Cited by 91Economics of Agriculture and Food MarketsAgricultural economics and policiesAgricultural risk and resilience

Global shocks to fertilizer markets: Impacts on prices, demand and farm profitability

Open access
Vos, Rob, Glauber, Joseph, Hebebrand, Charlotte, Rice, Brendan·2025·Food Policy

Abstract

• Supply chain disruptions caused major spikes in fertilizer prices during 2021–2022. • Globally, the price shocks only had a muted impact on fertilizer usage. • On average, profitability for commercial crop producers was affected only mildly. • Farmer profitability in low-income Africa was affected more severely, however. • Low usage makes African smallholders less vulnerable to fertilizer supply shocks. During 2021–2022, spiking fertilizer prices raised fears that fertilizer application would drop around the world, leading to lower crop production, higher food prices, and greater food insecurity. Even writing mid-2024, a paucity of data impedes a full assessment of how the underlying global market shocks may have affected farmers and food production around the world. Using proxy indicators for fertilizer demand and farm profitability, we find that despite the steep increase in input costs, global demand for fertilizer fell only modestly during the 2022–2023 crop cycle, suggesting many (commercial) farmers were able and willing to absorb increased input costs in the context of generally good harvest prospects and, at the time, high crop prices. However, we also find the fertilizer price spikes have not been felt equally, with many farmers in Africa estimated to have been affected more adversely, even though with varied impacts also amongst those farmers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102790

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vos, R., Glauber, J., Hebebrand, C., & Rice, B.
Affiliations
International Food Policy Research Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Vos, Rob
Venue
Food Policy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-05
Volume
133
Pages
102790
ISSN
0306-9192 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4405736589
Cited by
91
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 68 · 2025: 23
FWCI
32.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Food Policy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • CGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • European Commission
  • USAID
  • UK Government Foreign Commonwealth & Development Office
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economics of Agriculture and Food Markets
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Agricultural economics and policies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Agricultural risk and resilience
Keywords
fertilizer prices, fertilizer demand, supply chain disruption, farm profitability, smallholder farmers, Africa, input costs, food security, crop production, food prices

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review