Comment by ericpauley
1 day ago
Title claims "due to plains drought" but the article text largely attributes this to increased planting of soy for its lower fertilizer requirements (related to Strait of Hormuz).
1 day ago
Title claims "due to plains drought" but the article text largely attributes this to increased planting of soy for its lower fertilizer requirements (related to Strait of Hormuz).
Wheat isn’t grown in the same places that beans grow.
If you can, you’re rotating beans and corn every year. (“Roundup ready” of course)
Wheat is on the marginal drier land. Not that they couldn’t plant wheat there but beans are way more profitable and so they don’t.
The plains is by definition more arid, marginal land a step up from pasture/grazing.
A lot of traditional wheat/sunflower/barley/oats has gone over to beans and corn bc roundup and GMO.
On my family’s farm I don’t remember the last time we had wheat crop but that was our staple for like 50 years.
> Wheat isn’t grown in the same places that beans grow.
It depends on what you mean by "beans". The Palouse agricultural region is famously one of the highest yielding wheat and legume producing regions in North America.
Wheat is absolutely grown on the same place they grow beans. The field directly across from my house did that last year. I don't survey all the farms in my area, but It does seem like there is much less wheat this year on fields where I know it was grown in previous seasons.
Whean and soybeans are often grown on the same land. Your 1st and 5th sentences seem to contradict eachother, I might not be understanding.
My parents live in Ohio and rotate wheat/soy/corn every year as do their neighbors
> If you can, you’re rotating beans and corn every year.
Nah. Wheat isn't profitable if you look at it in isolation, but it is still net advantageous to have in the rotation.
> (“Roundup ready” of course)
Nah. IP soys aren't as attractive as they once were, granted, but the premium is still compelling enough to grow some.
> Wheat isn’t grown in the same places that beans grow.
...
> A lot of traditional wheat/sunflower/barley/oats has gone over to beans and corn bc roundup and GMO.
So wheat absolutely can be grown on the same places that beans grow, despite your leading claim. And I grew up in the Midwest plains; wheat IS a crop that can be grown there. Marginal? The breadbasket of the US? Huh. News to those who live there.
US farmers are planting less wheat, which made the crop harvest marginal, and along came a drought.
At many of these publications the editor chooses the title, not the author. They know full well that most people will read the headline but not the article.
Sadly, this is very accurate.
Relevant example from today:
"The commodities guru who warned about silver falling now, is saying the hantavirus could do the same to oil"
Click later:
Guy is just hedging against losses.
I am genuinely starting to wonder how much of the trade swings are from algo trades reacting to headlines ( and subsequent ones reacting to content;p ).
Has the USA's potash supply been reduced due to strained relations with Canada? They are our top supplier, by far.
Fertilizer is pretty fungible and is a global market, so even if the US is primarily supplied by Canada, and overall global demand remained constant, prices would go up since there will be supply reduction due to the Hormuz strait being closed.
Having the two major inputs turned off turns fungible to non-fungible
3 replies →
Not that I've noticed looking at the cargo trains going by, but definitely a lot more bitumen tankers that's for sure.
Though potash is one part of three (Nitrogen < Hormuz / Phosphorus < Florida / Potassium < Saskatchewan) used in commerical fertilizer I believe.
(One person's perspective living in Southern Alberta)
i dont think canada has had any drop in potash sales to the south. the main potash producers are even planning new US ports for exporting potash to global markets through.
which itself is a major factor - the US imports tons of potash from canada, only to re-export it elsewhere. a clampdown from canada would be more likely to hit a south korea or china more than the midwest
A lot of crops need nitrogen. What has been impacted by Trump's Iran war is the supply of Urea through the Straight of Hormuz.
If the closure persists then no doubt other sources can ramp up to fill the void, but it's going to be too late for this season. Some Asian farmers have already chosen not to bother planting rice crops since the increase in fertilizer (urea) cost has meant they'd be losing money.
Fuel prices are also impacting imported produce prices.
Are you forgetting the nitrogen? :)
The US produces most of their own nitrogen, but the same is not true of potash.
3 replies →
The US provides a lot of its own supply there.
4 replies →
Yes. Despite what others have said, yes. But, in general, because of the current global dynamics, fertilizer is more expensive wherever you're going to be getting it from. It just doesn't help that the US has picked a trade war with all allies at the same time, while also engaging in real wars that disrupt global supply chains of critical resources.
It shocks me when I realize it's only been 16/48 of his term. We still have 2/3rds to go.
