Fertilizer

Trump Admin to Roll Out Major Fertilizer Plan This Week, Accelerate U.S. Production Push

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 16:36:30 GMT

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins says the Trump administration will unveil a sweeping set of fertilizer initiatives this week, warning that surging input costs are putting intense pressure on American farmers. Speaking at a Missouri farm on Friday, Rollins told those in attendance that fertilizer has become an issue of national security, which is why she says this week’s announcement will be broader than just USDA, also including EPA, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce and Department of the Interior.

While at GR Farms in Higginsville, Mo., on Friday to roll out an announcement on the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP) top-up payments, Rollins described the Trump administration’s upcoming announcement on fertilizer as a large-scale investment initiative. She says while she hoped to roll out the plan while in Missouri, the administration is still finalizing the size of the funding package.

Rollins says the plan will address both immediate actions to stabilize fertilizer prices and a longer-term roadmap aimed at ensuring affordable, domestically produced supply for U.S. farmers.

Washington analyst Jim Wiesemeyer says the plan will likely need to include a mix of financial and policy tools, such as grants, tax incentives, loan guarantees outside of existing USDA programs and greater consistency in U.S. trade policy, while noting imports will still play a role, particularly for key nutrients like potash sourced from Canada.

Short-Term Fertilizer Price Pain

During her comments Friday, Rollins highlighted how quickly fertilizer prices have increased since the conflict started in Iran, outlining the additional strain it is placing on producers.

“We know that urea prices have gone up 50% over the last month. Ammonia is up 30% or more,” she said, adding that “our farmers are feeling that pinch.”

Rollins also told the crowd fertilizer has been a longer-term challenge, even before the situation in Iran caused the latest price spike.

“To be clear, this has been a problem for years. The actual numbers are lower, believe it or not, than they were even in 2022,” she says. “But nevertheless, that jump in prices overnight, we have to address.”

Framing the issue as more than just an economic challenge and one that is a matter of national security after decades of offshoring fertilizer production, Rollins says the administration views the issue as part of a broader structural problem within the fertilizer industry.

“The loss of competition in the fertilizer industry has obviously led to higher fertilizer costs over time,” she says. “When combined with what’s happening overseas with the current geopolitical issues facing our world, certainly we have come to a crossroads that requires immediate action. This is indeed a matter of national security, and we are working to tackle it head on.”

Focus on Domestic Fertilizer Production

While Rollins didn’t give details, she hinted the centerpiece of this week’s announcement will be a major push to reshore fertilizer production, backed by federal investment to accomplish that. Working with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, she says the administration is preparing to direct significant funding toward building new fertilizer plants across the country, while also supporting existing projects.

“I have asked Howard to do, and his team to do, and what we’re doing in partnership is to identify a significant number ... that we can deploy into building out fertilizer plants in America,” she says.

Rollins emphasizes cutting regulatory delays will be critical to making that plan work. She says projects are already being identified nationwide, but permitting delays remain a major obstacle — with the goal of getting that process down to months versus the current years it takes.

“We’ve already begun to identify all over the country. Some are under production. How do we move them along more quickly? Some are in the permitting bureaucracy, which sometimes takes years to get through permitting,” she says. “Our goal is to, instead of years, to get to permitting in a matter of weeks, or perhaps months, so that even in one year, two years and three years, we will have facilities up and running that we will never have had that opportunity or option before.”

United States’ Energy Advantage for Nitrogen Fertilizer

Rollins also points to domestic energy resources as a key factor in expanding fertilizer output, particularly for nitrogen production.

“We became, in a matter of just a short period of time, a net exporter of LNG versus importer, meaning we were producing our own energy in America, so much so that we no longer had to rely on other countries,” she says. “The reason that is important is, as our farmers are facing these exponential nitrogen fertilizer costs, we now have the resources in America. We just have to build the facilities, the manufacturing facilities, to turn that LNG into nitrogen. So this is going to happen quicker than you would normally expect, I think because of the pieces of the puzzle that have already been put into place.”

In the meantime, Rollins says the administration is continuing short-term efforts to improve supply availability and reduce costs.

While the longer-term strategy ramps up, she says the administration is continuing short-term interventions to ease pressure on farmers. These include:

Extending a waiver of the Jones Act
Opening new import channels
Working and meeting with industry/fertilizer companies

Highlighting cooperation with domestic producers, she pointed to CF Industries as an example.

“They have said, in order to protect our farmers, we are going to stop maintenance. We are going look at holding our prices steady,” she says.

She also points to ongoing coordination with the Department of Justice.

“Last year, we signed a joint agreement, USDA did, with the Department of Justice, ensuring that farmers have access to competitive and affordable inputs,” she says. “Looking into the activities of our fertilizer companies and what has happened over the last few years, but with a new eye on potential price gouging right now.”

Long-Term Goal: Reduce Foreign Dependence

Looking longer term, Rollins says the administration is focused on reversing decades of reliance on foreign suppliers.

“America has offshored for far too long, far too much of our fertilizer production, leaving us dangerously reliant on Russia and China,” she says. “Changing that long-standing industry that is reliant on global markets won’t happen overnight,” she says. “But working with our farmers and across industry and government, we will find ways to make fertilizer that we can do here in America and make sure it is a price that our great farmers can afford.”

At the same time, the administration is increasing scrutiny of fertilizer markets. Rollins noted ongoing coordination with the Department of Justice, saying officials are taking “a new eye on potential price gouging right now.”

Ultimately, she framed this week’s announcement as the beginning of a broader shift away from foreign dependence.

Rollins says additional details, including funding levels and project specifics, will be included in next week’s announcement.

“We’re at a crossroads that requires immediate action,” she says.

Watch Rollins’ full press conference here:

USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden Says High-Level Washington Meeting Puts Fertilizer Industry on the Spot

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 20:09:59 GMT

The fertilizer market has been a growing point of tension in agriculture for years, but USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden says recent meetings in Washington marked a more direct and wide-ranging confrontation between federal officials and the companies that dominate input supply. Those discussions, he says, were not limited to USDA alone but included a broader slice of the administration’s economic leadership, signaling how central fertilizer costs have become to the national conversation on food production and inflation.

Vaden says cabinet-level officials from the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative were present, alongside USDA leadership and state agriculture commissioners from Iowa and Georgia. Fertilizer executives were also in the room, making the meeting a rare setting where policy makers, regulators and industry leaders sat together to address pricing, supply constraints and long-term market structure.

He says the purpose was not simply informational, but confrontational in the sense of putting real-world farm impacts directly in front of industry decision-makers.

“It was an opportunity for those other cabinet officials to hear from the fertilizer company executives,” Vaden says, “and for those fertilizer company executives to hear from the secretary and me, as well as our two state counterparts who joined, about the real harm that farmers are facing from uncertainty in the market and, equally as importantly, years of elevated prices.”

Vaden says what often gets lost outside agriculture is that the current fertilizer environment is not a short-term disruption, but the continuation of a multi-year pricing trend that has reshaped farm budgets.

“For people who don’t pay attention to ag every day like your listeners do, they may think this fertilizer thing came out of nowhere,” Vaden says. “But American farmers know that we’re on year five or more of elevated prices for fertilizer, and questions about adequate supply of all fertilizer types.”

He adds that the timing of the discussions is critical, as global geopolitical tensions are only adding pressure to already strained markets.

“So I see this as an opportunity now that the attention of everyone is focused on fertilizer, not just agriculture, to begin to solve the problem that has taken years to develop and that has been exacerbated by the current situation in the Middle East,” Vaden says. “So that we don’t find ourselves in another long-term question about fertilizer supply going forward.”

USDA Pushes Industry: Bring Projects Forward or Explain the Bottlenecks

As discussions continue with fertilizer companies, Vaden says USDA is shifting the conversation from general concern to specific accountability. Rather than broad discussions about market conditions, he says officials are now asking companies to identify concrete projects that could increase supply and to explain why those investments have not yet materialized.

This approach, he says, reflects a broader strategy inside the department to move beyond analysis and toward action, particularly in areas where supply constraints have persisted for years without meaningful change.

In meetings held both jointly and separately with industry leaders, Vaden says USDA has been consistent in its message to fertilizer companies.

“We are saying the same thing to everyone who comes before the department,” Vaden says. “Be a part of the solution, don’t be a part of the problem.”

He says that includes detailed questions about whether expansion projects are already in development but stalled due to permitting delays, regulatory barriers or capital constraints. In some cases, he says, USDA is asking companies to identify where federal or state action could realistically speed up timelines.

“We are asking them what projects they have in the pipeline that they can bring on board to create new fertilizer supplies, hopefully here domestically, but if necessary, near-shoring overseas,” Vaden says. “And are there steps that we can take to make those projects move faster? Are there permits that are held up? Are there states or localities that are holding up their expansions? Are there investments that they are looking for with regard to needing capital to be able to expand their production capacity?”

He adds the department is not approaching the issue passively, but actively pressing for answers.

“We’re asking as many questions as we are making declarative statements, and we’re trying to see what levers we can pull to get more supply on the market,” Vaden says.

Market Concentration at Center of USDA Concerns

Beyond supply timelines and permitting issues, Vaden says one of the core structural concerns in fertilizer markets is the level of consolidation, particularly in phosphate production where a small number of companies control a dominant share of supply.

He says that level of concentration raises fundamental questions about how prices are formed and whether farmers are receiving signals that reflect true market conditions.

With that in mind, Vaden says USDA is focusing heavily on competition and price discovery as part of its broader review of input markets.

“With one of our fertilizer markets, there are two companies that control 90% market share,” Vaden says. “Anybody, I don’t care whether it’s fertilizer or what any other commodity you want to talk about, if there are only two major players, how can anyone be sure that the price you are paying reflects actual market conditions?”

He says the issue is not simply about individual price spikes, but about whether enough competition exists to keep pricing behavior transparent and responsive.

“In order to have adequate price discovery in a market, you need multiple players,” Vaden says.

That concern, he adds, is one of the reasons fertilizer investigations already underway by federal agencies predate recent geopolitical disruptions and continue to expand.

Vaden Details Heated Meeting With Mosaic: “A Different Tune in My Conference Room”

Among the most pointed parts of Vaden’s interview are his comments about a recent face-to-face meeting with Mosaic, one of the most influential players in the phosphate fertilizer market. He says the discussion, held in his conference room just this week, was direct and, at times, uncomfortable, focusing heavily on production decisions, capacity investment and the company’s role in a highly concentrated global market.

Vaden says he challenged Mosaic on why additional production capacity has not been brought online in the United States over a long period of time, and what barriers the company believes are preventing expansion.

He says he left the meeting with clear expectations for follow-up information from the company, describing it as an assignment rather than a casual discussion.

“I gave them a homework assignment,” Vaden says. “I told them what I expected to see, and I hope that they will get back to me as soon as possible.”

But what stood out most to him, he says, was not just what was said in the room, but how it contrasted with the company’s public messaging.

So disappointed in this response, @MosaicCompany, especially as you decide to idle two fertilizer production facilities, removing 1 MMT of supply from the world market. 🚨

Our Great President and this Administration have our farmers' backs. 💪🌾

Any sleight of hand will not be… https://t.co/GTCxcBQNgi
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) April 13, 2026

In his view, there was a noticeable difference between internal discussions and external communications, particularly on social media, where fertilizer policy debates have increasingly played out in public.

“And I will say, without being able to go into details, when they were in my office, they were singing a slightly different tune than they were signing on Twitter responding to the president’s Truth Social message that you noted,” Vaden says.

He uses that contrast to underscore what he sees as a broader disconnect between industry messaging and the realities USDA believes farmers are facing.

“We need more supply, we need answers, your company hasn’t provided either of those two things,” Vaden says. “It’s about time that you did.”

