Policy

House E15 Bill Could Boost Corn Prices While Pressuring Soybeans, FAPRI Finds

Tue, 12 May 2026 19:37:31 GMT

As the House prepares to vote on year-round E15 , there’s a new study out from the University of Missouri’s Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) , and it’s is giving agriculture and biofuels groups an early look at what expanded year-round E15 sales and changes to Small Refinery Exemptions (SRE) could mean for farmers and rural America. While there are positives for ethanol and corn demand, the report also highlights some clear tradeoffs, especially for soybean oil, biodiesel and even short-term farm income as soybeans could be negatively impacted by the House’s legislation.

According to FAPRI Director Seth Meyer, the study’s clearest takeaway is that year-round E15 alone doesn’t dramatically reshape the farm economy in the near term, but proposed changes to small refinery exemptions could pressure farm income while increasing government spending.

Meyer says the headline is pretty straightforward. The biggest market disruptions in the analysis don’t actually come from allowing year-round E15 sales. Instead, the larger economic consequences show up when the House proposal to reduce SRE reallocations gets layered into the equation.

“The key of the report is that E15 itself is not, at least in the short term, a major disruption to the market in terms of producer incomes or government costs,” Meyer says. “It becomes mostly a tradeoff between corn and soybeans.”

SRE Allocations Changes the Story

Meyer says the study found that if it was just a clean E15 bill, the results would be different. But when you factor in the SREs, and the fact it’s still unknown on how big that volume would end up being, the House version of the bill becomes a negative for the entire agriculture sector very quickly.

“I think what was important was to put out some information that says E15 in and of itself is largely, at least in the near term, a trade-off between corn and beans,” says Meyer. “It’s good for the corn part of the balance sheet, maybe a little harder on the soybean part of the ballot sheet because there are trade-offs. But then the bill also proposes small refinery exemptions that are essentially a reduction in the mandates, and that is a negative overall. That takes what is really a trade-off between corn and beans and makes it an overall negative for both what the government spends and for the farm income for the sector.”

In FAPRI’s modeling, reducing the amount of waived refinery obligations that get redistributed across the rest of the refining sector effectively lowers Renewable Fuel Standard volumes. That shift weakens biofuel feedstock demand and creates more pressure on soybean markets and farm income.

“It is the addition of the small refinery exemptions and the proposal to not reallocate 75% of those obligations that government costs we track begin to rise and farm income begins to fall,” Meyer explains. “Those SREs are the main drivers of government costs and reductions in farm income because they are, in effect, a reduction in the RVOs or mandates.”

The FAPRI analysis looked at three scenarios tied to HR 1346, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act:

E15 expansion alone
E15 plus 600 million gallons of SRE reductions
E15 plus 900 million gallons of SRE reductions

Under the model, E15 adoption gradually grows by 0.25% annually, eventually pushing the average ethanol blend rate to 13% by 2035. That increase would add roughly 2 billion gallons of domestic ethanol use by the mid-2030s, while simultaneously changing the balance between ethanol and biomass-based diesel under the RFS structure.

What Happens to Corn and Soybeans?

FAPRI’s findings show E15 expansion boosts corn demand and corn acreage over time. By 2035, corn prices rise about 14 cents per bushel versus baseline levels, with additional corn acres pulled into production as ethanol demand expands.

But, according to the report, the gains for corn do not translate evenly across the broader crop sector. As ethanol demand rises, biomass-based diesel demand weakens, which directly pressures soybean oil values and eventually soybean prices. That’s especially true under the SRE scenarios, where lower mandated renewable fuel volumes further reduce demand for biodiesel feedstocks.

“So while corn may benefit, a reduction in the RVO has negative implications for soybeans that outweigh those corn benefits,” Meyer explains.

The report projects soybean prices could fall between 38 and 43 cents per bushel by 2035, depending on the SRE scenario. Soybean acreage also trends lower throughout the projection period as acres shift toward corn production.

Meanwhile, soybean oil prices take an even larger hit because biodiesel absorbs much of the downside under reduced RFS obligations. Meyer says that dynamic is rooted in how current mandates are being met today.

“You see bio-based diesel decline in all cases because, at the moment, the majority of the marginal gallons to meet the mandates are biodiesel,” Meyer says. “If you expand the small refinery exemptions, those volume reductions are no longer a tradeoff between ethanol and bio-based diesel, but a reduction in the marginal gallon, which is bio-based diesel.”

Farm Income Turns Negative Before Recovering

One of the more notable findings in the study is that net farm income trends negative for several years under the SRE scenarios before eventually recovering later in the outlook period. While stronger corn demand helps offset some losses, it isn’t enough in the early years to counter the broader drag from weaker soybean and bio-based diesel markets.

Under the larger 900-million-gallon SRE scenario, net farm income falls by as much as $1 billion annually during the early 2030s before improving later in the decade. FAPRI also projects higher government outlays under the SRE scenarios as weaker commodity prices trigger additional farm program support.

Meyer says soybean losses are the biggest driver behind the weaker farm income projections. He also notes that ripple effects extend into livestock feeding costs because of tighter soybean meal supplies and higher corn demand.

“The notable driver in the outcome is the losses for soybeans as the SREs cut mandates,” he adds.

The livestock sector also sees higher feed costs as corn demand rises and soybean meal supplies tighten. Over time, those higher feed costs work their way through animal agriculture and eventually impact consumer meat prices as producers adjust inventories and production decisions.

Key Points From the Study

E15 expansion alone modestly boosts corn demand with relatively limited disruption to overall farm income.
Reduced SRE reallocation lowers effective RFS mandates and creates the largest negative impacts on crop receipts and government outlays.
Biomass-based diesel demand declines more sharply than ethanol demand under the proposed changes.
Corn acreage rises while soybean acreage falls across all scenarios.
The long-term outcome depends heavily on how quickly E15 adoption actually happens — and whether EPA eventually expands the conventional ethanol “gap” above 15 billion gallons.

That final point may be one of the biggest wildcards in the entire discussion, said Meyer. FAPRI’s analysis assumes the conventional ethanol portion of the Renewable Fuel Standard effectively remains capped near 15 billion gallons. If EPA policy or future legislation allows that cap to move higher, the economics for agriculture could look considerably different.

“You call out a very important assumption,” Meyer says. “If the passage of E15 were to drive an expansion of that 15-billion-gallon conventional gap to 16 or 17 billion gallons and raise total mandates by that same amount, this would increase benefits or reduce losses in the ag sector across all the scenarios.”

Corn Growers React, Disagrees With “Two Fundamental Assumptions”

The recent analyses examining the potential impacts of year-round E15 adoption are drawing sharp disagreement from the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), which says key assumptions in those models undercut the policy’s real-world effects.

In response to the reports, Krista Swanson, NCGA’s chief economist, argued that the studies fail to account for recent federal biofuel policy changes and underestimate how quickly E15 could be adopted in the marketplace.

“We disagree with two fundamental assumptions with recent analyses related to year-round E15 adoption: they do not factor in the historically high final RVO volumes recently set for biomass-based diesel and they assume slower E15 adoption than industry projections,” Swanson says.

Swanson added that NCGA’s own modeling reaches a very different conclusion on the policy’s impact on farm income and fuel markets.

“NCGA has also conducted its own analysis of year-round E15 and all outcomes point in the same direction: E15 strengthens corn demand and farm income for corn farmers, most of whom also raise soybeans. Year-round E15 saves drivers money at the pump, supports America’s corn farmers and improves energy security for our country. H.R. 1346 deserves a yes vote.”

The Biggest Unknowns

Meyer says there are still several major uncertainties surrounding both E15 adoption and how EPA ultimately implements future RFS obligations. Those unknowns could significantly alter how these market impacts unfold over the next decade.

“I don’t think there is a single assumption on this complicated issue, so let me state three,” he adds. “First is the true path of E15 expansion and more importantly, the second is how that might drive changes in mandates as a result. Third, what is the true volume of exemptions that would result from the legislation? Because we don’t have this information, we did two scenarios.”

The pace of actual consumer adoption also matters. While the model assumes gradual E15 growth over time, Meyer says a slower adoption curve would likely soften some of the corn demand benefits while making the negative impacts tied to SRE reductions more apparent.

“If growth in E15 is slower and we look just at the ‘clean’ E15, it just changes the amount of tradeoffs between corn and soybeans,” Meyer said. “But if we had slower E15 growth with SRE reductions, we would show more negative impacts on crop prices and farm income from the SREs.”

Year-Round E15 Faces Vote In The House This Week

Mon, 11 May 2026 19:21:25 GMT

This week, the House is expected to take a vote on legislation to allow year-round E-15.

In the latest schedule published by House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, HR 1356, Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act of 2025 (Sponsored by Rep. Smith (NE) / Energy and Commerce Committee) is on the calendar for Wednesday. This may be the last hurdle to enable more widespread sales of the fuel blend that includes 15% ethanol, which is compatible for use in 96% of cars on the road today.

Temporary Waivers Have Been A Band Aid

The legislation could bring clarity and predictability to issue that has been dealt with piecemeal solutions. There’s been the “summertime ban” on E15, which is typically restricted from June 1 to September 15 due to outdated volatility regulations under the Clean Air Act. Proponents argued that the Farm Bill was a natural home for the policy to support corn growers and lower fuel prices.

Earlier this year, the EPA issued an emergency waiver allowing for summer sales of E15. While it gave some certainty of E15 availability for the time being, the temporary waivers didn’t meet the threshold of industry advocates.

Then, more recently, year-round E15 was included in the Farm Bill but was stripped out before vote. The goal was to provide a permanent legislative fix, which has iterated to become the pending action on legislation this week.

Standalone Legislation

H.R. 1356 has industry and farm group support. The American Farm Bureau Federation highlights:

E15—also sold as Unleaded 88—can save drivers 10–30¢ per gallon while supporting rural jobs and retain energy dollars in the U.S.
Expanding access to E15 could increase corn demand by up to 2.4 billion bushels annually.

Growth Energy, the nation’s largest biofuel trade association, announced now more than 5,000 retail locations sell E15. This milestone comes after a 15% to 24% increase annually in the number of stores selling E15 since 2020.

“An important part of this legislation is to finalize the rule making that clears the air on infrastructure,” says Emily Skor CEO of Growth Energy. “It would kind of grandfather in some of the underground storage so that it’s easier for a retailer to just simply say ‘I want to start offering this’ and not have to change our infrastructure or invest in infrastructure.”

Fuel retailers sold nearly 2.5 billion gallons of E15 in 2025. Skor adds her group expects to see 1,200 more locations add E15 in 2026, and if Congress allows year-round sales, that number will be “exponential growth.”

According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, which has initiated a member alert for grassroots action, “This is a critical moment for farmers and rural communities. Year-round E15 is a market-driven, no-cost solution that increases demand for U.S. corn, strengthens farm income, lowers gas prices, and improves America’s energy independence.”

Will it Get Passed?

Skor says the issue has been punted twice, but unlike previous efforts the standalone bill is proceeding differently because it’s the first time the House has got to vote on just this issue.

“There’s mounting pressure to get something done and take action,” Skor says. “My attitude is one step at a time. If we get a successful–I’ll say when we get a successful House vote–it will help us, because it will signal to the Senate the House does support it and it can be done.”

She adds, “Our opposition is small, but they’re spreading a false narrative. So we really have to get in there and educate people. At the end of the day, for those people if they may not be swayed by the importance of this to the farm economy, they’ve got to be swayed by the price savings at a time when gas prices are at a four year high.”

Diesel Prices Are Breaking Records Across Multiple States, And Relief May Not Come in 2026

Wed, 06 May 2026 12:53:35 GMT

On Tuesday, President Trump stated that high gasoline prices are a “very small price to pay” for the ongoing war with Iran, arguing they are necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He predicted prices will “come crashing down” once the war ends. But for farmers and ranchers, diesel prices have risen more than gas, putting a further strain on already high input costs for 2026.

Trump on Oil Prices:

I looked today, it's like at 102 and that's a very small price to pay pic.twitter.com/2V8LC93wFj
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 5, 2026

To start the week, diesel prices went on another run with the national average diesel price is just 20 cents away from reaching a new all-time high. And across the country, a growing number of states aren’t waiting to get there. About six states are already seeing the national average price of diesel reach record highs.

From the Great Lakes to the West Coast, roughly a half dozen states have already smashed previous records, as a late-April dip in prices quickly faded and a fresh surge took hold.

“Diesel now averaging about $5.65 a gallon nationally. That is only about 20 cents away from a new all-time record high,” says Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy . “So even though we had that short-lived break, we’re right back knocking on the door of records again.”

That “break” didn’t last long. De Haan says even though diesel prices saw a bit of a respite for April, with even prices starting to trend down in mid-April, those prices re-accelerated in the last week.

New records for diesel in:
Michigan, $6.01
Illinois, $6.01
Wisconsin $5.67
(Indiana 0.2c/gal away), $6.03
(Ohio ~19c/gal away), $5.93 https://t.co/DV0387vvMR
— Patrick De Haan (@GasBuddyGuy) May 5, 2026

Now, the rally is showing up in state-by-state records, especially in the Midwest.

“Looking at it state by state, Great Lakes states have seen some tremendous refining issues that have really caused prices to rise dramatically,” he says. “Michigan has now set a new all-time record high for diesel over $6. Indiana is just a few tenths of a penny away from setting a new all-time record. Illinois has set a new all-time record. Wisconsin has set a new all-time record.”

And it’s not just a regional story. States in the West were some of the first to not just see the highest prices, but now also hit record levels.

“Out on the West Coast, Arizona set a record a couple of weeks ago, and Washington state is at an all-time record,” he adds. “So there are probably about a half dozen or so states that have set new all-time records, and again, the national average itself is just 20 cents away.”

Perhaps the most telling shift, though, is there’s no longer a low-price refuge.

“No states any longer have diesel averaging below $5 a gallon,” De Haan says. “Texas was the last holdout, and it now is above $5 per gallon. So across the board, $5 diesel is now essentially the floor, and in some areas, that’s actually the cheaper end of the spectrum.”

At the high end, prices are reaching extremes with California’s average diesel price now surpassing $8 per gallon.

Global Tensions Cloud Relief Outlook

With prices continuing to climb, farmers are looking for relief. What would it take to reverse course? That answer remains tied to global uncertainty.

“Relief may be a little bit elusive,” De Haan admits. “It really just depends on the daily developments in the situation between the U.S. and Iran—whether the Strait is open or not, or whether we’re in phases of escalation.”

The Strait of Hormuz remains a critical chokepoint for global energy supply, moving roughly 20 million barrels of oil per day.

“Nothing else matters to the oil market more than this waterway,” he emphasizes. “We’ve seen attacks that have pushed oil prices higher, which in turn pushes diesel wholesale prices up. You may get a little bit of day-to-day relief, but there really is no ‘coast is clear’ until there’s some sort of definitive resolution.”

And even then, he says a turnaround won’t happen overnight.

“If there is a definitive signal to the market, if the Strait reopens and both sides are aligned, prices could start falling within 48 hours,” De Haan explained. “But the rate of decline is likely to slow after that initial drop.”

Prices Likely to Remain Elevated Through 2026

Not only is the rate of decline projected to be slow, but De Haan says diesel prices aren’t likely to drop back to pre-war levels by the end of the year.

“Roughly half of the increase we’ve seen over the last couple of months could come down within the first few months of positive news,” he said. “But the other half could take many more months. We may not get back to pre-conflict diesel prices until late this year—or even into 2027.”

For agriculture, that prolonged stretch of elevated prices carries real consequences.

“When you look at what comes out of a barrel of oil, diesel only makes up about 25%,” De Haan explained. “Gasoline is a larger portion, so it’s been less impacted. Jet fuel, which is an even smaller share, has been hit the hardest. So it’s almost inverse to how much is produced.”

Why Diesel Is Climbing Faster Than Gasoline

If it feels like diesel prices are rising faster and hitting harder than gasoline, there’s a reason rooted in how a barrel of oil gets used.

“Diesel has seen more of the sticker shock compared to gasoline,” says De Haan. “And a lot of that comes down to what comes out of a barrel of oil.”

Not all fuels are created equally in supply. Gasoline makes up the largest share of a refined barrel, while diesel represents a smaller slice, making it more vulnerable when supply is disrupted.

“Gasoline is the top product flowing out of a barrel of oil, so it’s been the least impacted,” De Haan explains. “Diesel, on the other hand, only accounts for about 25% of a barrel, so it’s been more impacted when there are supply issues.”

