CropGPT - Podcast for Commodities | Wave AI Podcast Notes

The Demand For Coconut

1. Market Growth and Segment DivergenceThe global coconut products market is valued at USD 15.2 billion in 2025 and is projected to reach USD 29.4 billion by 2034 — a 7.6% CAGR. Underneath that headline number, the segments are diverging sharply. Raw meat and flesh is growing at 6.7%, while high-margin derivatives like MCT oil and cocoglycerides are expanding much faster. The industry is shifting from a bulk commodity model to a specialised ingredient platform.2. Key Demand Drivers: The Vegan Paradox and Regulatory ArbitrageThree forces are pulling demand higher.First, the vegan movement. Coconut milk is the only plant-based dairy still gaining ground, with unit sales up 23% in 2025 while almond and oat milks declined.Second, the paradox sitting underneath that growth. The values-driven consumers driving it are also the quickest to abandon brands over ethical scandals — the forced monkey labour investigations in Thailand triggered 40,000 store delistings.Third, EUDR arbitrage. The EU Deforestation Regulation covers palm oil but excludes coconut, so European manufacturers are substituting palm kernel oil with coconut oil to avoid compliance costs. That has created a significant spike in "rented" demand.3. The Supply-Constrained SupercycleThe market is being limited by production capacity rather than consumer appetite, driven by two factors.Senile plantations — roughly 50% of Philippine palms and 30% of Indian palms are over 60 years old and yielding less than half the nuts of younger trees.Climate shocks — El Niño has recently cut yields by 12–20%, contributing to a historic price surge. Philippine desiccated coconut prices rose 117% between early 2024 and late 2025.4. A Dual-Speed Demand RegimeThe market operates at two very different sensitivities.Industrial buyers are inelastic. Large food and cosmetic manufacturers are locked into coconut because its lauric acid profile is hard to replicate, so they absorb price spikes rather than reformulate.Retail consumers are highly elastic. They showed measurable demand destruction during inflationary periods, including a 29.7% contraction in global desiccated coconut imports in 2022.5. Geographic Concentration and China as the Swing FactorDemand is highly concentrated. Asia-Pacific consumes 61% of output locally, while North America and Europe are almost entirely import-dependent and exposed to supply shocks. China is the swing factor, responsible for 88% of edible coconut imports, and shifts in its domestic economy can stabilise or destabilise global prices very quickly.6. Strategic ConclusionThe industry is moving toward an ingredient platform transformation, with value increasingly captured by processors who can deliver certified, ethical, and highly processed derivatives rather than raw commodities. For market participants, the priority is distinguishing between owned demand — durable consumer preference — and rented demand, the temporary spikes driven by regulation or stockpiling.

Transcribe →

Has China Been Trying to Damage US Grain Supplies?

