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%.