That imbalance becomes even clearer when looking across the full spectrum of refined fuels.

“The most significant impact has actually been to jet fuel, which is only about 9% of a barrel,” he adds. “So if you look at it inversely—the smaller the share of the barrel, the bigger the impact we’re seeing right now.”

For agriculture, that dynamic matters more than most sectors.

Diesel isn’t optional on the farm. It’s essential. From planting to harvest, it powers tractors, trucks and the supply chain that moves commodities across the country.

“Diesel is the fuel that drives agriculture,” De Haan say. “And that’s why these price increases are so impactful, not just at the pump, but all the way through the economy.”

And while prices are already elevated, the full effect is still working its way downstream.

“Consumers really haven’t even seen the full onset of some of these higher prices yet,” he adds. “That’s going to continue to trickle through in the weeks ahead.”

Demand Holding...for Now

Even with these high prices, so far, demand hasn’t shown many signs of slowing.

“We have not seen much meaningful decrease in demand yet,” De Haan says. “We’ve seen very little, if any, diesel demand destruction so far, which tells you the economy is essentially preparing to pay these prices because it still needs the fuel.”

But there are warning signs ahead.

“If diesel nationally hits $6 a gallon, that’s likely when we start to see consumption slow,” he says. “For gasoline, that number is about $5 a gallon. We’re getting very close to those thresholds.”

Until then, the pressure continues to mount. And for farmers heading deeper into the growing season, that pressure is becoming harder to ignore.

Kicked Out of the Farm Bill: What's Next for E15?

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 21:49:31 GMT

When Congress returns from recess May 12, advocates hope E15 will get another chance in Washington. The measure was removed from the Farm Bill Wednesday following heated debates.

Legislation to allow year-round, nationwide E15 sales is now moving forward as a standalone bill. If the bill passes the House, it will likely be reintegrated into the broader Farm Bill.

The push for E15 has been a long-fought political struggle. However, Washington insiders believe the odds of passage are currently high. This is due in part to a renewed focus on biofuels and domestic energy security following recent global conflicts.

A Critical Vote on the Horizon

Industry leaders remain optimistic about the upcoming legislative schedule. Troy Bredenkamp, Senior Vice President of Government & Public Affairs for the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), expects movement soon.

“I believe we will get our vote on the E15 measure on May 13. So things are still on track,” Bredenkamp says.

Despite the momentum, many farmers remain cautiously optimistic. The industry has seen similar measures fail at the finish line several times before.

“I mean, we get it right to the edge and then and then off it goes again. So, it’s been extremely frustrating,” Brent Johnson, president of the Iowa Farm Bureau says.

Reaching a Compromise

To advance the bill, an E15 task force consisting of refining and ethanol interests reached a compromise. The deal provides exemptions for the smallest refiners regarding blending obligations under the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS).

Geoff Cooper, president and CEO of the RFA, explained the criteria for these exemptions: “If you can prove to EPA that you are at imminent risk of closure, and you can make that disclosure publicly, and you can show that the reason that you’re at risk of closure is the RFS itself, then you can have access to a capped amount of exempted volume.”

Additionally, a provision was added for other small refineries facing emergencies. This includes a 150 million RIN category they can tap into if they face an imminent threat of closure.

Economic and Environmental Impact

The industry is confident that these compromises will secure enough support for passage. Bredenkamp noted that the coalition of support is broad and bipartisan.

“We are probably three to one, almost four to one, support versus opposed to the E15 measure. We have over 60, almost 70, Democrats that are in support. So I think we can more than offset the amount of Freedom Caucus Republicans that may be in opposition to this,” Bredenkamp says.

While E15 remains voluntary, proponents say it will significantly boost corn demand. Bredenkamp estimates a massive shift in the market over the next several years.

“Within five years, you can move E10 to E15. That’s an additional 7 billion gallons of ethanol demand. That’s going to be an additional two-plus billion bushels of corn grind that is going to be needed,” he noted.

For farmers and consumers, the benefits are clear. Beyond market demand, the move is seen as a win for the environment and the American wallet.

“To, you know, help increase production, lower fuel costs for every consumer out there and really to start to take care of ourselves more domestically when it comes to our our fuels and it’s cleaner for the environment and it’s, I mean there’s just so many positives about it. It’s frustrating that the politics gets in the way,” Johnson says.

“E15, with the kind of production that we have the ability to do, it’s time to get it done,” adds Tim Recker, a farmer in Northeast Iowa.

House Passes 2026 Farm Bill: The Impact on U.S. Farmers

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 16:22:57 GMT

With a bipartisan vote of 224-200, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 7567 , the bipartisan Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, on April 30. In addition to extensive updates to food and agriculture programs in a budget-neutral package, this vote marks the farthest a farm bill has made it in Congress since the most recent reauthorization was signed into law in 2018.

After a series of floor debates and last-minute amendments, the bill now moves to the Senate with some notable changes, including:

Year-round E15 sales removed from bill to be voted on in two weeks
Late amendment includes language to strengthen the domestic supply of fertilizer
Pesticide liability protections were stripped from the bill

My amendment passed! Pesticide liability protections have been stripped from the farm bill. 🔥⚔️🔥
— Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (@RepLuna) April 30, 2026

“Working in Congress on behalf of our nation’s farmers, ranchers, and rural communities is an honor — even when the work requires debating the farm bill through the night,” says House Committee on Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (PA-15). “I can think of no more important work than championing the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, and I am extremely pleased to see this bill pass out of the House of Representatives with a strong bipartisan vote.”

With a vote of 14 Democrats in favor, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 obtained the highest number of votes from the minority party on a House farm bill since 2008. Similarly, with over 96% of the GOP Conference voting in favor, this is the highest level of Republican support for a House farm bill in history, affirming the commitment of House Republicans to rural America.

“I especially want to thank all parties who were involved in the negotiations that allowed the farm bill to proceed to the floor and secure a future vote on year-round E15,” Thompson says. “Members of the Biofuels Caucus are tireless champions for rural America, and I look forward to joining them May 13 in advancing that important legislation.”

Swift Senate Action Needed

As the bill heads to the Senate for debate, Thompson reinforces that “farm country needs updated policy” that reflects current challenges in U.S. agriculture.

“The 2026 farm bill fills that gap,” Thompson says. “I look forward to seeing Chairman Boozman and the Senate make progress on this important legislation so we can get the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 sent to President Trump’s desk as soon as possible.”

U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, along with all of the Democrats on the committee, says the committee looks forward to working with Senate Republicans on a bipartisan Farm Bill that can be successful on the Senate floor.

“We have been clear that the Farm Bill must address the needs of American farmers and families,” Klobuchar says. “With a five-year high in small farm bankruptcies, the Farm Bill must address rising input costs, provide new opportunities for domestic markets, and fight for a trade agenda that works for everyone. Senate Democrats are committed to ensuring all states are treated equally by delaying the new SNAP cost shifts and addressing the needs of farm country.”

Pesticide Amendment Passes

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s (R-Fla.) highly debated bill passed the House, stripping the farm bill of pesticide liability provisions. Before the amendment, the bill’s original language reaffirmed EPA as the sole agency capable of determining the information listed on a pesticide label. Critics, including Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) advocates, worried the language would shield pesticide manufacturers from liability claims.

D.C. consultant Callie Eideberg, with the Vogel Group, saysthe provision’s controversy means the bill will likely have an uncertain future moving forward.

“This means that pesticide companies, the chemical companies, are now still going to be dealing with the status quo, dealing with different requirements from different states,” Eideberg says.

In a post on X, Rep. Luna reaffirmed her disapproval of glyphosate and other pesticides.

“I do not support giving blanket immunity to corporations at the expense of American families. Pesticides are linked to a 30% increase in childhood cancer and over 170 studies corroborate the evidence,” Luna says.

In a press release following the bill’s approval in the lower chamber, the Modern Ag Alliance, a group backed by chemical company Bayer and over 100 agriculture companies wrote, “Today, the House turned its back on the farmers who feed, fuel and clothe this country. By gutting common-sense crop protection provisions from the farm bill, lawmakers caved to anti-science MAHA activists instead of standing with those who grow our food.”

Iowa farmer Mark Jackson says it is “unfortunate” Congress could not give farmers support for chemical weed control products. Jackson said farmers should be allowed the “freedom to farm” and said glyphosate’s scientific approval process, and the product’s 50-year registration history make it a credible product for farmers to use.

“I think we need to rally around science, follow the science,” he adds.

Eideberg says as the bill moves to the Senate, the MAHA movement could continue to influence debates. She believes the smaller body of the Senate will bring a different dynamic to the issue.

“I think we’re going to see those MAHA influencers feeling very emboldened by this win today and pushing even harder in the Senate to get more of what they’re looking for,” she says.

Farmers Praise Passage of Farm Bill
Ohio farmer and National Corn Growers Association President Jed Bower says USDA programs are important to the success of corn farmers and rural communities, particularly as growers face their fourth year of net losses and struggle with high input costs.

“We look forward to working with our allies in Congress over the next two weeks to secure passage of the E15 legislation,” Bower says. “Thanks to continued efforts on this issue from our biofuel champions, Speaker Johnson promised a vote on E15, and we refuse to allow a handful of multi-million and multi-billion-dollar energy companies to derail our efforts. Allowing the year-round sale of E15 would help our growers by expanding ethanol sales while also saving consumers money at the pump at a time when fuel prices are on the rise.”

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) is looking forward to the Senate taking up the farm bill without delay as farmers face unprecedented challenges.

“The House-passed 2026 Farm Bill supports the farm safety net, preserves existing conservation programs that include opportunities for dairy and livestock producers, bolsters trade promotion programs while protecting common food names, recognizes the important role of dairy in nutrition, and supports animal health programs,” said NMPF President & CEO Gregg Doud. “All of these are important priorities to dairy farmers and the broader industry, and we appreciate the leadership shown by House Agriculture Committee Chairman GT Thompson and other dairy champions to get this legislation through the House.”

U.S. pork producers are praising a very significant section that provides “much-needed relief from the misguided California Proposition 12 ” in addition to expanding the Animal Health Protection Act to include improving animal disease traceability and requiring thorough documentation on USDA’s ability to protect producers from significant economic losses due to a foreign animal disease outbreak.

Prop. 12 is creating uncertainty for pork producers and raising costs across the supply chain. Congress has a role to restore regulatory clarity.

It’s time for a fix. #FixProp12

🎥 Video credit: @HouseAgGOP pic.twitter.com/lkAmG1bmAw
— NPPC (@NPPC) April 30, 2026

“Today’s House farm bill passage is a testament to the power of rural America when we stand up for our farms and future generations with a unified voice,” said Rob Brenneman, National Pork Producers Council president and pork producer from Washington County, Iowa. “We wholeheartedly thank our champions—House Agriculture Committee Chairman GT Thompson, Rep. Ashley Hinson, and others—for not backing down from the fight for what is right for rural America. He and congressional supporters on both sides of the aisle heard our plea to help America’s pork producers.”

Eideburg points out that opposition to the farm bill pork provisions in the House are coming from several fronts.

“First, it’s coming from animal welfare groups that want to see those requirements in place,” she says. “We want to see minimum standard requirements for gestation rates. This other opposition is coming from companies and farmers who have already complied with Prop 12 and they don’t want that requirement removed because then they are going to be a) at a competitive disadvantage and b) out a ton of capital investment that they made on their to comply.”

The bill reflects many of wheat farmers’ top priorities from modernizing farm credit and safeguarding international food aid programs to enhancing export competitiveness, says National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) President Jamie Kres.

“These provisions will help ensure America’s wheat farmers can remain resilient and globally competitive,” Kres says.

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Ethan Lane appreciates how Thompson and House leadership took the time to listen to real farmers and ranchers.

“Instead of caving to attacks on the livestock industry from shell activist groups that impersonate real producers, a bipartisan group of lawmakers advanced a bill that will provide certainty and important policy fixes for cattle country,” Lane says. “We look forward to engaging with the Senate to advance this farm bill to the president’s desk.”

Industry Says This Farm Bill is Needed Now

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) CEO Ted McKinney says this legislation supports farmers, ranchers and consumers while providing economic growth opportunities for rural communities. H.R. 7567 prioritizes provisions that strengthen local food purchasing programs, enhance international market opportunities, reauthorize the three-legged stool for foreign animal disease prevention and preserve the viability of the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program.

The American Veterinary Medical Association says the inclusion of the Healthy Dog Importation Act is just one of the many key veterinary provisions they applaud in the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026. This would improve importation standards to ensure a dog is healthy when imported into the U.S., which is especially important considering New World screwworm in Mexico continues to move closer to the U.S. border.

“The AVMA applauds the House for advancing a Farm Bill that will strengthen dog importation standards, fund and assess federal programs vital to veterinary medicine, and protect the country’s animal and public health,” says Dr. Michael Q. Bailey, AVMA president. “Enacting the Farm Bill is essential to advancing research into effective recruitment and retention strategies for veterinarians serving in rural and underserved communities. With the legislation now moving to the Senate for consideration, we look forward to working further with Congress and will continue to underscore the importance of including veterinary priorities in the final version of the Farm Bill.”

Now, Not Tomorrow

After voting in support of the bill, Congressman Rick W. Allen (GA-12) says, “Rural America needs a new Farm Bill now, not tomorrow. With today’s passage of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act, House Republicans have once again reaffirmed our commitment to American agriculture and delivered for hardworking growers and producers.”

Eideburg says funding for SNAP program will likely be a major fight in the Senate. The “One Big Beautiful Bill” shifted some costs within the program to state governments. She says the funding restructure and the combined potential vote to ban soda from SNAP could cause tension in the upper chamber.

She also says year-round E15 provisions, which were taken from the farm bill and punted for a vote in the House next week, could see as much opposition in the Senate.

“This really is a big hurdle to get E15, year-round E15 over the line.”

Analysts Fear 2027 Could Be The Toughest Year Yet For Farm Margins

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 20:09:43 GMT

The most important tool on many U.S. farms this spring isn’t a tractor or a high-speed planter — it’s a pencil. Faced with climbing fertilizer costs, some growers are still hunched over spreadsheets and notepads as April shifts to May, trying to determine if corn or soybeans can pencil out.

Market analysts Naomi Blohm of Total Farm Marketing and Matt Bennett of AgMarket.net say they believe the current planting season remains in a state of flux as farmers’ input budgets are tightened to the breaking point.

According to a recent American Farm Bureau Federation survey, 48% of Midwest farmers say they cannot afford their full fertilizer needs for this season.

“Farmers who haven’t paid for fertilizer, are running behind, or are stuck out of the field due to weather are having to factor that into their decision-making,” Bennett says.

Blohm is seeing this reality play out in real-time with her clients. “Two of them openly shared this [past] week that they booked some fertilizer early and went with corn on those acres,” she reports. “But for the remaining acres, they had to stop and think it through and ultimately decided to switch to soybeans.”

Bennett notes that while soybean futures aren’t necessarily “explosive,” they could be a safer bet for cash-strapped operations. “If I’m a grower, and I’m sitting here trying to figure out whether I can make money putting $1,000, $1,100 [of nitrogen an acre] into this corn crop, I look over on the board on beans, and you’re looking at a price a lot of growers can make work just with average yields,” he says.

Blohm adds that what farmers decide to plant will be much clearer by USDA’s June 30 acreage report.

A Three-Year Financial Drain

The current financial stress isn’t happening in a vacuum. Bennett points out that consecutive years of financial pressure have taken their toll across the Midwest.

“The liquidity drain over the last three years has made it really tough for people, and we are even seeing an equity drain for some,” Bennett says. “When cash is this tight, it highlights why you might plant soybeans if you don’t have your anhydrous or urea on yet.”

The fertilizer crisis is fueled by global energy markets and geopolitical instability. Blohm points to India’s recent, aggressive moves to secure supply as a sign of things to come.

“I saw that India this week booked what they needed for fertilizer at double the cost,” she says. “But they don’t have a choice really, based on the amount of wheat that they grow in the world. They have to have a good wheat crop there, and they need that fertilizer.”

Bennett adds the issue isn’t just price — it’s access. “India bought 2.5 million tons of urea to front-run a potentially problematic situation,” he notes. “Disrupted natural gas facilities create a cascade effect that impacts anhydrous and urea production globally.”