Industry Responses, Trade Policy Pressure and the Mosaic Question

While Vaden applies pressure to Mosaic, he notes that not all fertilizer companies are taking the same stance on trade policy and tariffs. He points specifically to Nutrien, which he says has indicated support for removing certain trade enforcement measures.

“I was very happy after I met with the Nutrien CEO that they came out and announced we don’t need this CVD order anymore,” Vaden says.

By contrast, he says Mosaic’s position on countervailing duties and phosphate trade enforcement remains unresolved, and that broader policy decisions are now effectively waiting on the company’s response.

He characterizes the situation as fluid but heavily dependent on industry input.

“Right now the question is in Mosaic’s court, if you will,” Vaden says. “And we’re waiting for an answer from them.”

He adds that regulatory or executive action is unlikely to be taken in a vacuum while negotiations and responses are still unfolding.

“One thing that I know as a lawyer is that there’s a whole lot more possible if you have consent of the parties than if you don’t,” Vaden says. “With consent, nearly all things are possible.”

Investigations Expand as USDA Seeks Farmer-Reported Data

Alongside industry meetings, Vaden says USDA is working with the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission on ongoing fertilizer market investigations, with a particular focus on pricing behavior and market transparency.

He says one challenge is the nature of pricing information itself, which often reaches farmers through informal channels and can change quickly.

“We’re asking questions and waiting for answers, and we need farmers’ help as part of our question asking,” Vaden says.

He describes a pattern many farmers have reported directly to USDA, where fertilizer prices are quoted in a way that encourages immediate purchase rather than delayed buying.

“I know in my own family’s operation that you get phone calls, and those phone calls tell you ‘Here’s what the price is now, and if you wait, here’s what the price will be later,’” Vaden says. “And that later price is never lower than the price that it is now.”

To address that, he says USDA is working on a confidential reporting system designed to protect farmer identity while improving data quality for investigators.

“If they trust us with their information, if they trust us with the facts that they have, they’ll be able to remain anonymous,” Vaden says. “And the companies under investigation will not know who shared what data with us.”

“This Has Been Going On for Too Long”

Vaden closes by emphasizing that fertilizer prices and supply constraints are not a new challenge for agriculture, but an entrenched issue that has persisted through multiple years and market cycles.

He says the administration is trying to shift both short-term supply conditions and long-term structural dynamics at the same time, adding that USDA’s goal is not temporary relief, but sustained changes in supply, competition and pricing stability.

“We are focused on getting new supplies here now, and not just now, but next year and the year after that and the years after that,” Vaden says. “So that we can have guaranteed new supplies over the long term.”

Vaden’s Message to Farmers: “We’re Saying the Same Thing in Public and in Private”

At the end of the conversation, Vaden returned to what he described as the central audience for everything USDA is doing on fertilizer: farmers themselves. He acknowledged frustration is not just growing, but it has become a defining sentiment across much of farm country as input costs remain elevated and supply questions persist year after year.

He emphasized USDA’s posture is not different depending on the room or the audience, whether speaking with industry executives, other federal agencies, or producers themselves.

“I want farmers to know that when I am sitting with representatives of other cabinet departments or when I am sitting with big fertilizer CEOs, I am saying the same thing in private that you hear me saying in public,” Vaden says. “I do not change my tune. I may be slightly more polite, but I am equally as direct in terms of telling them what I think the situation is.”

Vaden says that directness is rooted in what he believes farmers are already experiencing on the ground, particularly when it comes to fertilizer pricing volatility and uncertainty in purchasing decisions. He says producers are not misreading the situation — they are responding to real, long-running pressures.

He also acknowledges the emotional toll on producers is part of the reality USDA is hearing more frequently.

“I especially communicate to them that farmers have gone from exasperation to anger with the situation that we have now,” Vaden says. “They are not wrong to be feeling those emotions because they understand that this is not a new situation.”

Looking ahead, Vaden says USDA’s goal is not just to address short-term pricing spikes, but to change the underlying conditions that have kept fertilizer costs elevated for years. That includes expanding supply, increasing competition and improving long-term stability in input markets.

“This is an issue that has bedeviled American agriculture for at least five years, and it is time that it stopped,” Vaden says.

Trump Warns Fertilizer Giants Against "Price Gouging" as Costs Soar 40%

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 15:46:54 GMT

Fertilizer market volatility is once again taking center stage as geopolitical tensions disrupt global supply lines and push input costs sharply higher. New analysis shows the increase in fertilizer prices may not be over, even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens soon.

Even with the situation in Iran pushing prices even higher, the sharp increase in fertilizer prices from 2020 to now is catching attention in Washington. Not only did President Donald Trump take to social media to warn of ‘price gouging,’ but Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins also posted on X Monday, specifically expressing frustration over Mosaic’s response to farmers.

While Rollins and USDA Under Secretary Stephen Vaden have raised concerns over fertilizer prices this year, the president posted on Truth Social over the weekend that he is closely monitoring fertilizer prices and pledged support for American farmers.

Trump said Saturday on his Truth Social platform he is “watching fertilizer prices CLOSELY” during what he described as the US “FIGHT FOR FREEDOM in Iran”, adding that the administration “will not accept PRICE GOUGING from the fertilizer monopoly”.

On Monday, Rollins posted on X, saying she was “So disappointed in this response” from Mosaic, “especially as you decide to idle two fertilizer production facilities, removing 1 MMT of supply from the world market.”

So disappointed in this response, @MosaicCompany, especially as you decide to idle two fertilizer production facilities, removing 1 MMT of supply from the world market. 🚨

Our Great President and this Administration have our farmers' backs. 💪🌾

Any sleight of hand will not be… https://t.co/GTCxcBQNgi
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) April 13, 2026

Mosaic announced last week the decision to shut down major phosphate operations in Brazil, a move the that will cut production, reduce jobs, and signal a *strategic shift in how the fertilizer giant deploys its capital.

Mosaic Company announced Thursday it will idle two phosphate facilities in Brazil as part of a broader effort to cut costs and shift capital. Mosaic expects idling of the facilities to reduce annual phosphate production by approximately 1 million tonnes. CEO Bruce Bodine says the decision reflects what he calls a disciplined focus on long-term returns.

.@MosaicCompany, you’re right that U.S. farmers are facing a difficult economic situation, only made worse by the extra $6.9 BILLION they have had to spend on fertilizer since you petitioned the government to place duties on imported phosphorus. This has played a major role in… https://t.co/UuOqjE0jBu
— National Corn (NCGA) (@NationalCorn) April 13, 2026

Mosaic and Simplot have also been in the cross hairs of the push to remove countervailing duties on Moroccan phosphate . Groups like the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) claim the CVDs are costing U.S. agriculture $1 billion each year.

The CVDs on Moroccan phosphate were put into place by the International Trade Commission (ITC) in 2021. As the sunset review begins, more than 50 state grower groups including the Texas Corn Producers Association, sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce and the ITC to revoke the countervailing duties on imported phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia.

In separate filings by Mosaic and Simplot to the ITC and the Department of Commerce, both companies said the continuation is necessary to maintain a “level playing field.”

In a written response to Farm Journal, Mosaic said:

“American farmers depend on a strong domestic fertilizer industry, which in turn depends on strong enforcement of U.S. trade laws that ensure a level playing field. Mosaic is proud to support U.S. agriculture with high-quality, reliable products produced here at home.”

Iran War’s Current Impact on Fertilizer Prices

The message from the Trump adminstration comes as tensions escalate in the Strait of Hormuz, where the United States is weighing a potential full naval blockade. Ship traffic through the critical waterway has already dropped from roughly 135 vessels per day to the single digits. A complete shutdown could halt flows entirely, further increasing fertilizer prices.

The stakes are high as roughly one-third of global fertilizer shipments move through the strait, and the disruption is already sending prices higher, up more than 40% compared to a year ago.

It is the 6-week anniversary of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Fert price comparisons:

NOLA urea - +$230 or 49%
NOLA UAN - +$145 or 38%
Midwest NH3 - +$245 or 32%
NOLA DAP - +$130 or 21%
NOLA potash - +$10 or 3%

...corn - 2-cents or 0.5% higher#sickeningforfarmers
— Josh Linville (@JLinvilleFert) April 10, 2026

Market data shows the impact Iran is having on already high fertilizer prices. According to StoneX analyst Josh Linville says in the six weeks since the war started:

Urea prices have surged by $230 per ton, a 49% increase
UAN is up $145 per ton, or 38%
Anhydrous ammonia has climbed $245 per ton, a 32% jump.
In contrast, corn prices have barely responded, rising just two cents, or about half a percent. The divergence is putting additional pressure on farm margins.

DOJ Probe Into Fertilizer Costs Seeks Input From Farmers

The Trump administration is asking farmers to help provide information as part of an ongoing U.S. Department of Justice investigation into elevated costs for fertilizer, machinery and other key agricultural inputs, according to reporting from Bloomberg.

Bloomberg reported the effort is aimed at gathering more on-the-ground data as regulators examine whether fertilizer producers may have coordinated to raise prices. The DOJ investigation was first reported in early March, when Bloomberg said federal officials had begun looking into whether fertilizer companies engaged in price coordination.

According to the Bloomberg report, Vaden said he has already met with officials at both the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to discuss potential lines of inquiry. He also noted that farmers could play a key role in the process.

Vaden said farmers “have a lot of information that might be relevant to these investigations.”

Bloomberg previously reported in early March that the Department of Justice is investigating whether fertilizer producers colluded to increase prices.

Speaking at the North American Agricultural Journalists’ annual conference in Washington on Monday, Vaden encouraged farmer participation in the probe, emphasizing confidentiality protections.

“We need farmers to help provide us with that information on a confidential basis, so that that can help inform the investigations that are ongoing,” Vaden said, according to Bloomberg. “I think we will have a mechanism in order to help encourage that exchange of information.”

NCGA Surveys Show Not All Farmers Have Fertilizer Secured for 2026

Against that backdrop, along with fertilizer prices climbing even higher in the six weeks after the conflict started with Iran, new surveys results from NCGA highlight how those market pressures are translating to on-farm realities.

Krista Swanson, chief economist for NCGA, says the organization conducted the survey to better understand fertilizer availability from the farmer perspective. Ag Secretary Rollins has told mainstream media that 80% of farmers have fertilizer locked in for 2026, but NCGA data contradicts that figure.

“We’re hearing that number being thrown around too, which is why we really wanted to find out directly from farmers what the status is for them,” Swanson says.

NCGA Grower Survey

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

A Significant Gap in Fertilizer Readiness

The surveys show that only 60% of farmers report having their nitrogen fully purchased or secured for the 2026 growing season, while 64% say the same for phosphate. That leaves a sizable portion of producers still working to lock in supplies.

“When you think about over 500,000 corn farmers in the U.S., this isn’t a small number,” Swanson says. “Our survey results indicate that over 200,000 farmers still need at least some fertilizer for this year.”

Nitrogen remains a critical input for corn production and is closely tied to yield potential. Any shortfall, whether driven by availability or cost, can directly affect productivity and profitability.

NCGA Grower Surveys

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

Younger Farmers Feeling the Pressure Most

The survey also points to uneven impacts across the farm sector, with younger farmers facing greater challenges in securing fertilizer.

Swanson says younger producers reported having more nitrogen left to purchase compared to older farmers.

“You think about younger farmers that have less capital already built up in their business, maybe tighter cash flow needs because of their equity position,” she says. “This does seem to have a disproportional impact on younger farmers.”

That dynamic raises concerns about financial strain among newer operations in a high-cost environment.

Corn Acres Likely Stable, But With Reduced Inputs

Despite the challenges, most farmers are not planning to reduce corn acreage. The survey found that 80% of respondents expect to maintain their planned acres.

