The problem isn’t China. The real issue is that we’ve built a system that actively discourages companies from producing feed additives here in the U.S. We’ve tied our own hands with excessive regulations, high production costs, and a permitting process that makes building new chemical plants nearly impossible. As a result, businesses have had no choice but to source from overseas, where production is easier, faster, and more cost-effective.
Agribusiness Consultant
The U.S. is one of the most developed countries in the world in terms of integration, scale and production quantity in the livestock and feed sector. Yet it is dependent on imports for some key feed additives, particularly from China. Trade tensions, geopolitical tensions, and supply problems that may arise due to pandemics cause this dependency to turn into a major concern.
We spoke with Andre Magrini, Agribusiness Consultant, about the growing concerns and recommendations of U.S. industry representatives. Reminding that the country is heavily dependent on China, particularly for amino acids and vitamins, Magrini said: “Without a steady supply of these additives, feed formulations would have to be adjusted, potentially impacting animal performance, feed efficiency, and costs for producers.”
For our readers, Magrini explained the U.S. livestock and feed market, its dependence on imports, the effects of the Securing American Agriculture Act and alternative solutions to import dependence.
Mr. Magrini, the U.S. is described as a mature and strong market for the livestock and feed production sector. First of all, could you explain to us why this is so? What are the characteristics that make the American feed and livestock sector strong?
Absolutely. The U.S. feed and livestock sector is one of the most advanced and efficient in the world, and that’s not by accident. It’s the result of decades of investment in technology, infrastructure, and strong industry leadership.
First, the scale of the industry is massive. We produce over 240 million metric tons of feed every year to support a livestock population that includes 90 million cattle, 75 million hogs, and over 9 billion chickens. The U.S. isn’t just feeding its own people—it’s a major exporter of meat, dairy, and eggs to the world. That kind of volume requires a highly efficient and well-coordinated supply chain.
What makes the U.S. unique is how integrated everything is. Our grain producers, feed mills, and livestock farmers work together seamlessly. The Midwest, for example, produces an abundance of corn and soybeans—the backbone of animal nutrition—which is processed and distributed across the country using a sophisticated logistics network of rail, trucks, and river barges. This keeps costs competitive and ensures a steady supply of high-quality feed.
Another key factor is regulation and safety. Unlike other markets where feed safety is still catching up, we have some of the strictest standards in the world. The FDA and USDA, along with industry groups, ensure that everything from ingredient sourcing to final feed formulations meets high safety and quality standards. This protects not just animal health but also the food supply for consumers.
Then there’s innovation. The U.S. has always been at the forefront of feed science, using data analytics, AI-driven feed formulation, probiotics, and alternative proteins to make livestock more efficient and sustainable. Precision nutrition and automation help optimize what animals eat, reducing waste and improving productivity.
But here’s the challenge: We’re still too dependent on imports for critical feed additives, especially from China. While we excel in producing bulk ingredients like corn and soybean meal, we rely on China for 70-90% of key vitamins and amino acids used in feed.
At the end of the day, the strength of the U.S. feed and livestock sector comes down to efficiency, innovation, and a strong regulatory foundation. But to maintain that position, we need to focus on securing our supply chain and reducing reliance on foreign inputs—something I believe will be a major focus in the coming years.
Could you give us some information about livestock and feed production in your country? What is the number of animals by species and the amount of industrial feed (compound feed) production on an annual or monthly basis?
Of course. The U.S. livestock and feed sector is one of the largest and most sophisticated in the world. We produce an enormous volume of compound feed—over 240 million metric tons annually—to support a livestock population that’s just as impressive.
Here’s a breakdown of the major livestock numbers: cattle (beef & dairy) is ~90 million head, hogs are ~75 million head, broiler chickens is ~9.2 billion birds per year, and layers (egg production) is ~325 million birds, with turkeys being ~220 million. Aquaculture & other species are a growing segment, with significant feed demand.
Now, if you look at where all that feed goes, it breaks down roughly like this: Cattle feed is ~65 million metric tons, swine feed is ~50 million metric tons, poultry feed (broilers & layers) is ~90 million metric tons, and pet food being ~10 million metric tons. The remainder is the other (aquaculture, specialty livestock, horses, etc.)
Most of this feed is formulated using corn and soybean meal, which are the backbone of American animal nutrition. The U.S. produces enough of these crops to support domestic demand and still export millions of tons. However, as I mentioned earlier, the additives that go into this feed—vitamins, amino acids, enzymes—are largely imported, with China being our dominant supplier.