2027: “It Scares the Daylights Out of Me”

While 2026 is beyond difficult, analysts are sounding the alarm for 2027. During an afternoon AgriTalk segment , host Michelle Rook asked if 2027 will be even worse.

“It scares the daylights out of me,” Bennett replied. “Projected cash flows and breakevens for 2027 don’t look good at all. Even if someone talks about $5 corn, you have to look at what you’ll have invested in it.”

Blohm agrees that the uncertainty is unprecedented. “Producers have to stay on their toes,” she says. “We don’t know if this shock will be a springboard for higher prices or if it will simply compress margins further.”

The Rotation Debate: Markets vs. Agronomics

How will crop rotations look by 2027? Farm Journal regularly reaches out to a vetted list of 80 ag economists from across the industry. Providing directional insights, the latest Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor shows almost half of the respondents (seven of 16) to the April survey expect soybeans to gain more acres due to renewable diesel demand.

Northeast Iowa farmer Tim Recker sees some potential for a shift. “Renewable diesel demand underpins my local market,” he says. “I see value in policies that turn surplus crops into fuel, but we have to remember that Brazil is still eating our lunch in the global market.”

Central Illinois grain producer and hog producer Chad Lehman has a more cautious outlook.

“Pigs need corn,” Lehman says. “There are real risks with bean-on-bean rotations, including yield penalties and agronomic challenges. Even with more crush capacity, soybean meal prices remain strong, which reinforces the need for steady corn production.”

University of Missouri Agricultural Economist Ben Brown suggests that while “swing acres” might lean toward soybeans next season, many farmers will stick with their rotations.

“I believe 85% of acreage is determined by rotation,” Brown says. “That leaves only 15% to be adjusted based on outside influences.”

Long-Term Risks Of Changing Rotations

Shifting rotations in 2027 can’t be a financial decision only; it carries long-term agronomic consequences. Connor Sible, associate professor and row-crop field researcher at the University of Illinois, cautions that fertilizer cuts made this season could contribute to nutrient depletion in soils.

“If we pull back on nutrients now, those minerals are going to have to come from somewhere — likely the soil supply,” Sible says. “We want to maintain a healthy system over time, so we can’t go too far with input pullbacks.”

For those farmers already eyeing a move to soybeans in 2027, Sible recommends starting the planning process now.

“Think about what herbicide programs you are putting out this summer,” he advises. “You need to account for potential carryover effects if you switch the rotation in a field that was planned for corn to go with soybeans.”

You can hear more from farmers Chad Lehman and Tim Recker and their thoughts on the year ahead in this discussion on AgriTalk, available at the link below:

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

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 16:36:27 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:

'Losing Glyphosate Would Be A Disastrous Blow For Farmers'

Fri, 24 Apr 2026 17:29:17 GMT

Farmers warn that access to cornerstone herbicides like glyphosate is not just a policy debate but a make-or-break factor for conservation, food prices and the future of U.S. agriculture.

On a media call hosted by the Modern Ag Alliance on Friday, three veteran Midwest farmers say they are farming through some of the tightest margins of their careers while shouldering growing uncertainty over crop-protection tools. They argue that science-based regulation, consistent labeling and a predictable legal environment are essential if they are to keep adopting conservation practices and stay competitive globally.

“We depend on crop-protection tools every single day that we’re raising a crop,” says northwest Missouri farmer Blake Hurst, who grows corn and soybeans. “Losing access to crop protection chemicals like glyphosate would be a terrible blow, a disastrous blow for farmers, as we’re facing these tough times.”

The discussion on Friday morning came about as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments in the Monsanto v. Durnell case scheduled for Monday, April 27. At the same time, Congress continues work on the farm bill, which contains provisions that could shape how crop-protection products are regulated.

Modern Ag Alliance Executive Director Elizabeth Burns-Thompson says the organization sees the Supreme Court case and farm bill development as landmarks.

“At the end of the day, I think the crux of the question is, if we cannot get the clarity or consistency around labeling, what does that mean big picture?” Burns-Thompson says.

She argues that without clear, uniform federal rules on what constitutes a sufficient label, companies may pull back on manufacturing or innovation, particularly inside the United States.

The Economic Reality Of Crop Protection

Hurst says farmers already operate on “margins that are negative,” forcing them to stretch machinery life, cut back on inputs and take on more debt just to stay in business. If a widely used and relatively affordable herbicide like glyphosate becomes unavailable or more difficult to access, he says the resulting cost increases will ripple from the farm field to the supermarket.

“That eventually shows up on food prices and grocery store shelves,” Hurst says. “We don’t have the margins to absorb major increases in costs, so we will pass those costs along eventually.”

Mark Jackson, who farms with his son southeast of Des Moines, says glyphosate is tightly linked to the conservation systems he has spent decades building. Jackson, a fifth-generation Iowa grower describes a lifetime of watching soil erosion give way to the use of more sustainable practices.

He says his farm has been in no-till for at least 25 years, a shift he also sees is taking root across much of Iowa.

“Roughly 40% or better of Iowa is in no-till conservation status, which is a tremendous mindset and a cultural mindset,” Jackson says. “When you talk about glyphosate leading the charge in conservation, I think we also need to remind people that we don’t use chemicals just willy-nilly.”

Relying On Science-Based Regulation

Jackson points to multiple federal agencies involved in approving and reviewing pesticides as evidence that farmers are using tools vetted by science and regulation.

“They have been approved by the EPA, the FDA, the USDA — you might say all the A’s in the government have gone through the pipelines to allow these chemicals to be used, and then they are reviewed at regular intervals,” he says. “So, I think we need to have confidence in what our government is there for, which is to maintain quality. We still do have the best and most consistent food supply in the world.”

Jackson also cites long-running health research involving farmers as pesticide applicators. Referring to a large North American study that monitored tens of thousands of farmers, including on his own farm, he says the findings in the study do not match public fears about glyphosate.

“Let’s not let emotion drive the conversation, but let’s follow the science,” he says.

Current Agronomic Tools Are Invaluable

For Bill Couser, a central Iowa corn and cattle producer who is “very heavily involved” in the ethanol industry, access to reliable herbicides is part of a larger system that includes livestock feed and low-carbon fuel markets. He says any disruption in tool availability quickly translates into higher input costs and lost opportunity.

“When I grow the feed, I have to make sure I have the lowest cost feedstuffs I can going into my farming operation, and also the safest feedstuffs that we can,” Couser says.

He ties herbicide use to carbon intensity scores that increasingly shape ethanol markets. No-till practices and efficient weed control, he says, help farmers lower carbon intensity levels, which in turn benefits both farmers and ethanol plants.

“When you look at just the state of Iowa and the 43 [ethanol] plants here, why, the way we bring this to our plants and to our livestock operations is huge,” Couser says.

Couser, who serves on an EPA Farm, Ranch and Rural Communities advisory committee, says having farmers at the table with regulators is essential.

“It gives the farmer a seat at the table, and we’re not on the menu,” he says. “We have to make sure that we sit with these industry leaders and make sure that we help them understand and educate them about the science and the products that we need to be able to use to be able to stay profitable in this industry.”

Stifling Innovation And The Path Forward

The farmers on the call said they accept that some older products have been removed from the market for safety reasons. Much of their concern now is that litigation and regulatory uncertainty could chill innovation and push companies to avoid introducing new technologies in the U.S. altogether.

“If we get a negative ruling [on Monday], that is going to make it easier to sue over not only glyphosate, but the other products we use, that means we won’t have new products introduced, because what company will take that risk?” Hurst says, referencing billions of dollars in legal costs tied to glyphosate litigation.

What worries him, he adds, is not just losing glyphosate, but the outlook for future products and continued innovation.

“The question that has to be asked and never is, is what next?” Hurst says. “We’re not going to go back to farming like we did in 1990. We don’t have the labor, we don’t have the diesel, we don’t have the people, and people won’t want to pay what food costs will be if we don’t have these products. So, what next? We’re going to use other chemicals that are more expensive, increasing feed costs, that are more dangerous.”

The farmers describe a common expectation of federal oversight and a shared belief that existing science supports continued use of glyphosate under current labels. Burns-Thompson says that is exactly why the Alliance is pushing for national clarity on labeling standards.

“By having shades of gray state-by-state, as to how that is ultimately satisfied, [it] creates a patchwork of confusion,” she says. “At the end of the day, the product doesn’t change from state-to-state. So neither should the safety warnings.”

For these farmers, what they say they want from policymakers and courts is not a free pass, but a stable, science-led framework that lets them plan years ahead — and keep farming with the next generation.

“We know this thing is changing again,” Couser says, noting that his sons are now the fifth generation on the family operation. “How do we make sure we continue that legacy to make sure they can farm in the future?”

Farmers Emphasize Demand, Not Payments, Is The ‘Bridge To Better Times' For Agriculture

Wed, 22 Apr 2026 22:25:36 GMT

Two Midwest farmers are pinning their hopes for the future on stronger demand for corn and soybeans — especially the latter — as they navigate tight margins, high input costs, and an uncertain price outlook.

Northern Illinois farmer Steve Pitstick and south-central Iowa farmer Dennis Bogaards say they have exhausted most cost-cutting options for this season. They believe future profitability now rests on whether demand for both crops — particularly from domestic soybean crush and fuel markets — expands enough to support higher prices.

One silver lining currently, Pitstick says, is his relatively strong position on fertilizer heading into the 2026 planting season.

“We will do pretty much the dry spread program we always do,” he says. “We cut the rates a little bit on the phosphates just because of price. We booked our 32% in September, something we traditionally do. We have all the nitrogen bought, so I feel good about 2026 from that aspect.”

While he believes additional fertilizer is available, he notes it will likely be priced at a premium.

“I believe I can get more if I need it. I may not like the price, but I can get more,” he told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory during the weekly Farmer Forum segment.

Little To No Expansion On The Horizon

As the season begins, both farmers emphasize that the coming years will have farmers focusing on survival and strategic adjustments rather than acreage expansion.

One adjustment Bogaards is making is front-loading some of his nitrogen needs this season while leaving a portion open in case prices break.

“We booked anhydrous early on for this year, back in early fall, and got an OK price,” Bogaards says. “I have a little bit of sidedress that we do. We book about half of that, and I sit open on the rest of it. I’ll wait and see where it goes.”

Bogaards remains committed to sidedressing as long as product is available and prices do not continue ratcheting up. “If I can get it, I’ll put it on, unless it is a crazy, crazy price,” he says.

Like many U.S. growers, both Bogaards and Pitstick say there is virtually no room left to cut fertilizer use without risking yields.

“There is no place to cut back. We are being as efficient as we can be,” Pitstick says.

Bogaards agrees, noting that nitrogen is not the place to skimp. “Maybe a year or so, you can cut back on the P and K a little bit, but you do not want to get caught in three or four years of that.”

He also remains reluctant to drop fungicides. “Fungicides really pay off,” he says. “In the past, we did not use them, but the last few years they really paid, and I would hate to not spray them.”

Uncertainty About The 2027 Crop Mix

While the 2026 crop is largely “business as usual,” both farmers told Flory that 2027 brings real uncertainty—especially regarding nitrogen supplies. Pitstick is concerned about how global demand could impact costs for U.S. producers.

“I am worried about the price of the nitrogen,” he says. “It may not be an issue in the United States from a supply standpoint, but the rest of the world… could export our product because of opportunity cost, and that drives the price up. It is a total wait and see.”

Flory underscored how global trade flows directly shape what American farmers pay, noting that some fertilizer shipments originally destined for the U.S. were recently rerouted.

“Some boats are diverted from the U.S. to other countries,” Flory says. “If you want your share, you have to beat the next guy in line with the price.”

If nitrogen prices soar while corn prices stagnate, Pitstick says his rotation could shift. “That might change how we do things in 2027. We may have to go to more soybeans,” he says.

Bogaards also expects to alter his corn–soybean mix, given the potential demand from domestic crush and renewable fuels.

“In the past, we were probably 60% to 65% corn,” he says. “We have been backing off of that. I still do a little bit of corn-on-corn, but I might try to go to a 50–50 rotation.”

Flory believes this shift could help rebalance supplies and improve price prospects. “If we can pull some acres away from corn and get this thing rebalanced, maybe that is our bridge to a better time,” Flory says. “Our bridge to a better time is more demand across the board and crops competing for acres — not another payment.”

Bogaards says the shifting economics are already evident. “A couple of years ago, people said soybeans are a drag on our financial statements. It looks like almost the opposite right now.”

Even so, Bogaards is cautious about making long-term decisions based on short-term signals. “I can change acres right now, but by next fall, it might be the worst decision. I think you have to go with your rotation and stick with it.”

Pitstick links his long-term outlook to fuel sector growth, noting that both corn and soybeans increasingly function as energy crops.

“Some of the most profitable years of my career were when we had high fuel prices because we were also a fuel crop,” he says. “I have some optimism that these high fuel prices will cause some demand and increase our crop prices.”

For now, both farmers say their immediate job is to manage through 2026 while keeping their options open. With high costs for fertilizer, fuel, and machinery, they see expanded demand as the only realistic path forward.

“It is just survival at this point,” Bogaards says. “We just have to make sure we can survive and keep plugging through it.”

You can listen to the complete discussion between Bogaards, Pitstick and Flory on AgriTalk at the link below:

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

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 20:09:58 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.

‘If You’re Still Farming, You’ve Already Done Most of It’

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 14:26:35 GMT

On Chad Ingels’ northeast Iowa farm, every pass across the field is under the microscope as he fights to keep tight margins from slipping into the red.

“Oh, it’s tough,” Ingels said during an AgriTalk Farmer Forum discussion on Wednesday. “I think we’re going to have to really look at in-season passes that we planned to do. Maybe we’ll have to cut back one or two of those.”

Ingels, who splits his time between the farm and the Iowa Statehouse in Des Moines, says he can’t afford to simply slash expenses without weighing the risk to corn and soybean performance.

“You don’t want to impact yield,” he says. “You really want to take a look at what your return on investment is going to be on those passes.”

Across the Midwest, farmers like Ingels and Wisconsin grower and United Soybean Board director Tony Mellenthin are grappling with what they both describe as an “input price problem.” Corn and soybean prices have improved modestly from their lows, but fertilizer, pesticides and other inputs remain stubbornly high.

“I don’t think we necessarily have a corn or soybean price problem,” Mellenthin told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory. “We really have an input price problem, and until that can kind of get that addressed and fixed, that’s what I’m more concerned about than the price of corn and beans.”

Squeezing More From Every Dollar

On Ingels’ operation, the immediate response to high input costs is a sharper pencil and a more disciplined marketing plan.

In the field, that means reassessing every in-season trip across the crop. He’s eyeballing fertilizer or crop protection passes that might have been routine in good years, but now must clear a stricter bar: Will they pay?

On the balance sheet, Ingels says the focus turns to risk management and pricing discipline.

“Then it’s going to get to the marketing side,” he says. “We need to really do a better job of marketing corn and beans and — if we get a price run up — protect that run up so we can take advantage of it.”

The livestock side of the farm, he adds, is helping stabilize the operation, though it’s no windfall.

“The hog side is better than the crop side, but it’s not anywhere near like the beef side has been,” Ingels explains.

His hogs are sold into a specialty market through Niman Ranch, which ties its base price to grain and input costs.

“They’re setting a good base for us based on the corn and bean prices and our input costs,” Ingels says. “As we look out in the futures, the commercial price last year got higher than our base price, and so they adjusted our contract to say, ‘Hey, you’re going to get the better of the base price or the increased commercial price if the commercial price is higher.’”

That kind of contract flexibility, Ingels suggests, is one way the broader ag industry can help farmers weather volatile cost structures.

‘Not A Whole Lot Left To Do’

In western Wisconsin, Mellenthin says most of the fat has already been trimmed from farm budgets.

“If you’re still farming today, you’ve already done most of it, so there’s not a whole lot left to do,” he says. “There’s a little bit of tweaking to do, but I wouldn’t say there’s really any cuts to do.”

Instead of dramatic reductions, Mellenthin is stretching out capital decisions and switching to lower-cost inputs. That includes extending machinery trade cycles to delay big-ticket purchases and substituting generic fungicides for name-brand products when performance is comparable.

On the fertility side for corn, Mellenthin’s farm has been managing its nitrogen use through smaller, more targeted applications.

“We’ve been doing that for over a decade now,” he says. “There’s some of our ground that gets four passes of nitrogen.”

Recently, he’s begun to lean into alternative nitrogen sources to reduce dependence on high-priced synthetics. He points to biological products as one example.