NCGA Grower Survey

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

At the same time, fertilizer application rates may fall short. Half of the farmers surveyed say they do not expect to apply their full amount of fertilizer.

“Pairing these two together, it seems to me like we are still going to see a lot of corn acres get planted,” Swanson says. “But those corn acres will have less fertilizer than maybe what they would have otherwise had.”

That combination could limit yield potential if input reductions become widespread.

Growing Concern Shifts to 2027

While fertilizer availability remains a concern for 2026, attention is already turning to the next crop year. Fertilizer purchasing follows a rolling cycle, and planning for 2027 will begin soon.

Survey responses show that for every one farmer more concerned about fertilizer price and availability for 2026, nearly two are more concerned about 2027.

NCGA Grower Survey

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

“So farmers are concerned as we look ahead to next year,” Swanson says.

The shift reflects uncertainty about how long supply disruptions and elevated prices will persist.

Supply Chain Recovery May Take Time

Even if geopolitical tensions ease, relief may not come quickly. Swanson notes that the fertilizer market is still dealing with production disruptions and supply chain backlogs.

“A short-term ceasefire has limited immediate impact on this ongoing fertilizer crisis for farmers,” she says. “Even when a permanent end to the situation is reached, we’re still looking at recovery from supply chain backlogs and halted production that could take a long time to recover from.”

Damage to key inputs such as liquid natural gas and sulfur production could take years to repair, keeping pressure on supply.

A Tightening Outlook

The NCGA survey underscores a challenging environment for corn producers. Most acres are expected to be planted this year, but not all will receive optimal fertilizer applications. At the same time, concern is building for 2027 as farmers look ahead to the next purchasing cycle.

For many producers, the issue is no longer just securing fertilizer for this season. It is navigating a period of sustained uncertainty that could shape production decisions, costs, and risk management strategies across the U.S. corn sector.

Longstanding Concerns Over Market Concentration

In September 2025, USDA and the U.S. Department of Justice signed a Memorandum of Understanding, committing both agencies to jointly examine high and volatile input costs, which included fertilizer, by scrutinizing competitive conditions in agricultural markets and enforcing antitrust laws, particularly around price setting and market concentration.

While geopolitical tensions are the latest driver of volatility, many farm groups argue the root of the problem runs deeper. Matt Perdue, president of the North Dakota Farmers Union, says ongoing federal investigations into fertilizer pricing must lead to meaningful action.

“We appreciate the administration’s investigations into input costs,” Perdue says. “But investigations don’t do anything if they’re not followed by enforcement, and they don’t do anything if we don’t learn what came out of those investigations.”

Groups like the Texas Corn Producers Association have been raising concerns about fertilizer market concentration for years. Texas farmer Dee Vaughan says the organization began studying the issue in 2020, working with the Agricultural and Food Policy Center at Texas A&M to examine pricing trends.

“We’ve been very concerned about all of our input costs, but specifically fertilizer, because it’s the one that just keeps going up almost exponentially,” Vaughan says.

He adds those studies found a shift in how fertilizer prices are determined . Historically tied closely to natural gas costs, the study found nitrogen fertilizer pricing began tracking corn prices more closely after 2010, a change Vaughan says reflects deeper structural issues.

According to Vaughan, the small number of firms controlling the market have the data and market awareness to price inputs based on farmers’ revenue potential, rather than production costs.

“They all have economists on staff,” Vaughan says. “They know exactly what our costs are, what our income is, and they’re able to extract value based on what they see as the gross income of a farmer. It’s not based on cost of production any longer.”

The New Ag Economy: Why This Downturn is a Structural Shift, Not Just a Cycle

Mon, 13 Apr 2026 21:22:18 GMT

What You Need to Know:

Structural Evolution: This downturn is a permanent market shift, not just a temporary cycle.
Friend-Shoring: Trade is moving toward geopolitical allies to ensure supply chain resilience.
Aggressive Cost-Cutting: Farmers are doubling generic input use and delaying machinery purchases to protect margins.
Financial Resilience: Better management and working capital make today far more stable than the 1980s.
Premium Protein Demand: GLP-1 medications are driving consumers toward smaller, higher-quality meat portions

As the industry enters the third year of this downturn, farmers and agribusinesses are questioning if a recovery is on the two-year horizon. While cyclical behavior is normal, two economists suggest the structural evolution within crop protection, machinery, technology, livestock and other individual sectors is creating a different kind of staying power for those who survive the recovery.

The Evolution of the Cycle

When characterizing the current economic cycle in agriculture, historical patterns provide a necessary baseline, yet the present landscape is defined by unique pressures. Typical agricultural cycles consist of roughly six years of expansion followed by four years of decline. Currently, the market is navigating a “corrective period,” returning to long-run averages.

The drivers of growth are typically demand shocks — export surges, fuel demand or policy shifts such as the Renewable Fuel Standard. However, Wes Davis, ag economist at Meridian Ag Advisors, notes the current environment is an intersection of traditional contraction and sector-specific evolution.

“What I think we’re experiencing right now is that typical cycle behavior where we see growth in some business firms, and then some contraction and pullback to adjust to the cycle going back to more of the long-run average,” Davis explains. “I think we’re also seeing evolution of individual sectors within the market where there’s adjustments happening because of the industry itself.”

In other words, this isn’t just a cycle — it’s also a structural shift.

Change Fatigue and Modern Volatility

Farmers aren’t strangers to volatility, but global trade disruptions, policy shifts and rising competition, especially from Brazil, are layering uncertainty onto already volatile markets.
Farmers are grappling with “change fatigue,” a byproduct of the high velocity of information and extreme price swings that dwarf the relative stability of the early 2000s.

“When I go talk to any industry group right now, the phrase that I hear is ‘change fatigue’, and I feel that. Every couple minutes, something shifts,” says Trey Malone, Purdue University ag econ professor. “But to be clear, it’s not that the farm economy isn’t used to volatility, it’s just the uncertainty and the volatility now is, like, ‘hold my beer relative’ to the old volatility.”

Malone attributes this to layers of uncertainty created by global trade and policy. The rise of Brazilian production, coinciding with the disruption of U.S.-China trade relations, has created a permanent state of flux. This sentiment is reflected in the Purdue Ag Economy Barometer, which shares a higher correlation with the Small Business Index (.5) than with actual commodity prices. This suggests farmers view themselves primarily as small business owners facing broad economic pressures rather than just price-takers.

“We don’t see very strong correlations even with lagged soybean prices and corn prices,” Malone notes. “The world is more complicated than just looking at what happened in the market yesterday and gauging how farmers feel.”

Global Competitiveness and the Trade Reallocation

A primary concern for U.S. producers is their position as low-cost providers. While the U.S. maintains an infrastructure advantage that lowers the cost of getting products to export ports, Brazil continues to close the gap.

“It’s a fair question farmers ask a lot: Are we actually the ones who are the low-cost producers, and do we still have a place in the global market if Brazil continues to lower the cost of production and transport their grain to export terminals?” Davis asks.

However, Davis points out that global trade hasn’t shut off; it has reallocated. Only three global regions — North America, Latin America and parts of Southeastern Europe/Central Asia — are net exporters. The rest of the world remains net importers.

“While our trade has kind of shifted around ... that shift has really reallocated stuff in different places. Those calories and products end up going somewhere. It’s just a question of where,” he says.

The Shift to “Friend-Shoring” and Resilient Supply Chains

The industry is moving from “just-in-time” (hyper-lean) procurement to “just-in-case” (inventory-heavy) strategies, a lesson reinforced by the pandemic. This shift is accompanied by “friend-shoring,” where the U.S. prioritizes trade with geopolitical allies.

“We’ve gone from offshoring to onshoring to nearshoring to friendshoring,” Malone explains. “We’ve got a paper that’ll be coming out ... where we document friend-shoring in ag and food supply chains. Over the last 10 years, there’s been a shift where we mostly in the U.S. trade with other people who vote like us in the WTO. That’s kind of one way to measure friends.”

This resilience is also visible in crop protection. In 2019, 80% of active ingredients were sourced from China. Today, that is closer to 60%, with manufacturing shifting to India and domestic sites. Davis calls these “geopolitically resilient” supply chains.

The Rise of Generics and Decision Paralysis

The economic downturn is fundamentally changing the business model for input providers. Farmers are aggressively cutting costs, leading to a massive surge in generic usage.

“The latest survey I saw shows about 60% of farmers use generics today. That was about 30% to 40% just 5 years ago,” Davis says. This forces companies to pivot from differentiation to operational volume.

In the machinery sector, high costs and economic uncertainty have led to “decision paralysis.” Farmers are extending the life of their equipment, treating machinery replacement as the most controllable variable in managing annual ROI. Davis notes the U.S. ag equipment cycle is currently 15 to 20 percentage points lower than typical low points, driven by this hesitation. Furthermore, there is significant skepticism toward subscription-based technology models.

“Farmers don’t terribly love this idea, and I think the other interesting thought here is I’m not sure that retailers like selling them either,” Malone adds.

AI: The “Undergraduate Intern”

While artificial intelligence (AI) is a major talking point, its current role in agriculture is more supportive than transformative. Malone views AI as a “highly capable undergraduate intern” — useful for processing information but incapable of replacing the trust and risk management provided by human advisors.

“I don’t think you need to be replacing your agronomist. I think your mediocre agronomist just got OK,” Malone says, noting while LLMs can pass CCA exams, they cannot manage the risk of a wrong decision. “The risk management value proposition of an in-person Claude, or whoever, is probably going to win out because there’s still a risk.”

Currently, the adoption gap is wide: While 75% of agribusiness managers see potential in AI, only 4% have implemented it, according to a Purdue University survey in 2025.

Livestock and the GLP-1 Impact

The livestock sector is facing a unique demand shift driven by weight-loss medications (GLP-1s). This is leading to “premiumization.” As consumers eat smaller portions, they are opting for higher-quality cuts.

“The explosion in demand for protein is just shocking,” Malone says. “What GLP-1s do to that calorie count is they are all shifting toward premium cuts. You don’t care how much it costs because you’re only going to have seven bites of it. But you’re going to have a steak. That premiumization is going to really, really take off in the next 10 years.”

Conversely, the hype surrounding “fake meat” has largely faded, proving to be more of an investor-led phenomenon than a market-driven one.

Financial Stability: Not the 1980s

Despite the downturn, the financial health of the American farmer remains more stable than during the crisis of the 1980s. Currently, 10% to 12% of farmers are in a “tight” financial position , compared to 20% to 30% in the 80s.

“We do have a completely different, more professional ag workforce than we did back then,” Malone says. “The farm policy we have right now does not necessarily match what we need for the future, but all of these things make me think we’re in a much more stable position.”

Farmers have built-in “shock absorbers,” Davis adds, including off-farm income and working capital built up during the expansion years. However, in his research Davis has seen how alternative financing is becoming a major tool for the 50% of farmers who use it — either to manage stress or, for larger operations, to leverage relationships with retailers.

Strategic Reassessment: Winning at the Bottom

The experts agree the “bottom of the cycle” is the time for professionalization and upskilling. Surviving — and thriving — will require sharper management. It is an opportunity to reassess farm transitions and management disciplines, such as financial management, accounting and planning, which become critical in tight margins.

“Farmers are going to have to get smarter and get more creative with how they manage,” Malone says. “This is a good opportunity to take a step back and think about what the strategy needs to be moving forward.”

Davis emphasizes relationships are solidified during these periods: “Farmers are going to remember the folks who were around when they were in the bottom of the cycle, and who were there to support them. The best farmers will continue to get better ... I get excited about what we can look like as we come out of this cycle.”

So Is This Ag Cycle Different?

