Claire Carlson for the Daily Yonder
Broadcast version by Mike Moen for Iowa News Service for the Public News Service/Daily Yonder Collaboration

The fertilizer industry is scrambling to find solutions to fertilizer prices that have been on the rise since last fall, but some farmer advocacy groups worry the efforts being made don't address the control big fertilizer companies wield over the market and the effects of synthetic fertilizer on the environment.

A document published earlier this spring by the Fertilizer Institute, an organization that represents and advocates for the fertilizer industry, highlights several action items for lawmakers and farmers to strengthen the domestic fertilizer supply and maximize usage. The goal is to get these action items in front of as many policymakers and constituents as possible to push for stronger fertilizer legislation, according to Corey Rosenbusch, president and CEO of the Fertilizer Institute.

"Last fall, when we started to see significant shifts in the market, farmers were quite concerned about the crop inputs and what that was going to mean for their upcoming planting season and crop season," Rosenbusch said. "[The Fertilizer Institute] hit the road and visited with a lot of farmers and commodity groups to inform them of what was going on in the markets and why we saw prices rising."

These conversations led the organization to put together the short and long-term solutions laid out in the policy solutions document.

Among these solutions include eliminating fertilizer export restrictions in China, dropping vaccine mandates across Canada-U.S. borders for truck drivers transporting fertilizer, and encouraging growers to adopt 4R Nutrient Stewardship practices - a framework that helps farmers identify how much of and what kind of fertilizer to use, as well as when the best time to apply it is and where on the farm.

According to one farmer advocate, these solutions don't address what he believes is a key cause of these high prices: price manipulation by the small number of fertilizer companies controlling the industry.

"The way [this document] approaches the issue as though there is a long-term supply-demand failure within fertilizer ignores that the issue we've been having with fertilizer is as much an issue of concentration and price gouging as it is supply disruption," said Joe Maxwell, president of the advocacy group Farm Action.

Four corporations control 75% of nitrogen fertilizer production and two companies control the majority of potash production in North America, according to research from the Bureau of Economics and the Agriculture and Applied Economics Association. Between 1984 and 2008, the number of fertilizer producers decreased from 46 firms to 13.

While the Fertilizer Institute doesn't acknowledge this issue in their document, it is being addressed by the USDA. On March 17, a notice from the USDA seeking public input on a document titled "Access to Fertilizer: Competition and Supply Chain Concerns" was published in the Federal Register. The deadline for comment was recently extended to July 15.

"USDA is committed to using every tool at its disposal to enhance competition and improve resiliency in the fertilizer market," said Andy Green, senior advisor for the USDA's Fair and Competitive Markets program, in a USDA press release. "Finding ways to encourage sustainable and independent choices for fertilizer supplies demonstrates the Biden-Harris administration's ongoing investment in American goods and services to rebuild a more resilient, secure, and sustainable economy."

In mid-March, the USDA announced plans to allocate $250 million in grants to farmers to address rising fertilizer costs and encourage competition. Two months later, Secretary Tom Vilsack announced an additional $250 million to be directed toward farmers. The comments from the document published in the Federal Register will inform how these grants are used.
"There is definitely room for that money to be spent promoting the idea that our long-term fertilizer solution has to be tight nutrient cycling on-farm and therefore reducing farmer need for fertilizer in the first place," said Jesse Womack, conservation policy specialist with the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. "This means not just creating additional domestic production of fertilizers but truly reducing farmer dependence on fertilizer."

While it's unlikely the use of synthetic fertilizer could be totally eliminated, Womack said, reducing the amount that is used is one way farmers can be more resilient in the face of high fertilizer prices.

Organizations like the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition and Farm Action are working to build incentives into the 2023 Farm Bill that would encourage use of agriculture practices like crop rotation (growing different types of crops in the same location), cover crops that grow nutrients in place, and both off- and on-farm composting to improve soil health.

Fertilizer representatives aren't as convinced dependency can be reduced. "Without fertilizer, you can erase 50% of crop yields and we've been talking about massive starvation and food security," said The Fertilizer Institute's Rosenbusch. "Now that [this issue] is front and center we realize that the foundation of long-term food security is access to fertilizer."

The Federal Register's public comment portal on consolidation in the fertilizer industry can be accessed here. The Fertilizer Institute's policy solutions document can be accessed here.