“We have started utilizing some Pivot Bio,” he notes. “We haven’t seen a yield reduction, while at the same time reducing synthetic nitrogen, but we haven’t seen a yield gain, either. So I think we’re able to maintain there. And this year, that was the cheapest form of nitrogen a guy could buy.”

Policy and Industry: What Farmers Want Next

While individually they work to control what they can, both Ingels and Mellenthin are looking upstream — to input suppliers, processors and policymakers — to tackle what they can’t fix alone.

Regarding policy, Ingels points to the impact of global conflict and trade policy on fertilizer costs.

“There’s still some concerns out there with the war and how that’s impacted fertilizer prices going forward,” he notes. He adds that the greatest worry may lie beyond the current season to 2027, as farmers consider the next round of purchases.

During the discussion, Flory referenced efforts by the National Corn Growers Association and other ag organizations to push the administration to remove countervailing duties on phosphate imports from Morocco — one example of how farm groups are trying to pull down input prices through policy changes.

Ingels says those kinds of structural issues in fertilizer pricing could ultimately have more impact on future acreage decisions than anything farmers can do on their own fields this spring.

Demand, Renewable Fuels and Market Signals

Both farmers also stressed the importance of growing demand for the crops they produce, to help offset stubbornly high costs.

From his seat in the Iowa House, Ingels is backing measures aimed at strengthening markets for corn and soybeans, including renewable fuels. He references the Iowa Farm Act, saying it would increase the cap on the renewable fuels infrastructure fund grants to retailers from $100,000 to $150,000, and also help finance upgrades so more stations can offer E15 and higher ethanol blends.

“Retailers are taking advantage of that,” Ingels says “A few years ago, we had an E15 bill that went through… It certainly incentivized that all retailers handle E15 over time. And so this fund is being utilized all the time, and we’re trying to get to those last bit of retailers that maybe their costs are higher.”

At the federal level, though, Ingels is frustrated with delays on year-round E15 approval.

“This is the most frustrating thing I think the federal government has done to us,” he says. “They just keep kicking this down the road. We need to get it done.”

For soybean growers, Mellenthin is looking for similarly clear, long-term signals on low-carbon fuels.

In Wisconsin, he notes, lawmakers and the governor have already taken a supportive step by promoting “soy-based firefighting foam” to replace PFAS-based products. Nationally, Mellenthin wants to see the same kind of certainty for biomass-based diesel and other soy-driven fuels.

“We’ll take the good news when we can get it,” Mellenthin says of recent positive developments for biomass-based diesel. “Hopefully that could give a little certainty so infrastructure and investments can maintain being used.”

Farmers Could See Increased Farm Program Payments With Eligibility Changes

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 01:27:12 GMT

The One Big Beautiful Bill changed eligibility requirements for farm programs, including ARC and PLC, which could increase payments for farmers, depending on their business entity. USDA is clarifying those eligibility requirements for farmers and qualified pass-through business entities.

The bill raised payment limits to $155,000, but new rules will allow for additional farm program payments, according to Richard Fordyce, USDA Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation.

“The bill does allow for members of business entities, such as partnerships, S-Corps, LLCs, joint ventures, general partnerships and the like, to qualify for their own unique payment limit if that were to be the case, say for an ARC or ARC county or PLC payment.

This will allow more farmer-owners to receive farm program payments, says Paul Neiffer, Farm CPA.

“LLCs or any entity taxed as a partnership or an S-corporation, those entities are going to be treated the same as a general partnership. If you had four equal owners, you get four payment limits instead of one payment limit,” he explains.

Navigating Business Structure Changes

As a result, Neiffer says some farms are changing their business structure.

“As long as you’re under the AGI limit, switching from a C-corp, which is still going to be stuck with one payment limit, to an S-Corp will get you multiple payment limits, if you have multiple owners. I’ve told people that if you’re a general partnership, you do not want to be switching over to an LLC yet until we have confirmation on the AGI limits,” he says.

Fordyce clarifies that FSA offices will be allowing entity changes after June 1, so farmers can be eligible for any benefits for the 2026 crop.

The definition of “actively engaged” in farming is also changing.

“They are going to still need to be actively engaged, but in some cases with these business entities, the payment limits to multiple members was limited. This changes that,” Fordyce says.

Base Acre Updates and Implementation Timeline

USDA is also updating 30 million base acres, which will be allocated based on 2019 to 2023 plantings, but only for new acres.

Neiffer says this could also enhance payments.

“Right now, we have about 245 million base acres. If we add in 30 million, that’s about a 12% increase, and remember, you’re paid based on base acres. You’re not paid based on planted acres.”

He reminds farmers the changes start with the 2026 crop with payments going out in the fall of 2027.

Farmers and Congress Demand Action as Fertilizer Prices Spike

Fri, 27 Mar 2026 14:18:57 GMT

As temperatures rise across the Midwest and Delta, the familiar sound of spring planting is returning. From Missouri to Mississippi, planters are beginning to roll, signaling the start of another growing season.

But beneath that seasonal optimism lies a deepening financial strain for U.S. farmers, driven not just by high input costs overall, but by sharp increases in fertilizer and diesel prices that are reshaping planting decisions and profitability outlooks. The recent price surge is also fueling Congress to push for greater transparency into fertilizer pricing.

Lawmakers Push for Transparency and Answers

Just this week, Reps. Dusty Johnson (R-SD) and Brad Finstad (R-MN) introduced the bipartisan Fertilizer Transparency Act in the House with support from co-sponsors, including Angie Craig (D-MN). The legislation would require USDA to publish weekly fertilizer price reports, providing farmers with more timely and accurate market data.

The House legislation came a week after the Senate introduced similar legislation. The Senate Fertilizer Transparency Act of 2026 was introduced by a bipartisan group of lawmakers last week, led by Sen. John Thune (R‑SD) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D‑MN), with additional support from Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D‑WI) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R‑IA). The Senate bill would also require USDA to collect and publish weekly fertilizer price data to give farmers clearer, more timely market information.

Meanwhile, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) is calling for a federal investigation into recent fertilizer price spikes, raising concerns about possible gouging linked to shipping disruptions and demanding answers from major fertilizer companies by the end of the month. He sent a letter to the Department of Justice and fertilizer companies earlier this month demanding answers by today, March 27.

Farm Journal reached out to Mosaic Company, Nutrien and CF Industries for comment but did not receive responses.

Texas Corn Producers member and farmer Dee Vaughan says Hawley is asking the questions farmers need answered.

“This shouldn’t even be impacting us for another 75 days, but yet our prices on fertilizer that’s already in the warehouse are seeing dramatic increases,” he says. “It certainly appears to be price gouging on the part of the fertilizer industry.”

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. 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 2022 study also found of the nitrogen fertilizer industry found that four major manufacturers - CF Industries, Nutrien, Koch Industries, and Yara International - account for roughly 75% of total U.S. nitrogen fertilizer production.

While the industry cited inflation and nationwide supply chain disruptions as drivers of higher prices for farmers at the time, the study found trends that challenge that narrative. According to the research, natural gas, which typically makes up 70-90% of variable production costs for nitrogen fertilizer, contributes only a fraction to recent price spikes. Specifically, for anhydrous ammonia, the study showed that natural gas accounts for just 15% of the increase, about $102, suggesting other factors are influencing soaring costs.

That concern is also the focus of a reported antitrust investigation by the DOJ announced in September, which is looking into whether major fertilizer producers have coordinated to inflate prices.

Similar to Perdue’s sentiments, Vaughan says farmers are waiting for results.

“Very simple; take action,” he says. “It’s one thing to have a memorandum of understanding or an executive order. But if it’s not followed through with actual investigation and actual work, it’s just words on paper.”

Fertilizer Prices Add Additional Strains at Planting

Perdue says the situation on the ground is as concerning as he has seen in years. Speaking after a recent fly-in to Washington, D.C., Perdue says many farmers are bracing for a difficult year ahead.

“We’re really, really concerned about the state of the farm economy,” Perdue says. “I asked our group yesterday to raise their hand if they anticipated breaking even in 2026, and not a single person raised their hand. That’s a message that Congress needs to hear.”

Perdue says fertilizer prices have become one of the most pressing challenges this spring. While some producers locked in inputs early — either through fall application or prepurchasing — many others delayed decisions, hoping for price relief that never came.

“There are some producers who got ahead with it and did some fall application, some who saw that prices were going to start jumping and bought their fertilizer a few weeks ago,” he says. “But there are a lot of people who still have fertilizer to book. When we’re seeing skyrocketing prices already at high levels, that’s a big concern for farmers across the country.”

That hesitation, he says, was driven by both financial pressure and uncertainty. Many farmers spent the winter working with lenders to map out their 2026 plans, while others gambled that prices might ease.

“I think there were two factors,” Perdue says. “One is the economic pain. A lot of producers have spent the last few months trying to figure out what 2026 looks like with their lender. The other is that producers saw high fertilizer costs in the fall and winter and said, ‘Maybe I’ll hold off and see if we get some relief.’ That’s obviously not coming with the current environment.”

Policy Pressure Builds in Washington

Fertilizer costs were a central topic during Perdue’s recent testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. While the hearing focused on increasing domestic consumption of U.S. agricultural products, input costs quickly entered the discussion.

“The fertilizer cost on an acre of wheat is about 40% of your production cost, and that’s going up 30% now,” Perdue says. “You can’t make it work. You can’t make it pencil out. We have to look at market structures and the way they create challenges for market participants.”

At the same time, global events are compounding the issue. The White House recently announced a 60-day waiver of the Jones Act, citing disruptions tied to conflict involving Iran that have impacted global shipping routes, including the Strait of Hormuz. The move is intended to ease pressure on energy and fertilizer markets by allowing foreign vessels to transport goods between U.S. ports.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt says the waiver will help keep supplies moving, while National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett says the administration is also seeking alternative fertilizer sources, including potential imports from Venezuela and Morocco.

“It’s almost planting season, and there’s a lot of fertilizer that usually goes down during planting season,” Hassett says. “What we’ve been doing as an insurance policy to the disruption is finding other sources. I’m not saying we can eliminate disruption, but we can minimize it.”

The Search for Immediate Relief

As farmers head into planting season, the search for both short-term relief and long-term reform continues. Darren Hudson of Texas Tech University suggests one immediate step could involve revisiting regulations tied to diesel exhaust fluid (DEF), which uses urea — a key nitrogen fertilizer component.

“Do away with it for multiple reasons,” Hudson says. “It’s urea that’s being put into people’s tanks rather than on people’s fields. That would ease things in the short run. In the long run, that was a disaster of a regulation.”

For now, however, most farmers are focused on getting crops in the ground, despite an economic outlook that remains highly uncertain. With input costs climbing, global instability lingering and policy solutions still in development, the 2026 growing season is shaping up to be one of the most financially challenging in recent memory.

It’s Time To Abolish the Jones Act

Thu, 26 Mar 2026 22:09:13 GMT

By Tim Burrack: Arlington, Iowa USA

Let’s stop trying to keep up with the Jones Act.

President Trump wisely suspended it last week for 60 days in response to surging fuel prices caused by the war in Iran. “This action will allow vital resources like oil, natural gas, fertilizer, and coal to flow freely to U.S. ports,” said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.

I’m grateful for this temporary relief, which will help farmers like me as we move into planting season this spring. In just the last three weeks, my input costs have jumped by 20 percent.

The next step is obvious. The suspension of the Jones Act should continue for more than two months. It should go on forever. Let’s make it permanent. The time has come to repeal this costly and outdated law for the sake of all Americans.

Formally known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 , the Jones Act requires any vessel that transports goods between U.S. ports to be built in the United States, registered in the United States, and owned and crewed by Americans.

Perhaps that served a worthy purpose when President Woodrow Wilson signed it into law more than a century ago, when radios were a new technology. It may even sound patriotic. But it makes no sense in the 21st century’s world of international shipping and global supply chains. Today it’s a protectionist relic that increases the price everyone pays at gas pumps, grocery stores, and more.

It also leads to absurdity: To get around the Jones Act, gas refined in Texas and Louisiana often travels to the Bahamas before it goes to its true destination of California, according to the New York Post . This detour may add time and miles to the journey, but it’s more efficient than following the dictates of the Jones Act.

Advocates of the Jones Act always insist that the law is necessary for national security. How ironic, then, that President Trump has suspended it during Operation Epic Fury. This appears to be a national-security law that harms national security.

President Trump is by no means the first wartime president to suspend the Jones Act. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt waived it less than a week after Pearl Harbor. He knew that its strict rules on shipping made it harder for the United States to fight and win World War II.

The Jones Act also makes it more difficult for the United States to recover from natural disasters. President George W. Bush suspended it in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and President Barack Obama waived it in the wake of Superstorm Sandy in 2012.

President Trump followed their example in 2017, when he suspended the Jones Act after Hurricane Maria thrashed Puerto Rico, which of course is a U.S. territory. The late Sen. John McCain made a powerful case for Trump’s action: “It is unacceptable to force the people of Puerto Rico to pay at least twice as much for food, clean drinking water, supplies, and infrastructure due to Jones Act requirements.”

The suspensions of the Jones Act kept on coming. President Joe Biden waived it for fuel shipments on the eastern seaboard after a cyberattack shut down a major pipeline. He did it again in 2022, after Hurricane Fiona battered Puerto Rico.

And now we have a new suspension. It seems that whenever there’s a crisis that involves shipping vital natural resources, presidents suspend the Jones Act.

For years, I’ve been forced to pay for the Jones Act. Because of the way it inflates transportation costs, I spend more for the diesel fuel that powers my tractors, more for the fertilizer I use in my fields, and more for the shipments that deliver my harvest.

More, more, more: This hurts my bottom line. It also causes food inflation for consumers.

Abolishing the Jones Act shouldn’t take a war or a disaster. Times are always tough—and the last thing Americans need is another bad law that makes it harder to make ends meet. Today, it costs four times as much to build a ship in the United States than in South Korea .

We can wipe out these reckless costs to our economy. The legislation to end the Jones Act is ready.

Let’s stop trying to keep up with the Jones Act. Let’s get rid of it for good.

Tim Burrack raises corn and soybeans on a NE Iowa family farm.He is a founding member of the
Global Farmer Network. www.globalfarmernetwork.org

EPA Announces Waivers to Allow Summertime E15 Use

Thu, 26 Mar 2026 02:01:44 GMT

The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday announced emergency waivers to allow summertime sales of E15.

EPA administrator Lee Zeldin making the announcement at this year’s CERA Week, major energy conference in Houston.

Troy Bredenkamp, senior vice president of government and public affairs with the Renewable Fuels Association says since 2022, EPA has used an emergency waiver each year by way of the Clean Air Act to allow gas stations to sell E15 fuel in the summer months starting May 1.

However, at least the waivers are coming early this year.

“We are going to have emergency waivers for E15 this summer. This announcement is coming probably at least a month ahead of where it usually comes and that’s on purpose, you know, with all the turmoil in the Middle East,” he explains.

The early waivers will avoid the problems they saw last summer with fuel blends that caused fuel disruptions.

“Getting this out early is very positive. The refiners want to have it earlier. We want to have it earlier. The marketplace, the retailers want to have it earlier,” he says.

E10 Emergency Waivers
EPA also announced E10 emergency waivers for the seven Midwest states that already had E15 waivers to remove all federal impediments to selling E10 and provide parody for the two ethanol blends.

According to Bredenkamp, “If they give an E15 waiver for the summer driving season in those seven states, you wouldn’t have a waiver necessarily for E10. So, they have to in those seven states grant an emergency waiver for E10 as well in order to keep maximum fuel fungeability within all fuel pumps within the United States.”

E15 Legislation Needed
However, emergency waivers can’t replace a permanent Congressional fix.

So, farm state lawmakers hope for passage of an E15 bill to make this the last year for the emergency waivers including Sen. Joni Ernst - Iowa (R).

“We’ve done this for a number of years and it’s kind of the same old same old and I am grateful for the waiver. I think that is very important to be able to offer uh the product the way we do through those summer months. But we really do need the administration to assist us with this,” she says.

Ernst says the biggest hurdle for passage is still the refiners and she’s talked to leadership in the administration to urge President Trump to signal to small and mid-level refineries that E15 needs to happen.

E15 a Win Win
Bredenkamp says permanent law would provide certainty for the ethanol industry.

