What Select Harvests’ record 2026 crop tells us about Australian yield resilience and harvest timing
Select Harvests is guiding to an FY2026 crop of about 29,500 metric tonnes, up from 24,903 tonnes in FY2025. The bigger signal for buyers is the jump in external grower volumes to about 15,400 tonnes from 7,329 tonnes. That combination usually points to two things at once: solid orchard output and strong processor demand for third-party fruit when conditions get messy and growers want a reliable intake pathway.
Execution mattered as much as tonnage during the wet harvest. Heavy rain hit key growing areas during harvest windows, and Select Harvests responded by accelerating harvest activity and leaning on drying capacity at its Carina West site in Wemen, Victoria. For European buyers, this is the practical definition of “resilience”: the ability to keep receivals moving, protect quality, and avoid long queues that can turn a weather event into a quality event.
Harvest timing is the next piece procurement teams ask about. The Australian harvest is expected to be in full swing by mid-February, but 2026 saw major rain disruption in Sunraysia and the Murray Valley during the harvest period. That typically means later receivals, more re-drying, and a higher chance of downgrades versus a clean, dry harvest.
Moisture is the key QC datapoint that links weather to commercial outcomes. Huller and sheller intake typically needs kernel moisture below 6%. Rain pushes more lots into re-drying, adds cost, and increases the probability that some product cannot hold premium grade or preferred formats, especially in-shell.
A record crop therefore does not automatically translate into record exportable premium kernels. Wet-harvest years can shift the mix toward industrial kernels such as diced, meal, or paste inputs, while reducing the share of high-grade in-shell that meets appearance and condition specs. Contracting should reflect that reality, with volume commitments tied to grade definitions and downgrade pathways rather than headline crop size.
Global supply math for H2 2026: how much Australia can offset California and Mediterranean variability
Australia’s industry crop estimate for 2026 is about 166,892 tonnes. That makes Australia the most important swing origin for H2 2026 coverage, especially for buyers who can flex between standard kernels and industrial formats.
California remains the price and availability anchor. USDA/NASS forecasts the 2026 California almond crop at 2.70 billion pounds on a shelled basis, slightly down versus 2025. In practice, that means Australia’s upside is most useful for risk mitigation and portfolio balance, not for replacing the core US supply base that many European users rely on for consistent specs and year-round program execution.
The most useful “offset math” for a European buyer is simple and operational. Start with contracted US supply for H2. Then stress-test your Mediterranean assumption, because industry updates point to an uneven Spain outlook with regional disparities. Finally, layer in incremental Australian availability for the part of your demand that can accept origin and spec flexibility.
The second step is to separate what must be covered with Nonpareil-style kernels from what can be covered with substitutes. Bakery, confectionery, and ingredient users often have more room to switch origins and grades than retail snack programs, provided microbiological, sizing, and defect tolerances are managed tightly.
When objective yield data is limited, shipment and receipts signals become the leading indicators. Procurement teams watch crop-year position reporting and receipts trends to confirm whether supply is actually flowing through handlers into export channels. That matters in 2026 because wet harvest conditions can create a gap between “crop on trees” and “product shipped on time.”
Price implications: which almond grades and formats feel pressure first (kernel, in-shell, industrial)
Wet harvest conditions usually hit in-shell potential first. Shell staining, moisture issues, and limits on reconditioning can reduce the amount of in-shell that meets appearance specs, even when total kernel tonnage looks strong. The result can be counterintuitive: more volume available for industrial kernels, while in-shell premiums hold up because the qualifying pool is tighter.
A practical format ladder helps buyers predict where price pressure shows up first. Industrial kernels and processed formats like blanched, sliced, diced, meal, powder, and paste inputs tend to absorb volume first because they can tolerate more cosmetic defects. Standard kernels typically react next as the market works through the available sound kernel pool. In-shell and snack-grade often lag because defects are more visible and specs are less forgiving.
The procurement question behind most H2 conversations is direct: will a record Australian crop crush kernel pricing? The realistic answer is “not evenly.” Pressure is most likely where specs are substitutable and buyers can switch origins, especially for industrial and bakery applications. Premium lines can stay supported if wet-harvest downgrades reduce exportable high-grade availability, or if specific varieties, screen sizes, or appearance requirements tighten the usable supply.
California still sets the psychological benchmark. With the California forecast at about 2.70 billion pounds, trade expectations for kernel pricing often anchor to US supply and shipment pace. Australia mainly shifts negotiation leverage on H2 coverage and spot tenders for flexible specs, rather than rewriting the global price structure on its own.
Origin flexibility also depends on the end product and compliance constraints. Italian processors making almond flour or paste for bakery and gelato can often switch between origins if microbiological requirements, sizing, and aflatoxin controls are met. Retail snack and in-shell programs usually cannot switch as easily because appearance, uniformity, and consumer-facing defects drive rejection risk.