Jun 900:16:12Tap to summarize

Agro-Espionage – China's Hidden War on America's HarvestOpening Segment: The Detroit Case – A New Front LineOn 3 June 2025, FBI agents in Michigan arrested Yunqing Jian, a Chinese national, for allegedly smuggling vials of Fusarium graminearum into the United States.Co-Conspirator: Her partner, Zunyong Liu, is accused of sneaking the fungus through Detroit Metro Airport. Liu is believed to be in China.Allegations: Both are reportedly tied to Chinese state funding, and Jian's personal electronics allegedly contained affirmations of loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).Significance: If the allegations are true, this marks the first known attempt to smuggle a biological agent into a U.S. lab with the potential to disrupt domestic agriculture. It would also be the first time a biological agent classified as an agroterrorism threat was smuggled into the U.S. by foreign nationals working in a university setting.The Pathogen: Fusarium graminearum causes Fusarium Head Blight (FHB) in wheat, maize, barley, and rice, leading to billions in crop losses globally. It also produces DON (vomitoxin), harmful to humans and animals. The fungus is already endemic in some U.S. areas but is considered a potential agroterrorism weapon.Motive: Prosecutors suggest the aim was to study, enhance, or manipulate the pathogen outside regulatory scrutiny, with the potential to cripple the U.S. grain belt.Segment Two: A Decades-Long Pattern of Economic EspionageShifting Focus: Chinese intelligence agencies began shifting their espionage focus from traditional military targets (fighter jets, submarine designs) to commercial, scientific, and increasingly, agricultural targets in the early 2000s.Early Examples:Titan Rain (2004): Carried out by China’s People’s Liberation Army Unit 61398, this operation siphoned terabytes of data from U.S. defence contractors. Buried within this was the theft of agritech models, seed genetics, and food logistics algorithms.Kexue Huang (2011): A Chinese-born scientist, Huang pleaded guilty to stealing proprietary data on organic pesticides from Dow AgroSciences and Cargill, costing Dow tens of millions.Cyber Warfare and Data Collection:OPM Breach (2014-2015): Exposed personal data of over 22 million federal employees, including detailed background checks, providing a trove of intelligence for potential blackmail or recruitment.Operation Aurora (2009): Chinese attackers breached firms like Google and Adobe to steal source code.Hafnium (2021): Exploited vulnerabilities in Microsoft Exchange servers, infiltrating schools, hospitals, and policy groups.Mobile Phone Data Campaign (2024): Harvested location, call, and contact information from over a million American smartphones, including military families and research institutions.Volt Typhoon / Salt Typhoon (2023-2024): Deep intrusion into U.S. telecom infrastructure, raising fears of data manipulation affecting food logistics or crop insurance platforms.Academic and Research Infiltration: Chinese entities have focused on academic networks and individuals in critical STEM fields, with allegations of CCP pressure on Chinese students/fellows to share intellectual property.Segment Three: The Broader Threat of Agro-EspionageFood Security as a Weapon: In a world facing climate shocks and supply chain disruptions, food security is both a weapon and a vulnerability. China's reliance on imported grain has heightened its awareness of supply chain fragility.Economic Impact: A deliberate Fusarium graminearum release could inflict an estimated $3–7 billion+ in damage under the right conditions. Even a 10% yield loss in the U.S. wheat market could result in a $1.08 billion loss.Past Biological Asset Targeting: This is not an isolated incident.Weiqiang Zhang (2017): Sent GM rice seeds to a Chinese university.Dr. Xiangguo Qiu (2019): Expelled from Canada’s BSL-4 lab after sending Ebola and Henipah samples to Wuhan.Historical examples include Soviet wheat rust stockpiles and Japan's use of rice blast in WWII.Strategic Intent: These actions are part of a coherent strategy to:1.Acquire foreign scientific knowledge without decades of investment.2.Understand and exploit economic pressure points.3.Build asymmetric capabilities to destabilise or deter rivals quietly.The Bottom Line: Economic sabotage via agriculture is presented as cheaper, harder to trace, and potentially more disruptive than traditional warfare.Segment Four: Implications and Future OutlookBiosecurity Changes: The Detroit case has already changed how American institutions approach biosecurity.Ongoing Review: The Department of Agriculture, DHS, and FBI are examining:Whether medium-risk pathogens should be regulated like high-risk ones. How universities monitor foreign researchers in sensitive areas.The need for a robust crop bio-surveillance network.Current Gaps: University lab security is inconsistent, borders can be bypassed, synthetic biology lowers modification barriers, and the Biological Weapons Convention lacks inspection mechanisms.New Front Lines: The story of Chinese espionage has evolved from military hardware to seeds, spores, and soil. It's now about supply chains, supermarket prices, and trust in the safety of the harvest, with the fields of Iowa and labs of Michigan becoming critical front lines.

