For years, Spain has been one of the EU’s largest buyers of Ukrainian grains and sunflower oil. That is why, for Ukraine’s agricultural community, it is crucial to follow the trends shaping Spain’s feed industry — especially now, as the landscape shifts: Argentina is testing competitiveness with its temporary tax suspension, the U.S. and Brazil are expanding output, and the EU has once again postponed its deforestation regulation.

To explore what all this means for Spain, and how Ukraine fits into the bigger picture, Victoria Blazhko, Head of Editorial, Content and Analytics at ASAP Agri spoke with Jorge de Saja, General Director of the Spanish Feed Industry Federation (CESFAC). In this candid conversation, he explains why Argentina’s temporary tax suspension may not dramatically change Spanish purchases, why U.S. corn remains Ukraine’s toughest rival, and why Spanish mills were unprepared for EUDR.

Editorial note: This interview was recorded before Argentina reintroduced the export taxes on grains and their by-products on 25 September. The taxes had previously been suspended on 22 September, but were reinstated after the country reached a sales cap of 7 BLN USD.

Victoria Blazhko: Jorge, thank you very much for taking the time to speak with me today. Let me start with Argentina’s recent decision to temporarily scrap export taxes on grains and oilseeds, which boosts its price competitiveness on the global market, especially in soybeans. Do you expect this move to have a significant impact on Spanish demand in the short term?

Jorge de Saja: Yes and no. Argentina exports a lot, but it’s not our main supplier — and especially not at the time of year when we are receiving South American soybeans.

So, if this change had been about the U.S. versus Argentina, it could have been more significant. But the fact is that Argentina comes to the market at the same time as Brazil, and Brazil is already our number one supplier. That’s why it’s uncertain whether the effect will be significant at all.

The picture also changed after the European Commission’s announcement this week [23 September] to delay the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) until the end of 2026. Of course, we had been hearing for some time from Brussels and other sources that a solution was coming — most likely a postponement. But until it was official, no one could be 100% sure.

So, if Argentina’s measure had come a few weeks earlier, I’m sure Spanish buyers would have shown more interest in Argentinian supply, as Argentina is one of the few countries that has actually worked to find some way of complying with the EUDR regulation.

Right now, though, EUDR is not an issue in the short term. It’s not something that is really affecting buying decisions today. So, we don’t yet know if Argentina’s announcement will have any real relevance in practice in the immediate term.

Then, please also keep in mind another factor: there is very good availability of protein sources right now, both at the national and international level. Of course, soybeans is a very special ingredient — it cannot be fully replaced by other proteins for many reasons. So yes, we will keep buying soybeans, but the need is not as pressing as in previous years.

What really matters is that, because of the earlier uncertainty around EUDR, the Spanish crushing industry had stayed relatively under-covered on soybeans for early 2026. Normally by now, we would have 15–20% of first-quarter needs booked. This year, coverage was still very limited.

As a result, starting this week [after the EUDR postponement was confirmed], the Spanish industry has gone back to the market. They are now rushing to secure programs for the first quarter of next year — something they hadn’t done earlier. That is a substantial shift — but not because of Argentina’s decision. It’s because the European crushing industry is now in buying mode for soybeans in a way it wasn’t before. And that’s the real difference.

Victoria Blazhko: Since you’ve already touched on the EUDR and the postponement, let me follow up. Do Spanish feed mills share the wider European concern that compliance with EUDR would have been nearly impossible under the original timeline? And after this second postponement, how much better prepared is the Spanish sector to handle traceability and due diligence requirements?

Jorge de Saja: In this respect, the Spanish feed industry was not in a different situation from the rest of Europe. Everyone was unprepared — really unprepared [for the EUDR to come into force on 31 December 2025]. We had estimated how much soybean meal could realistically be considered deforestation-free, or easily certified as such, and our calculations showed it would cover at best 30% of current needs.

So yes, both the Spanish and the wider European feed industries were extremely concerned. If the regulation had been enforced as early as 31 December [2025], there simply wouldn’t have been enough deforestation-free soybean available in the market. On top of that, there were still many unresolved legal, practical, and logistical issues. Even if we had wanted to comply, it would have been impossible — or only possible for a very small share of supply.

In that sense, the postponement — which was more or less expected, though never certain — has been a relief. As I mentioned before, the uncertainty had already slowed soybean offers and demand at the international level.

At the same time, I want to stress that the Spanish feed industry has had, for many years, its own sustainability strategy — our 2030 Sustainability Agenda. Among other goals, it commits us to reducing and eventually eliminating non-deforestation-free soybeans from our formulations by 2030. So, we were already moving in that direction, well before EUDR.

We fully support the principle of the EUDR. But the truth is, the legislation was very poorly designed. Not enough effort was made, particularly by the European Commission, to make it something workable. The postponement is therefore not only a relief, but also a chance to modify, improve, and reduce the bureaucratic burden of the regulation.