These experts say yes as every cycle presents its own unique reshaping of future opportunities.

To download the full report on why this ag cycle is different and what it means for your operation, click here .

From Constraints to Catalysts: How Ag Leaders Turn Hardships into Strategy

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 18:19:03 GMT

In an industry defined by “one-year-at-a-time” cycles, the greatest threat to a growing operation isn’t just a market downturn—it’s the inertia that comes with size. Farm Journal CEO Prescott Shibles argues that long-term survival requires a rare blend of faith and agility. To maintain an entrepreneurial mindset, leaders must lean into “conviction” as the core of a strategy that survives the lows.

Here is how four industry leaders are turning today’s constraints into tomorrow’s differentiators.

1. Build when times are hard.

When Brent Smith, president and CEO of NewLeaf Symbiotics, joined the company in 2023, the grain market was entering a significant down cycle. While some saw a risky time to lead a startup, he saw an opportunity.

“I learned in my first startup that the best time to build a business is in hard times,” Smith said said during a discussion at Top Producer Summit. “Because if you can’t withstand tough times, you’re not going to survive long term.”

For Smith, survival meant doubling down on the company’s core: science. Despite the pressure to cut costs, NewLeaf continues to spend half of its operating expenses on science.

“It would be very easy to peel that back,” he admits. “But we focused on projects that make the most impact the quickest, while keeping an eye on the long-term innovation in our pipeline.”

2. Control what you can control.

Farmers face the ultimate constraint every year: the weather. Scott Beck, president of Beck’s Hybrids, recalls the planting crisis of 2019 when constant rains kept tractors out of the fields well into May.

“I was concerned for our customers not being able to plant, but also for us not being able to plant our seed for the next year,” Beck says. “There was nothing that we could do to control the weather, but we could control how we interacted with our customers.”

Rather than retreating, the Beck’s team focused on transparency and empathy, using video series to connect with farmers and even forming small groups for prayer and support. Ultimately, they wanted farmers to know they cared and were there to support them however they could.

Despite the financial reality of what could happen if farmers didn’t plant and returned seed, Beck’s decided their course of action would not include employee layoffs. Instead, they prepared to sell land to protect their people.

“Fortunately, the weather broke and everybody was able to get planted,” he says. “Then the second miracle happened. We had the second warmest September on record, and that’s what brought the crop through to enable 2019 to not turn out as bad as it started.”

3. Turn disadvantages into advantages.

In 2014, Lamar Steiger, owner of The 808 Ranch, was tasked with a monumental challenge: helping Walmart reinvent its beef supply chain. At the time, the retail giant was at a disadvantage, forced to accept whatever the major meatpackers provided.

Steiger’s strategy was to turn that lack of control into a new kind of independence.

“I convinced the Walmart team to go around the traditional supply chain,” Steiger says. Today, Walmart sources 28% of its beef from its own “farm-to-table” supply chain.

There’s no question that decision was really good for Walmart. But Steiger says it was also really good for him personally.

“It reminded me that no matter how big you are, there are always challenges,” he says.

4. Create “white space” for the future.

When the day-to-day tasks of an operation become overwhelming, long-term strategy is often the first thing to go. James Burgum, CEO of The Arthur Companies, believes leaders must intentionally carve out “white space” for their teams.

“It’s important to find ways where people can actually spend their time working on the business, not just in the business,” he says.

By protecting time for team members to execute ideas that are three to five years out, Burgum manages the tension between short-term urgency and long-term viability.

“It’s hard to step away from the daily fires you’ll face in your operation, but it’s important,” he adds. “How we manage that tension of short term and long term is creating that white space and making sure that we consciously work on the business.

The Long Game

Ultimately, resilience in agriculture is about knowing when to push and when to pivot.

“You have to know when to put the gas down, and you need to know when to tap the brake,” Smith says. “And regardless of what you are doing, you need to stay focused on what you’re doing.”

Whether it is investing in science during a downturn or choosing customer empathy over the bottom line, these leaders say constraints don’t have to be roadblocks; they can be the very catalysts that drive an operation forward.

Conflict in Iran Ripples Through Global Fertilizer Markets, Raises Prices Even Higher

Tue, 03 Mar 2026 16:28:09 GMT

Update: President Trump took to social media on Tuesday to say he has ordered the United States Development Finance Corporation (DFC) to provide political risk insurance and guarantees for the Financial Security of all Maritime Trade.

He also says the United States Navy will begin escorting tankers through the Strait of Hormuz if necessary.

"Effective IMMEDIATELY, I have ordered the United States Development Finance Corporation (DFC) to provide, at a very reasonable price, political risk insurance and guarantees for the Financial Security of ALL Maritime Trade... If necessary, the United States Navy will begin… pic.twitter.com/pIJyFwL78j
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) March 3, 2026

The joint U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran has triggered a significant ripple effect across global markets.

While crude oil prices soared on Monday, the global fertilizer market is also rallying. This comes as conflict threatens the stability of the Strait of Hormuz.

This narrow waterway is located between Oman and Iran and links the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. It serves as a critical maritime chokepoint for global energy and also handles a substantial portion of the world’s fertilizer supply.

Key for Fertilizer Supplies

Josh Linville, vice president of fertilizer for StoneX, notes the Strait of Hormuz accounts for nearly 25% of globally traded nitrogen fertilizer.

(StoneX)

“We have got three of the top 10 global urea exporters that sit in the Persian Gulf,” Linville says. “Three of the top 10 anhydrous exporters sit in the Persian Gulf. One of the world’s top five phosphate exporters sits in the Persian Gulf. And with that Strait of Hormuz continuing to stay shut out to safe passage, those tons just don’t matter anymore. They don’t exist until the Strait reopens.”

Conflict Increases Already Historically High Fertilizer Prices

Global fertilizer prices rose immediately following the attack. They moved in tandem with higher energy and natural gas prices, which are the primary feedstocks for nitrogen products.

Fertilizer prices were already at historical highs prior to the conflict. Linville reports urea markets saw the sharpest increases, followed by phosphate.

In New Orleans (NOLA), physical barges for April urea traded at $457 per ton on Friday. By Monday, prices had jumped to approximately $550 per ton.

“We have had prices up about $70 a ton from Friday afternoon trade. It’s been significant,” Linville says.

UAN and anhydrous prices have not reacted as violently, but phosphate values are not far behind.

“Phosphate, we’ve got that price up about $30 a ton from the last trade we had seen. Again, [I’m] a little surprised it’s not up more. That’s, I guess, a thankful thing that’s not up more, but I think more increases are coming. Really, the only major fertilizer that hasn’t been impacted so far is potash. But you can even make a case for that given Israel and Jordan’s importance,” he adds.

Corn-to-Fertilizer Ratio Stretches Further

He says the corn-to-fertilizer price ration was already one of the worst in history, and this has added insult to injury.

“We were already the second or third worst urea-to-corn ratio that we had been for this time of the year, this part of the calendar. This just moves that higher,” Linville explains.

(StoneX )

Timing Threats for Spring Planting

Higher prices aren’t the only problem: Supply is in jeopardy. Linville says, from a timing standpoint, it could not be worse for agriculture.

A multi-week conflict could keep some supply from getting to the U.S. in time for spring planting.

“It takes 30 days to get a vessel of urea to load in the Persian Gulf, sail it over here, hit U.S. shores, and then another three to four weeks to move that product into the interior of the nation to a point where the farmer can put their hands on it,” Linville says.

This means a vessel loading today might not be available until May 1. The window for spring application is closing quickly.

While healthy fertilizer import volumes in February provide some cushion, the industry could see a shift in acreage. Some farmers may move from corn to soybeans if nitrogen supplies do not arrive in the Corn Belt in time.

Life After DEF: What Rolling Back The Endangerment Finding Means for Farmers

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 16:52:18 GMT

EPA’s repeal of the endangerment finding could be the largest deregulation in history, and it will have a huge impact on agriculture and the biofuels industry.

If the agency no longer determines greenhouse gases a danger to human health and welfare, it will relax federal emissions standards for cars and trucks. However, it also changes emissions regulations on farm equipment and could get rid of the requirement to use diesel exhaust fluid.

So what will life be like after DEF?

Farmers Happy to See DEF Die

Dalton Kenning, a farmer in Shelton, Neb., says: “Taking DEF off the table, it would kind of just simplify things a little bit more.”

He explains it doesn’t help the engines in tractors, combines or semitrucks run any better.

“I think that’s why you’ve seen a lot of producers go away from it, whether that’s deleting something or, you know, because that machine’s built to run more efficient than without it,” Kenning says.

What Does it Mean for Equipment Manufacturers?

For equipment manufacturers, it will require a change in engineering and design on engines — but it’s easier than meeting the stricter Tier 5 requirements.

Brandon Montgomery, senior brand marketing manager at Fendt North America, says they will be ready.

“We had Tier 3 engines with DEF and without DEF for countries that don’t have that as a requirement,” Montgomery says. “So, we have the knowledge base how to do it.”

However, he says, they and all OEM manufacturers must comply with current and future EPA emissions standards. His company released this statement:

Fendt and AGCO are closely monitoring ongoing regulatory discussions related to emissions requirements. While Fendt has experience designing engines to meet a wide range of global regulations, the company has made no decisions regarding changes to North American products or retrofit offerings. AGCO and its brands, including Fendt, will continue to build machines that comply with all appropriate regulations in the markets they serve.

The company has produced engines in the past that were compliant without DEF, but doing it for the U.S. market again would require:

Various engine and vehicle architecture changes
Revalidation of hardware, software, and emissions systems
Full regulatory approval

He says it’s not possible to simply remove DEF components and expect the machine to operate properly or remain compliant with whatever EPA sets as the latest standard.

Retrofit for Older Machines?

Some farmers avoided DEF by buying older, used equipment. There may be some now who try to convert newer machines back so they don’t have to use DEF. It takes more than just changing the software, as most modern emissions systems are considered integrated ecosystems built around software, hardware, sensors and aftertreatment components. Then there’s the added costs of reegineering, testing and getting new regulatory approvals.

Overall, Montgomery says it’s possible but there are a lot of factors to consider. Can the industry go back to equipment without DEF? Yes, but it’s not simple.

Will it Lower Fertilizer Prices?

The other possible upside is the impact it could have on nitrogen fertilizer prices, according to Josh Linville, vice president of fertilizer at StoneX.

“Obviously, a lot of nitrogen fertilizer is used to make this DEF product. The very, very long story short is, you do away with DEF, and that puts a lot of fertilizer back in the hands of the farmer who can go use that to grow our food,” he says.

He cautions that won’t happen overnight, but it could start to ease some of the supply and price pressure on nitrogen fertilizer products.

Linville says: “It’s not going to solve nitrogen. It’s very important to note that we will still ebb and flow with global pricing, but having more of that product not being put into this DEF marketplace means it’s more tons at home. It means we can disconnect longer. It means we don’t have to move to a premium quite as hard as what we normally would as we start moving in the spring.”

And more supply is a good thing.

White House Drops Reciprocal Tariffs on Fertilizer, Other Ag Products Not Produced in the U.S.

Fri, 14 Nov 2025 23:50:07 GMT

President Trump signed an Executive Order Friday afternoon that modifies the scope of the reciprocal tariffs he first announced on April 2, 2025. The Executive Order now exempts several agricultural products from tariffs, including fruit, coffee and fertilizer.

In a fact sheet released Nov. 14, 2025, the administration says President Trump has determined that “certain qualifying agricultural products will no longer be subject to those tariffs, such as certain food not grown in the United States.”

This is good news for farmers, as certain qualifying agricultural products will no longer be subject to those tariffs, including fertilizer. However, the announcement could open the door for more beef imports, as the move also gets rid of reciprocal tariffs on beef.

