USDA on Jan. 9 announced that it will soon begin accepting public comments on environmental and related aspects of 21 potentially viable projects to increase fertilizer production across the US totaling up to $88 million. These applicants have requested grant funding through the first round of USDA’s newly established Fertilizer Production Expansion Program. The $500 million program was announced last year (GM Sept. 30, 2022).

USDA is considering fertilizer production projects in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. The public is invited to provide comments regarding the 21 FPEP applicants listed below.

USDA said to consider providing project-specific comments or information relevant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) that should be considered as part of the review process on these projects.

Submit project-specific comments to FPEP@usda.gov by Feb. 8, 2023, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. While commenters may not receive a direct response, comments will be considered. For questions about this process, please email FPEP@usda.gov.

The USDA said the program is part of a whole-of-government effort to promote competition in agricultural markets. The funds are being made available through the Commodity Credit Corp.

The grant program will support fertilizer production that is: independent, and outside the orbit of dominant fertilizer suppliers; made in America; innovative; sustainable; and farmer-focused.

Eligible entities are for‐profit businesses and corporations, nonprofit entities, Tribes and Tribal organizations, producer‐owned cooperatives and corporations, certified benefit corporations, and state or local governments. Private entities must be independently owned and operated to apply.

The maximum award is $100 million. The minimum award is $1 million. The grant term is five years.

Alabama

Pursell Agri-Tech LLC, Sylacauga – working capital for existing, commercially operational production; no new construction involved.

Arizona

        Bio Gro Inc., Buckeye – 27-acre site will have tanks or concrete beds and holding pond, which will total 2.6 acres of concrete construction.

Colorado

        Table to Farm Compost LLC, Durango – Compost production to be scaled up from December 2022 to December 2027. Only construction for the project is power interconnection.

Florida

        Sunshine Organics and Compost LLC, Jacksonville – Funds would be used on one acre for mostly equipment, though a portion will be used to expand existing infrastructure and to build concrete retaining walls around composting area.

Iowa       

        Landus Cooperative, Boone – Assistance to build state-of-the-art facility to manufacture and distribute chemical and seed products. Facility will manufacture a foliar, slow-release nitrogen product that will decrease in-ground nitrogen application rates and increase overall environmental and financial efficiency of farms.

        Progressive Ag Cooperative, Northwood – New fertilizer facility will include a total dry fertilizer capacity of 12,712 st in a rod-less bin design with 11 bins in total (5 macro and 6 micro bins) and cover 14,000 square feet. Factory equipment will also be included.

Massachusetts

        AMT Bioproducts Corp., New Bedford – Project involves construction of Abbeville production facility, which will be approximately 16,000 square feet. Project involves pouring of concrete pads for loading dock and for the plant.

        Black Earth Compost LLC, Manchester – Construction of 60×150-foot building adjacent to Manchester Town landfill that will manage the initial stages of transforming food scraps into compost. Project includes various equipment that helps get the finished compost to farmers to be cured on their land.

Minnesota

        Northstar Lime LLC, Crookston – Renovate a 46,000 square foot building and construct a new building (42x40x34x24 feet). Install devices including one to create biochar as well as filtration bag house. Additional equipment needed for moving materials from outside to inside for processing.

Missouri

        Elm Dirt LLC, Grandview – Rent a 45,000 square foot warehouse on 0.5 acres in Kansas City and purchase additional equipment to allow the manufacture of more liquid fertilizer. Any warehouse improvements would be minor. Project will purchase and install tanks, pallet racks, liquid solid separators, and infrastructure inside warehouse.

        Ostara St. Louis Ltd., St. Louis – A portion of the project funds will be used to complete construction of Ostara St. Louis Ltd.’s fertilizer manufacturing plant. A total of 14,000 square feet of building footprint expansion on the site are expected to be part of the project. This construction will be supported on a concrete slab built on augur cast piles and will be housed in a pre-engineered metal building. The remainder of the funds would be used for working capital to support staffing up, commissioning, raw materials procurement, and initial production inventory management.

        Palindromes Inc., Unionville – Purchase and construct two new fertilizer processing systems and two new anaerobic digestion systems.

Montana
        Farmers Union Oil Co. of Circle, Circle – Funds will be used as working capital to fill the newly-constructed 8,500 st fertilizer plant. Funds will also be used for equipment and technology.

Ohio

        Earth Peak Organics LLC, Dublin – Procurement of necessary equipment for aerobic digestion technology to create natural fertilizer digestate from local food waste. Minimal facility modifications will be implemented.

Oregon

        True Organic Products Inc., Boardman – Grade area east of existing building for raw commodity storage bunkers, pellet processing building, and finished pellet storage bunker building. Provide and install said buildings and processing equipment and support equipment. Supply new upgraded facility electric service and support equipment.

