Fertiliser Volatility Is Returning

Which Raises an Interesting Question About Nitrogen

“DON’T PANIC – The nitrogen is already in the air.”

That phrase might sound slightly tongue-in-cheek, but the point behind it is quite real.

Over the last few seasons, I’ve found myself paying more attention to fertiliser markets than I used to.

Nitrogen fertiliser has always been influenced by forces outside agriculture, but recently that relationship has become much more obvious.

Nitrogen production depends heavily on natural gas.

When energy markets move, fertiliser prices tend to follow.

When geopolitical tensions affect gas supply or shipping routes, fertiliser markets usually respond quite quickly.

The current instability in the Middle East illustrates the point. Gas fields, shipping lanes and export infrastructure sit right at the centre of nitrogen production and distribution. What I’ve noticed over the years is that fertiliser markets often move on the possibility of disruption long before any physical shortage appears.

Farmers are already seeing the early signs of that behaviour again. Price lists are being withdrawn, quotes are moving quickly, and traders are warning that further increases may follow if energy markets tighten.

None of this is entirely new. Nitrogen has always been sensitive to global energy markets. What feels different now is how quickly those movements reach the farm gate.

At the same time, grain markets are moving in the opposite direction.

When wheat prices are strong, fertiliser nitrogen is easier to justify. Nitrogen drives yield and protein, and the crop's value usually covers the cost.

When wheat prices fall, nitrogen begins to look different. The crop still needs the same nutrition, but each kilogram applied carries more financial weight because the margin between cost and return narrows.

Historically, the safest response has been to maintain fertiliser rates and protect yield. Cutting nitrogen has always felt like a direct risk to output.

That assumption largely holds if fertiliser is the only dependable nitrogen source available to the crop.

In reality, crops never rely entirely on fertiliser alone. Soils release nitrogen through mineralisation when conditions allow, although that supply is variable and difficult to predict accurately. Fertiliser remains the backbone of most programmes because it is the component we can specify and control.

Interestingly, with products like Bio-N, it is not that they replace fertiliser nitrogen, but that they change how part of the crop’s nitrogen supply behaves.

Bio-N establishes nitrogen-fixing microbes within the rhizosphere. Those microbes then convert atmospheric nitrogen into plant-available forms directly within the crop root environment.

What I tend to see in practice is a supply that develops gradually through biological activity rather than arriving entirely in pulses of soluble fertiliser.

Independent work, including trials conducted with NIAB, has shown that when Bio-N is included in a programme, fertiliser nitrogen can often be reduced without compromising yield or grain protein. Across trials and commercial use, this frequently equates to around 30–50 kg N/ha of fertiliser being replaced by biologically supplied nitrogen.

At higher wheat prices, that largely appears as improved nitrogen efficiency.

At lower wheat prices, it starts to change the economics of the crop.

Once part of crop nitrogen, demand is supplied biologically, the comparison shifts slightly. Instead of simply choosing between higher or lower fertiliser rates, growers are effectively comparing purchased nitrogen with nitrogen fixed within the crop root zone from the atmosphere.

Those two sources carry very different cost structures.

Manufactured fertiliser nitrogen remains closely tied to global energy markets. Its price can change quickly when gas supply, shipping routes or geopolitical conditions shift.

Bio-N, by contrast, is not linked to natural gas production or international fertiliser trade. Its cost remains stable regardless of movements in fertiliser markets.

That difference becomes significant when nitrogen is among the highest costs of crop production.

There is also an increasing carbon dimension. Manufactured nitrogen fertiliser has a substantial carbon footprint due to the energy required to produce it. Reducing fertiliser nitrogen therefore lowers both input costs and the crop's carbon intensity.

None of this suggests fertiliser nitrogen disappears from cropping systems.

What recent seasons have shown quite clearly is how exposed fertiliser markets have become to global events. When nitrogen prices rise while grain prices weaken, reducing reliance on purchased nitrogen becomes increasingly agronomically and economically sound.

Not because crops suddenly need less nitrogen.

But because, with the right soil biology working around the roots, some of that nitrogen can be pulled from the air and fixed into the soil beneath the crop.

If you’d like to explore how biological nitrogen could help reduce exposure to fertiliser volatility, feel free to get in touch with SFS.