U.S. Agriculture Tariffs

Paying $1,500 a Day in Fuel for Two Tractors, Farmer Calls Input Costs Worst Since 1980s

Mon, 18 May 2026 17:19:46 GMT

Farmer sentiment heading into the midterm elections is being shaped by rising input costs, trade uncertainty and growing concerns about the future of rural communities, according to a new poll of Farm Journal readers .

More than half of the farmers surveyed say federal policies have negatively impacted their operations over the past year. And as input prices, including diesel and fertilizer, continue to climb, one Ohio farmer says these expenses, and the strain they’re shaving on his farm, haven’t been this bad since the 1980s.

Input Costs Continue to Climb

In the recent poll of nearly 1,000 farmers and ranchers, input costs ranked as the top concern among the farmers surveyed, with fertilizer, fuel and machinery expenses all contributing to tighter margins.

Fred Yoder of Plain City, Ohio, says when you break it down between the three, fuel costs are particularly burdensome this season.

“They’re all important this year, but unfortunately right now fuel is really costing us about $1,500 of cash per day to run two tractors,” Yoder says. “That’s a lot.”

(Farm Journal)

He says while diesel prices are causing the biggest concern today, fertilizer prices have also risen dramatically over the course of his farming career.

“I’ve spent many years buying potash for $90 a ton, and now it’s $670 to $700 a ton,” Yoder says. “The same potash, but it’s just a different time.”

Machinery repair costs have become another challenge, he says, because many replacement parts are imported and subject to tariffs and duties.

“A lot of those machinery repair items are made overseas and so they’re subject to tariffs and duties,” Yoder says. “It’s really kind of a perfect storm. You combine all that with inflation. We can blame the administration, we can blame the world economy, we can blame a lot of things, but they are all coming together at once.”

Yoder calls the current environment the toughest he has seen in decades, as the perfect storm of rising input prices are hammering farm operations across the country.

“It’s just ridiculous,” he says. “I’ve never seen anything this bad since the 1980s.”

Young Farmers Feeling the Pressure

Yoder says conditions have worsened over the past year, especially after many farmers delayed fertilizer purchases in hopes prices would decline.

“Why we didn’t book our fertilizer last fall for this year is because we thought it was going to go down,” Yoder says. “Instead we sat around and we booked it for a much higher price this spring.”

He says younger farmers are under increasing financial stress as margins tighten.

“I see a lot of our young farmers that are just struggling,” Yoder says. “We’ve had more dispersal sales planned for this coming year than I’ve seen since the 1980s. And that’s really unfortunate because that’s our future and we have to make sure that they have a way to survive.”

Trade Uncertainty Weighs on Farmers

While input costs are also a concern this year for Kristin Duncanson of Mapleton, Minn., she says uncertainty surrounding tariffs and trade policy are both weighing heavily on producers and contributing to broader economic concerns across rural America.

(Farm Journal)

“It would be easy for me to say that it’s just trade and tariffs and the lack of knowing exactly what’s going to happen when, but that kind of leads into the overall economy,” Duncanson says. “The price of our inputs is high. And I also have huge concerns about the slowing of the ag economy on rural communities. The implications are pretty great. And I’ve not in my 40 years, granted it’s only 40, seen a situation like this.”

Fewer Ag Voices in Washington

The Farm Journal poll also found nearly 74% of producers believe elected officials do not fully understand the realities farmers are facing.

Duncanson says agriculture still has advocates in Washington, but fewer lawmakers have direct ties to farming communities.

“Fred and I both spend a fair amount of time working with elected officials, and there are just fewer champions for us,” Duncanson says. “The members don’t have that much of an ag base anymore. And if they do, they are very caught in a real dilemma between the economy and doing things for the greater economy and really focusing on ag.”

(Farm Journal)

She says agriculture is still being heard, but by a smaller group of policymakers.

“I’m not going to say we aren’t listened to,” Duncanson says. “There’s just fewer people that listen to us.”

Yoder agrees and says the shrinking farm population has also changed public perception of agriculture.

“In my own community, we have so much lesser number of farmers,” Yoder says. “People are asking me, ‘Well, you got your planting done?’ or ‘Groceries are high, so you must be making lots of money.’ But unfortunately, it’s not true.”

He says consumers often do not realize how little producers receive compared to retail food prices.

“You take even beef, the amount you pay in the store compared to what the actual producer gets could be half,” Yoder says. “Everybody adds their cost to it.”

Yoder says farmers no longer receive the same level of understanding and support they once did.

“We’re fewer in numbers,” he says. “We’re still very efficient. But we just don’t have the perception that agriculture or farmers are hurting.”