Transcribe →

Sugar - Global Outlook 2025/2026

May 3000:19:29Tap to summarize

Global Sugar Market: 2025/26 Outlook and Historical ParallelsEpisode Overview: This episode provides an in-depth analysis of the projected global sugar market for the 2025/26 marketing year. We will discuss the anticipated record production and surplus, examine the principal factors driving this increase, and draw comparisons with past periods of market oversupply. The discussion will also cover the critical implications for pricing, international trade flows, and policy responses from key producing nations.Key Discussion PointsThe 2025/26 Global Sugar Outlook:Forecast for record global sugar production, reaching 189.32 million metric tons (MMT).Projection of a significant global surplus, estimated at 41 MMT.Anticipated downward pressure on international raw sugar prices.Drivers of Increased Production:India: Expectations for favorable monsoon conditions and expanded cultivated areas.Brazil: Forecast of record sugarcane tonnage from the center-south region.Strategic shifts in Brazilian sugarcane allocation towards sugar production, influenced by commodity price dynamics.Historical Context and Market Cycles:Comparative analysis with the 2017/18 marketing year, which recorded peak production of 194.26 MMT and led to a notable price decline.Review of the subsequent production contraction (2018/19 – 2019/20) and its causes, including adverse climatic conditions.Examination of the five-year plateau (2020/21 – 2024/25) that preceded the current projected surge.Discussion of the market's cyclical nature and its typical responses to supply imbalances.Implications for the Global Sugar Market:Price Dynamics: The substantial 41 MMT surplus is expected to sustain downward pressure on futures markets.Trade Realignment: Anticipated large exportable volumes from Brazil (35.8 MMT) and India (4.0 MMT) will influence global trade routes and pricing for importing regions.European Union's Role: The EU is projected to become a net importer (2.4 MMT) due to reduced domestic beet production, thus absorbing a portion of the global surplus.Policy Responses:Brazil: Likely to continue adjusting sugarcane diversion between sugar and ethanol.India: Expected to implement adjustments to export quotas and potentially expand its ethanol blending program.European Union: May consider safeguard measures to stabilize its domestic market in response to supply changes.

Transcribe →

US Ag Economy - Jobs Up. Costs Down. Corn Exports Up

May 2600:19:45Tap to summarize

This week on CropGPT, we dive into the data shaping the US ag economy and outlook for the 2025/26 season.Labour Market SnapshotFarm labour demand is rising: Hired workers by U.S. farm operators increased 3% in both January and April 2025 vs. the same weeks in 2024.Wage growth holds steady:All hired workers: $19.52/hr (+3% YoY)Field workers: $18.58/hr (+2%)Livestock workers: $18.15/hr (+4%)Average hours worked also ticked up to 40.8 hours/week in April.Inflation & Input Price WatchCPI (April 2025): +0.2% MoM; 2.3% YoY – lowest 12-month rise since Feb 2021Food-at-home prices: -0.4% MoMEnergy index: +0.7% MoMPPI (Producer Prices): -0.5% overall in AprilServices down 0.7%Goods unchangedNotably: Egg prices fell 39.4%Crop Outlook: 2025/26 ProjectionsWheat:U.S. production: 1.921B bushels (-3% YoY)Price: $5.30/bu (-$0.20 YoY)Global record output: 808.5M tonsCorn:U.S. crop: 15.8B bushels (+6%)Highest planted area in over a decade (95.3M acres)Price: $4.20/bu (-$0.15)Global output: 1.265B metric tonsRice:U.S. production down 1%, but imports at record 49.2M cwtPrice: $13.20/cwt (down from $15.20)Soybeans:Lower U.S. supplies and exports, but higher crushPrice: $10.25/bu (up from $9.95)Global oilseed production: +2%Livestock, Poultry & DairyBeef: Production down in 2026 due to tight cattle supply and Mexican import haltPork: Production up on stronger hog inventoryPoultry: Broiler and turkey output forecast higherEggs: Output rebounds, prices expected to dropDairy: Milk production to rise, prices to easeAll-milk price forecast: $21.15/cwtGlobal Trade PressureWTO forecasts -0.2% contraction in global goods trade for 2025U.S.-China tensions escalate: New tariffs on both sides impacting ag goodsEU on pause: 90-day suspension on retaliatory ag tariffs amid U.S. talksFarm groups warn: Rising tariffs = costlier inputs + weaker U.S. export positionWTO agriculture negotiations resume ahead of March 2026 ministerial