Freight, FX, and trade flows: why Europe may see different pricing than Asia despite the same crop news
Landed cost can move even when FOB prices look similar. European buyers price in EUR and compare offers across Australia, the US, and Spain, so AUD/USD and EUR/USD shifts can change the ranking of origins week to week. That is why two buyers can read the same crop headline and still see different best-buy outcomes.
Use a simple landed-cost template to keep decisions consistent across origins and Incoterms.
| Cost line | Value |
|---|---|
| FOB origin | |
| Ocean freight | |
| Insurance | |
| Port charges | |
| Duty | |
| Inland to plant | |
| Total landed (EUR/MT) |
Trade flows can also redirect availability away from Europe. Australia has been shipping strongly into Vietnam, China, Spain, and Türkiye. When demand centers and re-export hubs bid aggressively, volume can be pulled away from EU destinations, especially if they commit earlier, pay faster, or secure freight capacity sooner.
Contracting behavior differs by region, and that affects volatility. Asian buyers often book larger forward programs tied to snack and ingredient pipelines. European importers more often buy closer to need because of cash-flow and warehousing costs. That can amplify spot volatility in Europe if vessels slip or if origin-side processing schedules tighten.
Wet harvest disruption has a logistics knock-on effect. Rain pauses and re-drying needs can delay receivals, compress processing slots, and reduce container loading cadence. For H2 2026, the question is not only total volume, but shipment timing and rollover risk into later ETDs that miss Q3 and Q4 arrival plans.
The practical buyer question is whether to buy CFR Europe or FOB origin. CFR can reduce your exposure to freight execution and cut-off dates if the seller controls space reliably. FOB can make sense if you have stronger freight buying power, higher tolerance for demurrage and detention risk, and confidence that the supplier has priority at the sheller and packer to meet loading windows.
European and Italian importer playbook for H2 2026: contracting, origin diversification, and inventory triggers
Cover base demand with California kernels first, then use Australia as the second lane. California remains the core for consistent program specs and market liquidity. Australia is the diversification tool for origin risk and a potential value source for industrial formats if wet-harvest downgrades increase availability in those channels.
Structure contracts the way the market actually executes. Split coverage into a forward contract with defined shipment windows, then keep an optional top-up layer that you trigger based on market indicators. For many European users, that means locking a portion for Aug to Oct and Oct to Dec arrival needs, then reserving budget and credit for opportunistic coverage if supply flow or quality signals change.
Make inventory triggers explicit so the team can act fast. Add coverage if Australia reports widespread downgrades or tightening in-shell availability. Add coverage if California shipments accelerate versus receipts, which can signal tightening availability later in the crop year. Add coverage if vessel delays push lead times beyond production schedules for peak runs such as biscotti, panettone season planning, or gelato ingredient demand.
Italy-specific buying should start from end-use specs, not origin preferences. Pastry and confectionery users often need consistent kernel appearance, sizing, and color to avoid visible defects in finished goods. Industrial paste and flour buyers can accept a broader origin mix if they lock down microbiological requirements, aflatoxin compliance, and agreed color parameters that protect process yield and finished product consistency.
Build a compliance and QA checklist into every H2 buy. Require a COA and lot-level traceability. Specify moisture limits and defect thresholds including insect damage. Align aflatoxin testing and documentation to EU contaminant rules, and plan for hold-and-release timelines so you do not discover a border issue after production has already scheduled the raw material.
Risks that could still tighten the market: quality, moisture damage, aflatoxin controls, and shipment bottlenecks
Quality is the hidden tightener in wet harvest years. Rain can raise moisture, staining, and decay risk, and it increases sorting and drying costs. Even if headline crop size is large, the volume that qualifies for higher-paying specs can shrink, which tightens the part of the market that many European buyers actually need.
Ask suppliers about the operational constraint that drives timing. Hullers and shellers typically require kernel moisture below 6%. Anything higher means drying time, queues, and delayed processing slots. Procurement teams should ask directly about drying capacity and typical turnaround performance during peak receival periods, because that is what determines whether shipment windows are realistic.
Aflatoxin is also a commercial risk, not only a food safety topic. EU maximum levels are set under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006, and EU control frameworks can increase sampling and testing burden depending on origin and risk signals. That can extend lead times through pre-testing, documentation checks, and hold-and-release processes, which matters most when you are buying closer to need.
Logistics bottlenecks can appear even when product exists. If wet weather halts harvest and then activity resumes, processing and export can compress into a shorter window. That can create container loading surges, port congestion, and schedule unreliability, raising rollover risk into later ETDs and missed customer production windows.
Mitigation should be written into contracts and specs. Build downgrade pathways so product can move from kernel to industrial use where feasible. Use quality tolerance bands where your process can handle them. Negotiate substitution clauses for origin, variety, size, or format, and only apply late-shipment penalties where the supplier controls the critical path rather than where weather and port schedules dominate.