Healthcare and Tariffs Could Shape Votes

About one in four farmers surveyed say they are open to changing how they vote in the midterms depending on the issues at stake.

Duncanson says healthcare access remains one of the biggest concerns for rural communities.

“I think a big one for us is healthcare, not just the cost, but the accessibility,” Duncanson says. “We’ve seen several rural hospitals and clinics in our area close. It’s tough to attract folks or keep folks out here when there’s not a good healthcare system.”

She says the issue ties directly back to the broader rural economy.

“Those services have closed because of healthcare costs and reimbursement rates, as well as just people not being out here or our ability to attract doctors,” she says.

(Farm Journal)

Duncanson also says renewable fuels and trade policy remain important issues for farmers heading into the election season.

“Just where people are on moving and getting creative of other things we can do with ag products and where we can sell them are also important,” she says. “Trade is a big thing still. NAFTA is up for renewal soon. We’ll all watch those things.”

Yoder says tariffs continue to dominate conversations among Ohio farmers.

“The majority has got a very, very hard line against tariffs,” Yoder says. “We hate tariffs. We want markets, and we want market-oriented programs.”

He says farmers also need policies that encourage innovation and reduce risk.

“There’s a real reason why farmers are raising mainly corn and soybeans because there’s the least risk in there,” Yoder says. “We’ve got to come up with ways that farmers cannot have such a risky time but maybe find a new alternative, a new corn, a new soybean or something to replace some of these things and maybe some of the input costs that we’re having now.”

What else did the new poll reveal? You can read the full results here.

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.

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

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 15:46:51 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a written response to Farm Journal, Mosaic said:

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

Iran War’s Current Impact on Fertilizer Prices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DOJ Probe Into Fertilizer Costs Seeks Input From Farmers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NCGA Surveys Show Not All Farmers Have Fertilizer Secured for 2026

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

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

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

NCGA Grower Survey

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

A Significant Gap in Fertilizer Readiness

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

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

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

NCGA Grower Surveys

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

Younger Farmers Feeling the Pressure Most

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

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

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

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

Corn Acres Likely Stable, But With Reduced Inputs

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

NCGA Grower Survey

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

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

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

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

Growing Concern Shifts to 2027

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

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

NCGA Grower Survey

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

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

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

Supply Chain Recovery May Take Time

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

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

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

A Tightening Outlook

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

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

Longstanding Concerns Over Market Concentration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.”

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.”

Soybeans Fall on China Concerns and Cattle on Rumors of Plant Strike

Fri, 27 Feb 2026 07:17:39 GMT

Grains ended mixed on Thursday with livestock mostly lower.

Soybeans Fail on China Fears
Soybeans made new highs for the move Thursday but failed on concerns about the meeting between President Trump and President Xi in late March, early April being canceled.Matt Bennett with AgMarket.Net says, “There’s a report from China that says the talks by trade officials prior to the summit in China is not going well.

“And I think that that shook the market up because everyone’s expecting some sort of formal agreement. Everyone was worried about the tariff deal last week with the Supreme Court. President Trump tried to reassure everyone, I’ve got a plan. We’re still going to be able to put this into place. But let’s be real about it. If there’s not a plan and tariffs are not something that he can offer, I’ll tell you what, Brazil’s beans are a dollar cheaper. We all know that, and it’s going to be tough to expect that they’re going to buy a whole lot of beans in that case.

SCOTUS Ruling on Tariffs Takes Away Leverage
Bennett says with the tariffs being struck down by the Supreme Court that has taken away some of the leverage the U.S. had, especially regarding this extra 8 MMT of old crop soybean purchases.“There’s no guarantees there this whole thing so far has been a handshake agreement yes they bought beans it’s been great to see but the additional eight million metric tons that’s a lot to ask for again whenever we’re a dollar higher yeah absolutely so if we would get an agreement.

Could the U.S. and China Put a Deal on Paper?
Bennett says if the U.S. gets a deal with purchase commitments soybeans could rally. “If we’ve got the 8 million and President Trump and Xi decide to do the 25 MMT for the next three years and we get it in paper you have a razor -thin U .S. balance sheet. It’s not going to change one thing about the world balance sheet. Nothing. You’ve got a massive Brazil crop.” So he’s cautious about getting too bulled up.