Texas

        BioXRG LLC, Bryan – New construction of walls and roof for bioprocessing building, assembly of bioprocessing equipment, maintenance shop, laboratory, and employee areas.

        PCI Nitrogen, Pasadena – Funds will be used to build a liquid fertilizer production facility and storage. Included are construction of an 85×40 tank for 10,131 st of APP, 60×30 tank for 4,898 st of sulfuric acid; and upgrade of an existing tank for 5,397 st of super phosphoric acid.

Washington

        Perfect Blend LLC, Othello – 4,000 square foot addition to existing building. It also includes equipment and eight 25,000 gallon tank storage, as well as working capital.

Wisconsin

        Black’s Valley Ag Supply Inc., Durand – Construction of a new dry fertilizer storage and blending facility, including new blending, receiving, loading, and unloading equipment. Funds would also be used for green initiatives such as solar panels, as well as equipment and technology need in the facility. The current facility produces 20,963 st/y of dry fertilizer.

        Dairy Dreams LLC, Casco – Install state-of-the-art Nutrient Concentration System and pelletizing system, which will process manure inputs into organic liquid and pellet fertilizers.

        The Delong Co., Elkhorn – Removal of existing feed mill and three other buildings. Construct a new dry fertilizer warehouse, liquid fertilizer dike with tanks, and liquid fertilizer loadout building, which will be constructed on existing concrete pads.

USDA on Jan. 9 revealed that in response to the Public Request for Information on Access to Fertilizer initiated in March 2022, commenters submitted 1,494 comments, which the agency read and analyzed to identify key concerns.

In 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order on Promoting Competition in America’s Economy that directed USDA and other agencies to robustly enforce Congress’ laws and police US markets, including in agriculture.

Some 87% of commenters described concerns about high prices, with farmers indicating the prices had doubled, tripled, or quadrupled, and they were being held “hostage while we have no other options.” Another highlight was that high fertilizer prices shifted planting decisions, with farmers planting more soybeans instead of corn, likely causing suddenly increased demand for soybean inputs and pressure for non-rotated soybean diseases, such as soybean cyst nematode, which costs an estimated $1 billion annually in crop losses.

Larger fertilizer manufacturers and lobbyists acknowledged “elevated prices,” but asserted that prices paid by American farmers are oftentimes the most competitive in the world.

Some 72% described concerns about the power of fertilizer manufacturers, describing an asymmetric fertilizer power dynamic where farmers felt they were “at the mercy of the large conglomerates” that could “cause “artificial product shortages” due to their “ownership of fertilizer resources.”

“Excessive price increase in fertilizer appears to be fueled by greed within the small group of fertilizer manufacturers,” said one comment, which are “very large companies that need to feel oversight of the government.”

Larger fertilizer manufacturers responded that the “US fertilizer industry is one of the most competitive and dynamic in the world.”

Some 62% described a link between increased crop prices and price-setting by manufacturers. However, larger fertilizer companies acknowledged that fertilizer prices may be related to grain prices, but attributed higher fertilizer prices to increased farmer demand.

Fifty-four percent pointed to economic or environmental harms. “We can’t begin to tell you how rough things are at the farm level on the fertilizer and input levels – costs are up to a point of no return,” said one farmer. “We have already seen some bankruptcy issues in our area in operations that completely surprise me. I want our family farm to carry through to the next generation, my oldest son and one of my nephews plan to carry our farm forward.”

Some commenters noted that fertilizer manufacturer consolidation corresponded with decreased availability of other fertilizer options. As an example, the Illinois Corn Growers Association (ICGA) commented that availability of superphosphate decreased from 98% of fertilizer purchases in 1960 to 9% by 2015. IGCA said that farmers “in Illinois do not want or need the N fertilizer present in MAP and DAP and have “asked for alternatives to non-ammoniated P fertilizers.” They added that MAP and DAP easily lose the nitrogen component in water, which have contributed to “drinking water contamination…. and eutrophication of the Gulf of Mexico.”

Twelve percent cited restrictive contract practices and that “consolidation empowers certain companies” to “avail themselves of antidumping and countervailing duties.”

Some commenters, including Agtegra Cooperative and the South Dakota Corn Utilization Council, suggested that USDA provide additional financial resources to increase storage capacity so that more fertilizer could be bought when prices were less volatile.

Major farm groups contributed the bulk of the 1,494 comments, with National Corn Growers Association members contributing 54% of comments, Illinois Farm Bureau members 32%, industry challengers – including startups, environmental, and advocacy organizations – 5%, other farmer organizations, particularly state-level farmer unions 3%, fertilizer industry and energy companies, farm bureaus, and commodity associations 3%, and fertilizer and alternative startups 2%.