2026年2月11日 星期三

Chicken Feet, Big Money: How One “Waste Product” Became a Global Trade Story

 


Chicken Feet, Big Money: How One “Waste Product” Became a Global Trade Story

Chicken feet tell a striking story about how the same product can create wildly different levels of value in different markets. In the United States, they are largely treated as low‑value by‑products; in China, they are a sought‑after delicacy that has reshaped poultry‑export economics for Brazil, Russia, and the U.S.


High demand in China, low value in the U.S.

In China, chicken feet—often called “phoenix talons” (鳳爪)—are a popular snack and dim‑sum ingredient, prized for their gelatinous texture and flavor when braised, steamed, or pickled.
In contrast, in the U.S., chicken feet are mostly sold only in niche ethnic or specialty markets and otherwise treated almost as waste, often sent to renderers for pennies per pound.

This mismatch creates a powerful arbitrage: a product that is cheap to dispose of in one country becomes a premium food item in another.


From by‑product to export engine

When the U.S. regained access to the Chinese poultry market in 2019, U.S. producers quickly realized that chicken feet were the real prize, not whole‑bird meat.
By 2024, chicken feet accounted for 73.8% of U.S. poultry exports to China by volume, turning what was once a disposal cost into a major revenue stream.

Exports are highly profitable because chicken feet fetch around $0.80–1.10 per pound in China, compared with roughly $0.05–0.10 per pound when sold to U.S. renderers.
In the first five months of 2021, the U.S. exported 105,000 metric tons of chicken feet worth $254 million, up from 31,000 metric tons worth $39 million in the same period of 2014—a more than sixfold jump in value.


Market leadership and shifting shares

By 2020, the U.S. had become the leading supplier of chicken feet to China, exporting over 201,000 metric tons and generating about $460 million in revenue, roughly 44.8% of the market.
However, by 2024, Brazil had overtaken the U.S. as China’s largest chicken‑feet supplier, capturing about 42% of China’s imports, while Russia rose to second place with 22% and the U.S. slipped to fourth with 10%.

Russia’s role has grown dramatically: its exports of chicken feet to China surged 377% between 2019 and 2024, reaching $311 million in value.
This reflects both China’s insatiable appetite for the product and the ability of other countries to step in when U.S. access is constrained by disease‑related bans or tariffs.


Why size and quality matter

Chinese buyers particularly favor larger chicken feet, which tend to come from the bigger, slower‑growing birds raised in the U.S. and some other export markets.
Industry sources note that international restaurants and processors prefer U.S. “jumbo” paws for their better mouthfeel and perceived quality, reinforcing the premium pricing.

At the same time, Brazil and Russia have expanded processing capacity and logistics to supply frozen paws, gaining share as China’s overall chicken‑feet imports rose toward $2.3 billion in 2023 and beyond.


A lesson in product‑value arbitrage

The chicken‑feet trade illustrates how a single product can occupy very different tiers of value across markets. In the U.S., it is a low‑value by‑product; in China, it is a higher‑value food item than regular chicken meat in many contexts.
For producers, this means that re‑positioning a “waste” product for the right market can turn marginal scraps into a core profit center.

As trade rules, tariffs, and disease‑related bans shift, the story of chicken feet will continue to show how geography, culture, and regulation can all reshape what a product is worth—and who ends up profiting most from it.



為何不應再依賴皇家郵政處理任何重要事務,以及為何應去掉「皇家」改名為「郵政」或「Mail」



為何不應再依賴皇家郵政處理任何重要事務,以及為何應去掉「皇家」改名為「郵政」或「Mail」

英國皇家郵政(Royal Mail)最近陷入嚴重混亂,尤其在西米德蘭茲(West Midlands)地區,大量信件積壓數週未派,分信中心被郵差形容為「大屠殺」現場,信件散落一地。這已不只是效率問題,而是系統性失靈,直接影響市民的生計與健康。

許多居民投訴,重要文件遲遲未到。有長者因未能及時收到糖尿病監測儀電池而無法監測血糖,險象環生;有癌症患者在聖誕節後只收到兩次郵件,其中竟包含手術與掃描通知,差點延誤治療;還有人因法院信件延誤兩週,幾乎錯過提交證據期限,面臨高達300英鎊的罰款,陷入極度焦慮與無助。

