Crop Comments: Fertilizer Expert Answers My Industry Questions

Normally I try to give crop-growing readers an update on the global fertilizer situation once every quarter. I get much of my information from an online industry publication titled “Argus North American Fertilizer Newsletter.” My friend and associate Jeff Cassim subscribes to this twice-monthly periodical and shares it with me when I ask.

Cassim is the marketing director for Liquid Products (based in Seneca Falls, NY), and, in my opinion, does the best job of keeping his finger on the fertilizer industry’s pulse, nationally and globally.

For most of the calendar year, global fertilizer trade has been a non-stop economic tug-of-war. I recently learned that most fertilizer exporting countries, except for Russia, faced tariff rates of 10% – 15%, with some suppliers even facing up to 30% tariffs, resulting in major shifts in fertilizer trade. (Very strangely, Russia escaped the tariff burden altogether.)

Most exporters have avoided the U.S., favoring alternative sources for their supply. But trade flows could (hopefully) normalize now that fertilizers are tariff-free.

The tariffs had contributed to eroding fertilizer affordability relative to crop prices in the U.S. this year. This reduced affordability has driven fertilizer prices to multi-year highs, significantly curbing demand for crop nutrients across the country. Lower cost imports should lessen farmers’ reluctance to enter the market leading up to spring season 2026.

Revisiting Cassim’s Expertise

In Q&A format is my Dec. 5, 2025 telephone interview with Jeff Cassim:

Q: In short, what is the most recent development with markets for the “big three” – nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potash (K)?

Cassim: N and P have been dropping quite a bit. According to the Dec. 4 Argus North American Fertilizer, urea/ammonium nitrate at Port of Cincinnati (POC) dropped (on average) from $373/short ton to $365. Mono- ammonium phosphate (MAP) dropped significantly from $758 to $705 (also at POC). These drops are largely a function of President Trump’s recent November tariff eliminations.

Additionally, shipments of Saudi Arabia diammonium phosphate, totaling 180,000 short tons, are expected to disembark at U.S. ports this month. This anticipated influx directly contributed to the above drop in MAP price.

Q. What about K?

Cassim: The NOLA (Port of New Orleans, LA) price for barge loads of MOP (muriate of potash, chemical symbol KCl) was basically steady, averaging $303. But the world’s greatest source of mineable potash is Canadian (in Saskatchewan). That province exports most of its production to over 50 countries, with its top buyers the U.S., Brazil, Indonesia, India and China. In fact, a quote from their industry’s website (canadaaction.ca) reads “Canada’s potash mining sector is critical to food security around the world. Without it, the world would be a much hungrier place.”

Q. With natural gas (methane) being the main building material for urea, has the demand for methane for heating fuel placed upward price pressure on this N fertilizer source?

Cassim: Thus far, that hasn’t been the case. However, if this winter’s heating season proves to be much more energy-demanding than what is presently forecast, that could change. But I don’t anticipate a recurrence of what happened to natural gas prices early in the Ukraine/Russia conflict. That’s when Russia shut off its natural gas supplies to most of Europe.

Shipments of Saudi urea are applying additional downward price pressure on urea hitting U.S. shores. Those shipments, estimated to total 180,000 tons, started docking at U.S. ports this month.

Q. Any thoughts on fertilizer economics at farm level?

Cassim: Argus North American Fertilizer Newsletter attempts to quantify such a concept with its “U.S. NPK Affordability Index,” with value of 1.0 being “normal.” It’s been at or below 1.0 for about a year, bottoming out at about 0.6 this past August. The index has been gradually increasing ever since, approaching and, hopefully soon, surpassing the 1.0 mark, thus entering “more affordable” turf.

The Affordability Index is a concept somewhat similar to farm commodity parity, an economic scale that died ignominiously under Ronald Reagan.

Q. Why do you think that the Trump Administration thus far has not levied any tariffs on commodities shipped from Russia?

Cassim: I’ve been scratching my head on that one. (The author’s gut feeling is that the answer to that last question lies in the geopolitical arena, with heavier emphasis on the politics and lighter on the “geo.”) But there’s one class of crop nutrients that consistently dodges most of the economic tug-of-war: the mined or unrefined soil amendments, such as ground limestone, rock phosphates and some forms of potash. Add to that list bonemeal, an unmined major source of P.

These items are feeding the soil rather than feeding the growing plants directly. They also benefit from the freezing/thawing action commonly impacting northern soils during winter. This freezing/ thawing seesaw behavior serves to make otherwise bound-up nutrients more available to crops come spring.

This physical breaking down of soil into smaller particle size increases their surface area, thus making them more susceptible to the biological activity of soil microbes.

Such freezing/thawing action, which enhances soil nutrient availability, also shows that money spent this past autumn on these inputs can be expected to show a handsome return on investment at harvest time next growing season. This freezing/thawing activity is a physical (non-chemical) event that’s been shown to increase the effective neutralizing value (ENV) of ground limestone, breaking bigger limestone granules into smaller, more biologically active particles.

Quoting Midwest land grant soil scientists, “Estimated ENV is the fraction of the material’s calcium carbonate equivalent (CCE) that will react with soil acidity during the first year of application.

The ENV is calculated by multiplying the material’s CCE and its fineness.”

Frost activity directly increases lime’s ENV, thus indirectly increasing the biological availability of mineral nutrients. Most visibly, phosphates are about 10 times as available with soil pH 7.0 as compared to soil pH 5.0!

by Paris Reidhead