“That would resolve the Midwest state opt- out issue. That would resolve year- round E15. Everyone would know what the game plan is every year moving forward. retailers would have the market certainty that they need to offer it. the corn growers would have uh a demand driver moving forward. That’s what everyone needs.”

And Ernst says consumers would also win at the pump.

“Especially as we see sky high levels of fuel prices. We know we can drop that immediately with E15.”

Meanwhile, EPA is also expected to announce enhanced RVOS or biofuels blending standards by the end of March or even as early as this Friday’s White House Celebration of Ag, which will also help out at the gas pump.

Congress Eyes 'Skinny' Farm Bill and $15B in Ag Aid

Wed, 25 Mar 2026 18:07:37 GMT

The House and Senate Agriculture Committees are working on passing a “skinny” farm bill alongside $15 billion in farm aid.

On the Senate side, Agriculture Committee Ranking Member John Boozman says he expects work on the farm bill to begin within weeks, rather than months.

Skinny Farm Bill Moves Toward House Floor

The House version of the bill is gaining momentum after successfully passing out of the House Agriculture Committee.

Chairman G.T. Thompson says the bill will not be ready for a full House vote in time for the White House Celebration of Ag. However, he expects it to advance soon. Thompson told AgriTalk he is currently consulting with Democrats and various caucuses ahead of the vote.

“When I check the box on those, I think in the near future here,” Thompson says. “It’ll be after Easter obviously. At this point we’re going to be ready, we’re going to be ready to go. We’re going to be ready to take this to the House floor.”

Areas of Contention

Thompson expects a lively debate on the House floor regarding SNAP benefits and the Ag Labeling Uniformity Act. The latter dictates labeling rules for pesticides.

“There are some folks that think that we ought to have 50 different sets of instructions and 50 different processes to go through. It just drives up the cost of food and I also think it creates chaos to where we can put our farmers in harm’s way. I trust the EPA. I trust those scientists,” he explains.

Proposition 12 will also be a point of contention. Thompson notes the Supreme Court directed Congress to resolve issues tied to California’s sow production rules.

“That doesn’t step on states rights to do whatever a state wants to do. Doesn’t interfere with animal safety in different states. It just doesn’t allow one state to dictate to all the other states,” he adds.

High Odds of Passage

Thompson remains optimistic about the bill’s passage following a strong bipartisan committee vote. He also notes that support from President Trump should help the bill advance through the House.

The Senate may face a more difficult path, as 60 votes are required for passage.

$15 Billion in Farm Aid

Congress is also developing a supplemental funding bill that may include much-needed farm aid. Thompson says the assistance is critical for the industry.

“You know what we did a year and a half ago, I would have thought we wouldn’t have needed that. But the lingering impacts of inflation, the availability of inputs, the cost of inputs, you know, the disruption that’s caused by trade negotiations have made it a must,” he adds.

Thompson is working with Senate leadership on a $15 billion aid package.

“They’re looking at $10 billion for row crops, $5 billion for specialty crops. I actually have gone on record and said we need $10 billion for specialty crops and I need another $200 million for sawmills,” he explains.

The legislation could also include provisions for year-round E15 sales.

Trump Considers Suspending Moroccan Phosphate Duties Amid Corn Grower Pressure

Wed, 25 Mar 2026 12:53:44 GMT

For corn farmers like Dee Vaughan, the economics of fertilizer aren’t just a simple line item on the balance sheet; they are immediate, seasonal and deeply tied to whether a crop pencils out.

As a corn grower in the Texas Panhandle, Vaughan says rising input costs have forced tough decisions in recent years, particularly when it comes to phosphate, a cornerstone nutrient for crop production. And he says a key factor behind those higher costs is a federal trade policy now under review. At the heart of the issue, Vaughan says, is access, or lack of it.

That’s why just this week more than 50 state grower groups including the Texas Corn Producers Association, are urging the U.S. Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission (ITC) to revoke countervailing duties (CVDs) on imported phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia. The groups filed a letter with the Department of Commerce, urging the agency to revoke countervailing duties on imports of phosphate fertilizer as the sunset review begins.

In addition to the letter, corn groups are on Capitol Hill this week, and that push may be gaining traction. On Tuesday, Agri-Pulse reported The Trump administration is weighing temporarily suspending countervailing applied to Moroccan and Russian phosphate.

How the Duties Took Hold

Vaughan says any action to remove those duties wouldn’t just be welcome, it would be a long time coming. He says the current dispute dates back to 2020, when fertilizer manufacturer Mosaic filed a petition alleging Moroccan phosphate imports were being subsidized unfairly. After reviewing the case, the ITC and Department of Commerce imposed countervailing duties on those imports.

“And basically what we have is a situation where The Mosaic Company came to the International Trade Commission and the Department of Commerce back in 2020 and asked for a countervailing duty, a CVD, to be placed on Moroccan fertilizer,” Vaughan says. “They were claiming that Moroccan fertilizer was coming into the United States in an unfair manner.”

He says the ruling reshaped the global fertilizer flow into the U.S. market.

“The ITC and the Department of Commerce reviewed that request and they applied a countervailing duty on Moroccan fertilizer, which effectively locked Moroccan fertilizer out of the U.S. market,” Vaughan says.

That outcome, he says, has had lasting consequences, particularly because Morocco represents one of the world’s most significant sources of phosphate.

“Morocco has the largest phosphate deposits in the world,” Vaughan says. “They have the ability to provide a lot of supply to us while our phosphate rock resources are declining here. They’re not capable of meeting the demand for the U.S. market.”

Supply Constraints Meet Rising Demand

For corn growers, phosphate isn’t optional. It’s essential for root development, plant vigor and yield potential. When supply tightens, growers feel it quickly and often adjust in ways that ripple across the entire agricultural economy.

“We need that access to the Moroccan fertilizer, but we’re blocked off from it by these countervailing duties,” Vaughan says.

Now, five years after those duties were imposed, the policy is entering its required “sunset review,” a process that allows regulators to evaluate whether the measures should remain in place.

That review begins in April, and Vaughan says corn growers see it as a critical opportunity to get the duties removed.

“Five years have gone by since those CVDs were applied, and now they are coming up for mandatory review,” he says. “There will be an opportunity to remove those CVDs.”

Measuring the Economic Impact

The push to remove the duties is backed by economic analysis.

Vaughan says conversations with lawmakers last year helped spur a deeper look at the issue. During meetings in Washington, D.C., Texas Corn raised concerns with members of Congress, including Rep. Pat Fallon, who then commissioned a study by the Texas A&M Ag and Food Policy Center. The results, Vaughan says, were significant.

“What they determined is for the program crops — corn, wheat, grains, oilseeds, rice — it had cost about $6.9 billion over the five years that the CVD has been in place,” Vaughan says.

The analysis released in January of this year added to the growing body of evidence that countervailing duties on phosphate imports have significantly impacted U.S. farmers.

The Texas A&M Food and Agricultural Policy Center report specifically found the CVD increased the price of diammonium phosphate (DAP), a commonly used phosphorus fertilizer, by 28.6% during the period when the duty was set at its full initial rate of 19.97%. That price impact, the study notes, aligns with concerns raised by farm groups and lawmakers, as well as previous academic research.

The study also estimates the higher costs have added roughly $6.9 billion to phosphorus fertilizer expenses for U.S. producers of major crops during the 2021 through 2025 growing seasons, further underscoring the financial burden on agriculture tied to the policy.

“It’s not a silver bullet in itself that if it’s removed it’s going to make phosphate fertilizer much more affordable,” he says. “But at the same time, if we can keep a billion dollars in the farmers’ pockets, that’s a small win that we want to take advantage of.”

Fertilizer Companies Respond

Farm Journal reached out to fertilizer companies for perspective on potential action to remove the countervailing duties on phosphate imports.

In a statement, Mosiac said, “American farmers depend on a strong domestic fertilizer industry, which in turn depends on strong enforcement of US 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.”

Earlier this month, Nutrien told Farm Journal the evolving global supply and demand landscape for phosphate supports reconsideration of the current policy.

“Based on evolving global phosphate supply and demand dynamics since 2021, we believe removing countervailing duties on phosphate imports would be a constructive step that supports U.S. farmer economics, balanced fertilizer application and agricultural productivity,” Nutrien said to Farm Journal. “Farmers and food security are at the center of everything we do, and we continuously engage with our customers and associations on issues that are important to U.S. agriculture.”

A Broader Policy Question

While Vaughan is advocating for the removal of these specific duties, he says he recognizes the importance of trade enforcement tools more broadly.

“You know, we do have situations around the world where governments subsidize their industries, or they do things that are unfair trade practices,” he says. “And we need to protect U.S. industry in those situations.”

However, he argues this case highlights the risk of unintended consequences.

“We don’t want that CVD process abused when it’s not necessary,” Vaughan says. “And that’s the situation we feel like we’re in now.”

In his view, the duties have outlived whatever purpose they may have served — and are now doing more harm than good.

“We felt like they never should have been applied,” he says. “If you read the case, it’s very complicated, but it also makes you scratch your head and wonder why they even granted these CVDs to start with.”

Taking the Case to Washington

With the sunset review approaching, grower groups are mobilizing to make their case. Texas Corn is in Washington this week, meeting with lawmakers and encouraging them to weigh in with regulators.

“During this review period, there’s an opportunity for ag organizations to make comments and to testify at hearings,” Vaughan says. “There’s an opportunity for Congress to weigh in with the Department of Commerce.”

While the ITC operates independently, it does consider input from affected industries and elected officials.

“They’re charged with listening to the affected industries, which would be agricultural producers,” Vaughan says. “And of course members of Congress have an opportunity to weigh in with how it’s affecting their constituents at home.”

The goal, he says, is to ensure decision-makers understand the real-world impact.

Looking Ahead

For Vaughan and other corn growers, the outcome of the review could shape fertilizer markets — and farm economics — for years to come.

Restoring access to Moroccan phosphate, he says, would reintroduce competition, improve supply and help ease cost pressures across agriculture.

“It’s basically just hurting U.S. industry now,” Vaughan says. “It’s not helping.”

And while Morocco has other markets for its fertilizer, U.S. farmers have fewer alternatives when domestic supply falls short.

“It’s not really hurting the Moroccans per se,” he says. “They’re having to send fertilizer to other places in the world. But it’s hurting U.S. farmers.”

As planting season ramps up, Vaughan says the stakes are clear, not just for growers, but for the entire food system.

“We’re very hopeful that ag organizations and members of Congress take advantage of this situation and weigh in,” he says. “This is an opportunity to fix something that’s been costing agriculture for five years.”

Farm Groups Call On Trump and Congress to Include Farmer Aid in Military Funding Package

Fri, 20 Mar 2026 18:56:43 GMT

As Congress considers a military funding package, relief for farmers might become a key component of the legislative equation. More than 50 farmer groups are asking President Trump and Congress to include aid in the package. The letter sites severe weather conditions, the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz and sustained market pressure as their reasons for additional funding.

The farm groups also ask for strong Renewable Volume Obligations under the Renewable Fuel Standard, year-round E-15 and opportunities for farmers in the 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit. Republican lawmakers are reportedly debating a plan to include $15 billion in relief for producers to mitigate impacts stemming from the conflict in Iran. The proposal, first reported by Politico, appears to be gaining traction in the federal government.

“We appreciate your longstanding commitment to rural America. Now is the time to ensure that American agriculture can weather this period of extraordinary strain. Without timely assistance, continued losses risk accelerating farm closures, reducing domestic production capacity and weakening the ability of farmers and ranchers across this great nation to provide food, clothes and fuel for the American people,” the letter said.

USDA Evaluating Implementation Strategies

Richard Fordyce, USDA Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation, says members of Congress reached out to the department about a month ago to seek technical advice on implementing additional assistance.

“We do hear some signals that there is a desire to offer some additional assistance,” Fordyce said on “AgriTalk” recently. “When I say technical assistance it would be Congress, either the Senate or the House, actually proactively reaching out to us and asking us questions about what would be the best way to implement this.”

For quick dispersal, Fordyce says USDA suggests Congress should model new payments after the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program.

“We’ve had those conversations. I don’t know where they are at this point, but I do hear signals that there’s still a desire to do something. I just don’t know what that number would look like,” he expains.

Economic Concerns Over Ad Hoc Assistance

While the potential for aid is welcomed by many in the industry, some agricultural leaders express caution regarding the long-term effects of ad hoc payments.

Matt Perdue, president of the North Dakota Farmers Union, says he supports additional aid because many farmers require the funds to survive the current year. However, he remains concerned about how payments influence the broader agricultural economy.

“I think long-term we have to look at the ways in which ad hoc assistance and the farm safety net are really fueling higher land prices, really fueling higher input costs,” Perdue says.

Perdue notes while farmers are currently battling immediate financial pressures that aid could alleviate, the industry must eventually address these underlying long-term challenges.

“Short-term, the problem is how do we make sure producers have the money they need to get through 2026. The long-term problem is how do we make sure we have a safety net that really reflects the reality that is 2026, 2027 and the years ahead?” Perdue says. “I think both of those are important questions, and we’re wrestling with both at the same time.”

Status of Farmer Bridge Assistance Program Payments

Fordyce says USDA has received close to 400,000 applications for the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program. Of that about an eighth were submitted electronically.

“We’re getting close to $9 billion obligated in that program out of a total of $11 billion,” he adds.

Deadline to apply for the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program: April 17.

Trump Confirms He's Delaying China Visit By "Five or Six Weeks" Amid Iran Conflict

Tue, 17 Mar 2026 17:17:18 GMT

President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he is postponing his long-anticipated trip to China by “five or six weeks,” citing the ongoing war with Iran as the reason for the delay. The summit, originally scheduled for late March, has been pushed back as the administration focuses on addressing escalating tensions in the Middle East.

JUST IN: WASHINGTON (AP) - Trump says he is delaying his trip to China until later next month as he focuses on the war in Iran.
— AgDay TV (@AgDayTV) March 17, 2026

“We’re resetting the meeting, and it looks like it’ll take place in about five weeks,” Trump told reporters, adding that China “were fine with it.”

The president had requested the delay during a Monday meeting in the Oval Office with Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin, emphasizing the conflict requires his attention in Washington.

Trump on his visit to China:

Because of the war, I want to be here. I feel I have to be here.

And so we’ve requested that we delay it a month or so. pic.twitter.com/LYtj1V00aP
— Clash Report (@clashreport) March 16, 2026

When asked if he still planned to travel to Beijing later this month, Trump said: “I don’t know. We’re working on it right now. We’re speaking to China. I’d love to, but because of the war, I want to be here, I have to be here, I feel. We’ve requested we delay it a month or so ... I’m looking forward to being with them. We have a very good relationship ... there’s no tricks to it either. It’s not like ‘Oh gee, I’m waiting.’ It’s very simple: We have a war going on. I think it’s important I be here.”

Soybeans Saw Limit-Down Day For First Time in 17 Years

While soybeans were in the green on Tuesday, the news was enough to spark a sell-off in soybeans — closing down 70¢ on Monday. According to Ag Trader Talk’s Garrett Toay, soybeans closing in a limit-down move hadn’t happened in 17 years — since January 2009.

Leading up to Trump’s remarks on Monday, there was hope the planned meeting would secure China’s commitment to buy more soybeans.

The postponement comes as Trump intensifies efforts to assemble an international coalition to secure shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a key passage for global oil flows that has been threatened by Iranian activity. The administration is urging allies to provide naval support to ensure the safe transit of tankers, highlighting the importance of energy market stability.

However, Trump’s call for international cooperation has been met with resistance. Germany, Japan, Italy and Australia have declined to participate, while the United Kingdom and other nations are signaling caution about becoming involved in a broader conflict. Trump criticized this reluctance as a test of allied commitment after decades of U.S. security guarantees.

China, a major consumer of Middle Eastern oil, has been a particular focus of Trump’s outreach. In a recent interview with the Financial Times, the president said Beijing should help restart tanker traffic through the Strait following disruptions caused by Iran. While U.S.-China relations remain tense after a year of tariff threats, Chinese officials have maintained only cautious communication about the postponed visit. Spokesperson Lin Jian stated Monday that China and the U.S. “are maintaining communication regarding President Trump’s visit to China,” without addressing the Strait of Hormuz issue.

For farmers and agribusinesses, the delay carries tangible implications. Not only did the news impact soybean prices this week, but rising fuel and fertilizer costs, along with disruptions to global trade, could impact the export of U.S. crops — creating deeper uncertainty.

