured against.

The Real Constraint: US Cattle Supply

The deeper story behind JBS’s US margin pressure is a cattle herd that has been rebuilding more slowly than the company anticipated. On the earnings call, Batista Filho pointed to two compounding trends: heifer retention running more timid than expected, and the number of beef cows sent to slaughter dropping sharply — he noted JBS is now processing roughly half the beef cows it was processing in 2022, a figure he called central to understanding just how tight the supply base has become.

Restricted access to Mexican feeder cattle, driven by lingering concerns over New World screwworm entering the US herd, compounded the constraint through the first half of the year. Batista Filho described January and February as potentially two of the most challenging months in the company’s history for the US business. The Trump administration’s recent decision to lift the Mexican cattle import ban is the single change Batista Filho has pointed to as most likely to bring near-term relief, though he expects the benefit to show up gradually, with meaningful improvement targeted for the first quarter of 2027 rather than an immediate turnaround. He has separately cautioned that 2026 overall is likely to prove a tougher year for the business than 2025, even accounting for that expected improvement.

The company has already begun adjusting its US footprint in response, announcing the closure of beef plants in Pennsylvania and Tennessee in June, and operations were further disrupted earlier in the year by worker strikes at some US facilities.

Expansion Beyond The US

Even amid the domestic beef pressure, Batista Filho used his new-CEO comments to lay out an expansion agenda centered outside North America: growth in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Oceania, building on a deal in Indonesia completed just last week, alongside continued investment in higher-value processed products and the company’s egg and fish businesses. That diversification push lines up with JBS’s broader positioning strategy in recent years — building what Tomazoni described on the call as a more diversified, global, and resilient platform — reinforced by the company’s relatively recent US dual listing, which management framed as a milestone positioning JBS closer to New York investors for its next growth phase.

Buyer And Procurement Implications

For beef buyers and foodservice procurement teams, JBS’s own commentary confirms that US cattle supply tightness is not resolving quickly — the company’s internal expectation is for continued pressure through 2026, with only gradual improvement starting in early 2027 tied to Mexican cattle border access. Buyers with US beef exposure should treat current tight-supply, elevated-price conditions as the baseline for planning through at least the next two to three quarters rather than an anomaly likely to reverse soon.

The Pennsylvania and Tennessee plant closures are also worth flagging for any buyers with contracts tied to those specific facilities, since capacity consolidation at the country’s largest beef processor can shift regional supply and logistics dynamics even where aggregate national capacity is adequate. Buyers sourcing from JBS’s poultry, pork, or international operations face a comparatively more stable picture, given management’s own framing that the beef segment — and specifically the US cattle supply constraint — is the primary source of pressure weighing on group results.

FAQ

Why is JBS changing CEOs now?

JBS describes this as a planned succession rather than a reaction to weak results, with outgoing CEO Gilberto Tomazoni saying the transition was carefully prepared from a position of company strength. Incoming CEO Wesley Batista Filho has led JBS USA since 2023 and joined the broader company in 2011.

What caused JBS’s $102 million net loss despite record revenue?

The loss was driven primarily by non-recurring costs, including expenses tied to bond and debenture tender offers and antitrust settlements, rather than core operating weakness. Adjusted EBITDA of $1.43 billion was roughly in line with analyst expectations and represented the company’s highest-ever second-quarter figure.

When does JBS expect US cattle supply conditions to improve?

CEO-designate Wesley Batista Filho expects meaningful improvement by the first quarter of 2027, tied to the recent lifting of the ban on Mexican cattle imports, though he has said 2026 overall will likely remain a more challenging year for the business than 2025.

Sources

  • The Poultry Site / The Cattle Site / The Pig Site (Global Ag Media), “JBS names founding family member as CEO,” Aug. 11, 2026
  • Reuters, “JBS to announce Wesley Batista Filho as CEO, O Globo reports,” Aug. 10, 2026
  • Meat + Poultry, “Tight cattle supply weighs on JBS earnings”
  • StockTitan, “JBS Reports Second Quarter 2026 Results”
  • Investing.com, “Earnings call transcript: JBS Q2 2026 misses EPS forecast as sales hit record”
  • Transport Topics, “JBS names Wesley Batista Filho as incoming global CEO”

Dairy Margins Face New Pressure As Feed Costs Turn

rgultig
-
0
Dairy Margins Face New Pressure As Feed Costs Turn

Milk prices have stabilized, but a shifting feed market and slowing global demand growth are converging to squeeze dairy margins going into 2027.

A Global Price Retreat Is Already Underway

While the US milk market has settled into what analysts are calling an equilibrium range, the picture looks less comfortable elsewhere. New Zealand’s Fonterra — the world’s largest dairy exporter and a bellwether for global commodity pricing — has cut its 2026/27 farmgate milk price forecast twice in recent months, most recently trimming the range to NZ$8.00–NZ$10.50 per kilogram of milk solids from an opening NZ$8.00–NZ$11.00. The cooperative pointed to an 11% drop in Global Dairy Trade auction prices across reference products since May, driven by softer-than-expected import demand running headlong into rising production out of key exporting regions.

That’s a meaningful signal for US producers and processors, because Fonterra’s GDT results function as a leading indicator for where US export competitiveness stands. When global reference prices fall while US milk holds steady, the gap that made American cheese and milk powder attractive to overseas buyers can close quickly — exactly the dynamic that hit US nonfat dry milk exports this spring, when a rally to roughly $2.60 per pound sent importers elsewhere almost immediately.