The document goes on to spell out examples of products that are now exempt from the reciprocal tariffs. According to the fact sheet, “The President has thus determined that certain agricultural products shall no longer be subject to the reciprocal tariffs.”

Some of these products include:

coffee and tea
tropical fruits and fruit juices
cocoa and spices
bananas, oranges and tomatoes
beef
additional fertilizers (some fertilizers have never been subject to the reciprocal tariffs).

“I have received additional information and recommendations from various officials who, pursuant to my direction, have been monitoring the circumstances involving the emergency declared in Executive Order 14257,” stated the Executive Order. “After considering the information and recommendations these officials have provided to me, the status of negotiations with various trading partners, current domestic demand for certain products, and current domestic capacity to produce certain products, among other things, I have determined that it is necessary and appropriate to further modify the scope of products subject to the reciprocal tariff imposed under Executive Order 14257, as amended.”

President Defends Tariff Strategy, Says It’s Working

In the fact sheet, the White House went on to defend the reciprocal tariffs.

“In less than one year into his second term, President Trump has strengthened the international economic position of the United States by delivering a series of historic wins for the American people,” the fact sheet states.

The White House says through these tariffs, “President Trump is bringing manufacturing jobs back to America, revitalizing communities, and strengthening supply chains.The Administration will continue to use all available tools to protect our national security, advance our economic interests, and uphold a system of trade based in fairness and reciprocity.”

You can read the entire fact sheet here.

Fertilizer Prices Under Fire: Monopoly or Markets to Blame?

Mon, 10 Nov 2025 17:11:28 GMT

As President Donald Trump demands a federal investigation into meatpackers for inflating beef prices , another battle over farm input costs is already heating up. Fertilizer, long one of the most volatile and least transparent costs in farming, is now drawing renewed scrutiny on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has reintroduced The Fertilizer Research Act, a bipartisan measure requiring USDA to study pricing and competition across the fertilizer market. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins says that effort will go hand in hand with a Department of Justice probe into market concentration, promising to take a look at whether farmers truly have fair choices when buying the inputs that feed the nation.

“Pressure Cooker” on Capitol Hill

Two weeks ago on Capitol Hill, lawmakers took up the issue farmers have long demanded answers for: Why fertilizer, seed and input prices keep rising while competition keeps shrinking.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing, titled “Pressure Cooker: Competition Issues in the Seed and Fertilizer Industries, ” drew fiery testimony from across agriculture. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle say they’re hearing growing frustration from rural America.

Grassley tells the committee that farmers are being boxed in by consolidation at every level of the ag supply chain.

“Over the last 20 years, a few big companies have bought up many of the smaller seed and chemical businesses,” he says. “Those same companies now sell not just the seeds, but also the pesticides and digital farming tools that tell farmers what to plant and when. Because all these products and data systems are tied together, it’s hard for farmers to switch to a different brand.”

Sen. Cory Booker, D–N.J., delivers one of the sharpest warnings of the day.

“What’s happening in America is dire,” he says. “Congress must not just talk about the problems; we’ve got to fix them. Otherwise, American farming as we know it will be forever changed.”

Farmers Take a Stand

The goal of the hearing was to understand what’s driving record-high input prices and what, if anything, Congress can do to restore fairness and competition.

Of the six witnesses called that day, two were farmers who spoke candidly about what they’re experiencing on the ground.

Noah Coppess, a fifth-generation farmer from Cedar County, Iowa, tells senators the volatility of fertilizer pricing has turned crop planning into a gamble.

“If the market becomes too constricted, it is ultimately the farmer who loses,” Coppess says. “Fertilizer pricing has become very volatile, with wild swings of 25% to 50% from year to year. We’re asked to prepay for fertilizer three to six months before it’s applied to the soil and up to 14 months before harvest. Many contracts have a narrow window for application. If we miss it, the contract expires and the input is repriced higher or we’re charged monthly fees just to extend it.”

He says it’s forcing farmers to cut back in ways that threaten long-term soil health.

“Phosphate fertilizer has become a bare-minimum usage fertilizer on our farm because of the cost,” Coppess adds. “We simply can’t afford to apply it like we used to.”

Kentucky farmer Caleb Ragland tells the committee the same pressures are weighing on his operation.

“Farmers are paying more than ever to grow their crops,” he says. “In just five years, seed prices have increased by 18%, fertilizer by 37%, pesticides by 25%, machinery by 23% and interest expense by 37%. Seed is a key cost consideration for farmers. Advancements in seed technology and pesticides have delivered real agronomic benefits — but at an added cost. Those costs are eating away at what little margin we have left.”

Industry Response: “A Perfect Storm”

But the hearing wasn’t just about farmers. Corey Rosenbusch, president and CEO of The Fertilizer Institute (TFI), appeared before the committee to represent the industry’s view. Speaking later with “AgriTalk” host Chip Flory, Rosenbusch says the pressures farmers face are real but are largely the result of global dynamics, not domestic decisions.

“It’s a challenging time for growers,” Rosenbusch says. “In some cases, it’s even harder for the American farmer right now than it was a few years ago when markets exploded because at least, back then, commodity prices were high. Right now, it’s a perfect storm. Commodity prices are low, and input costs keep going up and up. Our message is simple: We need farmers to be successful because if they’re not, we don’t exist. But the factors driving this market are frankly outside of our control and, honestly, outside of this country’s control. Geopolitics is taking the headlines when it comes to supply and demand.”

He says Russia’s war in Ukraine, China’s fertilizer export restrictions and global energy volatility are all rippling through fertilizer markets — forces far beyond the industry’s ability to manage.

“These are global supply and demand pressures,” Rosenbusch says. “When geopolitics dominate, prices react worldwide.”

Farmers Push Back: “Too Few Suppliers”

Farmers listening to the hearing say those global explanations don’t tell the whole story.

Mark Mueller, a farmer from Bremer County, Iowa, was supposed to testify on behalf of the Iowa Corn Growers but says he was disinvited, which he believes was because of Iowa Corn’s strong stance on lack of competition in the fertilizer market.

He still attended the hearing in person and says one statement from the fertilizer industry blew him away.

“The bottom line is that we don’t have many places to get our inputs from,” Mueller says. “I might have a half dozen retailers in my county, but when you go a little farther, they all get their phosphorus from one company, their potash from two companies, and their nitrogen from maybe three, and it’s the same problem in the seed industry.”

Mueller says one comment from the industry’s leadership stuck with him.

“The most disingenuous statement I heard came from the CEO of the Fertilizer Institute,” he says. “He said there are 20 unique companies supplying fertilizer inputs to the industry. That’s like General Motors saying they’re made up of four or five unique companies — Buick, Chevrolet, GMC and Cadillac. It’s all one company.”

“It’s Not a Monopoly — It’s an Oligopoly”

Josh Linville, vice president of fertilizer at StoneX Group, agrees the U.S. fertilizer market isn’t a monopoly, but he says it operates much like one.

“Here’s why I can’t be a politician,” Linville jokes. “No, there isn’t enough competition. It’s not a monopoly, but it’s definitely an oligopoly. When you look at nitrogen, three players control the vast majority of production. For phosphate, there’s one main producer. For potash, we’re highly dependent on imports. Almost all of it comes from Canada. So yes, we have some competition — but not enough.”

Linville says fewer players mean tighter supply chains, and that amplifies every global shock, from wars to tariffs.

“A lot of what’s happening is global supply and demand,” he says. “But the lack of competition doesn’t help. Tariffs, countervailing duties and even the fear of new sanctions on Russia are inflating prices that global trade already pushes higher.”

Concerns Potential Government Trade Aid Payments Further Inflate Fertilizer Prices

There’s yet another wildcard this year: the potential for the White House to release tariff aid payments. USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden confirmed on AgriTalk the agency is preparing to roll out $12 billion in trade aid once the government reopens.

Linville says the potential for new government aid has some unintended consequences for the fertilizer market.

“Unfortunately, no,” Linville says when asked if fertilizer prices might ease if aid payments don’t go out. “If the payments come out, I’m afraid it’s gonna boost fertilizer prices. It doesn’t change the supply and demand for most of these products, but it does change the timing, and timing is everything.”

Linville says the fertilizer market is as much about when farmers buy as it is about how much they buy. Injecting fresh cash into the market at once could cause a surge in demand that suppliers can’t absorb smoothly.

“If there’s a big fat check that goes into the farmer’s pockets and that gets spent on fertilizer, and you pull all that demand into one period, fertilizer is going to see its prices boosted as a result,” he adds. “We saw that the last time the checks went out.”

Read More: Tariff Aid Payments Could Backfire, Boosting Fertilizer Prices, Analyst Warns

Little Hope for Price Relief

When asked whether fertilizer prices could ease before spring, Linville doesn’t sugarcoat it.

“You know me — I’m never going to deal in guarantees,” he says. “I’m not going to say prices can’t fall between now and spring, but the second I do, the market will humble me again. We’ve got some improvements: China’s exporting a little more, Russia’s exporting more, there’s more peace in the Middle East, but we still have production problems in Europe, and China’s slowing exports again. Phosphate exports are being cut in half this year, and the world doesn’t have anyone ready to fill that gap. So could prices fall? Yes. But I’m not holding my breath.”

Stockpiling Isn’t a Solution

When asked on “AgriTalk” whether stopping exports and stockpiling product domestically could help ease prices, Rosenbusch says the U.S. doesn’t have that capability.

“Even if we wanted to take a page out of China’s book and stop exports, we couldn’t,” he says. “We still have to import 40% of our phosphates. We don’t have the infrastructure to stockpile fertilizer in this country. It just doesn’t exist.”

A Critical Step Forward

In what’s being hailed as a small but meaningful win for the U.S. farm economy, the Trump administration recently added phosphate and potash to the list of 10 minerals deemed critical to national security. The designation could help accelerate mining permits and spur new domestic investment — something both industry and lawmakers say is badly needed.

But for farmers testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the message was clear: They can’t wait years for market reform.

“Fertilizer is the biggest pain point on farms today,” Coppess says. “We need change, and we need it soon.”

Shockingly Cool: This Startup Makes Fertilizer From Electricity

Tue, 05 Mar 2024 22:42:42 GMT

If you happen to pop into a Chipotle in California’s Central Valley, there’s an off chance you’ve consumed something downright futuristic: produce grown with fertilizers derived entirely from electricity, water, and air.

Nitricity, a climate-smart fertilizer startup founded by Stanford PhDs and postdocs, is proving its environmentally friendly concept with every scoop of lettuce or side of spicy red salsa. And there’s even bigger plans for 2024.

Its liquid fertilizer blends – sustainably produced via an ingenious process CTO and co-founder Dr. Joshua McEnaney likens to catching lighting in a bottle – are slated for trialing this spring with ag food giant, Olam (OFI). And Chipotle just dropped an investment into Nitricity at the end of 2023.

“We use a plasma-based process that splits nitrogen molecules from air, reacts the nitrogen with oxygen, and forms nitrate fertilizers in water,” he explains. “We capture that fixed nitrogen in an irrigable aqueous form, and we can make many kinds of nitrate-based fertilizers.”

For those thinking to themselves, ‘Wait, what did I just read?’ the same basic process occurs in nature during a lightning storm. These storms produce 1% of total nitrogen fertilizers globally, but they are just not efficient or predictable enough to rely on. Nitricity is taking that process into a controlled environment and ramping up the production.

“At the core (of our process) we make green nitric acid and can neutralize that with minerals to produce calcium nitrate or potassium nitrate fertilizers,” McEnaney says, noting Nitricity accomplishes this without requiring ammonia from fossil fuels.