Transcribe →

Cyber Threats to UK Food Supply Chain

May 2000:23:27Tap to summarize

Cyber Threats Targeting the UK Food Supply ChainRecent cyber attacks on the UK food supply chain and logistics sector have underscored significant vulnerabilities in this critical infrastructure. A detailed review of incidents since early 2022, particularly a series of attacks between February and May 2025, highlights the evolving nature of these threats, the actors involved, and their substantial impact on businesses and consumers. The food sector has become an attractive target, with clear implications for national security.Notable Cyber Incidents in the UK Food & Logistics SectorThe period in Spring 2025 witnessed a series of disruptive attacks. In mid-April 2025, Marks & Spencer (M&S) suffered a severe ransomware/extortion attack that crippled systems, suspending online orders and click-and-collect for around three weeks and affecting contactless payments. To contain the breach, M&S took food supply systems offline, leading to temporary food shortages and empty shelves in some stores. Attackers also accessed significant customer data.Shortly after M&S, The Co-op Group detected a similar intrusion and preemptively shut down IT systems to prevent ransomware deployment. While this action, described by attackers as Co-op "yanking their own plug," prevented encryption, it still caused significant short-term disruption, including empty shelves and payment issues. Attackers stole personal data of up to 20 million customers while inside the network.In mid-May 2025, Peter Green Chilled, a crucial cold-chain distributor supplying major supermarkets, was hit by a ransomware attack. This attack halted warehouse management and ordering systems, resulting in a backlog of fresh goods and reports of thousands of packs of meat at risk of spoilage due to delivery delays.These incidents follow earlier attacks since 2022, including:•KP Snacks (Feb 2022): A Conti ransomware attack disrupted IT systems and threatened delays in deliveries of crisps and nuts.•Yodel (Jun 2022): Parcel delivery operations were disrupted for days by a suspected ransomware attack, impacting logistics including grocery deliveries.•Royal Mail (Jan 2023): A LockBit ransomware attack caused severe disruption to international mail exports, halting shipments for days and affecting critical logistics.Other incidents have affected food producers, wholesalers, and retailers, indicating that attackers have targeted various points from agricultural suppliers to grocery store networks. The increasing reliance on digitised systems means a breach can swiftly halt operations across the chain.Threat Actors and TacticsThe overwhelming majority of these attacks are attributed to financially motivated cybercriminal groups, primarily ransomware gangs. Groups implicated include Conti, LockBit, and Scattered Spider. Scattered Spider, identified in the M&S and Co-op attacks, is noted for its sophistication, particularly its use of clever social engineering tactics to impersonate company staff and bypass security measures like multifactor authentication. Once access is gained, these groups often escalate privileges and exfiltrate data before deploying ransomware, a tactic known as double extortion. Scattered Spider reportedly refers to their ransomware as "DragonForce".Many of these groups, such as Conti and LockBit, operate from or have strong ties to Russia and Eastern Europe. While their primary motivation is financial gain, their activities can align with hostile state interests by causing economic and social disruption in rival countries. Attackers often specifically target "time-sensitive" sectors like food distribution because the urgency driven by perishable goods and just-in-time delivery pressures increases the likelihood of a quick ransom payment.While other actors like hacktivists exist, predominantly conducting less disruptive DDoS attacks, criminal ransomware and extortion crews pose the most significant immediate cyber threat to food and logistics organisations.Potential Foreign State Actor InvolvementOfficially, UK authorities maintain that the food sector attacks appear to be the work of cybercriminals rather than direct nation-state cyber warfare. The Spring 2025 retail attacks have not been publicly attributed to any government. However, UK intelligence and cyber security leaders caution that the distinction between criminal and state-aligned activity can be ambiguous.Hostile states, including Russia, are increasingly using technology dependence against Western countries to cause disruption, specifically targeting critical national infrastructure (CNI), which includes food supply chains. The UK's security services view attacks on infrastructure as potentially part of a hybrid warfare strategy. While state-sponsored APT groups have primarily focused on Ukraine and military targets since the war began, officials have not ruled out them targeting food supply in Western countries as tensions persist. The NotPetya incident in 2017, perpetrated by Russian military hackers, demonstrated how a state attack could cascade into global logistics paralysis, serving as a stark warning. China is also mentioned as a state actor, although its primary interest in food/logistics might be focused on espionage and supply chain mapping rather than immediate disruption.In summary, while known attacks are attributed to criminal groups, the strategic backdrop of heightened international tensions and the potential for state tolerance or encouragement of criminal groups targeting CNI means the risk of a deliberate state-backed attack on UK food supply, or a state-inspired criminal act, cannot be entirely dismissed.Government and Expert CommentaryUK cyber and intelligence officials have been vocal about the severe threat to CNI, including the food sector. The NCSC describes the risk as "widely underestimated" and notes a "widening gap" between threats and defenses. The NCSC CEO labelled the recent retail attacks a "wake-up call to all organisations". Parliamentary committees, such as the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy, explicitly link the retail hacks to national security, highlighting that disruption leading to empty shelves and unfulfilled deliveries affects local communities and the economy. Former and current MI5 leaders recognise that "food is part of our national security" and advocate for greater resilience. The NCSC actively engages with the food industry and conducts exercises simulating supply chain attacks, underscoring the sector's importance.International ContextThe UK's experience is part of a global trend of cyber attacks on food and logistics sectors.•JBS Foods (Global, 2021): A ransomware attack on the world's largest meat processor forced plant shutdowns in multiple countries, threatening supply and increasing prices.•Kaseya/Coop Sweden (2021): A supply-chain attack via an IT provider crippled hundreds of Swedish Coop grocery stores, leaving shoppers facing closed stores.•Bakker Logistiek (Netherlands, 2021): A ransomware attack on a major food logistics company led to shortages of certain foods, such as cheese, in Dutch supermarkets.•Dole Food Company (Global, 2023): R...

