8 comments

  • ericpauley 46 minutes ago
    Title claims "due to plains drought" but the article text largely attributes this to increased planting of soy for its lower fertilizer requirements (related to Strait of Hormuz).
    • mohamedkoubaa 23 minutes ago
      At many of these publications the editor chooses the title, not the author. They know full well that most people will read the headline but not the article.
    • fullstop 34 minutes ago
      Has the USA's potash supply been reduced due to strained relations with Canada? They are our top supplier, by far.
      • metiscus 31 minutes ago
        Fertilizer is pretty fungible and is a global market, so even if the US is primarily supplied by Canada, and overall global demand remained constant, prices would go up since there will be supply reduction due to the Hormuz strait being closed.
      • koverstreet 33 minutes ago
        Are you forgetting the nitrogen? :)
        • bluGill 28 minutes ago
          The US provides a lot of its own supply there.
          • colechristensen 23 minutes ago
            Nitrogen is pulled out of the air which is free but the process requires hydrogen which is acquired from disassembled methane, the price of which is a significant contributor.
        • fullstop 24 minutes ago
          The US produces most of their own nitrogen, but the same is not true of potash.
      • SecretDreams 8 minutes ago
        Yes. Despite what others have said, yes. But, in general, because of the current global dynamics, fertilizer is more expensive wherever you're going to be getting it from. It just doesn't help that the US has picked a trade war with all allies at the same time, while also engaging in real wars that disrupt global supply chains of critical resources.
      • colechristensen 22 minutes ago
        It's the nitrogen fertilizer almost all of which is manufactured from methane + air.
    • SecretDreams 9 minutes ago
      Agreed.

      But there's a very weird underlying sentiment on HN where many people seem to directly or indirectly jump whenever they can to downplay the existence of climate change. Sometimes, they are emboldened by articles like this which intentionally use misleading headlines.

      You're completely right, though, that in this instance, soy beans were mostly focused on because of consumer trends and less fertilizer need. Wheat is just an expensive crop right now. Also, soybeans would actually be less resilient to drought which furthers your point re: the article headline.

  • btbuildem 46 minutes ago
    > growers expanded plantings of soybeans, which require less fertilizer than grains like corn and wheat

    It's not the drought per se, it's input costs. Farmers are favouring crops that need less nitrogen and potassium.

    Commodities have responded accordingly.

    • embedding-shape 44 minutes ago
      > growers expanded plantings of soybeans

      A year ago China stopped buying soybeans from the US is seems ("China Bought $12.6 Billion in U.S. Soybeans Last Year. Now, It’s $0." - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/25/business/china-soybean-sa...), was that resumed, or who are all these new soybeans going to? Is it all for national use instead of export?

      • bluGill 25 minutes ago
        When China buys from someone else (Brazil - nobody else has significant soy bean surplus) that means whoever was buying from that someone else now needs to go to the US.

        The US also uses a lot of soy beans internally. Prices are down, but farmers are still selling soybeans and with careful management are making money.

      • cogman10 38 minutes ago
        I expect other nations are still consuming US soybeans. China stopped because it was particularly negatively targeted by US tariff policy.

        But make no mistake, it has caused problems for farmers.

        The report from my small hometown farmers is that everything, except for beef, is down right now while the prices of inputs like fertilizer are high. Some of the farmers in my hometown have already sold their land to megacorp farmers in response because they simply can't survive.

        • embedding-shape 25 minutes ago
          > I expect other nations are still consuming US soybeans

          But who? Compared to 2024, 2025 had almost half soybean exports it seems (https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/commodities/soybeans), I'm guessing most of the difference was China basically stopped buying soybeans.

          But it's a huge difference, yet production seems to be ramping up? I don't understand why they'd do that when the exports are going down?

          • cogman10 9 minutes ago
            I don't think it's ramping up [1]. Production is pretty static.

            And the chart you linked appears that exports for non-china countries is basically static.

            Were I to guess what's going on, but we'll see when the 2026 data comes in, is that soy farmers are likely storing a good portion of their bean harvest. Some will still have contracts that keep them farming. I suspect that many have switched over to other crops.

            [1] https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/production/2222000

          • kipchak 13 minutes ago
            There's a risk of food prices increasing across the board and shortages in poorer countries if fertilizer exports stay restricted, or in other words increased demand for soybeans in the later half of 2026.
        • fullstop 29 minutes ago
          It wouldn't surprise me, at all, if the soybeans rotted away with no consumers.
      • Forgeties79 41 minutes ago
        China has a tendency to shift to self-reliance or importing from more pliable neighborswhenever they execute policies like that. So even if they’re buying again, I highly doubt it is at the same rate it once was
  • eightysixfour 39 minutes ago
    Western hay prices are as much as double what they were last year for feed: https://www.reddit.com/r/homestead/comments/1ta64d0/breaking...
    • qrios 18 minutes ago
      When I read this thread, "Interstellar" immediately comes to mind.