Chipotle and Olam are on-board for 2024, and academics seem to be too. Studies commissioned by the California Air Resources Board and World Bank, among others, show that the nitrate fertilizers Nitricity makes can reduce nitrous oxide application emissions by 2-10x, depending on soil conditions and application rates. Third party studies have also shown similar results, according to McEnaney.

The next steps are clear. Setting up regional facilities for large-scale production and focusing on low-cost production so its blends can level up and be cost-competitive with conventional fertilizer.

“We’re looking at (producing) some fertilizers that are on the shelf but can now be sustainably made, and some that no one has ever seen yet, but it’s really about fitting into several different fertilizer categories that farmers are asking for,” McEnany says. “The biggest thing on our mind is scaling up.”

Nitricity recently relocated to a facility in Fremont, CA, for just that purpose. The concept that started with a focus on producing on-demand at the edge of the field in portable modular units has evolved into a Hub and Spoke distribution system.

“We’re not quite there yet,” McEnany allows, adding farmers in the American Southwest and West who use nitrate-based fertilizers for specialty crops are the initial product-market focus, for now. Eventually, the group does hope to have a product that will resonate with Midwest row crop growers (and the ag retail channel) that primarily use Ammonia, Urea, or Urea Ammonium Nitrate.

“For me, I was mostly attracted to the climate aspect, and then I just grew to love working with farmers,” McEnany says when asked what drew him to the project. “Our green nitrates have inherently lower field emissions than other fertilizers in many soil conditions – this could have an immense impact on climate change.”

You can learn more about Nitricity at its website.

Vilsack Lists USDA's 4 Policy Objectives for 2023

Wed, 11 Jan 2023 14:16:20 GMT

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack has a history of making key announcements during visits, and that was the case during his appearance at the American Farm Bureau Federation’s annual meeting in Puerto Rico.

Some of them include:

1. ERP Phase 2

Vilsack announced Phase 2 of the ERP, which will provide help to producers for production and quality losses of eligible crops, utilizing calculations of a producer’s decrease in gross revenue.

Those were about to be released months ago but were pulled back at the last minute due to lawmaker and farmer complaints. USDA eventually announced anyway.

USDA said in documentation on file at the Federal Register that using that approach will reflect the losses “without requiring the more extensive calculations and documentation required under previous programs” for disaster-related crop losses. USDA said this streamlines the aid to minimize the burden on producers and processing of applications by county FSA offices. Using that process also means it will address losses for a qualifying disaster event whether it happened before or after harvest.

ERP Phase 2 will be available for a decrease in gross revenue in 2020 or 2021, primarily to those with losses not covered by Federal Crop Insurance or the Noninsured Assistance Program (NAP).

The application period is Jan. 23-June 2. USDA has already paid out $7.31 billion under ERP Phase 1 as of Jan. 8, up from $7.28 billion the prior week, including $6.23 billion for non-specialty crops ($6.21 billion prior) and $1.09 billion for specialty crops ($1.08 billion prior). A total of $10 billion was earmarked for ERP.

USDA projects outlays for ERP Phase 2 payments will be $1.2 billion and will likely be pro-rated as USDA projects total gross outlays at $1.5 billion.

Phase 2 Reflection

Phase I was highly successful and it worked well. Phase 2 has tons of problems. Comparing schedule F in relevant years to past years doesn’t reflect losses. A farmer may have had to sell land or livestock when they didn’t want to. They may have sold a previous year’s crop in the year in question. These and other things skew the schedule F. There is also the issue of forcing farmers to share schedule F info with local FSA offices.

2. Pandemic Assistance Revenue Program (PARP)

Vilsack announced PARP payments for producers that suffered a 15% or greater decrease in allowable gross revenue for the 2020 calendar year compared with either 2018 or 2019. This effort, Vilsack said, aims to “fill in gaps” for losses covered by either Phase 1 or Phase 2 of ERP.

The payments will have a factor of 80% (90% for underserved farmers and ranchers) and will be reduced by 2020 ERP payments, and pandemic assistance under either the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP) 1 or 2 and other pandemic aid.

Payments will be limited to $125,000 per person or entity and USDA may set a lower maximum payment amount per person if total payments exceed available funding and USDA expects that to be the case — PARP outlays are projected at $250 million with gross outlays pegged at $2.66 billion.

USDA also will expand payments under prior efforts such as CFAP 2 and others. The total payments USDA projects under the ERP Phase 2, PARP and expanded other programs is $1.82 billion with gross amounts at $4.54 billion.

3. U.S.-Made Fertilizer

USDA will seek public comment on 21 potentially viable projects totaling up to $88 million to boost U.S. fertilizer production via the first round of USDA’s Federal Production Expansion Program, a $500 million effort announced earlier this year.

The projects are in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. USDA is seeking comments through Feb. 8 on the environmental impacts of the projects.

4. Meat and Poultry Processing

Vilsack announced three projects in Ohio, Michigan and Minnesota which will expand independent meat and poultry processing capacity via the Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program.

The projects total $12 million and are in addition to other recently announced efforts in the sector.

More on policy:

We Have ERP Phase II
Policy and Payments: What Producers Can Expect in 2023

Manure Application Following Silage

Wed, 05 Oct 2022 18:44:12 GMT

With silage harvest coming up quickly, manure application will soon follow. Because silage is often the first crop to come off the field, it allows for earlier manure application and thus an earlier cleanout of pens before winter. As that manure application plan develops, include best stewardship practices for optimum rates and preferred application methods in final decisions. But, wait, what do those things mean?

Agronomic Rates

Agronomic rates consider what future crops will need. They are generally based on one nutrient. That may mean some of the other nutrients will be applied in excess of crop needs and others will leave the crop deficient if not supplemented with other fertilizer. Your optimum rate may be an agronomic rate, but it may be somewhere in between the two most common:

Nitrogen-Based Rates

A nitrogen-based (n-based) rate considers how much nitrogen will be needed for the next season’s crop. For example, if a field is to be planted to corn in the spring, the n-based rate would utilize available manure nitrogen to meet all the needs of the corn to be grown next year. Because nitrogen is likely to be lost to leaching if over-applied, a n-based rate is the heaviest rate that can be applied to a field. In many cases, a n-based rate will far exceed nutrient needs for nutrients other than nitrogen.

Phosphorus-Based Rates

Occasionally someone may choose to use a phosphorus-based (p-based) rate. A p-based rate requires more land to utilize the same amount of manure as an n-based rate. This is especially true with beef manure and when distillers grains are fed because the ratio of phosphorus to nitrogen in the manure is much higher. Because phosphorus is not likely to be leached into the soil or groundwater, a p-based rate may account for multiple (4-5) years of phosphorus need. This is particularly common if the risk of erosion and runoff are low. For example, if you were applying to a field with a corn and soybean rotation, you might apply based on the P needs for the next 4 years of crops (2 years of corn and 2 years of soybean).

Choosing an Optimum Rate

In many cases, a person will choose a rate somewhere between n-based and p-based. That rate will often meet phosphorus needs for a couple of years, but is not sufficient to meet nitrogen needs. It allows for nitrogen to be applied later in the season, closer to when the crop needs it. This method capitalizes on the complementary benefits of manure and commercial fertilizer and minimizes loss of nitrogen from leaching. Additionally, it allows for manure to be applied on more acres, thus gaining the benefits of manure other than nutrient value on more fields.

Know How Much is Being Applied

The only way to know the actual application rate is to calibrate the manure spreader. Many people believe that’s a complicated process, but it doesn’t have to be. In many cases, calculations can be minimized and occasionally, with the proper tools, they can be completely eliminated. If you need help with your manure spreader calibration, contact myself or anyone on the manure team.

Incorporating Manure

When manure is applied on the surface of the soil, it remains exposed to the elements. This exposure can lead to nutrient losses from the manure. Nitrogen in the form of ammonia can be lost to the atmosphere, and phosphorus can be lost in runoff. To manage these two losses, a farmer may choose to incorporate the manure, essentially tilling it in. The sooner the farmer incorporates manure, the less the risk of loss. After 7 days though, especially if the weather is warm, ammonia nitrogen is already gone so there’s no nitrogen benefit for incorporation.

Before anyone decides whether to incorporate manure or not, they need to weigh the pros and cons of that incorporation. And the weight of these pros and cons are different for each farm or application.

Reasons why someone might choose to incorporate:

They are using manure with a large proportion of manure N in the form of ammonium N (risk of loss is high).
There’s a rainfall event predicted the next day that would likely cause runoff (higher risk of loss of P).
They’re also seeding a cover crop and are preparing the seed bed prior to planting or after broadcasting that seed.

Reasons why someone might choose to NOT incorporate:

They are using manure with already low ammonium N content (loss would be minimal).
They’re applying to relatively flat land where risk of runoff is low (loss of P would be minimal).
They’re applying when there is little to no risk of rain for several days (loss from P from runoff is minimal).
The field where they’re applying has few or no neighbors nearby to be bothered by the odor.
They have no equipment or not enough time/labor to get it done in a timely fashion.
They have steep hills and they’re not allowed to till the land without immediately following with a cover crop (high risk of erosion).

So, as you are applying manure or are watching manure applications occuring this late summer and early fall, remember that manure is not just a waste product to be disposed of. It’s packed with nutrients crops need, making it an investment for that field. The person doing the application most likely has a carefully orchestrated plan and they’ve probably thought about all of the risks and benefits of that manure application for that particular field.

Biden: Double Crop Because 'We Can't Take Any Chances'

Thu, 12 May 2022 02:54:31 GMT

Farm policy took center stage on Wednesday in Kankakee, Ill. President Biden visited OC Farms, owned by Jeff and Eugenia O’Connor.

During the visit, Biden—along with USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack—announced the administration’s latest efforts to alleviate rising costs on American’s pocketbooks through additional agricultural funding.

Fertilizer Makes Headlines

Purdue University-CME Group’s April Ag Economy Barometer showed producers experienced a challenge in sourcing fertilizer for 2022. The survey found 34% of producers reported trouble purchasing inputs, which is up 7% from surveys conducted in March.

To help mitigate costs, USDA says it will double-down on investments in domestic fertilizer production by increasing funding to $500 million. A portion of the funds will also be used to help farmers adopt precision agriculture methods that will reduce fertilizer use.

Inaccessible Grain Opens Door fo U.S. Exports

According to Biden, Ukraine has 20 million tons of stored grain awaiting export to various countries such as Africa, their biggest importer. He says Putin’s war, not sanctions, are impacting harvests and disrupting the movement of food by land and sea to nations in need.

“We’re going to see what actions we can take to increase fertilizer supplies globally,” says Biden. “We’re also going to see how we can work together to prevent export restrictions on food and agricultural inputs and bring more global production to market which will stabilize prices and bring more certainty to our farmers and keep people from dying of hunger.”

Double Crop to Drop Inflated Food Costs

In late April, USDA introduced a proposal to Congress , pleading for additional funding to offset costs resulting from the war in Ukraine. Part of the proposed funding included $250 million to aid U.S. producers to increase crop volumes through double cropping.

During the visit on Wednesday, Biden shared USDA will raise from $250 million to $500 million, and open the double cropping insurance floor to a total of 1,935 counties—up 681 counties from the initial announcement.

USDA says double cropping will boost production without substituting crops or cultivating new land. While the department recognizes there are risks associated with the practice, Biden says his team has a plan to overcome those risks.

“The growing season for wheat is short and if the weather conditions aren’t ideal or there are other disruptions, then the timing of everything is thrown off,” says Biden. “But it’s a risk we need to take and that’s why my administration is looking at how to extend crop insurance coverage to give financial security to farmers.”