Transcribe →

Ethanol - UK and US Trade Deal

May 9, 202500:09:08Tap to summarize

UK Bioethanol Market Shake-Up: What the US Trade Deal MeansToday we're talking about the significant impact of a recent UK-US trade arrangement, specifically focusing on how it affects the UK's bioethanol industry and its farmers.The big news is the UK government's decision to completely remove the 19% import tariff on US ethanol. This is a major shift, essentially fully liberalising the market.On the one hand, there are potential benefits. The aim is to bring cheaper, corn-based ethanol from large American distilleries into the UK. This could potentially lower fuel costs for drivers and help ensure the supply of E10 petrol, which contains 10% ethanol, aligning with decarbonisation goals. The US sees it boosting their ethanol exports significantly.However, this move is causing anxiety across British farms and factories. The concern is that this influx of cheaper US ethanol will undercut local UK producers.The UK does have its own bioethanol industry, with plants like Ensus, Vivergo, and British Sugar's facility. These plants have substantial capacity, capable of producing hundreds of millions of litres annually using British-grown wheat and sugar beet. They also support thousands of supply chain jobs and produce valuable by-products like animal feed and CO₂.But the reality is, the UK already relies heavily on imports for its bioethanol needs. Only about a quarter or less of the bioethanol used in UK transport currently comes from UK-grown crops. The US is already the dominant supplier, accounting for a large share of imports even before this tariff removal.With the 19% tariff gone, the price advantage for US ethanol is expected to increase, making it even more competitive. This could lead to lower wholesale ethanol prices in the UK market.The major worry is that UK producers, who often face higher production costs, may find it difficult to compete. This could force them to scale back production or even become marginal suppliers.The knock-on effect would hit arable farmers hardest. Feed wheat and sugar beet have relied on ethanol production as a consistent market. If production cuts happen, farmers face shrinking demand and potentially falling prices for their crops. The National Farmers' Union warns that agriculture is once again "shouldering the heavy burden" of trade liberalisation.In essence, while the deal aims for cheaper fuel, it risks draining investment, jobs, and crucial crop demand from the UK's domestic industry. The UK's trade balance in this sector is likely to worsen as more money goes towards imports.The coming years will be critical in determining if the UK's bioethanol industry and the farmers who supply it can survive and adapt in this new, highly competitive environment. It raises the question of whether Britain wants to be a producer or primarily just a buyer

