As nitrogen supply disruptions expose vulnerabilities, policymakers and farmers face mounting pressure to rethink inputs, incentives, and long-term sustainability strategies

One of the key tests of a system’s resiliency is how it responds to disruptions. Resilient systems adapt and respond in ways that sustain core resources and functional attributes. Resiliency entails preserving the whole through tough times so the system will once again thrive when better times return.

Dealing with nitrogen is clearly one of today’s most pressing resiliency changes in row-crop regions. Supply disruptions from the war in the Gulf have driven fertilizer prices higher. Supplies are limited. Farmers are making uncomfortable choices. The response by policymakers and ag leaders has been predictable and true to form: another infusion of taxpayer dollars to keep the current system and operations in place largely unchanged. 

The long-term viability of this strategy is in doubt for a host of reasons, including our rising federal debt and the emergence of other national investment priorities. In addition, the hole is going to get deeper. Taxpayers will be asked to cover more of the economic burden of keeping row-crop farmers in business, as a result of incremental progress worldwide in reducing the costs of producing and transporting corn, soybeans, and other key commodities to our customers abroad. 

I see no reason to expect any meaningful improvement between now and 2029 in already worrisome food-system-driven public health, farm viability, and rural community trends. There will be a new president in 2029. It is possible that food and ag issues will play an important role in the campaign.

After years of annual farm-sector economic bailouts, a new Congress might decide to step back and identify the root causes of the problems plaguing our food and ag system, so that more effective and affordable interventions can be made. Especially in the Midwest, the focus of policy makers will be drawn to nitrogen. Excessive and wasteful use of nitrogen is not the only problem plaguing Midwest ag, but it surely is one that must be effectively addressed in order to restore health and resiliency to the Midwestern agricultural system. 

How might a new Administration, and a 2030 farm bill, strive to deal with the long list of negatives left in the wake of the way nitrogen is currently managed?

One camp will advocate for more regulation and new taxes that make nitrogen more expensive and/or impose new costs on farmers that continue to require two or more units of N for every unit needed to grow a crop. Another camp will bet the farm on more thorough, data-driven nitrogen management planning, coupled with new payments and/or penalties when a farm operation exceeds or falls short of N use efficiency goals and thresholds.

Many farmers and their organizations will fight against both such strategic approaches. Critics will point out all the reasons why we’ve been there, done that, and little has changed. If one of the above approaches is adopted, or some combination, farmers and their supporting service providers and institutions will find ways to work around them, thereby avoiding the need for any substantive system changes. 

Hopefully other strategies and approaches will be explored that are designed to deal directly with the root causes of the problems with nitrogen management in the Midwest. I have been part of dozens of farm and environmental policy projects going back to the 1980s. It is remarkable how consistent the core recommendations to improve N use efficiency have been over the years. In short, we have known for 50 years how to address N management issues but have never found a way to overcome opposition to essential policy and farm program reforms. 

Hopefully, by 2029 most policy makers and farmers will understand and agree that meaningful progress will require systemic changes in policy. As a result of bailout-bloated budget baselines, there will ample annual taxpayer support to underwrite substantial changes in row-crop farming systems. But only if the ways future federal dollars are spent shift to focus on:

• Lowering costs of production per bushel harvested,
• Reducing surpluses that depress market prices, 
• Restoring the health of row-crop farming systems in all dimensions (soil, costs, water quality, animal care, labor), and 
• investing in resiliency to help farmers work through inevitable future shocks and challenges.

There will be some farmers who choose not to change. They should remain free to continue operating as they see fit but will need to find ways to be profitable with much reduced help from taxpayers. 

Cropping systems must be diversified (less corn and beans, more small grains and forages). Livestock rations must become more forage-based and dependent on grazing to the extent possible. Payments and subsidies provided via commodity, conservation, and crop insurance programs must be laser focused on reducing the cost of production per bushel harvested and maximizing the efficiency of nitrogen use. 

We have a system today designed to maximize production and yields without regard to crop quality, market demand, and prices. Current policy is subsidizing the kind of systems that almost inevitably erode soil health, impair water quality, and undermine public health. But current policy and subsidy streams do assure relatively stable and healthy profits for all mission-critical segments of the food and fiber industry — except the farmers and ranchers and the work forces we all depend on. 

There will be winners and losers as policy and subsidy streams change. Political viability will depend on phasing in changes in ways that help those adversely impacted find ways to thrive within the new systems and markets that will emerge. True resiliency depends on the capacity to adapt and redeploy resources in ways that support core system capabilities and attributes. 

It’s about us and them working as one — not us versus them.