Fertilizer Matters EP54: Middle East Conflict – Fertilizer Demand Destruction

Hello, when people think about the Middle East war, they think oil prices, shipping disruptions and geopolitics. But one of the biggest secondary effects may be happening far from the battlefield in the global fertilizer market itself. Fertilizer industry is inextricably linked to food production downstream and energy markets upstream. And when conflict disrupts natural gas, shipping lanes or pharma economics, demand can disappear surprisingly fast. And

at the start of the month, the IRS chief executive actually put a number on the impact. The interruption of fertilizer supply and its main ingredients could cost up to 10 billion meals a week globally and hit the poorest countries hardest. So today we're looking at fertilizer demand destruction, what it means, why it's happening and how the ripple effects could hit North and South America and Europe differently. So the questions we'll be asking are, are farmers delaying

application? Are crop margins collapsing? And could less fertilizer use eventually tighten grain supply and push food inflation back up? We'll unpack all of that in the next 15 minutes or so in this latest edition of the Argus Fertilizer Matters podcast. My name

is Mike Nash and I'm the senior editor with the Fertilizer team based in London. And today on the show, I'm delighted to welcome back Claudia Vilk, European Fertilizer Editor, Taylor Zavala, Deputy Editor for the North American Fertilizer Report, and Renata Cardarelli Gabrielli, Agriculture and Fertilizer Editor for our Brazil Grains and Fertilizer publication in Sao Paulo. It's an absolute pleasure to have you all on the show. Hi, Mike. Thanks for having us.

So what is demand destruction? We hear a lot about it in our market conversations, but it's important to differentiate it from a temporary drop in sales. Demand destruction is a fundamental change in behavior where buyers permanently lower how much of a product they consume because prices are simply too high. What we are essentially seeing now is buyers taking product hand to mouth and traders selling back to back. Trade is minimal or

in some cases non-existent. And the gap between FOB and CFR prices and the domestic price is rising. In many cases, the market is essentially stuck. So Claudia, if I can come to you first,

let's start things off in the European context, which to be fair, has already seen its fair share of external market shocks in the aftermath of what's happening with Russia and Ukraine and the introduction of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, CBAM. Is this yet another fertilizer shock? Absolutely. What we have seen in the European markets over the past few months have been, of course, very steep price increases triggered by the increases of the global prices for

these commodities. For example, one important benchmark in France for urea, we saw prices rise by as much as 50 percent by mid-April from before the start of the war at the end of February. So prices in the meantime have fallen again a little bit because the European season is now coming to an end for now, but prices remain elevated still. So absolutely, there is a slowdown in buying happening, especially at the same time as the finished fertilizer

prices rose so much. What we saw was that the wheat prices, so the crop prices remained relatively stable. So at its peak, the year next wheat September contract, for example, only rose by up to 10 percent compared to pre-war levels and is now actually back down in line exactly to where it was before the war. So farmers have to pay a lot more for their inputs, but don't get more money for the product.

Thanks Claudia. And Taylor, let's move across the pond now to the US and North America generally.

It's fair to say in many ways North America is the most advanced agricultural market in the world in terms of its financing, its economies of scale and its stronger hedging capacity. It's a very well-developed fertilizer market. Just how exposed is the US and Canada to fertilizer inflation right now? Well, Mike, anybody who turns on a TV in the US right now will probably see a government official vocalizing concerns about farmer affordability for all inputs of the agriculture

sector, fertilizer included. The issue of demand destruction started to more severely poke out its head when President Donald Trump enacted import tariffs on fertilizer last year, which was compounded by a very large corn crop. And this year, even with tariffs removed, obviously the lack of supply flow from the Strait of Hormuz closure has really started to show fundamental cracks in the domestic fertilizer sector. It's not really just demand

destruction for this spring or this fall. It's generational farms filing for bankruptcy. And in Canada, there's still some minor demand destruction as well. But because the growers there are mostly focused on canola and not corn, they're certainly having less of a difficult time financially in comparison to US growers.

Thanks Taylor. Renata, if I can ask you now, Brazil imports the vast majority of its fertilizers. So in some ways, this is imported inflation. But how vulnerable does that make the country? Significantly vulnerable, Mike. Of course, it varies year on year. But in general, Brazil imports around 80% of its fertilizer needs, meaning Brazil is a highly import-reliant country. Last year, deliveries to farmers totaled 49.1 million metric tons, while domestic

production of fertilizers totaled 7.2 million tons. This is also why the Brazilian government has the National Fertilizer Plan, which aims to reduce Brazil's reliance on imports. However, in the short term, considering the immediate effects of the war and the entire geopolitical situation, logically, Brazil is exposed to the whole context, especially considering supply constraints and higher fertilizer prices and logistics costs.