China Signals Potential Boost in U.S. Ag Purchases

Amid the postponement of the Trump-Xi summit, China is reportedly signaling openness to buying more American farm products, even as broader geopolitical tensions remain high. Sources say officials tied to Presidents Trump and Xi held what they described as “remarkably stable” talks over the weekend in Paris, with agriculture emerging as a key topic.

China is reportedly considering increasing purchases of U.S. goods such as beef, poultry and other crops, while remaining committed to major soybean imports in the years ahead. Cotton responded positively to that news, posting new contract highs.

However, uncertainty still clouds the outlook. Ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, coupled with lingering trade disputes between Washington and Beijing, could complicate progress on large-scale deals.

Soybeans remain a focal point, with questions about the timing of renewed, large-scale buying. Markets are watching closely, and any headline developments in U.S.-China agricultural trade could trigger significant price volatility.

Soybeans as a “Trade Token”?

Brian Grete of Comstock Investments offered perspective on the China-U.S. soybean dynamic, noting short-term market moves may not reflect the long-term picture. Just last week, soybean prices were fueled by news Brazil was slowing shipments of soybeans to China and warned the situation may be overbought.

“Longer term, I don’t think that slowing down Brazilian shipments is bullish,” Grete says. “They have a record crop, about 180 million tons, give or take, and that supply will eventually reach the global market, with China as the biggest buyer. Ride the wave while you can and make some sales as prices rise, because when it crashes, it may crash hard.”

On China’s potential buying of U.S. soybeans, Grete emphasizes politics may outweigh economics.

“This was a request from China’s agriculture ministry to Brazil’s ag ministry to increase phytosanitary requirements,” he explains. “China is trying to slow down Brazilian bean shipments. People say it doesn’t make sense for China to buy U.S. beans economically. But honestly, soybeans mean more politically for President Trump than for China. China will use soybeans as a trade token.”

The Iran War Is Sending Fertilizer Prices Soaring at the Worst Time for Farmers

Tue, 10 Mar 2026 18:43:16 GMT

The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) is urging the Trump administration to take immediate action to stabilize fertilizer supply chains as geopolitical tensions in the Middle East send shockwaves through global input markets just as U.S. farmers begin spring planting. But with farmers already dealing with high fertilizer prices, even before the conflict in Iran, farmers are searching for a longer-term solution. Fertilizer market analysts warn while there are several options longer-term, there is no single fix for high fertilizer prices, only a mix of short-term policy responses and long-term investments that could gradually stabilize supply.

But today, the sticker shock is hitting farmers hard, especially for those who waited to book fertilizer for spring. Fertilizer prices have shot up in just a week. Typically, retailers may receive updated pricing once or twice a month. But with the ongoing uncertainty in Iran and the impact on the Strait of Hormuz is having on fertilizer shipments, some retailers say they are getting several pricing updates a day.

The price shock is real for farmers. One local Missouri retailer told AgWeb that in just a two-week period:

Urea is up $140 per ton
NH3 has risen $100 per ton
UAN is also up $100 per ton

American Farm Bureau Calls for Intervention

In a March 9 letter to the White House , AFBF warned fertilizer and fuel prices have surged following disruptions tied to the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical energy and shipping corridors. The organization says the spike in costs comes as farmers are already dealing with what it describes as a “generational decline in farm income” driven by falling crop prices and persistent inflation.

AFBF notes farmers entered 2026 on somewhat stronger footing after passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and $12 billion in emergency economic assistance. However, the group warns rapidly rising input costs could quickly erase those gains, and now U.S. producers are bracing for a system shock resulting from the disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Middle East Tensions Highlight Fertilizer Market Risks

New analysis from AFBF’s Market Intel team underscores why fertilizer markets are particularly vulnerable to geopolitical instability involving Iran and neighboring countries in the Persian Gulf. Nitrogen fertilizer supply chains are closely tied to the region, which accounts for nearly 49% of global urea exports and about 30% of global ammonia exports. Major exporters include Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

AFBF says the Strait of Hormuz is central to energy and fertilizer trade. Oil flowing through the Strait averaged about 20 million barrels per day in 2024, roughly 20% of global petroleum liquids consumption. Because energy is a major input to fertilizer production and transportation, disruptions or heightened risk in the region can amplify volatility across agricultural input markets.

(American Farm Bureau Federation )

Large volumes of fertilizer inputs, including urea, ammonia, phosphates and sulfur, move through the Strait of Hormuz each year, creating a major choke point for agricultural supply chains. AFBF says energy markets are also closely linked to fertilizer production. Their estimates point to roughly 20 million barrels of oil per day moving through the Strait, about 20% of global petroleum consumption. Because energy is a major input in fertilizer manufacturing and transportation, disruptions in the region can quickly amplify price volatility.

AFBF economists say Iran holds some of the world’s largest natural gas reserves, and natural gas is the key feedstock used to produce ammonia, the foundational input for most nitrogen fertilizers. Urea, which contains about 46% nitrogen, is the most widely used solid nitrogen fertilizer globally and plays a central role in crop production systems.

(American Farm Bureau Federation )

The timing of the disruption is especially concerning because U.S. farmers are currently making fertilizer purchases and applying nutrients ahead of planting. Analysts on U.S. Farm Report last weekend warned higher input costs could shift up to 1 million 1.5 million acres from corn to soybeans this spring . AFBF analysts also say delayed shipments or higher prices could lead some farmers to adjust cropping plans.

Why U.S. Farmers Feel Global Price Swings

Even when the United States is not directly importing fertilizer from the Middle East, domestic prices still follow global markets.
The U.S. relies on both domestic production and imports to meet fertilizer demand. According to AFBF, the U.S. imports roughly:

97% of its potassium
18% of its nitrogen
13% of its phosphate

That global exposure means disruptions anywhere in the fertilizer supply chain can quickly affect American farmers.

A new AFBF Market Intel report shows the U.S. relies on both domestic production and imports to meet fertilizer demand, and import exposure varies by nutrient. Roughly 97% of potassium is imported, 18% of nitrogen and 13% of phosphate. This import exposure increases sensitivity to global trade disruptions, particularly during seasonal demand peaks.

(American Farm Bureau Federation)

Short-Term Fixes: Policy and Supply

In the letter sent to the White House this week, AFBF president Zippy Duvall not only pointed out the fertilizer problem farmers now face, but he also outlined several steps the administration could take immediately to prevent supply disruptions and moderate prices.

Among the recommendations:

Using the U.S. Navy to help ensure safe maritime transit for fertilizer shipments through the Strait of Hormuz.
Working with international partners to maintain open shipping lanes.
Addressing insurance barriers for vessels transporting fertilizer cargo through federal tools, such as programs administered by the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation.
Ensuring domestic ports, railroads and barge systems can quickly move fertilizer supplies to farms.
Temporarily waiving the Jones Act to improve domestic shipping capacity between U.S. ports.
Suspending countervailing duties on certain imported fertilizer products.

But while those actions could help ease pressure in the short term, fertilizer analysts say structural challenges in the market remain.

Are Fertilizer Prices in a Worst-Case Scenario?

While fertilizer is even more of a concern heading into spring, prices were already high, even before the situation unfolded in Iran earlier this month. According to Josh Linville, vice president of fertilizer at StoneX Group, many farmers are asking a more immediate question: Have fertilizer prices already reached the worst-case scenario?

Linville says the answer is “no.”

The reason, he explains, is that global fertilizer markets remain highly sensitive to geopolitical developments — particularly those affecting major shipping lanes.

At the moment, much of that uncertainty centers around tensions involving Iran and the potential threat to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical energy and fertilizer trade routes.

“Right now we still hold onto the hope that, within a couple days, we will put so much pressure on the Iranian regime and take out so many of their leaders that they become a shell,” Linville says. “All of a sudden they can no longer do the offensive attacks. They can no longer pressure the Strait of Hormuz and cause vessels to sit there and say, ‘I will not risk my ship, I will not risk my crew and I will not risk my load to go through a channel that’s that dangerous.’”

If tensions escalate to the point shipping companies refuse to move vessels through the region, fertilizer supply chains could face significant disruptions. A large portion of global nitrogen and phosphate trade flows through the Middle East, making the waterway critical to international fertilizer logistics.

But if the situation stabilizes quickly, Linville believes markets could recover just as fast.

“If we can knee-cap them to the point that they no longer have an offensive capability, and we can free flow back in the Strait of Hormuz, we’ve only lost several days — maybe a week,” he says. “And I think we can make that up very, very quickly.”

That means geopolitical risk remains one of the biggest wild cards in fertilizer markets. Prices could move sharply higher if trade routes are disrupted, but they could also stabilize if those risks fade.

What Are Possible Longer-Term Fixes?

While fertilizer prices may not have even seen the highs, especially if ships through the Strait aren’t able to get through, farmers searching for a single solution to high fertilizer prices are likely to be frustrated.

“People keep asking, ‘How do we fix this? How do we fix this?’” Linville says during a recent appearance on the Unscripted podcast . “No one answer is going to fix every fertilizer.”

Instead, Linville says the conversation needs to separate short-term relief from long-term structural fixes. When he looks at the nitrogen market, which includes urea, UAN and ammonia, Linville says there is at least one potential short-term lever policymakers could pull.

“In the short term, when I look at urea, when I look at nitrogen, my short-term view is simple: Get rid of DEF. Get rid of those regulations,” he says.

Diesel exhaust fluid (DEF), which is used in emissions systems for diesel engines, relies on urea as a key ingredient. Linville says that policy requirement diverts nitrogen away from agriculture.

“Everybody is begging for it because it’s terrible for equipment, and it puts a lot of that nitrogen back in the hands of the farmer,” Linville says. “That is a quick fix.”

But he says the bigger issue for nitrogen markets is production capacity.

Natural gas is the primary feedstock used to produce nitrogen fertilizer, and the United States and Canada have some of the cheapest natural gas supplies in the world. Yet North America still relies heavily on imported fertilizer.

“Longer term, we need to look at trying to invest more money,” Linville says. “Get similar-type loans to build new nitrogen facilities in the U.S. and Canada, wherever that might be. It needs to be a North America approach. That’s a long-term fix.”

Linville says governments have already shown a willingness to support fertilizer development projects, but those efforts have focused on the wrong nutrients.

“The government has given long-term loans to potash mines. That’s the one product we really don’t need more of,” he says. “I like that focus. I like that we’re increasing it. But potash is literally the last one that we need help with.”

Instead, he says those same financing tools should be directed toward nitrogen production facilities.

Building Fertilizer Plants Is a Massive Investment

Even if policymakers and investors move quickly, Linville says expanding fertilizer production is not a fast process. Fertilizer plants are some of the most complex and expensive facilities in the agricultural supply chain.

“It is multi-years and multi-billions of U.S. dollars,” Linville says.

To illustrate the scale of investment required, he points to a recent nitrogen plant transaction in Iowa.

“The Wever, Iowa, plant just sold not so long ago for $3-plus billion,” Linville says. “If the three of us came together and said, ‘You know what, let’s build a plant,’ a brand new world-scale facility is probably going to be $4 billion.”

Even after construction begins, production still takes time.

“You won’t see the first ton be produced and sold at a profit, at a margin, for probably at least 1.5 to 2 years, bare minimum. It’s a massive undertaking. There’s a lot of engineering, a lot of construction, a lot of land clearing. It’s not a fast process,” he says.

Still, Linville says increasing domestic production would help stabilize global fertilizer markets over time.

“If we produce here, we have more global supplies and less global demand because the U.S. and Canada are no longer calling on the rest of the world trying to buy these tons,” Linville says. “It helps smooth out the price curve.”

Should Fertilizer Companies Be Investigated?

As fertilizer prices climb, some policymakers are calling for closer scrutiny of the industry, citing concerns about consolidation and potential market manipulation. Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice launched an antitrust investigation into the U.S. fertilizer sector. According to a report from Bloomberg News, the probe is examining whether major fertilizer producers may have coordinated to push prices higher.

Companies reportedly included in the investigation are Nutrien, The Mosaic Company, CF Industries Holdings, Koch Industries and Yara International, firms that collectively represent a significant share of the U.S. nitrogen, phosphate and potash fertilizer markets.

That’s in addition to USDA also saying an investigation would occur into fertilizer pricing, calling Mosaic and Nutrien a ‘duopoly.’

Linville says those investigations are unlikely to solve the underlying issue.

“You’re going to hear a lot of farmers’ heads pop off when I say this, but I’m going to say ‘no,’” Linville says.

Instead, he points to price data from the New Orleans fertilizer market, commonly referred to as NOLA, which serves as the benchmark for U.S. urea prices.

“Look at our NOLA urea price,” Linville says. “Again, New Orleans, Louisiana, it’s the most visible market out there. NOLA to urea is the same as Chicago is to corn. It’s our base place for that trade.”

When those prices are compared to global benchmarks, Linville says the U.S. market has actually been trading below world values.

“When you look at the NOLA urea price compared to the Middle East replacement value, and we watch the Middle East because half of our urea imports come from that region, we have been operating at a discount for the entirety of this fertilizer year since July 1, 2025. There’s not been a week where our price has been a premium to the world.” Linville adds.

Because the U.S. still imports millions of tons of fertilizer each year, domestic prices inevitably follow the global market.

“It doesn’t matter if you have three dozen manufacturers or three,” Linville says. “Our price is still going to ebb and flow with that world product price because we are still a net importer.”

Tariffs on Moroccan, Russian Phosphate Imports Up for Review

While nitrogen markets are heavily tied to natural gas and production capacity, phosphate fertilizers face a different set of challenges, particularly trade policy.

The U.S. currently has countervailing duties on phosphate imports from Morocco and Russia that were implemented in 2021. Those duties are approaching a required five-year “sunset review,” which will determine whether they remain in place. That’s one thing AFBF stated this week that they’d like to see the Trump administration address.

But even before this week, groups such as NCGA have called on both the Trump and Biden administrations to remove the tariff, saying it’s only further driving up the prices farmers are paying.

“The countervailing duty against Morocco and Russia was officially put into place late March, early April 2021,” Linville says. “And it’s got a five-year sunset review. That’s exactly what we’re getting ready to move into.”

Some in the industry believe the review could result in those duties being overturned, opening the door for additional phosphate imports, but Linville isn’t convinced that outcome is likely.

“There’s a lot of excitement that they’re going to review this and overturn it,” he says. “I will say I have a higher-than-I-should optimism that they will overturn it and get rid of it. But the history of countervailing duty reviews would tell you there’s a very low chance that they’re going to overturn it.”

The reason is simple: Those reviews are supposed to be driven strictly by data. And in this case, the underlying conditions that led to the tariffs haven’t changed dramatically.

“Russia hasn’t changed practices. I don’t know that Morocco has changed enough of their practices.”

Still, he believes there is at least some possibility the political environment could influence the outcome.

“I have never seen an administration talk about fertilizer as much as this one has,” Linville says. “Because there’s been so much focus on the farmer and on fertilizer markets, there could be a political lean where they say, ‘Listen, I know what’s going on. You need to do something about this.’”

Even so, he cautions against farmers expecting a reversal.

A Complex Market With No Single Fix

Ultimately, fertilizer markets are shaped by a complex mix of energy prices, global trade flows, geopolitics and production capacity.
That means solving the fertilizer price puzzle will likely require a combination of policies, investments and international partnerships.

For farmers heading into the 2026 planting season, however, the immediate concern remains whether fertilizer supplies will arrive in time and at prices they can afford.

“It’s simple, guys,” Linville says. “But every fertilizer has a different path to fixing it.”

House Ag Committee Starts Farm Bill Mark Up

Mon, 02 Mar 2026 16:24:40 GMT

The push to get a five-year farm bill has been renewed in the House Ag Committee as Chairman G.T. Thompson released language and mark up began on Tuesday.

One Big Beautiful Bill Omits Farm Bill Titles

While some question why a new long term farm bill is needed, a cross section of the nation’s farm groups explain the bill did not cover all the titles normal included in a long-term farm bill.

“We had a lot of the provisions of the farm bill that were included in the One Big Beautiful Bill — the increase in reference prices, some changes and improvements to crop insurance, etc. But there’s still some really important aspects of the farm bill that need to be passed,” says Steve Censky, chief executive officer of the American Soybean Association.

Sam Kieffer, chief executive officer of the National Association of Wheat Growers, points out the One Big Beautiful Bill did not touch the conservation title or reauthorize programs like the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Nor did the legislation deal with credit or expand farm loan limits.