One of the big advantages of the U.S. system is its efficiency and consistency. Feed mills are highly automated, using precision nutrition and advanced analytics to formulate diets that maximize growth rates, feed conversion ratios (FCR), and overall animal health. The industry is always optimizing—looking at alternative proteins, sustainable ingredients, and better feed efficiency strategies to reduce costs and environmental impact.
Overall, the U.S. feed and livestock sector is a global leader in volume, efficiency, and innovation, but it faces growing challenges in supply chain security and regulatory hurdles, especially in sourcing critical feed additives.
We see that such a strong and productive market is noticeably dependent on imports for some raw materials, especially feed additives and additive components. Can you tell us the reason for this, and specifically which raw materials require importation?
The strength of the U.S. feed and livestock industry is undeniable, but it does have a critical weak spot—its reliance on imports for essential feed additives. While the country produces an abundance of key feed ingredients like corn and soybean meal, it depends heavily on foreign suppliers, particularly China, for vitamins, amino acids, and other additives that optimize animal nutrition and performance.
The reason for this dependency is largely economic and regulatory. China has dominated the global market for amino acids and vitamins by offering lower production costs, thanks to government subsidies, large-scale manufacturing, and fewer regulatory constraints on chemical plants. Producing these additives domestically would require significant investment in infrastructure, but more importantly, it would involve navigating a complex web of environmental and regulatory restrictions that make building or expanding chemical plants in the U.S. incredibly difficult.
For amino acids like lysine, threonine, and valine, China supplies over 70% of what the U.S. feed industry uses. The same goes for vitamins—more than 90% of certain key vitamins such as Vitamin C and B12 come from Chinese manufacturers. The problem isn’t just about cost; it’s about capacity. The U.S. simply doesn’t have large-scale production of these critical ingredients, and setting up that infrastructure would take years.
This reliance on imports introduces a major vulnerability. Trade tensions, geopolitical instability, or supply chain disruptions—like those seen during the pandemic—can create significant risks for feed manufacturers and, by extension, the entire livestock sector. Without a steady supply of these additives, feed formulations would have to be adjusted, potentially impacting animal performance, feed efficiency, and costs for producers.
With the high dependence on Chinese imports, we have seen the prices of certain essential additives skyrocket by up to 40% over the past five years. This cost is passed on to producers and, ultimately, to the end consumer. Without a clear mitigation strategy, we could face even greater challenges.
That’s why industry leaders, are advocating for policies that encourage domestic production and supply chain diversification. If the U.S. wants to maintain its leadership in livestock and feed production, it needs to address this dependency, either by incentivizing local manufacturing or forming stronger trade partnerships beyond China. Otherwise, this Achilles’ heel could become a major industry-wide challenge in the years ahead.
Your biggest supplier in the feed additives group is China. What is the size and content of your dependence on China for the feed additives group? For which feed additives or raw materials in particular, and to what extent are you dependent on China?
Our dependence on China for feed additives is a structural weakness in the U.S. supply chain, and the numbers make that very clear. Nearly 78% of vitamin imports come directly from China, with some—like vitamins B1, B3, B7, B12, D3, and K—almost exclusively produced there. The amino acid situation is just as concerning, with China controlling 77% of the lysine supply, 91% of threonine, 84% of valine, and 27% of methionine.
This isn’t just about economics—it’s about food security and stability. When one country dominates a critical supply, it introduces risk at every level. If China decides to limit exports, impose quotas, or if trade tensions escalate, the entire U.S. livestock industry would be forced into emergency ration adjustments, disrupting productivity and increasing costs. This has already been seen in the past with supply chain disruptions driving up feed costs and making certain vitamins nearly unavailable for months.
The bigger problem is that there’s no quick fix. Domestic production of these ingredients is limited due to high regulatory and environmental restrictions that make it nearly impossible to build large-scale chemical plants in the U.S. Meanwhile, diversification efforts—sourcing from other countries—are still in early stages and will take years to develop.
Bottom line: Our reliance on China for feed additives is a major risk. If we don’t take meaningful action now—through policy changes, investment incentives, and international cooperation—we’re putting the entire U.S. livestock and feed industry at risk of future disruptions.
In Q3 2024, the U.S. officially passed the Securing American Agriculture Act, which aims to regulate the country’s dependence on Chinese agricultural products or inputs. How has this bill affected feed and feed additive producers?
The Securing American Agriculture Act has sent shockwaves through the industry. On paper, the goal is clear—reduce U.S. dependence on China for critical agricultural inputs. But in practice, the bill has created short-term disruptions while raising long-term questions about supply chain resilience, cost, and feasibility.