US Milk Supply Keeps Expanding, Not Contracting

USDA’s own production forecasts have moved in the opposite direction from what tighter-margin logic would suggest. The July WASDE report raised 2026 US milk production to 236.6 billion pounds, up from 235.4 billion in May, on a larger cow herd and only a modest slowdown in output per cow — not the kind of pullback that would signal producers pulling back in response to margin pressure. That keeps the US firmly in the same “ample global milk” camp that’s weighing on Fonterra’s forecast, rather than positioned to benefit from any global tightening.

The counterweight has been demand, particularly for protein components, which has kept cash markets running well above Class III alone. But that demand-side support is doing more work than the supply side to hold prices up, which is a structurally different — and more fragile — position than a market balancing on tighter supply.

The Feed Side Has Its Own Warning Signs

USDA’s corn balance sheet has tightened notably compared with expectations earlier in the year. The department’s outlook shows 2026/27 corn supplies running smaller with greater exports and reduced ending stocks, even with yield held at 183 bushels per acre — a shift toward a snugger balance sheet than dairy producers have budgeted for in recent margin planning built around cheap grain. That’s consistent with the run-up in Decatur, Illinois soybean meal basis from negative territory a year ago to a persistent premium now, a signal that on-the-ground buyers are already pricing in tighter feed-grain conditions rather than waiting for it to show up in the headline futures price.

The seasonal calendar adds a wrinkle. Corn futures typically post their seasonal low in August, ahead of the harvest-driven supply wave, before drifting higher into fall and winter — meaning the current relatively calm price environment for feed may be the best window dairy operations get before conditions become less favorable.

Government Support Isn’t Likely To Kick In

USDA’s Dairy Margin Coverage program — which pays out when the calculated margin between milk price and feed cost falls below a producer’s elected threshold — is currently forecast to pay out $122.9 million in 2026, up from prior-year levels but still modest against the scale of the broader dairy economy. Given that feed costs have been running near five-year lows for most of 2025 into 2026, industry analysts have judged the odds of DMC payments materially expanding this year as low, even accounting for the milk price softness already built into USDA’s outlook — it would take a sharper feed-cost spike, a bigger milk-price decline, or both together to push margins under the program’s support threshold in a meaningful way.

That leaves most producers managing this cycle without a meaningful safety net kicking in, reinforcing why analysts are pointing toward proactive hedging rather than waiting to see whether support programs activate.

The Middle Of The Industry Is Most Exposed

Cost structure varies enormously by herd size, and that gap is central to how this margin squeeze will actually play out on the ground. USDA Economic Research Service cost data shows operations under 50 cows running total costs near $42.70 per hundredweight, while operations above 2,000 cows run closer to $16–$19 per hundredweight — meaning mid-size dairies caught between those extremes have the least room to absorb a feed-cost increase without matching efficiency gains already available to the largest operations. Combined with softer milk-price forecasts for the year, some farm-finance analysts have estimated the swing in operating margin for a typical 300-cow dairy at roughly $90,000 to $100,000 lower in 2026 than 2025 — even in a year when feed costs looked favorable for much of the period.

Buyer And Procurement Implications

For dairy processors and ingredient buyers, the combination of a softening global price benchmark (via Fonterra and GDT) and a still-expanding US milk supply points toward continued competitive procurement conditions for raw milk and core commodity dairy ingredients in the near term — buyers negotiating supply agreements have reasonable leverage right now, but should recognize that leverage is being generated by producer margin pressure rather than a stable structural surplus, which raises the risk of tighter supply if margins deteriorate enough to trigger herd culling later in 2026 or into 2027.

Buyers with exposure to protein-driven dairy ingredients — whey, high-protein powders, and similar categories — should expect continued firm pricing relative to broader commodity dairy, since that segment has been the primary source of premium support in an otherwise well-supplied market. On the input side, feed and ingredient buyers working with dairy suppliers should factor in the diverging cost structures across herd sizes when assessing supplier risk; mid-size dairy suppliers carry meaningfully more margin exposure to a feed-cost increase than the largest operations, which is worth flagging in any supplier continuity risk assessment heading into Q1 2027, historically the softest seasonal window for milk pricing.

FAQ

Why are global dairy prices falling even though US milk prices are stable?

Global reference prices, tracked through New Zealand’s Global Dairy Trade auctions, have dropped roughly 11% since May due to softer import demand meeting rising production in major exporting regions, while US milk prices have been supported separately by strong domestic protein demand rather than by global market strength.

Is the US Dairy Margin Coverage program likely to pay out in 2026?

It’s considered unlikely under current projections. Feed costs have remained historically low for most of the year, and even with softer milk prices forecast, the combined margin would need to deteriorate significantly further to fall below the program’s support thresholds.

Which dairy producers are most exposed to a feed-cost increase?

Mid-size operations face the most risk, since USDA cost data shows their total production costs sit well above those of large-scale dairies (2,000-plus cows) but without the smaller-scale premium pricing that can offset costs for very small herds, leaving less margin cushion if feed prices rise as some analysts expect through the rest of 2026.

Sources

  • Farm Journal / AgWeb, “Feed Markets Are Getting Less Friendly for Dairy,” by Taylor Leach, Aug. 11, 2026
  • Fonterra, “Fonterra revises its 2026/27 forecast Farmgate Milk Price”
  • Reuters via The Cattle Site, “Fonterra cuts top end of 2026/27 milk price forecast”
  • Ag Proud, “USDA milk production forecasts edge slightly higher”
  • USDA Economic Research Service, “Farm Sector Income Forecast”
  • The Bullvine, “Record Corn Won’t Save You: The $100K Margin Hit Coming for Mid-Size Dairies in 2026”
123...19Page 1 of 19