皇家郵政官方將延誤歸咎於員工病假、惡劣天氣及聖誕包裹積壓,並聲稱信件至少隔日派送一次。然而內部員工透露,管理層下令優先處理包裹而犧牲信件,甚至拒絕批准加班清理積壓。這意味著醫療通知、法院文件、政府信函等關鍵郵件,在實際操作中被降為次要任務。

當健康資訊、法律文件與政府通知都必須冒著延誤風險交給這樣一個系統時,「皇家郵政」這個名字已成諷刺。「皇家」二字暗示穩定、傳統與信譽,現實卻是服務不穩、投資不足、公眾信心盡失。如果它無法確保重要郵件的準時遞送,就不應再享有「皇家」這個帶有尊榮意味的頭銜。

一個簡單而具象徵意義的改革,是去掉「皇家」,改名為「郵政」或「Mail」。這不僅反映現實:它只是一個常有延誤、資源不足的普通郵遞服務,而非國寶級機構;更重要的是,它會迫使公司與公眾都重新看待它的角色——不是不可替代的國家支柱,而是一個需要被替代或補充的基礎服務。

市民、醫生、法院與政府部門不應再假設「一等郵件」等於「安全及時」。相反,應:

  • 用可追蹤的快遞服務寄送醫療與法律文件;

  • 透過加密電郵或官方線上平台處理政府通信;

  • 將皇家郵政的遞送視為「盡力而為」,而非保證。

在皇家郵政證明自己能穩定遞送重要信件之前,它不應再被託付任何影響健康、司法或生計的任務。而如果它無法配得上「皇家」之名,至少應誠實面對現實,去掉那個華麗字眼,改叫「郵政」或「Mail」,讓所有人都清楚:這只是一個普通、有時還很不可靠的郵件服務。

Why Royal Mail Should No Longer Be Trusted for Anything Important — and Why It Should Just Be Called “Mail”



Why Royal Mail Should No Longer Be Trusted for Anything Important — and Why It Should Just Be Called “Mail”

The recent chaos at Royal Mail has exposed a simple truth: the service can no longer be relied upon for anything that truly matters. In the West Midlands, particularly in areas like Kidderminster, letters have been piling up for weeks, with postal workers describing sorting offices as resembling a “slaughterhouse” of scattered mail. This is not a minor glitch; it is a systemic failure with real human consequences.

Residents report that vital documents have vanished into the backlog. One elderly person in Kidderminster nearly went without diabetes monitoring equipment because the batteries for their blood‑glucose meter never arrived on time. In Solihull, a family received only two deliveries after Christmas, one of which contained a husband’s cancer‑surgery and scan notifications. Had those letters been delayed even slightly, treatment could have been postponed. Another resident, working in online marketing, almost missed a court deadline because legal papers arrived two weeks late, putting her at risk of a £300 fine and deepening her anxiety.

Royal Mail publicly blames the delays on staff sickness, bad weather, and Christmas parcel overload. It insists that mail is still delivered at least once every other day. Yet postal workers say the opposite is happening: management has ordered them to prioritise parcels over letters, and has refused to approve overtime to clear the backlog. This internal logic—treating urgent correspondence as secondary to commercial parcels—turns the postal service into a profit‑driven logistics arm rather than a public utility.

When healthcare information, court notices, benefit letters, and tax documents are all at the mercy of a system that treats them as low priority, the name “Royal Mail” becomes an uncomfortable irony. The “Royal” prefix suggests stability, tradition, and trust. In practice, it now signals a brand that has failed to adapt, underinvested in infrastructure, and lost public confidence. If the service cannot guarantee timely delivery for life‑affecting items, it should not be allowed to keep a title that implies reliability and prestige.

A simple but symbolic reform would be to strip the name of “Royal” and rebrand it as “Mail” or “UK Mail.” This would reflect the reality: a basic, often unreliable carrier, not a crown‑endorsed institution. More importantly, it would force both the company and the public to treat it for what it is—a fragile, under‑resourced network that should never be the sole channel for critical communications.

Citizens, doctors, courts, and government agencies should stop assuming that “first‑class post” means “safe and timely.” Instead, they should:

  • Use tracked courier services for medical and legal documents.

  • Rely on secure email or verified portals for government correspondence.

  • Treat any Royal Mail delivery as a best‑effort service, not a guarantee.

Until Royal Mail proves it can consistently deliver what matters, it should not be entrusted with anything that affects health, justice, or livelihood. And if it cannot live up to the dignity of its name, it should at least drop the “Royal” and be honest about its true status: just another mail service, not a national institution.