Okay, thank you all for that. If I can broaden the conversation out a little and ask each

of you in turn, which particular fertilizer markets are most affected? And I'm talking about by product type, N, P or K. And is this demand destruction that you're seeing quantifiable in any way in terms of actual fertilizer buying? Taylor, can I come to you first?

Absolutely. Well, the US is an N, P, K consumer, whereas Canada is focused really on urea and potash and math specifically. But to answer your question more specifically, nitrogen faced some demand destruction in about early May, when urea and UAM prices really started to escalate, while phosphate demand was significantly impeded by higher prices driven by higher feedstock costs. Now, phosphate and potash are usually applied together by growers. So we saw demand destruction

there throughout the spring. But nitrogen prices have started to fall off more recently. And now the big eye of the demand destruction storm is mostly on phosphate. Thanks. And Claudia, are you seeing a similar pattern in the European market?

That's a very good question. So Europe is on the nitrogen side, of course, an importer of urea, and there's a lot of domestic production of nitrates. And the disruption in the urea market and the steep increases that we saw in urea meant that urea imports just really became unattractive compared to the domestic production,

whereas the domestic nitrates production is really dependent on gas prices. And the volatility of these prices there, which of course remains, means that that is still a big question mark on how the war will continue. It's similar as what Taylor was saying for the US in that phosphates and the incredibly high prices that we have, we of course also have them in Europe with the disruptions on sulfur, with the external factors pushing up the price there for DAP,

specifically in Europe. That means that there is a fear that there may be a bit of a phosphate holiday. This is not as much the case for potash because potash is seen as very good value. But for any product or any blend that uses like an NPK mix, then that would, of course, also affect potash offtake. So we are seeing it very much on the nitrogen side, and it is for the next season also probably really affect phosphates offtake.

Thanks, Claudia. And just lastly, Renata, obviously with so much of the fertilizer being imported, presumably you're seeing this across the board.

Yes, that's correct. Of course, for potash, demand is constant and Brazilian imports have been healthy and higher considering last year, but also barter rates for potash exclusively are better to farmers. But if we think about urea, the exposure is particularly high, especially considering the situation in the Middle East. In 2025, around 35% of the urea Brazil imported was sourced in the Middle East. We also have this dependency when it comes to

phosphate fertilizers. Saudi Arabia was one of the top suppliers of MAP last year, accounting for 25% of all Brazilian MAP imports. Of course, this means the region is clearly important to the Brazilian market, especially considering nitrogen and phosphate-based fertilizers. But other phosphate suppliers also have been facing issues considering the feedstock

they source and, of course, its costs. At the moment, Brazil is in the period of phosphate-based fertilizer purchases to supply its needs for the next soybean crop,

which starts in September. We have been following what market participants report on sales, and they say that around 75% of fertilizer's needs have been purchased in Brazil's central-western Mato Grosso state, which is the main producer in the country, while in Brazil purchases are at around 65%, which means 10% points below the rate a year earlier. Okay, thank you for the for the contemplation of that. Demand destruction is a funny thing,

because it's affected at both ends in terms of lower demand generally, but also because of the Middle East crisis. There's a genuine shortage of feedstocks in particular, and therefore a shortage of actual product, which can in itself show up as demand destruction. Do we think that demand destruction is purely the result of higher prices, or are there other factors at play, like the weak crop prices that we refer to, the lack of finance, or a genuine lack of availability

that's actually stifling trade? Maybe, Taylor, if I can come to you on that one first. Yeah, so I would say for North America, and specifically in the U.S., it's just an absolute tornado of factors. It's domestic supply issues. It's a general economic downturn. It's feedstock costs. It's gasoline costs for tractors. It's really an ongoing list of issues that continue

to pile up, and even more recently, you know, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, they're doing a lot to try and, you know, comb over these issues, address production concerns, address import concerns by waiving the Jones Act. But at the end of the day, I think that there are so many different fertilizer products that are consumed in North America that it is incredibly difficult to lay a blanket over them and say, okay, everything's under control finally.

