The outlook for U.S. farmers remains grim. While the beef sector enjoys increased demand and higher prices, other agricultural areas are grappling with declining prices and rising costs. In 2025, crop farmers incurred an estimated $34.6 billion in losses, leading to the shutdown of 15,000 farming operations. This contributed to a total reduction of 166,000 farms since 2017.
We consulted Precious Tshabalala and Omanjana Goswami, co-authors of the UCS report Less Fertilizer, Better Outcomes, regarding the challenges farmers face and a potential solution that could ease their burden while safeguarding public health and the environment.
Q: Despite farmers’ support for President Trump, his administration has implemented policies such as trade wars and actions against immigrant workers that have negatively impacted them. The administration responded by providing financial aid. Why do you think this approach was taken?
PRECIOUS TSHABALALA: Tariffs have been used to gain leverage in trade negotiations and to lower trade deficits, but they have inadvertently harmed farmers. Politically significant, farmers receive bailouts to prevent bankruptcy. Aid packages were beneficial during the president’s first term, but with a bumper corn harvest and substantial market losses due to tariffs and foreign aid reductions, many farmers face a crisis. Half the farms may not see profits this year, bankruptcies have doubled, and the U.S. faces a historic agricultural trade deficit. The newly announced $12 billion aid package will likely fall short of covering these losses.
Q: The Trump administration’s tariffs appear to harm farmers by reducing the prices of their products while increasing input costs like fertilizer and equipment. Is this accurate?
PRECIOUS TSHABALALA: Yes. Tariffs resulted in retaliatory measures from other countries, leading to a drop in commodity crop prices. For instance, China, a significant U.S. export market, imposed tariffs on agricultural goods and halted soybean imports from the U.S., turning to other sources like Brazil. This reduced export demand creates a supply surplus in the U.S., causing prices to decline.
While commodity prices fell, tariffs also raised agricultural input costs. For example, between 25% and 30% of nitrogen fertilizer is imported into the U.S., and almost all phosphorus and potassium are imported. As a result, input costs have surged beyond commodity prices, leaving farmers operating at a loss, even with USDA subsidies.
Q: The rising cost of fertilizer highlights your recent analysis indicating that farmers use more fertilizer than necessary. Can you explain?
OMANJANA GOSWAMI: Fertilizer overuse is prevalent in modern agriculture, particularly on farms practicing monoculture of crops like corn and soybeans. Our report shows that in 2022, 78% of U.S. cropland—around 236 million acres—received some form of synthetic fertilizer. Plants cannot absorb all this fertilizer, leaving excess in the soil, which causes environmental harm through runoff, soil degradation, and the release of gases that exacerbate climate change.
Our analysis reveals that scientific studies indicate up to 50% of fertilizer is applied unnecessarily. Agriculture isn’t typically seen as a direct pollution source; we often envision idyllic green fields. Yet, agriculture significantly pollutes in the U.S., with synthetic fertilizer overuse fueling a pollution crisis. Farmers are not intentionally polluting; they consider themselves land stewards. However, they are trapped in a system that necessitates more fertilizer due to certain cropping patterns.
Q: Don’t farmers know what’s best for their farms? Are they misinformed?
OMANJANA GOSWAMI: Farmers overapply fertilizer as a safeguard to ensure crops receive adequate nutrients. The current agricultural system prioritizes yield maximization, pressuring farmers to use more fertilizer. There are no penalties for overapplication, aside from the increased costs.
Farm consolidation also contributes to overapplication. Fertilizer manufacturers and agribusiness corporations lobby aggressively to shape agriculture policy, boosting their profits when producers rely on high application rates. Midwest fertilizer recommendations often come from retailers selling fertilizer who benefit financially, not independent institutions without conflicts of interest.
Q: While fertilizer overuse wastes money farmers can’t spare due to slim profit margins, how else does it harm farming operations?
PRECIOUS TSHABALALA: Excessive fertilizer use depletes the soil’s capacity to retain water and replenish nutrients, trapping farmers in a cycle of overapplication.
OMANJANA GOSWAMI: Soil losing its water-holding capacity becomes hard and cement-like, losing its sponge-like quality. This makes it nearly impossible for farmers to break free from the fertilizer cycle, forcing them to rely on synthetic nutrients as the soil loses its natural storage ability.
Q: What other consequences arise from fertilizer overuse besides its impact on farmers?
OMANJANA GOSWAMI: Nitrogen runoff from excessive fertilizer use severely damages the environment. It promotes rapid algae growth in lakes and streams, forming massive algal blooms that deplete dissolved oxygen, creating “dead zones” in aquatic ecosystems where life cannot survive. The Gulf of Mexico’s dead zone, spanning thousands of square miles each summer, is directly linked to fertilizer runoff from Midwest farms via the Mississippi River.
Nitrates from fertilizer runoff also pollute groundwater sources, contaminating drinking water supplies and threatening community health.
Fertilizer overuse significantly contributes to the climate crisis. Unused fertilizer is converted by soil bacteria into nitrous oxide, a gas 273 times more potent than carbon dioxide in capturing heat. In the U.S., fertilizer mismanagement on agricultural soils accounts for about 75% of nitrous oxide emissions.
PRECIOUS TSHABALALA: The costs of fertilizer overuse extend beyond environmental impact to economic burdens. Taxpayers bear the expense of pollution cleanup and public health costs. Additionally, the tourism industry loses roughly $1 billion in revenue due to nutrient pollution and algal blooms contaminating water bodies. The annual economic impact of nitrogen pollution on healthcare, water treatment, and recreation is estimated at a staggering $157 billion. These costs are unsustainable in the long term, necessitating immediate action.
Q: What might encourage farmers to change their behavior?
OMANJANA GOSWAMI: Farmers require comprehensive policy tools to ensure they have the financial and technical support to adopt better fertilizer management practices. Several conservation methods, such as no-till, cover crops, buffer strips, wetlands restoration, and managed grazing, have proven effective in reducing fertilizer use, enhancing soil resilience, retaining nutrients, and building long-term soil health.
Voluntary USDA conservation programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) provide financial and technical assistance for these practices. Backed by extensive scientific research and farmer experience, these programs are popular among farmers but remain chronically underfunded and oversubscribed, with only about one-third of eligible applications being approved.
Q: You suggest incorporating this funding into the new food and farm bill, but Congress has delayed its passage for nearly three years. What’s causing the delay, and is there hope for change this year?
OMANJANA GOSWAMI: The food and farm bill has been extended three times, continuing under the 2018 bill framework. Partisan disagreements on key provisions have stalled a new bill. While several versions have been introduced, a lack of bipartisan support has hindered their progress through Congress. A new draft was introduced by the House Agriculture Committee in February and passed out of committee last month.
Since 2022, UCS has advocated for a transformative food and farm bill to establish a fair and equitable system. This includes expanding voluntary conservation programs to help more farmers maintain productivity while preserving air and water quality and soil health.
It remains uncertain whether these provisions will be negotiated into the current bill version, whether it will secure bipartisan support to become law, or if we will face another extension.