I believe we now have the opportunity to design a piece of legislation that achieves the goals we all share. We all want to be supplied with deforestation-free soybean. In fact, most of our soybeans already comes from such origins. But it needs to be certified in a way that is realistic, workable in practice, and does not add unnecessary red tape or costs for Spanish and European industry and livestock production.

That was missing from the EUDR as it stood. It was not a good piece of legislation. Now the focus should be on using this extra time to make it a better one.

Victoria Blazhko: Let’s return to Argentina. In the near future, do you see it becoming a real competitor to Ukrainian corn in supplying Spain? And what about the U.S.? Do you expect American corn to continue arriving in large volumes, further reducing Ukraine’s share of the market?

Jorge de Saja: For corn, Argentina is, for the time being, just not possible in the Spanish market because of the presence of certain pesticides that are no longer authorized in the European Union. It may well happen that Argentinian corn returns to the European market in the short term, but not this season. At the moment, we are not 100% confident that we can import and use it without regulatory complications.

That said, the tax suspension did indeed have an impact on prices — meaning it did help to reduce Argentinian corn values. Still, the real competition for Ukrainian corn does not come from Argentina. Even with the modification of market access, the competition comes from the U.S., which over the last three campaigns has managed to establish itself very well in the Spanish market — both in terms of price and quality.

So, Ukraine doesn’t have to worry about Argentina, but it does have to be concerned about the continued strong presence of American corn. At one point we honestly thought we might lose the U.S. as a supplier because of the tariff discussions. We assumed we would end up importing less corn or importing it at a higher cost — which would have amounted to the same thing. That’s why we began looking again at Ukraine as a source.

You may know that in the recent past we encountered some quality issues with Ukrainian corn. Nothing dramatic, nothing that created major problems, but still a fact. So, I don’t see greater appetite for Ukrainian corn in the Spanish market unless there are clear price advantages compared with international competitors.

Now, with the tariff negotiations resolved — and resolved in fact at a very good point for the U.S. — I don’t think there is going to be much substitution. Also, keep in mind that the Spanish corn crop this year will be larger, so our domestic needs will naturally be somewhat reduced.

Victoria Blazhko: You talked about competition for Ukrainian corn from U.S. origin. But what about Brazil, which has aggressively increased its corn production this year? What is its place in the Spanish market?

Jorge de Saja: It used to be bigger than it is now, but Brazilian corn is increasingly oriented toward China and Asia. That makes sense, since U.S. corn is not welcome in China, and logistically it makes sense. So yes, we still look at Brazil, but it’s not as important for us now as it was in the past.

This is not something new for this year. For the last two or three years we’ve been importing less and less from Brazil because of the greater availability of U.S. corn. And that is not going to change — not because of Brazil, but because of the U.S.

The U.S. has higher costs to put maize into Asia, and at the same time it has to keep a solid production of corn because of the needs of the ethanol industry. Now that there is no threat of extra tariffs from Europe, the U.S. has to sell that corn somewhere, and Europe is the logical outlet. Naturally, this comes at the expense of other suppliers such as Brazil. But in any case, Brazil itself no longer wants to be as dependent on the European market as it once was.

Victoria Blazhko: So, we’ve talked a lot about short-term shifts and specific crops. But looking a bit further ahead — between the war risks in Ukraine, the massive grain and oilseed output from the U.S. and Brazil, Argentina’s often volatile policies, and the upcoming EU regulations — how is Spain’s feed industry thinking about long-term supply security and diversification? And in your view, which origins are likely to remain the key suppliers of feed grains and proteins for Spain in the years to come?

Jorge de Saja: The Spanish feed industry has proven its ability to maintain a solid level of production. We no longer see the big increases of 15–20 years ago, but output remains stable and sometimes grows slightly every two or three years. Unless there is a major animal health crisis — for example, avian flu or African swine fever — we believe Spanish feed production will stay stable, or even rise a little, in the coming years.

This means that we will structurally keep on being net importers of grains and oilseeds. Nothing changes, and nothing apart from what I said before makes us believe it will change. Because the Spanish feed industry and livestock production remain very competitive, and more and more diversified in export markets. We are progressively exporting more and more meat to Asian destinations, beyond China — although China is still our number one client there.

So, we believe we are going to be that stable supply. Definitely, all our international partners will be needed. It may change from year to year depending on availability, but we are perfectly aware this is a very volatile market and that costs change from one year to the other. That’s why we always must keep open our traditional markets, such as Ukraine, which is a strategic provider for us.

The only change I foresee in the short term is whether Argentina returns as a supplier of corn for Spain and Western Europe in general. That could be the only significant change in the next two or three years. Otherwise, the fundamentals remain the same: Spain will always rely on all the major global suppliers — Ukraine, Brazil, the U.S., and Argentina — each of them essential to keeping our feed industry competitive and resilient.