Thanks, Taylor. So, Claudia, if I can just come to you, do you see demand disruption purely as a result of higher fertilizer prices, or do you think there are other factors at play in the European arena? I think that's a really interesting discussion because, again, it varies a little bit by product. So, of course, I've already mentioned crop prices, which remain weak and thus don't

really give much incentive to farmers to use a lot of fertilizer. On the other hand, we have now seen that a lot of European fertilizer producers are actually starting their summer maintenance program. So, like, the season of producers shutting temporarily is very much starting because there is now a seasonal downturn in demand. So, certainly that is not a supply issue causing a lack of trade. The situation is a bit different

on phosphate, I would argue. Of course, it is at the end of the day, the really high phosphate prices, but the really high phosphate prices are coming about because of the curtailments of production that OCP currently has ongoing and other producers as well. So, there it is very much. Buyers just don't want to pay the high price. They cannot pay the incredibly high phosphate prices anymore, but also there just isn't a lot of physical product available as well.

Renata, if I could just ask the same thing of you, but my impression is from Brazil that the local domestic inland prices just aren't keeping tabs or keeping up with what's happening internationally. Yes, Mike, of course, there are other factors, definitely. And we have to say that the situation now is different from 2022, when the outbreak of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine caused

a very significant spike in fertilizer prices, but also in agricultural prices. At this moment, we have been facing a different situation, especially if we look at agricultural commodities. Brazil, for instance, is expected to produce a record high soybean crop in 2025-2026 crop. This puts more downward pressure on agricultural commodity prices. And at Argus, we monitor barter

rates. I mentioned barter rates before, but what are those? Barter rates are mostly the main type of financing crops in which farmers exchange a parcel of their production for one ton of inputs, fertilizers included. So, for example, in Sorriso and Rondonópolis, two cities in Mato Grosso state, barter rates are historically high now, which discourages farmers to sell the crop and

purchase fertilizers. For corn, the situation is a bit different because the Brazilian domestic market is paying higher prices than the export market, but still barter rates are historically high, Mike. Okay, thank you all. Just a slightly different question. Maybe, Claudia, if I can come

to you first on this one. Just drilling down a bit more into what farmers are doing. Are they simply cutting back on all fertilizer demand, or are they showing other traits? For example, do you see any evidence of switching to other products that might offer a better return for the nutrient content, for example? I think that that is at this point very difficult to quantify. I mean, there is overall a lot of demand destruction, 100%, where nitrogen applications are just being

reduced. But now, as I already mentioned, the European season for now is pretty much coming to an end. By the end of this month, there will basically only be some grassland demand and maybe some top dressing left across the continent. The question then moves to what are farmers going to do when it comes to winter crop planting in the autumn, or what are they going to pre-buy for the early 2027 season? That's where I think we may see some changes. For example,

Argus actually surveyed a lot of farmers in France, and there were some signs. It's still a bit early to really say, but there were some signs that some are considering reducing areas for wheat and corn, but they may actually increase areas of other crops, like rapeseed, for example, which is seen as a bit more attractive price-wise, which then would, of course, change the ratio of nutrients that those crops require. In terms of product switching between different grades, absolutely.

So, we have seen a bit more buying of nitrates in Europe in recent months when urea was so extremely expensive. That ratio seems to be shifting back now, depending on what urea prices do in the coming weeks, but certainly everyone is now looking at what is being bought, what will be bought for the early 2027 season. Currently, it looks like we're going to see low applications for that one. Taylor, do you see any habitual changes in what North American

farmers are doing? Well, there's definitely been some cutting back in terms of fertilizer purchasing and fertilizer consumption, and I think what caught most market players off guard was seeing minor demand destruction with nitrogen buying, which is usually a very inelastic demand market, as it's quite necessary for corn with initial applications and then top dress applications

later on. But this all kind of circles back to the significance of input costs. Some farmers are being forced to simply shutter their businesses because fertilizer, seed, and equipment costs are just too much and have been too much for the last couple of years. So, instead of just switching to other products, because this is such a prolonged issue, we're just seeing some people unfortunately have to put their hands up. Renata, coming to you, do you see any changes in farmer consumption

habits or any switching between products? Yes, Mike. Well, last year we saw a very significant shift from high content to low content fertilizers, especially when it comes to nitrogen and phosphates, of course. However, the situation this year is different, especially for phosphates, because the availability of low content is tighter, including when we look at the domestic production in the Brazilian market. There is a production of SSP in Brazil, but part of it is currently