This story was produced with original reporting from Claire Carlson for the Daily Yonder.




get more stories like this via email

The chair of the Federal Trade Commission will be in rural Iowa this weekend to hear from farmers and other residents about the proposed sale of Iowa Fertilizer to Koch Industries.

The sale is pending FTC approval. Iowa spent $500 million to build an Iowa Fertilizer factory in Weverly to create competition in an already consolidated industry.

Aaron Lehman, president of the Iowa Farmers Union, said he plans to tell FTC Chair Linda Khan a sale to Koch Industries would backtrack on any competitive progress the state has made.

"Our concern is that an industry that already lacks competition and has all sorts of monopoly problems would only get worse if this sale is allowed to go through," Lehman explained.

Koch and other corporate ag conglomerates have said consolidating allows them to provide better products to farmers more efficiently. The hearing is set for Saturday on Main Street in Nevada.

In addition to reducing competition for fertilizer, Lehman argued the sale would increase prices for farmers, and ultimately mean higher food prices for Iowans. He wants Khan to hear stories firsthand, from the people on the ground in Nevada.

"We know that we might not be able to have a dialogue with the people who are investigating this situation, because they need to be impartial," Lehman acknowledged. "But our farmers need to tell their story about how the industry is already in a monopoly state."

Some 18 other ag organizations have joined the Iowa Farmers Union calling on the FTC and the Justice Department to investigate the proposed sale.

A farm group is helping Iowa agriculture producers find ways to reduce the amount of nitrogen they use on their crops.

Excess nitrates can wind up in ground and surface water, and cause health problems.

Practical Farmers of Iowa is encouraging farmers to find just the right amount of nitrogen they need for their crops - while avoiding applying too much, which the group says is common.

PFI's Field Crops Viability Coordinator - Chelsea Ferrie - said thanks to federal grants and private funding, the group will pay farmers up to $35 for every acre that has a lower than normal yield if they didn't apply enough nitrogen.

"No cost to the farmer, either," said Ferrie. "We're trying to help incentivize them. This is something that farmers want to do - I mean, they want to be good stewards of the land - but also, that they need to have a profitable farm."

The application period for the program is open through the end of April.

To help them reach the right nitrogen balance, Ferrie said PFI will help farmers on the front end of the process, too - so they aren't left guessing how much to apply.

"Talk through what your typical fertilizer plan is, and what your reduction plan would be," said Ferrie. "Then you would implement this year, going into the spring and into the season."

Farmers have relied on nitrogen-based fertilizers for generations - but when applied in excess, nitrates run off into ground and surface water, posing health concerns for animals and people.




get more stories like this via email

Pesticides are still common in agriculture. Organic producers who avoid them have seen ups and downs in pushing for stronger regulations, and they point to a South Dakota example of the harm associated with widespread use among neighboring farms.

At the heart of the regulatory fight is the application of the weed-killing pesticide dicamba, and how it can drift from one farm to another. Last month, a federal court blocked "over the top" spraying of dicamba products, but the EPA followed with an order to allow the spraying of existing supplies.

Glenn Pulse, co-owner of an organic farm in Vermillion, said a 2017 drift incident had a big impact on his operation.

"Our entire farm was covered. We lost a lot of livestock, and thousands of bees were killed," he explained.

It also resulted in health concerns for his family, having to regain his organic farmer certification, and a legal battle over restitution. Groups such as the National Family Farm Coalition have been fighting what they call the deregulation of these chemicals, arguing the drift and runoff effect has damaged millions of crops.

Dicamba-manufacturing companies deny responsibility, instead blaming farmers who apply it for not following guidelines.

The EPA has said there were already millions of gallons of dicamba in circulation prior to the court's ruling, prompting the agency's order. Pulse feels there are farmers who are careful in spraying chemicals, but he wants stronger enforcement against those he describes as "loose cannons."

"The guys that are not following the labels and they're spraying in weather conditions that are not favorable, that is where, I would say, 90% of the problems are happening with drift incidents," Pulse said.

His calls for better responses to these incidents coincide with policy demands to heavily restrict dicamba products. Meanwhile, Rep. Dusty Johnson, D-South Dakota, is the main sponsor of a bill supporters say would assure uniformity in national pesticide labeling under federal law. But opponents argue it would limit longstanding state and local pesticide safety rules.