“It is time to give our folks some certainty when it comes to conservation programs, when it comes to credit. The cost of doing business is drastically different than it was in 2018. And the 2018 Farm Bill was based off of data from three, four years prior. So, we want to make sure that we improve the credit section of of the farm bill, get that finished,” Kieffer says.

Farm Safety Net Needed

Kieffer adds a farm bill is also needed to provide certainty to farmers and offer a farm safety net in times of negative margins.

“There’s three years of market loss that our growers are struggling with at the moment, and they’re making hard decisions. Some of them are reducing acres, some of them are letting land go and there’s a price to be paid for that as well,” Kieffer says.

House Ag Committee Language Includes Prop 12 Ag Labeling Uniformity Act

Chairman Thompson’s farm bill language includes a Ag Labeling Uniformity Act, which covers pesticide registrations, according to Censky.

“Which means that the EPA is going to have preeminence when they make a health and safety determination of a pesticide, a crop protection product. You can’t have a state adopt different rules,” Censky says.

The House language also includes a national fix to California’s strict Prop 12 sow production standards and the possible patchwork of rules in other states.

However, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) would lose around $1 billion in budget authority over the next four fiscal years under the House Agriculture Committee’s GOP farm bill draft, according to calculations by the Congressional Budget Office. EQIP was essentially used as a funding source for other priorities in the legislation.

Include Food for Peace Program

Kieffer says NAWG also wants Congress to move the Food for Peace Program to USDA in the language of the Farm Bill.

“USDA knows how to deal with farm commodities. USDA is already in the business of engaging in food aid programs globally. They have the infrastructure. They have the personnel and they understand agriculture. So, the farm bill that is ready to be moved in the house here soon has a provision that would include that,” Kieffer adds.

Senate Preparing for Farm Bill Mark Up

While the Senate Agriculture Committee has not released farm bill language or scheduled a mark-up, chairman John Boozman told Agri-Pulse his committee will take up a farm bill of its own in the coming months. Timing will be dependent in part on how debate over a House version proceeds.

Will Congress Pass a Farm Bill?

Still there’s uncertainty about the appetite for passage of a farm bill in Congress according to Tim Lust, chief executive officer of National Sorghum Producers.

“A lot of these details honestly have been negotiated for a year or two, and it’s maybe little tweaks to them, but a lot of the main things haven’t really changed. It’s a matter of how do we get that across the finish line and find a way to get it signed into law?” he says.

Farm Groups Say Increased Demand is the Solution to the Farm Economic Woes, Not Aid

Tue, 03 Mar 2026 20:47:37 GMT

After three years of low grain prices and low profitability, the nation’s commodity groups share a common priority for the year ahead: finding new demand sources, both internationally and at home.

While they are appreciative of recent farm aid, they want to get their income from the marketplace.

NCGA Pushes for Year-Round E15

For corn growers, that means securing year-round E15. Neil Caskey, CEO of the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), says this is a vital tool for producers.

“This is going to be the most expensive corn crop in U.S. history. And so we’re looking for ways to keep them afloat,” Caskey says. “E15, in our opinion, is probably the easiest thing that Congress could do to signal that they understand our concern.”

Recent efforts to pass E15 failed. Additionally, a task force of biofuels and petroleum interests working on a compromise missed its February deadlines.

“I think that they’re starting to realize what we already knew. It takes a lot of time to find compromise on complex biofuels policy,” Caskey says.

Still, the group continues to push because its analysis indicates it will move the needle.

Caskey also says full implementation of E15 could eventually result in another 2.5 billion bushels of corn demand.

NCGA Backs USMCA Renewal

Caskey notes trade is the other critical demand component. This is why the renewal of USMCA is important, and NCGA supports a trilateral agreement.

“I think that we’ve got a really good deal in USMCA in its current form,” Caskey says. “So, I would urge the president and the administration to start there and extend that. And so that would certainly be our preference. But the single most important thing to us is ensuring that we maintain access to the Mexican and Canadian markets for U.S. corn.”

NAWG Also Backs USMCA

The nation’s wheat growers also support USMCA to boost exports. Sam Kieffer, CEO of the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG), says the relationship with North American neighbors is vital.

“Mexico is the No. 1 export destination of U.S.-grown wheat,” Kieffer says. “So we certainly want to make sure we keep that relationship strong and going — and Canada’s a great partner as well.”

NAWG Asks for Food For Peace Certainty

Kieffer says while new trade deals are needed, they are also building markets through the Food for Peace Program. They want Congress to move the program to USDA as part of the farm bill.

“USDA knows how to deal with farm commodities. USDA is already in the business of engaging in food aid programs globally. They have the infrastructure, they have the personnel and they understand agriculture. So the farm bill that is ready to be moved in the House here soon has a provision that would include that,” Kieffer says.

And he says a long-term farm bill is needed to provide certainty to farmers and offer a safety net. They’re excited the House Ag Committee started its markup on March 2.

“The One Big Beautiful Bill did make some significant investments for the future, but there’s three years of market loss that our growers are struggling with at the moment, and they’re making hard decisions and some of them are reducing acres, some of them are letting land go and there’s a price to be paid for that as well,” Kieffer says.

Long-Term Trade Deal With China

For U.S. soybean producers, the trade relationship with China is critical. They are seeking a long-term agreement in writing when national leaders meet in April.

“We’re urging the Trump administration to make sure that we lock in, you know, a stable agreement with China,” says Steve Censky, chief executive officer for the American Soybean Association. “We had the 12 million metric ton commitment for this marketing year. We’d love to see that go up. If that went up by another 8 million tons, we would welcome that. And then of course there’s the commitment for 25 million metric tons for each of the next three years’ minimum purchase requirements.”

SCOTUS Tariff Ruling Presents No Threat

Censky’s not concerned with the Supreme Court striking down the IEEPA tariffs or that President Trump’s new tariffs will take away the leverage the U.S. has with China.

“The tariffs, of course, add to uncertainty in the whole trading relationship. But again, you know, I think the president talks about what a good relationship he has with President Xi, which is wonderful. And so we’re hoping, you know, that he will be able to have a deal with China that will be positive for soybean growers,” Censky says.

Diversifying Trade

While China imports more soybeans than the rest of the world combined, ASA is also looking at diversification of their exports.

“Trade remains so important to soybean farmers. We export over half of what we produce, and we’re still very much dependent on opening up foreign markets. So through the stabilizing, making sure that we’re keeping trade on a stable plane with China, is very important, but also opening up new markets is very important to us,” Censky says.

ASA Eyes Increased Biofuels

Increasing biofuels demand is also a top priority for ASA. The group is pleased the Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) moved to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) this week.

“EPA has proposed the highest volumes on record, and we want to make sure that in the final rule that’s adopted that those are brought home. Because that’s so important to soybean demand, soybean prices, but also the demand for the oil produced from soybeans. Over half of the oil that’s produced from soybeans goes into biofuels,” Censky says.

Censky says the EPA proposal for 5.6 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel would add 2 billion gallons to current levels.

“It would be over a 60% increase. We really think that in the previous RVOs that were set under the Biden administration, they really underestimated the capacity for us to produce,” Censky adds.

NSP Supports E15

The National Sorghum Producers (NSP) is also focused on biofuels, including E15. Tim Lust, CEO of NSP, says the industry needs an immediate boost.

“We need the demand now. With the softness in prices and profitability across all commodities, it’s something,” Lust says. “It’s one of the few things that we could do that would have an immediate impact that is good for farmers, good for demand, good for saving the government money.”

He says they hope Congress can find a legislative vehicle to move the policy forward soon.

“Obviously, we need a deal. We want a deal. Exactly how that goes is something that’s still got to be threaded through Congress. Nothing gets passed through Congress simply today,” Lust adds.

NSP Supports Trade

Sorghum producers are also looking to exports. While USMCA is key, they are also excited about new trade opportunities.

“From an international standpoint, where’s the trade opportunities and what’s that look like? [There are] a lot of new agreements going on. And so for our industry, it’s about that market access and long-term market access,” Lust says.

NSP is eyeing two of the world’s largest populations for the most immediate impact on sorghum demand.

“Most years we do about $1 billion worth of trade with China. So, it’s certainly a significant item. In the last about eight or nine weeks now, they’ve bought about 40 boats, and so certainly that’s very influential to our industry. One you know, the one with long-term potential for us is the India agreement, and sorghum being mentioned in there is important from a long-term [perspective],” Lust adds.

This industry-wide push for increased demand aims to secure better long-term prices for the nation’s grain producers.

Splitting USMCA Into Two Separate Trade Deals Would Be a Mistake, Argues Trade Groups

Wed, 25 Feb 2026 16:13:29 GMT

With the 2026 review of the U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) approaching, President Donald Trump is signaling he may seek to replace the current three-nation pact with separate bilateral trade deals for Canada and Mexico. The move, driven by dissatisfaction with elements of the existing agreement, would shift away from the trilateral framework in favor of one-on-one negotiations aimed at addressing specific trade disputes, particularly with Canada, and could reshape the structure of North American agricultural trade.

The future of USMCA, and the importance of a trade deal with both Canada and Mexico, is one of the hallmark discussions taking place during Commodity Classic this week.

During a roundtable in San Antonio, just steps away from where North America’s modern trade era began, Farmers for Free Trade made its case: keep the three-nation trade pact intact and make it stronger for U.S. agriculture.

Speaking on “AgriTalk” from Commodity Classic, Farmers for Free Trade executive director Brian Kuehle told Michelle Rook renewing and strengthening the USMCA is one of the most important trade priorities facing the Trump administration.

“This agreement is critically important for U.S. agriculture,” Kuehle says.

North America: Agriculture’s $60 Billion Neighborhood

USMCA is scheduled for a mandatory joint review and potential renewal on July 1, 2026, six years after it entered into force. This review, part of the agreement’s sunset clause, allows the United States, Mexico and Canada to confirm their commitment to the deal and extend it, with formal discussions already underway.

But Farmers for Free Trade says Mexico and Canada aren’t just neighbors. They are the top two export markets for U.S. farm goods.

According to Kuehle, U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico and Canada totaled nearly $60 billion last year, up from just $9 billion before the original North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect in 1994. Mexico is now the largest export destination for U.S. corn, while Canada is a leading buyer of U.S. ethanol and a key market for dairy, meat and specialty crops.

For Texas alone, agricultural exports to Mexico and Canada reached $6.4 billion in 2025.

“That’s a lot of food and ag products going out to these two countries,” Kuehle says. “For one state, that’s significant.”

The original NAFTA laid the foundation for that growth. Its successor, the USMCA, was negotiated during Trump’s first term and updated the rules but preserved the integrated North American market.

Now, with a mandatory review looming, Farmers for Free Trade wants the administration to renew the pact and avoid splintering it into separate bilateral deals.

Keep the Three Nations Together

The current push by the administration is to break up the current USMCA, moving to two bilateral deals. But is this just posturing? Kuehle says talk of negotiating separate one-on-one deals with Mexico and Canada echoes the 2018 process, when Mexico negotiated first and Canada joined later. But he warns formally splitting the agreement would be a mistake.

“I think it would be a colossal error to split the two apart and try to do two bilateral deals,” he says. “We want everyone in the same tent working together for an integrated market.”

The strength of USMCA, he argues, is in its predictability, stable rules for the road and a formal dispute resolution system. That mechanism proved critical when Mexico attempted to ban imports of genetically modified corn. The U.S. successfully challenged the move under USMCA’s dispute process, preserving market access for American growers.

“That’s why free trade agreements are so important,” Kuehle says. “We can depend on those exports.”

Farm Groups Push for USMCA Renewal

Forty national farm and agricultural organizations have also announced the formation of the Agricultural Coalition for the United States Mexico Canada Agreement, launching a coordinated push to secure renewal of USMCA ahead of its mandatory 2026 review.

The coalition says the agreement serves as a critical economic engine for U.S. agriculture and is urging policymakers to renew it with targeted improvements, rather than risk uncertainty in export markets. As part of the roll out, the group unveiled a new website and began an aggressive advertising campaign in Washington, D.C., aimed at highlighting the benefits the pact has delivered to farmers, ranchers and agribusinesses. The effort comes as the administration prepares for the formal review process required under the agreement.

“USMCA is one of President Trump’s signature achievements and one that has significantly propelled the ag economy,” says Bryan Goodman, a spokesperson for the new coalition. “We are not saying it’s perfect, as some changes are warranted, but we are saying it is of paramount importance to farmers that all three countries renew the agreement.”

If all parties agree to extend it, the pact would remain in force for another 16 years, with a subsequent review in 2032. If renewal efforts fail and a country opts to withdraw, the agreement would terminate in 2036. Alternatively, the review could shift into annual consultations without resolution, creating prolonged uncertainty for agricultural producers.

The Trump administration has signaled renewal is not automatic, though officials have acknowledged the agreement has delivered measurable benefits.

“Our farmers make decisions a year or more in advance,” Goodman says. “They need the certainty of knowing USMCA is here to stay.”

Coalition leaders argue Trump reshaped North American trade policy by negotiating and signing the pact, and they plan to emphasize that message in the months ahead.

“We want to protect this agreement and build on what President Trump started in his first term,” Goodman says. “We are confident we will be able to share the facts and farmer testimony that will help the Trump administration benefit rural communities throughout the process of the 2026 review.”

A Bright Spot Amid Tariff Turbulence

As broader tariff battles reshape global trade, North America has remained comparatively stable — something Kuehle describes as a bright light for agriculture.

While targeted tariffs can serve a purpose in response to unfair trade practices, he cautions against broad, across-the-board tariffs that raise input costs for farmers and consumer prices at home.

He also stresses the importance of congressional involvement in trade policy. USMCA was negotiated under trade promotion authority, passed by Congress and enacted into law, giving it durability beyond a single administration.

By contrast, Kuehle says, executive-only tariff deals lack transparency and long-term certainty.

“Is it a deal that exists beyond a president’s term? Does it have staying power?” he asks. “That’s the difference between going it alone and following the constitutional structure where Congress has authority over trade.”

Fix What Needs Fixing… Without Burning Bridges

All of this talk doesn’t mean USMCA is perfect, Kuehle says.

Dairy access into Canada remains a sticking point, and Kuehle says the administration is right to push for improvements. But he cautions against rhetoric that could alienate a critical partner.

“We want to be fair but firm,” he says, echoing advice from former U.S. Sen. Max Baucus. “Nobody likes to be bullied.”

He warns unnecessarily straining relations could push Canada toward deeper ties with the European Union or China — a shift that would undermine decades of North American integration.

“We don’t want Canada orienting toward the EU,” he says. “We want them continuing to orient toward us.”

A United Front at Commodity Classic

At Commodity Classic, that message is resonating across farm country.

Kuehle says commodity groups, from corn and soybeans to wheat and sorghum, are largely united in supporting renewal of USMCA. Farmers for Free Trade hosted a roundtable discussion at the historic site in San Antonio where NAFTA was originally signed in 1992, symbolically “going back to the original location.”

The organization is also collecting farmer signatures, urging Congress and the administration to renew and strengthen the agreement.

“U.S. ag obviously sometimes has its differences,” Kuehle says. “But on USMCA, it’s darn near united.”

As the review process unfolds, Farmers for Free Trade hopes unity translates into action, preserving what many producers see as the backbone of American agricultural trade.

For Kuehle, the stakes are simple: Protect the integrated North American market farmers depend on and make sure it continues delivering for the next generation.

USDA Ag Outlook: Farm Economy 'Making Progress' in 2026, But Headwinds Persist

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 22:03:50 GMT

For the first time in several years, the heavy cloud of skyrocketing production costs is beginning to lift, according to USDA chief economist Justin Benavidez. Speaking at USDA’s 102^nd annual Agricultural Outlook Forum on Thursday , Benavidez unveiled a 2026 forecast that suggests “progress is being made,” even as the row-crop sector navigates a significant transition in acreage and a shifting policy landscape.

After his outlook, Farm Journal had the chance to speak one-on-one with the new USDA chief economist. When asked his biggest takeaway from the outlook on the ag economy, he was positive about progress.

“I think the big story for this year is that progress is being made,” Benavidez says. “Obviously, we are not out of the woods in terms of cost of production, in terms of finding higher prices through new sources of demand, but we are making progress.”

USDA Ag Outlook Forum

(Lori Hayes)

Costs: Finally Turning a Modest Corner?

