The full cost of fertilizer tariffs – and then some – may have been passed through to farmers in 2025, according to data released Tuesday by North Dakota State University (NDSU).
In its monthly Agricultural Trade Monitor, NDSU found that tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) collected an estimated $958 million in revenue from selected imports of agricultural inputs between February and October of last year. Of that, about:
- $273 million came from agricultural chemicals
- $530 million from farm machinery
- $110 million from fertilizers
- $44 million from seeds.
The report observes that when fertilizer tariffs were imposed in April, U.S. fertilizer prices significantly rose relative to Canadian prices, which weren’t subject to the tariff. The premium for DAP, measured by the difference between prices in the U.S. Northern Plains versus Canadian prices, climbed to $343 per metric ton at its peak during the tariff period, marking an increase of $172 per metric ton from pre-tariff baseline levels. MAP and urea each saw a similar divergence.
So who pays the cost of tariffs? The burden can either be distributed between exporters, who eat the cost by reducing export prices, or importer and end users, who pay higher prices. The analysis of the U.S.-Canada spread “indicates that domestic importers and farmers bore the tariff burden substantially,” says the report, noting price movements during the tariff period seemed to exceed the direct cost of the tariff itself.
The report notes the effective tariff rate on DAP imports was approximately 8% of the import value, while year-over-year spot price analysis showes the differential between U.S. and Canadian spot prices rose by $187 per metric ton in August 2025 compared with August 2024. That’s equivalent to a 342% pass-through rate when measured against the 8% tariff. At the retail level, the pass-through rate was lower at 156%, but still exceeded 100%.
Context is important, says Shawn Arita, associate director and associate research professor at NDSU’s Agricultural Risk Policy Center. He notes the $110 million in IEEPA tariff revenues for fertilizers is less than 1% of the estimated $33 billion in total production costs.
“The high pass-through rate may reflect the uncertainty around tariff levels that prevailed around President Donald Trump’s April “liberation day” announcement of reciprocal tariffs,” Arita says. “It was unclear whether some exporters would be subject to levies above 10% as importers moved to stockpile inventory.”
The report notes retailers engaged in “precautionary” inventory building, while exporters may have been worried about sustained access to the U.S. market. Those uncertainties may have combined to widen price premiums beyond what would be expected from the direct impact of the tariffs.
NDSU’s monthly analysis found year-over-year premiums hit major peaks in August and September, with DAP spot premiums hitting $187 per metric ton before gradually normalizing through November. Retail markets saw lower volatility, with DAP retail premiums peaking at $123 per metric ton in September.
Premiums eased from September to November, reflecting the easing of “extreme” supply constraints as the policy environment became more clear, the report says.
Following tariff exemptions granted in November, U.S. price differentials with Canada caused by the tariffs converged back to normal, the report found. DAP spot prices have retraced most of their tariff-driven increases, and MAP prices have fully reversed their increases, trading slightly below pre-tariff levels.
While wholesale prices fell sharply after the November rollback, retail prices are adjusting more slowly.
“As of early January 2026, farmers buying fertilizer from local retailers continue to face price stickiness, paying tariff-induced premiums above pre-tariff baseline levels,” the report says.