Soybean Oil Hits New Contract Highs on RVO Proposal
Soybean oil hit new contract highs again in response to EPA finally moving the RVOs to the Office of Management and Budget.“That’s definitely what’s been pushing. And it looks like there’s going to be a big, strong demand, of course, for oils here in the U .S. to be used in making a renewable diesel. If that’s the case, I like the long -term aspects of that. You look at crush the last several months, every single month. We’re crushing more beans. Crush margins right now in Central Illinois. I mean, we’re running a $1.30 bushel. I mean, that’s incredible margin,” he explains.

Corn Closes Higher
Corn was up slightly on the day and also made new highs for the move and is trading back in the range set before USDA bearish January WASDE Report.Can it stay there?Bennett says, “It’s a tough call. Whenever I look at corn, old crop, we’ve got so much corn to chew through, okay? I don’t want to be negative here. I’m just trying to be realistic, okay.”

Cash Corn Could Drag
Even if corn futures can rally Bennett says the cash market may stay weak.“Dec corn, in my opinion, is going to stay relatively supported until we secure some acres. But as far as cash corn is concerned, cash corn is going to struggle. I think basis is going to work against you on any sort of rally move higher. Let’s say we get a big time rally this summer due to weather. Will we see bull spreading? Most likely, that’s how the market usually reacts on a demand or any sort of a rally like that. I just don’t think that cash corn rallies enough to keep pace with December futures. Why? Because I think you’re going to lose basis.”

No First Notice Day Selling?
Corn futures did not see the major selling pressure heading into first notice day like the last two year.“That’s a wonderful question. Going into first notice day, you would think that a lot of these folks were going to be pucking and corn. Most likely, you’ve seen some rolling go on. We have seen commercial stepping and buy a fair amount of corn here these last two weeks. And I think it was some of those folks that said, hey, I don’t want to roll. But I think those that were waiting to the last minute probably ended up rolling. To be honest, it’s surprising that we haven’t seen that, especially at the end of the month.”

Wheat Removing Weather Premium
Wheat futures continue to consolidate and Bennett says the market is taking out weather premium with recent rains in the U.S. “But you got March finally, it went above that $550 level. We’ve been struggling with that forever. And then you come in and we saw some buying on the other side of that. What’s happened this week? In my opinion, the forecast looks much more favorable for rainfall and wheat country. I’ve got to think that that’s playing somewhat of a role because I think there was some fear that that crop could really struggle. You know, bottom line is it looks like they’re going to get the rain they need.”

Cattle Market Sets Back
The cattle futures were down on end of month profit taking and certain about a possible strike at the JBS plant in Greeley.“ I think that you could have issues, especially if you come in here tomorrow and it’s actually a work stoppage. I could see a limit of lower moving cattle potentially. I’m not saying it’s going to happen, but there would be a little bit of fear.”

Soybeans Lead Corn Higher Wednesday: Livestock End Mostly Higher

Thu, 26 Feb 2026 05:13:18 GMT

Ag markets were mostly higher Wednesday except wheat.

Soybeans Make New Highs for the Move
Soybeans rallied to new highs for the move on Wednesday with the help of an over $7 rally in soybean meal. Arlan Suderman with StoneX says the market is still pricing in optimism about China and biofuels. “Those two things are going to dynamically impact, we think, one way or the other, those expectations, either falling short or really boosting them. And I don’t think we’ve really, I think we’re probably priced in something in the middle right now. But the optimism continues to be there. The specs are afraid to be short until we see that.”

He says the final RVO proposal is expected to go to the Office of Management and Budget any day now. “But then that starts a clock ticking. They could take up to 90 days. We expect it to be about three weeks plus or minus. That puts it after the planting intention survey has been completed.”

The trade deal with China, March 31st is a day when Trump goes to China. It’s usually when they want to really trumpet the deal they have. So that would be after the deal, after the planning intention survey as well. So we could have two factors that dramatically impact planning intentions take place after the survey, meaning we’ll have to wait until the June 30th survey to have a good feel on acreage this year. But that’s the nature of the beast this year. It’s going to keep us up in the air. We anticipate both of those will be positive for soybeans.”

Do We Get a Deal in Writing at the China Meeting?
He says the trade deal may be positive for other commodities as well, maybe even corn. “It’s not really being factored in by the market right now, but we’ll have to watch.” The question is will there be a deal in writing at that meeting?
“Great question, and I’m going to say no. We didn’t have a deal in writing from the October 30th one, but yet China still bought. What that tells me is being in writing is less important right now to Xi Jinping than actually having President Trump’s favor to get concessions from him. If you look at the price of U.S. soybeans today landed at the port in China, there are $1.30 to $1.40, depending on whether they come from the PNW or from the Gulf, more expensive than Brazilian soybeans. So the crushers aren’t going to be the ones buying. They’re value buyers based on price. It’s all government buying, and then they would have to put it in reserve.”

