A) Country-wise
The selected articles exposed C19’s impact on dairy industries in 21 countries (across 4 continents). The countries include; Armenia, Bangladesh, Burkino Faso, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Kosovo, Madagascar, Poland, Romania, Senegal, Slovenia, South Africa and USA.
In Armenia, no considerable change in milk production and in its price was witnessed. However, a significant change in consumer behavior was noted, especially in initial month of emergency declaration, and it includes; a drop in frequency of visiting stores & supermarkets and a hike in one-time purchase of dairy products (Hambardzumyan & Gevorgyan, 2022).
In Czech Republic, raw milk production, breeding, identification, performance recording, genetic evaluation and slaughter were unaffected. Nevertheless, due to difficulty in obtaining components for laboratories, DNA analysis were badly affected (Brzáková, Boskova, Vostry, Rychtarova, & Bucek, 2021).
In France, C19 had zero to reasonable impact on most farms. As farms runs by family members, shortage of workers was also not critically affected. Most of the farms were self-sufficient for livestock feeding and hence, no shortage of feed/fodder supply was reported. By reducing product mix into basic and hiring retired drivers, farms sustained operations and supply chains. In short, agro-ecological model of operations was key to resilience (Perrin & Martin, 2021).
In Kosovo, no unfavorable impact was reported on milk yield, its sales, farm expenses and revenue. However, 8% of farmers witnessed drop in milk yield (Zeqir, Zejnullahi, Mestani, & Biçoku, 2020).
In Romania, a shift in consumer preferences were reported. To be specific, due to proximity, specialty stores were preferred for purchase of dairy, meat and bakery products. Also, direct purchase from producer, for fresh & healthy food, became popular. However, a small percent depended, for food products, on online platforms (Dumitras, et al., 2021).
In Poland, wholesale price of milk & dairy products dropped intensely. However, the price of milk & curd also varied by location; while very modest in central region, relatively substantial in Northern region. Equally, sale of raw milk was struggled and exports were suffered (Klepacka, Florkowski, & Revoredo-Giha, 2021).
In Denmark, Slovenia and Germany, consumption pattern of dairy products experienced low level changes. General shopping incidence was less in all the three countries whereas, consumption of foods, with lengthier shelf life, increased only in Denmark and Germany (Janssen, et al., 2021).
In India, demand and price of dairy products were dropped (Garg & Kumar, 2021). To be specific, demand for ice cream and milk-based drinks were decreased (Bhandari, et al., 2021). The purchasing power were also plunged (Garg & Kumar, 2021). The dairy producers were unable to change supply entirely in response to demand (Bhandari & K.M., 2020). The shortage of milk packets (Thulasiraman, Nandagopal, & Kothakota, 2021) and sale of nursing cows (Alam, Schlecht, & Reichenbach, 2022) resulted dip in milk production. The net return per litre of milk varied from location to location within same state. For instance, in Bengaluru rural, during & post-lockdown, net return/litre of milk was decreased by about 33% and 48% respectively whereas, in Chikkaballapura, it was around 21 % and 23 % respectively (Thejesh, Das, Guraraj, S, & Subash, 2022). The availability of fodder were also limited (Garg & Kumar, 2021). The dip in milk price & limited availability fodder, in early months of lockdown, resuled in doble loss for dairy producers (Bhandari, et al., 2021). The markets were closed and due to conveyance constraints, exports were declined (Garg & Kumar, 2021) and in several states, milk was dumped (Sinha & Sharma, 2020) (Pavase, Memon, Pawase, & Soomro, 2021). Also, farms were struggled to manage workforce and health & safety of livestock (Garg & Kumar, 2021).
In Indonesia, supply chain for breeds, feed, fodder and medicines were interrupted. However, the average milk yield, milk’s selling price and total fodder (monthly) cost were remained constant (B Setyawan, Widianingrum, Yulianto, & Khasanah, 2021).
In China, a significant drop in holiday dairy product sales were reported (Qingbin, Chang-quan, Yuan-feng, & KITSOS, 2020). Also, road closure resulted in transportation issues (Qingbin, Chang-quan, Yuan-feng, & KITSOS, 2020) and domestic supply chains were disrupted. Heavy wastage of food items were also reported (Pavase, Memon, Pawase, & Soomro, 2021).
In Bangladesh, (Nur-E-Alam, Hoque, Ahmed, Basher, & Das, 2020) suggested use of off-grid hybrid system, as a more realistic and sustainable solution, for small & medium cow farms to meet energy demand.