halted due to the high cost of its feedstock, the sulfur. So, this leads to a destruction of demand for phosphates. As for nitrogen, we use it especially for corn in Brazil. So, there is still time for use, considering the main crop is only planted in January. But import data shows last year's trend repeating this year, with imports of ammonium sulfate still moving at a fast pace, while urea loses some ground to sulfate, Mike. Lovely. Thank you, everyone. We don't just look

at what the farmer is doing, we look and we talk to various actors in the supply chain, retailers, distributors, traders, importers. Taylor, if I can just sort of circle back to you, do you see any change in their behavior in terms of how they're trading fertilizers? Yeah, I would say regarding this portion of the supply chain, behavior is really being forced to shift in direct relation to the way farmers are being affected. I've heard from numerous traders and distributors,

retailers, that purchasing is being limited of all nutrients. Nobody wants to be caught heavy-handed, especially when any fixes to the current abysmal fertilizer complex seem incredibly far away. So, we are definitely seeing more cautiousness in typical buying behavior. We are

seeing a lot more thoughtful planning. And even just as recently as this spring, when we saw demand destruction with all the different nutrients, I've talked to multiple distributors and retailers who have said, well, we're expecting more demand destruction in the fall, so basically whatever tons we have left over for the spring, we're just going to carry on to the fall and then that will limit our fall purchasing significantly because we already don't need to do that if we have the tons

in our shed. So, it's not just something that's affecting one portion of the year or one quarter of the year. It's really an issue in terms of behavior and activity that is probably going to carry on throughout the rest of the year. Thanks, Taylor. Renata, it's sort of normal that in periods of high volatility, importers or distributors tend to want to end the season with as little in their

tank as possible. Do you see a change, and again, particularly as regards to the disparity between local prices and import prices, do you see a change in behavior in the importer and distributor side? Yes. Basically, excluding decisionality, we could use Taylor's answer and reply to Brazil. So, basically, retailers, distributors, trading companies are all trapped in the wait-and-see

mode. Farmers are holding off on buying their inputs. Retailers are concerned about buying inventory at high price levels and getting stuck with heat in the domestic market if demand collapses or if global prices suddenly correct down. So, basically, they're trying to keep inventories low and, of course, sales hand-to-mouth. Thanks, Renata. Claudia, I know, as you've already said, it is the pale end of the European season, but what do you see in terms of import and distributor

activity at present? It's a really interesting dynamic in Europe, or at least it was throughout the season, because Europe started the year with incredibly high stocks because of CBAM, which came into effect on the 1st of January, of course. So, because of that, we had pretty much record imports throughout the fourth quarter. And then the war broke out at the end of February. That meant that stocks were already really high and were then able to be worked through

throughout the season. So, the war breaking out really coincided with the season in Europe really starting. Of course, those stocks are now that we're in June. They're pretty much long gone for the most part. And since then, it's the same as in the other markets. So, everyone is really cautious. Buying pretty much hand-to-mouth. No one would be really committing to any significant quantities unless they knew they could sell them. So, it's all kind of back-to-back. And now, of

course, the season's over. So, the question mark is how are people going to plan ahead for the next year? Just to throw in a slightly contrarian question, there's obviously a lot of drama

around this whole topic. And obviously, some of that is justified. But are we in danger of overblowing the extent of demand disruption? So, for example, there are some markets, some high-end markets, like coal specialties. There are certain applications where farmers simply cannot afford not to apply. Do we see that in any of your markets where farmers just don't have an option to sort of take a fertilizer holiday and fertilizer

consumption of that particular product is barely being affected? Renata, if I could come to you on that one first. Of course, Mike. So, in general, farmers in Brazil can reduce phosphate usage for two crops in a row without reducing yields. We saw, for instance, this happen in 2022. However, nitrogen fertilizers must be used for the corn crop, meaning there may not be a drop or a

destruction of demand when it comes to nitrogen fertilizers in Brazil. We also monitor Argentina, where there's an ongoing debate over whether or not we'll see demand destruction for the wheat crop, for instance. The last harvest was very large, but the wheat's pertained content was reduced. So, for this current crop, official agencies in Argentina are forecasting a reduction

in the planted area. So, some market participants believe there will be demand destruction because of fertilizer prices, while others believe there will not be because if demand destruction occurs again, yields tend to drop. So, it varies a lot depending on each crop and especially on the yields that farmers are aiming for. Thanks, Renata. And Claudia, do you see any markets that are essentially untouched by this phenomena? No, I do think this will affect all of the European