After multiple years of relentless increases, USDA now forecasts production expenses to moderate. Benavidez points to a key inflection point: inflation-adjusted costs.

“We’ll see cost of production moderate for the first time in several years,” he says. “When adjusted for inflation, total cost of production will decline marginally.”

That doesn’t mean every farmer will see lower costs in 2026.

“Certain producers are obviously going to see that nominal cost still go up marginally, in the neighborhood of 1% on average,” he adds.

Behind the recent volatility, Benavidez says, lies a longer-term structural issue.

“We are still working very hard to get out of what is really a 15-year discrepancy in that cost of production and price received for crops,” he says. “We’ve had some black swan events that have masked a long-term gap in cost of production and price received.”

Closing that gap will require more than cost control. Benavidez says it will require more sources of demand.

The Biggest Wild Cards

If there is one factor that could significantly alter the 2026 outlook, Benavidez says it is biofuels policy.

“I’m going to be watching closely to see what happens with the RFS debate as well as [the] 45Z rule,” he says.

The 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit provides tax incentives to refiners, increasing derived demand for feedstocks such as corn, soybeans and potentially canola. USDA is working on flexible feedstock provisions that could further influence farm-level incentives.

“It provides a tax credit to refiners of those biofuels, and then that increases a derived demand for some of the biofuel input products, like corn, beans and canola,” he explains.

At the same time, negotiations around the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and E15 could reshape demand expectations.

“That could really impact both the demand for corn and for beans, depending on where the RFS and that debate over E15 winds up going,” Benavidez says.

However, he notes the timing of these policies is critical, which is why he considers them the biggest wild cards he’s watching.

“If those changes and updates happen prior to planting, we could see a significant change in what the acreage forecast looks like, as well as what the price forecast looks like.”

The ripple effects could extend beyond Washington.

“We know that in some places where you might swap into planting soybeans, you’re more favorable toward cotton,” he says. “We might see that if one of the policies on the biofuels side goes into place that favors soybeans a little bit more, we might see a reduction in cotton acres — or the opposite could be the case for corn.”

The Numbers You Need to Know

USDA Ag Outlook Forum Acreage Projections

(Lori Hayes )

According to Pro Farmer, the highlights from USDA’s Grains and Oilseeds outlook released on Thursday include:

Corn yield is projected at 183 bu. per acre, producing a 15.8 billion bushel corn crop, down about 7% from 2025. USDA says the yield projection “assumes normal planting progress and summer growing season weather.”
Total corn supplies are forecast at 17.9 billion bushels, down from the record of 18.6 billion in 2025/26.
Total U.S. corn use for 2026-27 is forecast to decline about 2% on lower domestic use and exports.
Food, seed and industrial is flat at 7.0 billion bushels.
Corn used for ethanol is forecast at 5.6 billion bushels, based on expectations of essentially unchanged motor gasoline consumption and exports.
Feed and residual use is down about 3% to 6.0 billion bushels on lower supplies.
Exports are down 200 million bushels to 3.1 billion. “U.S. global trade share is expected to decline slightly on larger competitor exports from South America and modest global demand growth,” USDA says.
Ending stocks are projected at 1.8 billion bushels, down 290 million from a year ago and resulting in stocks relative to use at 11.4%, down from 2025-26 but higher than the most recent 5-year average of about 10.8%.
The season-average corn price received by producers is forecast up 10¢ to $4.20 per bushel.

USDA’s projected corn acreage for 2026 released during the 2026 Ag Outlook Forum.

(Lori Hayes )

Soybeans and Stronger Profit Potential?

USDA says the projected rise in soybean acres reflects “stronger profitability compared to other crops, along with expected crop rotations across the Corn Belt and the Delta.”

Assuming normal weather conditions, yields are expected to average 53.0 bu. per acre, leading to a 188-million-bushel increase to production to 4.45 billion bushels.
U.S. soybean crush is projected to rise by 85 million bushels, reaching 2.655 billion, supported by rising soybean meal and oil demand.
Given normal weather, oilseed meal supplies are expected to be ample in 2026-27, keeping soybean meal prices relatively flat with the prior marketing year at $300 per short ton.
U.S. soybean exports for 2026-27 are projected at 1.7 billion bushels, a recovery from the 2025-26 forecast of 1.58 billion bushels (or 42.9 million tons).
Exports for the 2025-26 marketing year are forecast to decline to the lowest level in 13 years. Accounting for a record-low share of just 23% of global soybean trade, USDA says tariff measures curtailed shipments to China, the largest export destination for the U.S., which imported an average 28.7 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans during the 2021-22 through 2023-24 marketing years. Argentina’s temporary elimination of export taxes last September also led to a counter-seasonal surge in exports in November, further impacting U.S. market share globally, USDA adds.
Soybean ending stocks for 2026-27 are projected at 355 million bushels, nearly flat with the 2025-26 forecast.
The season-average farm price is projected at $10.30 per bushel, marginally higher than the prior marketing year.

USDA’s projected soybean acreage for 2026 released during the 2026 Ag Outlook Forum.

(Lori Hayes)

Benavidez says USDA’s price forecast is for marginal improvements, but he notes headwinds are still in the forecast.

Acreage Shifts: Fewer Corn Acres, More Soybeans

One of the more closely watched projections from USDA is a 5 million acre decline in corn plantings and an increase in soybean acreage to 85 million. The corn reduction is roughly 1 million acres larger than some private trade forecasts.

“There’s always discrepancy in forecasts, right?” Benavidez says, noting the projections are early-season estimates.

He says it’s important to note USDA’s World Agricultural Outlook Board evaluates multiple variables when looking at acreage forecasts this early.

“They’re looking into factors, obviously the soy-to-corn price ratio, which is trending toward more bean acres relative to previous years,” he explains. “We’re getting close back to that 10-year average of the ratio between soy and corn price, which trends toward a little bit more bean acreage this year when compared to corn.”

USDA’s projected acreage for 2026 released during the 2026 Ag Outlook Forum.

(Lori Hayes)

Global and domestic stocks also play into the equation. Ultimately, he says it boils down to where producers think they will make the highest net return.

Total principal crop acres are forecast to decline about 1.5 million acres. However, shifts among crops could offset some of that.

“Our principal crops will see about a 1.5 million acre decline in terms of total acres planted,” Benavidez says. “But the mix of other acres is going to moderate some of that acreage decline a little bit.”

He pointed to cotton as one example, but he notes regional impacts are harder to pin down at this stage.

“It will vary across the country,” he says. “But regional specifics — I think this is very early to be talking about regional specifics.”

Cotton: Sustained Headwinds

Among the major crops, cotton faces some of the most persistent structural challenges.

“You know, we do look at the cotton complex as something that is facing sustained headwinds,” Benavidez says.

He acknowledges recent gains in net cash farm income for cotton producers, attributing part of that improvement to policy support. But globally, competition remains intense.

“There’s a lot of increased production in Brazil that is competing with our exports from the United States,” he says. “They have, in some cases, a lower cost of production than our producers here in the United States.”

Long-term consumption trends also weigh on the sector, as he notes the long-term trend toward more synthetic fiber and flat demand for cotton fibers is a headwind the cotton industry is going to face long term.

“The cotton complex is one that I certainly do think that I’ll pay a lot of attention to this year,” he says.

Trade: A Global Balance Sheet Approach

USDA’s outlook also includes China’s commitment to purchase 25 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans annually through 2028. But Benavidez emphasizes USDA does not model trade strategy; it models global supply and demand.

“As an economist, we don’t really focus on what the strategy is in terms of making those decisions,” he says.

Instead, the World Agricultural Outlook Board looks at total global demand and total global supply.

“If China or any other partner has demand for a certain amount of bean imports, that’s going to offset any readjustment in trade with other partners throughout the globe,” he explains. “We balance that with global supply and build a market picture based on those two factors.”

Attendees say some sessions during the 2026 Ag Outlook Forum were standing room only.

(Farm Journal )

Fewer Headwinds — But Not Clear Skies

The overarching theme of Benavidez’s 2026 outlook is cautious optimism.

“We are not out of the woods, but we are making progress,” he says.

With moderating costs, modest price gains and potential demand expansion through biofuels, the farm economy may finally be seeing some easing pressure. Yet structural imbalances, global competition and policy uncertainty remain central forces shaping the year ahead.

Confidence in USDA Reports Erodes as USDA Launches Internal Review

Wed, 18 Feb 2026 19:48:17 GMT

Confidence in USDA reporting is slipping across the agricultural economy, and it’s not just talk in the countryside.

According to Farm Journal’s January Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor , released at Top Producer Summit , the majority of economists, producers and retailers say their confidence in USDA reports has declined compared to past years.

68% of economists say they are less confident in USDA reports.
73% of producers say their confidence has declined.
78% of retailers report waning trust.

The findings framed a candid conversation on stage at Top Producer Summit featuring Seth Meyer, director of the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri; Grant Gardner of the University of Kentucky; and Chip Flory, host of AgriTalk.

At the center of the discussion: A June acreage “miss” and subsequent revisions left many in the industry questioning how such large shifts could occur in a short window and whether the data driving markets can be trusted.

The June Acreage Shock

Flory points to a key frustration voiced by producers: How could USDA show such a drastic acreage change in a short amount of time?

Meyer, former USDA chief economist, acknowledges the issue.

“Quite honestly, I think this is a problem,” he says. “If you’ve lost confidence, we have to ask why.”
He emphasizes, however, the issue is not political interference or hidden agendas in USDA or the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS ).

“It is not that these people have a political agenda,” Meyer says. “They want to do a good job. I hated being wrong.”

Instead, he pointed to structural challenges, including survey fatigue among producers and confusion about how acreage numbers are constructed and revised.

The June planted acreage miss triggered a chain reaction. Planted acreage revisions led to harvested acreage revisions. Add in larger September carryout stocks, and the cumulative effect was a bigger crop supply than the market anticipated.

Several adjustments in a row, some related, some not, all moved in the same direction.

“That September acreage adjustment gave me a better understanding of how misunderstood the process is by producers,” Meyer says. “You certify planted acres, not harvested acres. Harvested acres is where the big change occurred.”

Why Not Just Use FSA Data?

A frequent question from producers: If acreage is certified with the Farm Service Agency (FSA), why doesn’t USDA simply use those numbers?

Meyer says they do use FSA numbers and increasingly earlier in the process than in the past.

Four years ago, FSA-certified acreage data wasn’t fully incorporated until the October report. Today, USDA has moved that integration forward into August, releasing certified data alongside other reports to improve transparency and eliminate timing confusion.

If anything, Meyer argues, FSA data is being used better now than it was in the past.

He also notes private industry analysis of FSA data pushed USDA toward earlier use, increasing transparency in the process.

Can Satellites Replace Farmer Surveys?

With fewer farmers responding to surveys, another question surfaced: Why not rely more heavily on satellite imagery?

Meyer says Earth observation tools have improved, but they are not yet a substitute for field-level survey data.
Satellite tools can get close. But he warned there is a threshold effect: Once survey quality drops below a certain point, the value of the report doesn’t slowly decline, it collapses.

“You’ve got to ground-truth it,” Gardner adds. “Even if satellite data improves, you still need to go look.”

Meyer says he would want to see satellite systems consistently match field survey results for years before replacing traditional methods.

Workforce Reductions Come Into Play

Since January 2025, USDA’s workforce has been cut by more than 20,000 staff members, which former acting deputy undersecretary Spiro Stefanou says hampered FSA from processing planting data last summer and feeding it to NASS.

Meyer admits that experience can’t be replaced.

“I would say the cushion we have in terms of knowledge base is largely gone,” he says. “We wouldn’t want to go through another period of losses where I would have lost more people in those units who did the WASDE report.”

Internal Review: Will It Restore Confidence?

Following the January WASDE report, in which USDA raised harvested corn acres by 1.3 million for a record 4.5-million-acre increase since July, the agency launched an internal review of its data collection processes. Will that help?

Gardner says economists’ concerns often focus less on methodology and more on staffing and budget cuts.
“From the economist perspective, it wasn’t as much, ‘Is this the best data we have?’” Gardner explains. “It was, ‘Do we have the best people in place?’”

From the producer perspective, however, the frustration is different, involving surprise adjustments and a perception that official reports don’t match what’s happening at the farm gate.

Meyer believes the review might restore some confidence, but he doesn’t expect sweeping findings.

“It’s 100% the best data out there,” he says. “Follow it, because you’re not getting anything better.”

Still, he acknowledges the partnership between USDA and producers must be strengthened.

“This is an important partnership,” Meyer says. “USDA has to prove its value proposition to producers. They have to prove this is good for producers, and that it creates symmetry of information in the marketplace.”

Confidence Tested, Not Broken

While trust in USDA data might be eroding, panelists stopped short of declaring the system broken. The message from the stage was clear: The data remains the best available, but maintaining its credibility will require transparency, engagement and renewed participation from producers themselves.

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

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 04:33:25 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.

U.S.-China Trade Truce Extension Fuels Hope in Agriculture for Final Deal in April

Fri, 13 Feb 2026 18:46:28 GMT

The trade truce between the U.S. and China might be extended, which is fueling hopes for additional purchases of U.S. agricultural products, including soybeans.

The South China Morning Post reported President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping could extend their trade truce by as much as a year. At the recent Top Producer Summit , Jiang Lyu, the minister of economic and commercial affairs for the Chinese embassy in the U.S., said he’s also optimistic about an extension for at least one year as well as a cut in tariffs. He also confirmed Trump and Xi might be getting ready to sign a final trade deal when they meet in China in April that will include deliverables.

“We have always wanted this trade to be market driven, so the market forces and the market players can play the primary role in all this. As for whether or not this can be fulfilled, I think this is also something that we would like to have the collaboration with the U.S. government because, as I said earlier, this is a, to borrow your word, trade truce. The truce has a timeline of one year. We would like this one year to be extended, preferably into eternity,” Lyu said.

China’s Goodwill Soybean Buy

At Top Producer Summit, Susan Stroud of No Bull Ag says this might be the reason President Trump posted on Truth Social last week that China was purchasing another 8 MMT of old-crop soybeans, even with Brazil’s soybeans $1 cheaper.

“These are trade negotiations — goodwill purchases,” she said. “Although it doesn’t make sense, it’s something that we could quite possibly see. I think the market is really tuned into this visit that Trump is scheduled to make in April to China.”

Will Soybeans Be Included in Tariff Cuts?

Currently, U.S. soybeans still face a 13% import tariff into China, so the first 12 MMT of purchases have been by state-owned enterprises Cofco and Sinograin.

“If the Chinese, Sinograin and the government, is buying, that’s a 10% tariff on themselves. They can wave that,” explains Gregg Doud, president and CEO of the National Milk Producers Federation and former USTR chief ag negotiator.

Dropping the tariff would make it economical for Chinese crushers. Lyu confirmed China will drop the 10% reciprocal tariff on U.S. soybeans if the U.S. drops the fentanyl tariff.

“There is 10% on the U.S. side. That is the reciprocal tariff for Chinese products. The countermeasure, 10%, is now from the Chinese side. This is squarely on the soybeans going into China. If the former 10% from the U.S. side can be removed, of course, China will take away its countermeasures, like the 10%,” Lyu says.

Possible Trade Deal to Be Signed at April Meeting

Lyu is optimistic a deal and deliverables will be made public during the April meeting. Speculation has run rampant since Oct. 30 because the Chinese government has never confirmed the framework or purchase amounts.

Immediately following the meeting in Busan, South Korea, Scott Bessent, U.S. Treasury Secretary, detailed the trade framework between the two countries, saying it included 12 MMT of soybean purchases for this year and 25 MMT for the three years to follow.

“As for those numbers, I cannot confirm nor deny here because you don’t see that from the official announcements from the foreign ministry spokesperson or the MOFCOM spokesperson,” Lyu said.

There was confusion around whether soybean purchase commitments were for the calendar year or the marketing year, but Lyu was able to provide some clarity on the first phase of the framework: “It’s a marketing year and a crop year, so to speak, because that is the logic, right?”

While there’s been no official deal signed, Doud says the U.S. and China are still operating under the Phase One agreement.

“What you’re back to doing in this situation is more transactional. It’s more of a conversation between countries on different issues. You’ve got fentanyl, you’ve got all kinds of different intellectual property issues. Agriculture gets tied back up in that again,” Doud says.

A signed agreement in writing will provide much-needed certainty for the market.