In South Africa, (Munien & Telukdarie, 2021) identified confounding effects of factors (localization & digitalization) resilience and efficiency of dairy sector. While, localization increases costs, digitalization works opposite. However, across system, overall mean cost decreased. Across sub-sector, employment and inventory levels were increased. The digitalization is key to achieve resilience in dairy sector.
In Ethiopia, milk production per home, milk’s selling price, demand from direct consumers/cooperatives/processors (Meseret, Tera, Jufar, Gebreyohannes, & Mrode, 2021) and consumption of dairy products (Swinnen & McDermott, 2021) were dropped. Also, supply of feed, daily hired labor and veterinary services (including immunizations, artificial insemination, etc.) were disrupted (Meseret, Tera, Jufar, Gebreyohannes, & Mrode, 2021).
In Kenya, Senegal, Madagascar and Burkino Faso, reduction of consumer’s buying capacity resulted in drop of dairy product use. However, consumption of long-shelf life dairy products increased and thus, import of milk powder was unaffected (Vall, et al., 2021).
In United States of America, a shift in demand for dairy products was witnessed (Gao & Stewart, 2021). Despite schools, restaurants and hotels were closed (Qingbin, Chang-quan, Yuan-feng, & KITSOS, 2020), instead of decreasing, demand swung in both directions. For instance, retail purchase of fresh milk, butter, cheese (Sinha & Sharma, 2020), government purchase of dairy products (Hahn, 2020) and exports (Hahn, 2020) were increased, whereas processor’s demand for milk decreased and resulted in milk dumping (Sinha & Sharma, 2020). Milk was also dumped to cut energy consumption (cooling, refrigeration, freezing etc.) expenses (Gao & Stewart, 2021). The demand varied price of dairy products substantially (Valldecabres, Wenz, Chahine, & Dalton, 2021). While, milk prices were declined (Mulvey, Peters, & Rutkowski, 2020), wholesale cost of Cheddar cheese, non-fat dry milk and butter were increased intensely (Hahn, 2020). The shift in product mix and packaging requirement was observed (Gao & Stewart, 2021). Manufacturing lines were inflexible to bring timely changes to production mix (Gao & Stewart, 2021). The supply chains were disrupted (Mulvey, Peters, & Rutkowski, 2020) and availability of commodities were inadequate (Valldecabres, Wenz, Chahine, & Dalton, 2021). Though, a few farms generated comparatively good disposable revenue due to immense government disbursements (Sumner, Hanon, & Somerville, 2021), more than half of the firms faced decrease in profit margin (Gao & Stewart, 2021). The cases of dairy industries which left without government backing were also reported (Mulvey, Peters, & Rutkowski, 2020). Many dairy processors were closed (Qingbin, Chang-quan, Yuan-feng, & KITSOS, 2020) and many planned for company acquisitions (Gao & Stewart, 2021). Apart from commercial concerns, dairy farmers were also concerned about health of family members, employees and families of employees (Valldecabres, Wenz, Chahine, & Dalton, 2021).
In Canada, response of dairy industries, to initial shift in food’s nature and quantity, was quick (Weersink, Massow, McDougall, & Bannon, 2021). To overcome milk shortage and to give incentives, in some regions, excess milk were permitted (through "Quota Free Days") to transport penalty free (Sinha & Sharma, 2020). However, closure of processing facilities and cases of milk dumping were reported (Weersink, Von Massow, & McDougall, 2020). Somehow, (due to financial security of producers, pooled losses & coordinated marketing activities) supply management industries were robust to the impacts (Weersink, Von Massow, & McDougall, 2020).
Alike, many other studies, at global level, were conducted and unsurprisingly, findings were not much different. For instance, C19’s impact resulted in; accelerated structural change in the sector (Acosta, et al., 2021), decline in demand for milk, staff absenteeism, change in method of milk trade, disruption in supply chain and import-export route (Chimde, 2020), increased farm expenses (Duan, Lai, Li, Liu, & Yang, 2022), labelling livestock as virus careers and finally, adverse socio-economic situation of dairy farmers (Khan, Fahad, Naushad, & Faisal, 2020).
On the other side, studies that are indirectly related to C19’s impact on dairy sector were also conducted. To be specific, (Pandhi & Gupta, 2021) discussed potentials of dairy products, by addition of herbs, in fighting C19. The article also discussed its market opportunities along with its probable health repercussions.
The impact of pandemic (COVID-19) on dairy industries (in Armenia, Bangladesh, Burkino Faso, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Kosovo, Madagascar, Poland, Romania, Senegal, Slovenia, South Africa and USA) were studied and analyzed in two folds; country-wise & impact-wise. The adverse impacts are classified under 11 categories namely; availability, consumer behavior, demand, health & safety, price, production facility, production, profit/revenue, trade/supply chain, wastage and workforce.