Following the announcement, Vilsack boarded a plane to Germany for the G7 summit where, he and fellow agriculturalists will devise a plan to overcome food loses due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“Exploitation” in the Marketplace

50 years ago, ranchers received 60¢ on the dollar for harvested beef, according to Biden. He says today, they get 39¢. Similarly, he says hogs yielded 40¢-to-60¢ on the dollar for farmers 50-years ago but pens out to “about” 19¢ today, which reflects a market “distorted” by lack of competition.

“Capitalism without competition is not capitalism,” says Biden. “It’s exploitation.”

In January, the Biden administration allocated $1 billion in American Rescue Funds to expand independent meat processing capacity as part of a broader initiative to break up what it calls a meat and poultry processor monopoly. Biden says the plan will provide producers a chance “to sue companies they contract with over unfair, discriminatory or deceptive practices,” while reworking “Product of USA” label requirements.

Additionally, various Senators have introduced a bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to include a cattle contract library by way of Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Ac t.

Gas Prices Continue to Soar

Biden recently announced the sale of year-round E15 , which he said on Wednesday has decreased pump costs by 10¢ . However, the AAA reports regular gasoline price averages were at $4.40 on Wednesday, up 29¢ from the average reported a month ago.

Biden maintains the price hike can be attributed to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine but says—along with Vilsack—the expanded E15 supply along with the USDA’s $100 million in ethanol infrastructure will ultimately bring prices down in the long run.

More on ag policy:

> 30% of Farmers Still Having Trouble Finding Essential Crop Inputs for This Year
> White House Asks Congress for Additional $33 Billion in Aid for Ukraine
> Everything You Need to Know About the Proposed $500M to Ag in Biden’s Ukraine Aid Program
> Biden Plan Directs $1 Billion To Impact Meat & Poultry Processing, Strengthen P&SA, Add New Labeling Rules
> E15 Summer Ban Suspended, USDA Commits $700M To Biofuels Producers
> DOE Announces Plan to Replenish Tapped Oil Reserves

In the U.S., Manure is 'Hot Commodity' Amid Commercial Fertilizer Shortage

Wed, 06 Apr 2022 13:23:27 GMT

For nearly two decades, Abe Sandquist has used every marketing tool he can think of to sell the back end of a cow. Poop, after all, needs to go somewhere. The Midwestern entrepreneur has worked hard to woo farmers on its benefits for their crops.

Now, facing a global shortage of commercial fertilizers made worse by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, more U.S. growers are knocking on his door. Sandquist says they’re clamoring to get their hands on something Old MacDonald would swear by: old-fashioned animal manure.

“I wish we had more to sell,” said Sandquist, founder of Natural Fertilizer Services Inc, a nutrient management firm based in the U.S. state of Iowa. “But there’s not enough to meet the demand.”

Some livestock and dairy farmers, including those who previously paid to have their animals’ waste removed, have found a fertile side business selling it to grain growers. Equipment firms that make manure spreading equipment known as “honeywagons” are also benefiting.

Not only are more U.S. farmers hunting manure supplies for this spring planting season, some cattle feeders that sell waste are sold out through the end of the year, according to industry consultant Allen Kampschnieder.

“Manure is absolutely a hot commodity,” said Kampschnieder, who works for Nebraska-based Nutrient Advisors. “We’ve got waiting lists.”

Sky-high prices for industrial fertilizer are projected to reduce American farmers’ corn and wheat plantings this spring, according to U.S. government data. That further threatens global food supplies as domestic wheat inventories are the lowest in 14 years, and the Russia-Ukraine war is disrupting grain shipments from those key suppliers.

While manure can replace some of the nutrient shortfall, it’s no panacea, agriculture specialists say. There’s not enough supply to swap out all the commercial fertilizer used in the United States. Transporting it is expensive. And prices for animal waste, too, are rising on strong demand.

It’s also highly regulated by state and federal authorities, in part due to concerns about impacts on water systems.

Manure can cause serious problems if it contaminates nearby streams, lakes and groundwater, said Chris Jones, a research engineer and water quality expert at the University of Iowa.

Livestock farmers say it’s a heavy lift to meet all the government rules and track how manure is applied.

RACE FOR WASTE

Regardless of the drawbacks, demand is booming.

In Wisconsin, three dairy farmers told Reuters they turned down requests to buy their manure sent via text and Twitter messages.

North Carolina-based Phinite, which makes manure-drying systems, says it’s fielding solicitations from growers as far away as Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa and Indiana.

Smithfield Foods, the world’s largest pork producer, has noticed the shift at the U.S. hog farms that supply its slaughterhouses.

“We’re definitely seeing farmers move toward manure with the increase in fertilizer prices,” said Jim Monroe, a spokesperson for the company, which is owned by Hong Kong-listed WH Group Ltd .

Industrial fertilizers such as nitrogen require a lot of energy to produce. Prices started to surge last year amid rising demand and lower supply as record natural gas and coal prices triggered output cuts by fertilizer manufacturers. Extreme weather and COVID-19 outbreaks also roiled global supply chains.

War in Ukraine has made the situation worse by reducing fertilizer exports from Russia and its ally Belarus due to Western sanctions and shipping snags. That threatens to shrink harvests around the world at a time of record food inflation. Combined, Russia and Belarus accounted for more than 40% of global exports of potash last year, one of three critical nutrients used to boost crop yields, according to Dutch lender Rabobank.

As of March, commercial fertilizer prices reached a record high, with nitrogen fertilizer jumping four-fold since 2020 and phosphate and potash up three-fold, said London-based consultancy CRU Group.

One person left bereft is Dale Cramer, who grows corn, soybeans and wheat on about 6,000 acres in Cambridge, Nebraska. Searching for alternatives, he has sniffed around feedlots for manure since last August with no luck.

“A lot of people have put their names in for the same thing,” Cramer said.

HONEYWAGON SCRAMBLE

With demand for manure surging, prices have followed, delivering an unexpected windfall to livestock producers and cattle feedlots.

Prices for good-quality solid manure in Nebraska alone have reached $11 to $14 per ton, up from a typical price of $5 to $8 per ton, consultant Kampschnieder said. A dry winter helped drive up prices by leaving manure with less water in it, making it more concentrated, and thus more valuable, he said.

Iowa farmer Pat Reisinger is relieved he has dung from the pigs and dairy cows he raises to fertilize the corn, soybeans and hay he grows to feed those animals. He sold a little manure to one neighbor and is getting phone calls from others in need.

“If I sold any more, I’d have to turn around and buy commercial fertilizer, which makes no sense,” Reisinger said.

The boom has also has lifted machinery companies that make spreading equipment for solid manure as well as so-called honeywagons: wheeled tanks hitched to trucks and tractors for transporting and applying liquefied waste.

In Canada, Husky Farm Equipment Ltd is sold out of honeywagons. The company built its first contraption back in 1960 as a way to make collecting and spreading manure more efficient, according to President Walter Grose. Today Grose sells directly to farmers and machinery dealerships, and he can’t keep up.

“We have people looking for equipment right away and we’re sold out for six months,” said Grose who sells honeywagons in several sizes. Bigger tanks come with a $70,000 average price tag.

CNH Industrial, the American-Italian farm and construction equipment giant, said it has seen strong demand for its New Holland brand box spreaders - essentially, a steel box that attaches to a tractor to haul and spread solid manure.

Kansas equipment dealership KanEquip Inc is sold out of New Holland spreaders, even though prices have jumped 10% from the normal list price of $30,000, said regional manager Bryndon Meinhardt. He said the dealership has ordered 10 more to meet demand.

NO POOP FOR YOU

Even in states where large livestock herds generate massive quantities of manure, there’s not enough to replace commercial fertilizer completely. Iowa, the top U.S. producer of pork and corn, already applies all of its manure on land covering about 25% of its corn acres each year, said Dan Andersen, an associate professor at Iowa State University who specializes in manure management.

On average, Iowa uses about 14 billion gallons of manure annually, said Andersen, known as @DrManure on Twitter. He expects Iowa growers may suck out an extra billion gallons this year from storage in tanks on farms to substitute pricey commercial fertilizer.

Part of the current supply problem is rooted in the evolution of the U.S. farm economy. As America’s livestock sector has consolidated, there are geographical hubs where animals are raised for eggs, milk or meat, and where the most manure is produced. As a result, some places have too little, while others have too much and have wrestled with ways to dispose of it.

Last October, Pennsylvania dairyman Brett Reinford thought he might be tight on manure storage space over the winter. So he made an offer to local farmers: You come and haul it away, you can have it for free. He got no takers.

Fast forward six months and Reinford is now sitting on liquid gold. “We’re keeping it all and I wish we had more,” he said.

Manure could become even more precious later this year, as U.S. livestock herds and poultry flocks shrink.

The number of hogs in the United States has dropped to its lowest level in about five years, as producers grapple with swine diseases and rising costs for feed and other inputs. Bird flu, meanwhile, has wiped out more than 22 million chickens and turkeys on commercial U.S. farms since February.

But even hard-hit poultry farmers could have something to use: Their dead birds can be composted and applied as fertilizer, according to the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship.

(Reporting By P.J. Huffstutter and Tom Polansek in Chicago, and Bianca Flowers in Chicago and New York. Additional reporting by Leah Douglas in Washington, D.C.; Editing by Caroline Stauffer and Marla Dickerson)

If You Think Fertilizer Prices are Bad Now, Here's Why China Could Make the Situation Even Worse

Fri, 18 Mar 2022 16:06:55 GMT

The fertilizer market has been hit with black swans for nearly a year. And as farmers face anhydrous ammonia prices at $1500 per ton, prices are proof of just how bad the situation has become.

For those wondering if they should lock up their #fertilizer for the '23 corn crop, take a look at these #corn/fertilizer ratio charts.

Anything from July forward (dotted line) is what you would be securing 8 - 12 months out. Not a great relationship this far out. pic.twitter.com/8k7DYyCLmu
— Josh Linville (@JLinvilleFert) March 18, 2022

Russia’s decision to stop exporting fertilizer for the remainder of 2022 is yet another chapter in the fertilizer frenzy ag retailers and farmers face. Josh Linville of StoneX Group says Russia is a major player in global fertilizer production.

“Russia is a major, major exporter across all of the major fertilizers,” says Linville. “Urea, they account for 14% of the global export total. UAN has been anywhere from 25% to 31% the last couple of years. Phosphate 10%. They are almost 20% of the global operating potash capacity of the entire world. They’re a big deal. Losing Russian exports is a very big deal. I don’t care where you are in the earth, it matters to you.”

Time to Add Clovers to Your Pastures

Tue, 01 Feb 2022 15:15:20 GMT

Nitrogen fertilizer prices have reached over $750/ton for urea (over 85¢/pound of N), with expectations that it could reach over $1,000/ton. This is a good time to consider using legumes in our pastures to replace N fertilizers. Forage legumes can fix 50 to 150 (or more) pounds of nitrogen from the air, depending on the density of the legume stand. Clover plantings are often most successful when planting in late winter to early spring (February and early March), so it is time to get this on your mind.

Clovers and most other legumes require neutral pH and proper soil phosphorus and potassium. Hopefully, you have been following Extension recommendations and soil testing and correcting pH and soil fertility issues when fertilizers were cheaper. If you are considering planting clovers first you should soil test the sites you are considering planting. Clovers do not fixate nitrogen as well in acid soils, so pH> 6.0 is a must. If pH, P, and K are adequate or easily corrected in some sites but not others plant clovers in the better sites. Then grass should be grazed or mowed closely, the reduction in plant residue enables good seed to soil contact for better germination and seedling survival.

Frost seeding of clovers is very cheap and effective. To do this, seed is simply broadcast seed onto the soil surface and allowing the freeze and thaw cycles to incorporate it into the soil through frost heave. Success can be enhanced by dragging pastures after you broadcasting the seed to get better contact with the soil. If using a no-till drill be sure seed depth is right, these small seeds should not be planted more than ½ inch deep. Planting equipment should be calibrated to ensure the correct seeding rate. Red clover should be planted at 10 to 12 pounds per acre, but white clover should only be planted at 3 to 5 pounds per acre.