markets if the situation continues as it is right now. Of course, you know, it's not that no crops will be planted and there won't be any wheat next year. But I do think we will see some switching, we will see some reduction. People are definitely going to really look at those spreadsheets to see where they can cut. And just lastly, Taylor, how about the US market? Well, I would say that potash has been a bit undisturbed by the issues that have been directly affecting phosphate and nitrogen

in terms of supply coming from the Mideast Gulf. But in terms of potash, even though the supply isn't necessarily affected, we are seeing higher transportation and freight costs, which are also affecting behaviors of buyers and sellers. So, at the end of the day, I mean for North America specifically, I would say that there's not a lot of overblowing in regards to the extent of demand destruction. I wouldn't say that this is necessarily a the sky is falling situation,

but it certainly is dire. And every day that goes by without a clear solution is another day that will probably lead to another handful of months next year where the entire fertilizer complex is in a really bad state. Well, that's cheery. I want to bring in the political angle

now. Taylor, if I can just come back to you. I know the Trump administration has made a lot of noise about supporting farmers, helping with fertilizer affordability. What has his government actually done to help farmers? Yes, let me try and paint a positive picture for a second here. There's obviously a long list of things I could rattle off that the Trump administration has been working on and vocalizing that will hopefully ease a lot of the fertilizer concerns.

But I'll say what I think is likely the best thing they've been doing, which is putting out there that there is significant financing the administration is willing to divulge for domestic production to increase. There's been a lot of concerns about duopolies and who's producing fertilizer and if they're trustworthy and things like that. And, you know, at the end of the day, financing project won't necessarily fix the lack of domestic production today or tomorrow.

But down the road, this could be a very major turning point as the U.S. is a net importer of most fertilizer products that end up being used. And of course, when I say down the road, I don't mean necessarily next year or the year after that. But I think the strongest thing that anybody could be doing right now is thinking about the long-term infrastructure that needs to be developed, because now obviously we can see how fragile the global infrastructure for fertilizer

really can be. Yeah, I think that's a really good point. And I think it's something that's been sort of a thing, this almost anti-globalization political movement that has seen various governments come out and espouse the virtues of domestically produced fertilizers and relying less on imports. Renata, I think the Brazilian government have made sort of noises like this in the past. Can you just give us a brief snapshot of where we are at the moment in terms of what

the government is doing to alleviate or mitigate the worst excesses? Of course, Mike. Well, Brazil has the National Fertilizer Plan, which aims to reduce the country's reliance on imports, leading to a potential increase in the local production. This year we have Petrobras production units in operation. Some went offline temporarily, but generally speaking, the FAFENGs, which are

two nitrogen producing units, are operational. So according to Petrobras, in the first quarter of this year, these two units supplied about 10 percent of the national demand for urea. We also know that Brazil has a policy known as fertilizer diplomacy. Therefore, considering challenging geopolitical context, ministers and government members usually meet with fertilizer

producing countries working to sustain this diplomacy. The Brazilian government also has the Plano Safra, which is a program that provides credit to farmers with lower interest rates. So the Plano Safra for the next crop, the 26-27, is expected to be announced soon. And of course, market participants are keeping a close eye on it. Lovely. Thank you, Renata. And Claudio, I've saved you till last because I know so much has been happening with the European Union since

the start of the year. And this is probably an impossible question, but very briefly and simply, what has the European Union been doing to support farmers? How much time do we have? Yes, there's been a lot going on. I think the biggest one to talk about now would be the Fertilizer Action Plan that they presented in May. Essentially, it's just a to-do list and it doesn't

have any kind of legislative consequence in itself. However, there were a bunch of more structural things in there and like long-term changes they want to do in Europe, things they want to promote, all nice and well. But there was also a section on kind of immediate fertilizer relief for farmers. And as part of that, actually, what we've already seen over the past week, Spain, as of time of recording this at the end of May, the Commission approved a project for