For feed and feed additive producers, the biggest immediate impact has been uncertainty. China supplies nearly 78% of U.S. vitamin imports and dominates the amino acid market, controlling 77% of lysine, 91% of threonine, and 84% of valine. With the new restrictions in place, companies that rely on these imports have been forced to scramble for alternatives—but those alternatives simply don’t exist at scale yet.
Prices have already started rising. Whenever supply chains get disrupted, costs go up, and that’s exactly what’s happening with feed additives. While the bill encourages domestic production, building new facilities in the U.S. isn’t something that happens overnight. Regulatory hurdles, environmental restrictions, and high capital investment requirements make domestic production a long-term goal rather than an immediate solution. In the meantime, feed mills are facing tighter margins and more expensive imports as they work through compliance with the new trade policies.
Another challenge is that the bill doesn’t provide a clear transition plan. While it restricts imports from China, it doesn’t solve the fundamental issue: where do we get these critical ingredients in the meantime? Companies are now being pushed to find alternative suppliers in India, Brazil, and the EU, but these regions don’t yet have the same capacity to meet U.S. demand. That means we could see shortages of certain vitamins and amino acids, which would directly impact livestock productivity.
At the end of the day, the bill is a wake-up call. The industry has known for years that relying so heavily on a single foreign supplier—especially one as politically complex as China—was a risk. Now, with the government taking a harder stance, feed and feed additive producers are being forced to adapt quickly. The challenge will be navigating this transition without causing widespread disruptions in feed availability and livestock production.
Do you think tariff barriers or new legal regulations are enough to mitigate this dependence? As you know, the recent pandemic and some geopolitical tensions have caused serious disruptions in supply chains. Accordingly, input and end product prices increased and production was disrupted. What do you think should be the right approach and way to avoid similar supply problems and their consequences?
The problem isn’t China. The real issue is that we’ve built a system that actively discourages companies from producing feed additives here in the U.S. We’ve tied our own hands with excessive regulations, high production costs, and a permitting process that makes building new chemical plants nearly impossible. As a result, businesses have had no choice but to source from overseas, where production is easier, faster, and more cost-effective.
If we’re serious about securing our food production, we have to stop treating this as a China problem and start fixing what’s broken within our own system. We need to bring in best practices from overseas—countries that have successfully developed their own feed additive industries—and apply those lessons here. Nations like Brazil and parts of Europe have found ways to balance regulation with industrial growth. They have more flexible permitting processes, government-backed incentives, and public-private partnerships that encourage businesses to invest in local production. If they can do it, why can’t we?
The right approach starts with incentivizing domestic manufacturing. Instead of just imposing tariffs on Chinese imports, we should be offering tax credits, grants, and low-interest loans to companies willing to build vitamin and amino acid production facilities in the U.S. We should also be streamlining EPA and other regulatory processes to make it easier for these plants to get off the ground. Right now, it takes years to get approvals for a new chemical facility—by the time a company clears the red tape, it’s often more economical to just import from China. That has to change.
Beyond that, we should be investing in alternative supply chains and next-generation feed technologies. The world is moving toward fermentation-based amino acids, synthetic vitamins, and alternative proteins—the U.S. should be leading that innovation, not just buying it from others. If we commit to developing these solutions domestically, we won’t just reduce reliance on China—we’ll become a global leader in feed technology.
And let’s be clear: Food security is national security. If we can’t control the production of essential feed ingredients, we put our entire livestock sector—and by extension, our food system—at risk. Relying on other countries for something as fundamental as animal nutrition is a dangerous position to be in.
So no, tariffs and regulations alone won’t fix this. What we need is a complete overhaul of how we support domestic production, bringing in the best global practices, eliminating roadblocks for manufacturers, and making food security a national priority. If we get this right, we won’t have to depend on anyone else—we’ll be able to produce everything we need, right here at home.
Is there anything else you would like to add?
Absolutely. This isn’t just an abstract policy debate for me—it’s something I’ve been directly involved in, sitting down with lawmakers on Capitol Hill, discussing these very challenges face-to-face. The conversations weren’t about politics, they were about real-world consequences—what happens when supply chains break down, when producers can’t get the additives they need, when costs spiral and the entire industry is left scrambling for solutions.
The U.S. animal nutrition industry has everything it takes to remain a global leader, but we must act now. We need the government to facilitate investments in domestic production, the industry to adopt new technologies that replace imported additives, and sector associations to mobilize in ensuring a sustainable and secure future for American animal production.
One thing is clear: we can’t afford to wait. The U.S. has the talent, the resources, and the innovation to take control of its own agricultural supply chain. What we need now is the right leadership, the right policies, and the right mindset to turn that potential into reality. That’s why I’m in these discussions—not just to talk, but to push for solutions that make a real impact.