Transcribe →

Beef - UK and US Trade

May 8, 202500:10:28Tap to summarize

Analysing the New UK-US Beef Trade DealWelcome to this episode where we discuss the recent UK–US trade agreement and its implications for the beef industry.Key points covered in this episode:Overview of the Deal: A new UK–US trade agreement has been signed, which for the first time opens the UK market to significant imports of U.S. beef. In return, British farmers gain improved access to the U.S. market. The deal establishes a reciprocal tariff-rate quota of 13,000 tonnes for hormone-free beef. This volume is equivalent to approximately 4% of total UK beef production and is a significant increase from the previous quota of around 1,000 tonnes under WTO rules. U.S. officials have expressed optimism, with the U.S. Agriculture Secretary stating the agreement will “exponentially increase our beef exports”. The UK government has hailed it as “unprecedented market access for British farmers with protections on food standards maintained”.Potential Impacts on the UK Beef Market:Import Volumes: While 13,000 tonnes is currently only about 4% of total UK beef imports, it is viewed as a starting point that could potentially grow over time, especially if quotas expand in the future. Forecasts suggest the UK will require 12% more imported beef in 2025 to meet demand, and U.S. beef could help fill this gap.Downward Price Pressure: An influx of U.S. beef is expected to intensify price competition in the UK market. As U.S. cattle can often be raised at lower cost, U.S. imports can be priced competitively, potentially driving UK farmgate prices down. Industry analysts foresee British cattle prices being capped by cheaper global supply over time, potentially aligning UK prices closer to world market levels.Market Segmentation: UK consumers may not see a direct substitution, as U.S. beef is largely grain-fed while UK beef is often grass-fed. This could lead to market segmentation, with U.S. beef potentially competing more in processed foods, mass catering, and lower-priced cuts (such as mince and burgers). British beef might retain a smaller, premium share, especially with grass-fed branding.Production and Self-Sufficiency: Increased import competition, if it erodes profitability, could lead some British farmers to scale back or exit beef production. The UK beef sector is expected to undergo significant change, with market share for UK beef expected to shrink and survival depending on cost-competitiveness or niche differentiation. Some projections indicate UK self-sufficiency in beef may drop below current levels (~75%) over the next decade as domestic output falls and imports rise.Structural Advantages of U.S. Beef Production: Several factors contribute to the lower cost structure of U.S. beef production compared to the UK: Economies of Scale: U.S. beef is often produced on an industrial scale, with vast feedlots and ranches allowing for more cattle per labour unit, which drives down per-unit costs.Lower Feed and Input Costs: The U.S. has abundant, low-cost feed grain supplies, and many cattle are grain-finished quickly. Year-round grazing in parts of the U.S. also reduces costs compared to UK farms which require winter housing.Regulatory/Standards Differences: While the deal requires hormone-free beef, historical use of growth hormones contributed to the U.S. industry's cost efficiency. Less stringent U.S. environmental and welfare regulations for feedlots compared to UK norms also contribute to lower costs.Labour and Land Productivity: U.S. farms often have lower labour costs per animal and cheaper, more abundant land.Stakeholder Perspectives:UK Farming Unions (e.g., NFU): Responded cautiously, warning of potential undercutting by cheaper U.S. imports and unfair competition. While welcoming the ban on hormone-treated beef, they expressed concern that UK farming has shouldered concessions in recent trade deals. They are lobbying for core standards to apply equally to imports and domestic produce and warn that without protections, domestic beef farming could shrink drastically.UK Government: Maintains the deal aligns with national interests, protects British farmers, and upholds high standards. They see it as an export opportunity for UK farmers to access the U.S. market, particularly for premium, traceable beef.AHDB & Trade Analysts: Note that increased imports will displace domestic supply as consumption is flat or falling. They project potential price volatility and a moderate long-term decline in real prices. However, they also highlight the opportunity for UK exporters to target high-value U.S. markets with grass-fed, sustainable beef, stressing the importance of the "British brand".Long-Term Outlook: The sector faces significant change. Imported beef may come to dominate processed and low-cost retail channels, while British beef occupies a smaller, premium share. Survival for UK producers will depend on either cost-competitiveness or effective niche differentiation. There are warnings of a potential structural shake-out, with higher-cost farms struggling, which could raise food security questions and threaten rural livelihoods.This agreement represents a shift in the UK beef market dynamics, introducing new competition while also creating potential export opportunities for UK producers willing to focus on quality and differentiation.

Transcribe →