He says if they are willing to pay that price, the Chinese must want something. “What we would anticipate that being would be changes in President Trump’s policy to give easier access to the vast U.S. consumer market, encouraging more foreign direct investment, and access to the advanced chips that we produce here in the United States that they need. If he can get enough concessions from Trump on those things, he’s willing to pay a small price of another $1.30, $1.40 for soybeans.”

Is China Buying the 8 MMT of Soybeans?
Suderman says so far there is no evidence of it. “There has certainly been talk of it, but based on our cash sources in China, which I just confirmed before talking to you, they’re right at just a hair over 12 million metric tons. That’s the cash sources that have been pretty accurate all the way through this so far. So we don’t have any hard evidence. I would expect that they would do that, though. I would expect them to buy ahead of the announcement like they did in October, but we just don’t see the evidence yet.”

SCOTUS Ruling on Tariffs Take Away U.S. Leverage?
With SCOTUS declaring the IEEPA tariffs illegal will that take away the leverage the U.S. had to get China to buy the 8 MMT of soybeans? Suderman says not in this case. “Ordinarily, I’d say yes, but in this case, I think President Xi’s internal problems within China are the primary driving factor. If that were not the case, President Xi would be more interested in playing hardball, and it would be more of a factor. But in this case, I do not think it is. So this is a window of opportunity. That window will close, maybe 12, 15, 18 months from now, but for now, I think we have a window of opportunity.”

Will Soybeans Take Out the November Highs?
Soybeans are getting within striking range of the November highs. But will it be a buy the rumor sell the fact reaction like we saw last fall? He says, “We really could. Remember in October, the announcement was made October 30th, China had already started buying. We peaked out on November 18th. We could very well see something similar this time around as well. “

Ag Markets Have Tariff News Priced In
Suderman says the other ag markets have the tariff news already digested. “What I had said from the start is this is probably going to be a non -factor for the commodities, for the most part, a few smaller commodities affected, but for the most part, is a bigger issue for the financial markets, particularly if the Treasury Department has to come up with all the refund money. But the refund policy is going to be tied up into court so long now. It probably end up being a non -factor. And most of the trade deals, as I expected, are holding in place. India is dragging its feet now. It wasn’t totally completed. Maybe Europe is the same thing. but otherwise things are holding together pretty well.”

Corn Follows Soybeans and Meal
Corn futures ended higher following both beans and meal, but we keep running up into chart resistance. “Both U.S. and Brazilian farmers selling whenever we get to the top of that range, until we can bust through that at some point if we do, and then they’ll say, oh, let’s wait for the next leg.”

Could China Buy Corn?
He says to break out of its range the corn market will need a catalyst. “One possible catalyst would be if there were be, would be a significant amount of corn in that China trade deal. I’m not forecasting that, but I can’t rule that out.”

Wheat Down a 4th Day
Wheat was down again Wednesday on profit taking, plus the weather is removing risk premium. “Yeah, the weather’s looking better for the dry southern plains and Central Plains, some good rains expected in many of those areas. It’s tough to be long when it’s raining in the Plains.”

Cattle Up with Higher Beef
Cattle futures were up on Wednesday on fund buying and the surge in boxed beef prices. Yet the market can’t take out the February highs. “We got up there high and then we collapsed lower. We tried to fill that gap and we’ve been building back on it. We’ve been slowing the chain speed, finally got the pop in the product market that the packers were hoping for. And that has the feeders feeling like they’re in control to get steady to firmer cash prices again. It’s been the cash dragging the board with it. It’s demand for protein.

Trump Wants Lower Beef Prices
President Trump spoke about lowering beef prices similar to eggs in his State of the Union address but Suderman doesn’t think he fully understands or grasps the dynamics of the beef market. For the cattlemen, it’s all being driven by demand. We talk about tight supply. Beef supplies are actually about 8 tenths of a percent higher this year than last year because of record imports, which we just got updated data on, record carcass weights, and so beef supplies are there, but the consumer keeps driving that demand and driving prices higher.”

Hogs Higher a 7th Day
Lean hog futures were higher again for a 7th day and the deep deferred contracts are hitting new contract highs. He says this is fund buying plus ting from this demand for protein. “We did see the funds liquidate positions and then realize, oh, we’re undervalued, brought it back up. We exceeded the 50% retracement, and so that brought in some more buying today. We’re seeing overall the production pretty close to what USDA quality hogs and pigs reports suggest it should be. And exports have been performing well. So some decent fundamentals there.”

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.