Using high-quality seed of a clover species adapted to you site is also of great importance. Arrowleaf clover is highly productive in sandy loam soils while red clovers prefers loam to clay loam soil but neither thrives in poorly drained soils. White clover does will in poorly drained loam to clay loam soils.

In some recent research, interseeding white and red clovers into bermudagrass was compared to bermudagrass fertilized with 0, 50, or 100 pounds of actual N per acre. For each pound of nitrogen, steer gain per acre was increased by 1.2 to 1.5 pounds, which would cost about 56 cents per pound of gain. Including clovers in the pasture increased total bodyweight gain per acre by over 150 pounds over fertilized pastures, so clovers can be highly cost effective to add to your pastures.

For more information about clovers and other legumes refer to the fact sheet “Forage Legumes for Oklahoma” PSS-2585 by John Caddel and Jim Enis. https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/forage-legumes-for-oklahoma.html

Natural Gas Prices Only Account for 15% of Run-Up in Anhydrous Ammonia Prices, Shows New Texas A&M Study

Fri, 14 Jan 2022 17:50:32 GMT

Fertilizer prices and availability could be the deciding factors in farmers’ acreage decisions in 2022. Texas A&M Agricultural and Food Policy Center (AFPC) released a second economic impact study this week — this one focused on what’s causing the spike in nitrogen prices and the resulting impact on input costs for corn producers.

Why Are Fertilizer Prices So High?

The “ Economic Impact of Nitrogen Prices on U.S. Corn Producers ” report was prepared for 21 state corn grower groups. Chris Edgington, an Iowa farmer and president of National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), says fertilizer prices are the top issue and concern for NCGA members right now.

(Farm Journal)

Graphic Courtesy of Lindsey Benne; Data Provided by AFPC Texas A&M Fertilizer Price Study for Corn Growers

“One of the things we’re really trying to figure out is why prices have gone up so much,” he says. “Corn prices are up 50% but nitrogen fertilizer is up 150%, maybe more. In fact, [nitrogen] is more now compared with when the study was done. That’s a big economic decision maker when there’s a shift in the price of one of our inputs. It will influence whether a farmer plants corn, soybeans or wheat, and what their overall crop mixture is for this next year.”

The Role of Natural Gas in Nitrogen Prices

In another fertilizer economic impact study released earlier this week, AFPC was asked to analyze the impact of higher nitrogen prices on 64 representative crop farms by a member of Congress. The report found, “based on currently available data, the increase in nitrogen prices appears to be 81% higher for the 2022 crop than previous estimates.”

On a per-acre basis, AFPC economists say farmers are seeing nitrogen costs increase $52.07 across the farms they use in their modeling.

“This means corn farmers need roughly 32¢ per bushel from the market or government to offset the higher nitrogen price,” according to the report.

“This study was largely led by my co-director, Dr. Joe Outlaw, but once we started to back out the cost of natural gas, we found that only explains about 15% of the price increase over the past year,” says Bart Fischer, AFPC co-director. “Most folks, I think, would be surprised by how small of a role natural gas is playing because we hear a lot about those dynamics and that natural gas is driving it. This report puts that in context at roughly 15%, which then raises a lot of questions about well, then what else is driving it?”

(Farm Journal)

Anhydrous Ammonia Prices Highest Since 2008

Other key findings in the AFPC report on the Economic Import of Nitrogen Prices on U.S. Corn Producers include:

Nitrogen prices experienced significant peaks in July 2008 and throughout 2021. U.S. anhydrous ammonia prices fell to $226.50 per ton in June 2020 before steadily increasing to $432.50 per ton in February 2021. In March 2021, anhydrous ammonia prices increased 34% to $580 per ton. Since that time, prices have steadily risen to $1,022.50 per ton by October 2021 — the highest levels since 2008.
The suggestion that recent increases in the price of natural gas are the primary reason for increases in the prices of nitrogen products is highly suspect.
For example, the price of anhydrous ammonia increased $688 per ton from the end of 2020 through October 2021. However, the increase in the value of the embedded natural gas accounts for only $102 (or 15%) of that increase. Once the value of natural gas in a ton of anhydrous ammonia has been subtracted from the anhydrous ammonia price, the residual tends to closely track the price of corn, albeit on different scales.
Fertilizer is a major cost for corn producers with nitrogen accounting for more than 50% of the cost. Corn has the highest fertilizer cost at $117 per acre followed by rice at $97 per acre and peanuts and cotton at $68 per acre. The other five crops spend less than $45 per acre, with soybeans the lowest at $31 per acre.
Fertilizer costs for corn (36%) account for the highest percentage of operating costs across the nine commodities followed by wheat (35%), oats (32%), grain sorghum (30%) and barley (27%). This means more than one-third of corn and wheat operating costs are directly attributed to highly volatile fertilizer prices.

(Farm Journal)

Six Factors Driving Fertilizer Prices

So, what is driving the run-up in fertilizer prices over the past year? The Fertilizer Institute points to six major factors: global demand for fertilizer; recent weather events impacting domestic production; production plant maintenance pushed back due to COVID-19; international geopolitical issues, including in Belarus and China; transportation costs; and the cost of natural gas.

“There is uncertainty with the supply chain, logistics and everything else involved. I know there are growing concerns about the role tariffs may or may not play in this as well because there are a couple of ongoing cases with respect to the United States potentially placing tariffs against companies from other countries,” Fischer says. “I think one concern we acknowledged in the report, though, is there’s a lot of unexplained factors and certainly the one that’s thrown around the most, natural gas, does not appear to be a huge motivating factor. It does then start to raise questions about what else is going on?”

AFPC’s study shows farmers are currently facing nitrogen costs 80% higher than last year. That’s as anhydrous ammonia prices reached 2008 levels in October at more than $1,000 per ton. And those prices have been steadily rising ever since.

“You’re talking fertilizer prices that have gone up somewhere close to $200 an acre for some producers, and the revenue being generated is not offsetting that. And that’s just the fertilizer industry,” Edgington says. “That’s not even talking about the chemistry industry, land values or equipment that people can’t get. There is a big, big cash flow crunch coming. The banking industry is nervous about it as well, as they watch what has been a pretty good year for agriculture possibility go completely backward in this next growing season in a big way.”

(Farm Journal)

Graphic Courtesy of Lindsey Benne; Data Provided by AFPC Texas A&M Fertilizer Price Study for Corn Growers

Edgington says the study reinforces the fact shell-shocked farmers can’t handle more price increases. That’s why NCGA says it’s urging CF Industries and Mosaic to withdraw petitions that led to the tariffs to the tune of 19% on imported fertilizers. NCGA, along with several other commodity groups, have filed a case with the U.S. Court of International Trade. A ruling is expected this year.

“We understand some of the risks we take in agriculture, but when people are asking for tariffs on top of what is already a price that is not acceptable for farmers to be able to try to make a living we have some problems with that,” says the NCGA president. “That’s why we’re pushing back. It’s these tariffs. It’s companies that are using trade wars and tariffs that’s affecting us, individual farmers, as we try to make day-to-day decisions. It will have an impact. There will be less fertilizer put on, crop mix will change but to what level depends on supply.”

The study was commissioned by state corn organizations in Texas, Missouri, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wisconsin.

Mosaic Responds to Fertilizer Price Concerns

Mosaic recently commented on the fact some fertilizer prices are at 10-year highs. As reported in “The Scoop,” Mosaic says with high global demand the supply chain disruptions have led to uncertainty and market instability. The company also emphasizes that fertilizer is a global market, and no one actor can determine the market because several factors have contributed to the rise in prices.

“We frankly empathize with the conundrums facing ag retailers and their customers – the growers,” says Andy Jung, director, market & strategic analysis at Mosaic. “Costs have escalated dramatically. There have been shipping delays. We talk to them regularly and understand the challenges across the input supply chain.”

Mosaic says the cost of energy particularly can affect their production of phosphate products due to their use of ammonia, which has increased in price as a raw material by 288%. Also, sulfur is up 165%.

Exploring the Impact Fertilizer Prices Have On Farmers

A separate report by AFPC released Monday shows supply chain disruptions are wreaking havoc on nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous prices, costing feedgrain farms the most.

AFPC conducted an economic impact study on fertilizer prices at the request of U.S. Rep. Julia Letlow (R-La.).

The study, which used a conservative estimate of a 50% rise in fertilizer costs, found several key points, including:

As the nation struggles to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of supply chain disruptions continue to wreak havoc on agricultural input markets, both in terms of availability and cost of inputs. In the case of fertilizer, prices have exploded over the past year.
Under FAPRI’s August 2021 baseline outlook, nitrogen prices were expected to increase about 10% in 2022. Based on current spot market prices, it appears as though fertilizer prices will increase in excess of 80% for the 2022 planting season (relative to 2021).
The report found that the largest whole-farm impact would fall on AFPC’s feedgrain farms at an average of $128,000 per farm.
The largest per-acre impact would fall on AFPC’s rice farms at $62.04 per acre

While the economic study from Texas A&M shows higher fertilizer prices are dampening the net farm income outlook for 2022, possible policy solutions are also something AFPC economists explored in the study. While the economists didn’t outline set solutions, they did provide perspective, saying current farm bill safety nets aren’t designed to handle a sudden increase in costs. If Congress or USDA opted to go the route of direct payments, AFPC found the spike in fertilizer costs across all farms equates to an added production cost of $42 per acre.

Biden to Meet with CEOs on Supply Chain Amid New COVID Variant Threat

Mon, 29 Nov 2021 22:19:39 GMT

President Joe Biden planned to meet with chief executives of major retailers and other companies on Monday to discuss how to move goods to shelves as the U.S. holiday shopping season begins in the shadow of the Omicron coronavirus variant.

Biden, who is wrestling with U.S. inflation that recently hit a 31-year high, has taken measures to try to break supply chain logjams including unclogging ports and expanding trucker hours.

The Democratic president has also sought investigations into excessive shipping fees and possible illegal conduct into oil and gas markets that are keeping fuel prices high.

Biden planned to host at the White House the CEOs of Best Buy, Food Lion, Samsung North America, Qurate Retail Group, Todos Supermarket, Etsy, Mattel and Kroger, the White House said.

Virtual participants in the meeting will include Walmart CEO Doug McMillon and CVS Health CEO Karen Lynch.

Biden will make public remarks after the meeting, which follows the start of the year-end shopping season on Black Friday.

Black Friday retail sales were up 29.8% versus 2020 through 3 p.m. that day, according to Mastercard SpendingPulse. Bargain hunters who ventured out to buy Christmas gifts on the day after the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday found stores less crowded amid a shift online, COVID fears and less-steep discounts.

U.S. retailers are estimated to generate online sales of up to $11.3 billion on Cyber Monday, a decline in growth from a year earlier as fewer discounts and limited choices due to global supply chain disruptions deter shoppers.

Earlier on Monday, Biden will receive a briefing from the White House COVID-19 response team on developments related to the Omicron variant.

The World Health Organization warned on Monday that the variant is likely to spread internationally, posing a “very high” global risk, where infection surges could have “severe consequences” in some areas.

News of the variant spread from southern Africa as the U.S. economy appeared to accelerate last week after the number of Americans filing new claims for jobless benefits dropped to a 52-year low.

After a jittery sell-off on Friday, a semblance of calm returned to world markets on Monday as investors waited for more details to assess the severity of the Omicron variant on the world economy, allowing battered stocks and oil prices to rebound.

(Reporting by Alexandra Alper and Doina Chiacu, Editing by Peter Graff and Ed Osmond)