1 reply →
It's the nitrogen fertilizer almost all of which is manufactured from methane + air.
Pedantically, most of it is manufactured by biological processes in the soil. Soy Beans are really good at this which is why it is planted so much (the food value is secondary, but enough to give it the edge over alternatives)
For supplemental fertilizer you buy though you are correct.
1 reply →
US and Canadian production is largely irrelevant to the price. These are world comodities. If worldwide production drops, prices rise. As with oil/gas producers, domestic potash producers are under no obligation to sell locally. If prices are higher in europe/asia/africa, that domestic potash will be loaded onto ships until domestic prices rise to match.
much of canadian oil should be pretty insulated and thus also the US consumption of it.
its not particularly available to the rest of the globe because you need different refining.
i find it to be kinda funny that albertan oil prices jump with global markets when albertas major complaint is about a lack of access to global markets.
Canada also doesnt have the export capacity for selling potash directly. if its being redirected away from the US, its US importers deciding they can get a better price by re-exporting it
like a "in theory in ten years from now, these other customers could swap what oil theyre using, so were gonna charge you more now just in case"
You are wrong and the drought attribution is correct: Winter wheat is the dominant variety in the U.S. and is (and is projected to be further) down due to drought.
"a severe drought in the U.S. Plains has curbed production of hard red winter wheat, the largest variety grown in the U.S... The USDA projected U.S. wheat production in the 2026/27 season at 1.561 billion bushels, down from 1.985 billion in 2025/26, as a severe drought in the U.S. Plains was likely to slash the hard red winter wheat crop by 25% from a year earlier."
"The USDA rated just 28% of the U.S. winter wheat crop in good-to-excellent condition in a weekly crop conditions report on Monday, the lowest rating for this point in the growing season in four years."
This was mentioned in the very first sentence, it's the very first attribution of falling wheat harvest.
Yes Hormuz and rising oil costs are also a factor, a secondary one since they are impacting spring wheat planting decisions as you mention.
> Winter wheat is the dominant variety in the U.S. and is (and is projected to be further) down due to drought.
Both drought and the fertilizer shortage (which, as the article notes, was too late to effect planting decisions but DID impact the costs, and thereby decisions on the applied quantities, of nutrients for the winter wheat crop this year) are impacting winter wheat yields.
Yes, the article points that out, too.
1 reply →
The fact that the US is growing more soy when one of its largest importers, China, hasn't agreed to an import deal and actually seems to be importing more and more from Brazil instead, is extremely confusing. That is unless the farmers are pretty confident that the US will come to an agreement or failing that, expecting some type of US government bail out/subsidy.
Agreed.
But there's a very weird underlying sentiment on HN where many people seem to directly or indirectly jump whenever they can to downplay the existence of climate change. Sometimes, they are emboldened by articles like this which intentionally use misleading headlines.
You're completely right, though, that in this instance, soy beans were mostly focused on because of consumer trends and less fertilizer need. Wheat is just an expensive crop right now. Also, soybeans would actually be less resilient to drought which furthers your point re: the article headline.
There are a number of people who are motivated to deny or downplay climate change, whether they have a financial stake or just because they've made it part of their personality.
Conveniently for them, it's very difficult to attribute any specific weather event to climate change in isolation.
Maybe a positive. Soy Beans are more healthy.
So lower fertilizer demand, and healthier produce, could be a net positive.
Kind of like an oil shortage is driving an increase in EVs and renewable energy.
Finally waking up the US that oil dependence is a National Security issue that renewables are possible solution for. That renewables aren't the 'woke' enemy, but a valid technical option.
So, maybe a net positive.
> Finally waking up the US that oil dependence is a National Security issue that renewables are possible solution for. That renewables aren't the 'woke' enemy, but a valid technical option.
Amazingly invisible fact to the US political right. Glaringly obvious, yet they can't see it. It's almost like they don't even have their country's best interests at heart...
It's invisible because it doesn't exist. The US is a net oil exporter.
Finally waking up the US that oil dependence is a National Security issue
Even worse, oil dependence is a competitive liability --- not an advantage.
AI is energy intensive. And more expensive, carbon based based energy is a competitive disadvantage.
A competitive disadvantage in AI is an economic issue --- which ultimately translates into a National Security issue.
China leadership understands this. USA leadership is clueless.
We're in an energy crunch, and Republicans think it is a good idea to cancel wind farms because they ruin the view.
2 replies →