MANAGING FERTILIZER DECISIONS STRATEGICALLY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER TO PROTECT PROFITABILITY UNDER CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS.
In the current agricultural landscape, producers face increasing pressure to make fertilizer decisions that balance short-term economic realities with the need for long-term soil fertility and sustainability. Rising input costs, volatile commodity prices, and tighter margins shift the focus to immediate returns. However, overlooking the broader agronomic context can compromise future productivity and profitability. So, what is the best approach when faced with immediate economic uncertainty?
The Cost of Fertilizer: Growing Concern or Persistent Problem?
Fertilizer seems to have been expensive for several years now. When crop prices were high and margins were good, the impacts of high fertilizer prices were tempered. However, with softer grain prices and tighter margins, the impacts of high fertilizer prices are more pronounced, emphasizing the importance of successfully managing fertilizer decisions.
Traditional strategies, like obtaining several quotes from multiple input retailers and buying in the off-season to store, usually provide positive results. Still, nitrogen (N) costs are approximately 20% higher compared to last year. There is also a significant difference in the price between the different N sources that can be used to increase profitability on the farm.
For example, in the fall of 2025, anhydrous ammonia was 20% cheaper than urea. Producers that have the ability to use different N sources on their farm have a competitive advantage in markets where there are considerable price differences between sources.
While phosphorus (P) fertilizer hasn’t seen the same level of price increases as N, it is also still expensive. Knowledge plays a critical role here. Understanding the price differences and fertilizer properties between the different formulations on the market today will reveal the true cost of P. Also knowing your P soil test levels will reveal the appropriate fertility plan to achieve success in the growing season.
Don’t Guess, Soil Test
Regular soil testing provides an inventory of nutrient levels in the field. When combined with fertilizer recommendations that are tailored to regional soil and climate conditions, economic returns from fertilizer application can be maximized. Recommended fertilizer rates may be adjusted based on timing and application method. The principles of 4R Nutrient Stewardship (Right Source at the Right Rate, Rate Time and Right Place) allow for flexibility in fertilizer management to maximize crop yields, while minimizing environmental impact; however, choosing the right rate is highly dependant on understanding the existing nutrient levels in the field.
Residual nitrate levels tend to be low following solid seeded cereal and oilseed crops, but may be higher following heavily fertilized row crops, such as corn. Fields with a history of N application greater than crop requirements, or that have been affected by drought or another factor that severely limited crop yields, often have high residual nitrate levels. If this available N is not accounted for when fertilizer recommendations are developed for the following year, not only is there a greater potential for environmental losses, but the extra fertilizer applied becomes a wasted input, limiting economic gains.
Balanced Inputs, Better Outcomes
Regular soil testing also helps to track long-term trends. Are P levels declining, holding steady, or increasing? As a general rule, soil test phosphorus (STP) will increase one part per million (ppm) for every 20-30 pounds of P applied over and above what the crop removes. This could mean a single-year P application of 60 pounds per acre (~115 pounds of MAP per acre) may only raise soil test levels by ~1 ppm. Building P levels may not be feasible during times of high fertilizer prices or tight margins, but maintaining a good soil P supply can pay off in the long term.
Crop response to P fertilizer is a game of probabilities. If STP is below 10-12 ppm, the probability of a yield response is high. When STP is above 18-20 ppm, the probability of a yield response is low. The “sweet spot” is generally in the 12-18 ppm range, where it is recommended to apply P at crop removal rates to maintain that same STP level going forward.
If STP is below 10-12 ppm, then it may be beneficial to build STP levels by applying P at a rate greater than crop removal. When STP is high, it’s still recommended to apply P at starter rates to ensure the crop has access to adequate P early in the growing season, especially if the soil is cold and dry at seeding time.
Understanding STP trends through regular soil testing allows one to balance P fertilizer based on long term crop rotations, rather than responding to annual requirements. If STP is low, it is important to invest in P during times of low fertilizer and/or high commodity prices. If STP has been built up to a medium to high level, then it is possible to be more reactionary to high fertilizer prices in the short term without the same long-term consequences. A few years of starter P rates may slowly deplete STP; however, if one has concentrated on building STP when fertilizer is affordable, then a short-term reduction in P rates won’t devastate those STP reserves.
To determine crop removal rates for balancing P in the rotation, visit prairienutrientcalculator.info.
Fertility Planning with a Long-Term Lens
Given the continued volatility in fertilizer prices and the pressure of tight profit margins, producers must make economic decisions that maintain yield potential without compromising soil fertility. Regular soil testing provides critical insights into nutrient availability, guiding precise application rates and preventing both over- and underapplication. Strategic nutrient planning, grounded in agronomic data and economic analysis, is essential for sustaining profitability into the future.