Spain to give funds of 500 million euros, make them available to farmers. So basically, this would work by giving them like 22 to 55 euros per hectare if we want to get technical. So basically, there will be money made available for farmers, the first project of which has already been approved. There's also been fuel support in France and Spain that's

already been approved. So that's kind of slowly starting to take shape. How much that's actually going to help in reality with fertilizer buying and how easily farmers can actually access the funds. I can't actually say at this point, but there are certainly things moving to support farmers with fertilizer buying. Lovely. Thank you. And I guess the biggest question of all

is what this means for food production in terms of what we're seeing in terms of planting of crops and whether this is having a material effect on some crops more than others. I think, Theda, this is something you are particularly keeping a close eye on. Yes. Well, we did initially suspect some reluctance with corn planting earlier in the

year because of corn prices being quite low. And then with soybean planting, there were concerns relating to if there is or is not a real concrete supply agreement with China, which has obviously been a big topic this year and last year. But now drought seems to be completely halting some growers in very certain regions of the Corn Belt from even planting their crops. So we won't have full clarity on these numbers until spring work fully wraps up across the nutrient board. But I

am personally a glass half empty realist type. And I think that even though the USDA expected initially about 95 million acres of corn to be planted this spring, which is still down 3% from the year before, my estimate, once spring fully wraps, is that really only closer to 92 or 93 million acres will be planted of corn, which would be helpful for corn prices, but also really

speaks to the way that farmers and planting is being affected by input costs. Okay. So then just the final question, what indicators or key events should we be looking out for over the next

three months or so as we go over the summer? Taylor, if I can just come to you first. Well, this isn't necessarily related to fertilizer, but it is a recent situation that has come to the eyes of the government and farmers, and that is the return of the new world screwworm, which was found recently in Texas and is a huge issue in terms of meat quality and cows. And this could be another domino affecting the pile of issues facing farmers right now and could honestly

cause more economic distress throughout the US, unfortunately. So we're not really necessarily looking forward to dealing with this issue on top of the Strait of Hormuz concerns, on top of hurricane season, which has already started in the US and caused a lot of issues for mosaic and nutrients, domestic production, not last year, but I believe the year before. So unfortunately, there are a couple of things that I'm keeping a really close eye on. I'd never raise, but it

pauses. Renata, how about in Brazil? Well, in Brazil, Mike, we'll obviously continue to monitor whether Petrobras production remains operational or not. There is also a unit in the southern Paraná state that is currently offline, so there's a great expectation on its resumption. Additionally, national supply company Conab is expected to release its first projections for the 26-27 crop year. There is strong expectation regarding production, especially planted area,

which should also drive fertilizer demand in Brazil. Also, we are watching closely the El Nino when and with each intensity it may affect crops. We continue to monitor the substitution of high content fertilizers for low content in Brazil and whether this demand destruction will actually materialize in 2026 and reduce deliveries. Last year, deliveries reached 49.1 million metric tons and market participants believe that this year deliveries will drop to around 10 to 15 percent.

So we'll see if this percentage is confirmed. Thanks, Renata. And Claudio, I can just let you have the final word. What's on your radar in the European market for the next two or three months, we'll say. As I've mentioned, the European producers are entering their summer maintenance season and especially in combination with the downturn of fertilizer demand and the volatile gas prices, I'm keeping a really close eye on anything coming out in that respect on are they all going back

online as planned? Is anyone potentially extending maintenance? I don't want to paint a bleak picture, I'm just purely keeping an eye on those things. The other thing is, of course, the pre-buying for 2027. Is there going to be any buying maybe in a few months time? Will it just be completely pushed back into late 2026? Those are questions that I am asking myself right now and that I'm keeping a close eye on with regards to the European market. Okay, thank you. Well, we've covered an

awful lot of ground there. Thank you, Taylor, Claudio and Renata for your time today and for trying to make sense of what is happening in these very different and very difficult fertilizer market spaces. I think this discussion just highlights how the fertilizer market sits at the centre of food security, energy markets and global trade. And when geopolitical shocks hit fertilizer demand, the effects can still show up months later in crop yields, inflation and ultimately grocery

prices around the world. And that wraps up today's episode of our Fertilizer Matters podcast. Big thank you to Claudio Wilk, European Fertilizer Editor, to Taylor Zavala, Deputy Editor of the North American Fertilizer Report and Renata Cardarelli-Gabrielli, Agricultural and Fertilizer Editor, the Argus Brazil Grains and Fertilizer publication. Thank you all. Thanks very much for having us. And as always, thanks for listening. We'll be recording another episode very soon,

so don't forget to look out for that. And if you want to get in touch with us, feel free to email your thoughts or questions at fertilizer-m at argusmedia.com. Until then, this is Mike Nash for Argus Media. Bye for now.