This morning, while scrolling Instagram, a video caught my attention. It was from John Leach, a North Carolina agronomist known online as @that_agguy.
Leach is a third-generation, independent fertilizer dealer and one of the few remaining noncorporate operators in his region. He owns two fertilizer plants—one producing granular fertilizer and the other liquid— and he is also an outspoken advocate for North Carolina agriculture.
Independent input sellers such as Leach are disappearing even faster than farmers themselves, as agrochemical companies and “co-ops” consolidate more and more of the market. That context matters.
His opening line was simple: It’s not looking good for farming this year.
When a fertilizer salesman is warning farmers not to buy fertilizer, something is wrong.
Leach explained that nearly every input used to manufacture granular fertilizer has risen in price. Potash is somewhat stable for now, although vulnerable to tariffs involving Canada. Urea has jumped by roughly $100 per ton in a little more than a month. Phosphorus has climbed steadily over the past two years and now sits north of $700 per ton. Even sulfur—historically one of the cheapest inputs—is increasing sharply.
Why sulfur? Increased demand from nickel mining is tied to electric vehicle batteries and the infrastructure required for data centers. Another example of how we are prioritizing digital expansion over food production.
Granular fertilizer remains the most widely used form because it is easy to apply at scale. Meanwhile, commodity crop prices—corn and soybeans priced per bushel—are not high enough to absorb these increases. Farmers are being squeezed between rising input costs and depressed commodity prices.
Leach warned that growers who “blanket rate” fertilizer—applying the same pounds per acre out of habit—are likely to lose money this year. He urged them to collect soil samples, assess which nutrients are already available, pull back where possible, and manage expectations rather than spend money they might never recoup.
When input costs exceed the value being extracted from the land, the system breaks.
It also makes me question something deeper. As input costs have crept upward year after year, is it possible that major agricultural conglomerates simply look at what a farmer can gross per acre and then push pricing right up to the edge of what that farmer can afford? It is certainly possible.
Agrochemical corporations, fertilizer manufacturers, and equipment giants continue to report strong year-over-year performance, while independent farmers and independent input dealers disappear year-over-year. Consolidation does not just affect who grows the food; it also affects who sells the tools to grow it.
After watching his video, I called Leach. We could have talked for hours. While I am fairly opposed to heavy chemical fertilizer use and routine chemistry for pest and weed control, we both care deeply about rural America. We both want the rest of the country to wake up to the importance of these communities—not as relics of the past, not as something antiquated, but as the foundational piece of every plate of food we all enjoy.
He said something that stuck with me: “The thing about farming is it’s not about money. It’s more than that. It’s about family. It’s emotional. But it needs to make money.”
That tension is real. We do what we do because we love it. But we also have to feed our families while we feed everyone else’s.
I have said many times that U.S.-grown food is a matter of national security. I believe that. Whether you are regenerative, conventional, somewhere in between, or transitioning, I care about farmers staying solvent.
People often argue with me that regenerative agriculture will drive up food prices. They find that confronting. But what do we call this? This isn’t regenerative agriculture. This is standard, conventional farming, and it isn’t even working. Why are commodity crop prices so low, while fertilizer, chemicals, and equipment soar? How does that equation sustain itself?
Roundup, atrazine, and other chemistries are reportedly rising by another 3.5 percent or more. As a mother and someone who cares deeply about soil biology, I would prefer fewer chemicals in our fields. But the reality is that most farmers—regenerative and conventional alike—are still using some degree of chemistry as a tool.
Seven-dollar corn per bushel will not fix this. Fourteen-dollar beans per bushel will not fix this. Either food prices rise meaningfully, or input costs fall. There is no magical third option.
Fertilizer spiked dramatically during the Russia–Ukraine war because much of the global supply chain runs through geopolitically unstable regions. Fifty or 100 years ago, fertilizer production was more regional. Today, consolidation and global dependency amplify volatility. And even if you set consolidation aside, the raw components themselves are becoming more expensive.
This is more than a canary in the coal mine. When an independent third-generation fertilizer dealer tells farmers to minimize fertilizer use, that is a flashing neon sign.
For farmers, this may be the year to begin building a serious on-farm fertility program. Whether that looks like integrating livestock, increasing compost production, expanding cover crops, applying biological teas, or fostering earthworm populations, alternatives that once seemed fringe may suddenly look practical when staring down these prices.
Soil testing becomes less optional and more strategic. Knowing what is already present in your soil could mean the difference between surviving this season and not. Fertility that originates on your own land is far less volatile than inputs tied to global markets.
For policymakers, the answer is not another grant program. More government entanglement is not the solution. Commodity markets should reflect real costs, not be quietly shaped by a small cluster of corporate interests operating alongside federal agencies.
And for consumers, understand that the cheap food you see in stores is not a stable system. The cost is being absorbed somewhere—by farmers, by soil, or by the future.
I don’t claim to have the solution. But I pay attention to signs. This one feels important.