      Thanks for sharing!

  • giantg2 49 minutes ago
    It will only get worse for the next generation as the aquafers are continuing to be depleted.
    • bell-cot 11 minutes ago
      Yes - but at current rates, it won't take anything like an actual generation to get substantially worse.
    • dakolli 40 minutes ago
      we live in a closed greenhouse system, the water just doesn't just disappear and most of the Earth is covered in it. Plenty of countries completely rely on desalination already, I think we'll be fine. I'm much more concerned about everyone becoming a moron from using AI.
      • shagie 21 minutes ago
        > Plenty of countries completely rely on desalination already

        Let's take Kansas... the largest producer of wheat in the US. https://www.statista.com/statistics/190376/top-us-states-in-...

        Kansas wheat crop down 38% from last year https://youtu.be/QjrhAXzEGDc

        Kansas cannot run on desalination plants ... there's no salt water. The gulf coast of Texas is 1000 miles away.

        While aquifers do regenerate (Groundwater levels in the Kansas High Plains aquifer see first overall increase since 2019 https://kgs.ku.edu/news/article/groundwater-levels-in-the-ka... ) I'm going to point out that news article has seven years of declines previously.

        The aquifer that Kansas draws upon is the Ogallala Aquifer ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer ) and you can see the rate of depletion at https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/nation... - there are spots in Kansas where the groundwater dropped by 150 feet from before it was tapped with deep wells to 2015.

        Yes, most of the earth is covered by water. Getting that water to Kansas and Nebraska and North Dakota, however, is a problem.

      • atomicnumber3 37 minutes ago
        The problem is that aquifers are really cool natural filters, and only refill as fast as groundwater moves through the soil. So they're a finite resource. Instead of depleting them, people who want to farm in deserts should probably start desalinating or whatever themselves instead of assuming subsequent generations will do it.
        • mothballed 26 minutes ago
          The government made it literally the only way to claim much of the land out west[]. They require that you come up with an agricultural land including plan for watering crops on that acreage in order to claim the land. And you're required to execute the plan to get the deed.

          In fact, this is the only remaining way I know of to more or less 'homestead' federal land in a way that results in a permanent deed. The rest of the homesteading type stuff was revoked back in like the 70s or 80s.

          [] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Land_Act

          • datsci_est_2015 22 minutes ago
            Is this relevant in 2026? Are people still claiming land via the 1877 Desert Land Act?
            • mothballed 20 minutes ago
              Yet it's still active. As a pure anecdote, I know of someone doing it right now.

              https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/Desert%20Land%20Entr...

            • tekla 14 minutes ago
              Do you think laws go away just because they're old?

              The Colorado River compact came into effect in 1922 and I'm almost surprised literal fist fights haven't erupted over it during the modern negotiations.

      • dopa42365 25 minutes ago
        and desalination is so efficient/cheap at scale already that it barely affects water prices in those countries (less than 10% already, further shrinking every year as methods improve)
      • andsoitis 19 minutes ago
        > Plenty of countries completely rely on desalination already

        There are only 3 countries that do: Bahamas, Maldives, and Malta.

        Other countries that depend heavily, but not completely: Qatar, Kuwait, UAE.

      • vel0city 29 minutes ago
        Desalination isn't really much of an option for deeper inland and much higher than sea level areas. Tell me, which ocean is Dodge City KS going to pull from?
        • ChrisRR 12 minutes ago
          Global warming will bring the sea to them
      • Imustaskforhelp 29 minutes ago
        Plants require a ton of desalinated water and Animals who eat plants as such require desalinated water too.

        There are countries in middle east like UAE, Saudi arabia etc. which rely on desalination but they are relying it for the clean drinking water, not for the food generation. They import almost 90% of their food iirc.

        The amount of energy required to desalinate all water and the environmental impacts to get that energy would literally be quite catastrophic and I am not even sure if it would be even feasible and food prices would literally skyrocket or food would simply be produced even more less by magnitudes of order.

      • pixl97 30 minutes ago
        This is by far the dumbest post in this thread by a mile. It's funny saying AI will make people dumber when you've obviously don't understand this issue in the first place. Food security is human security. When you take a huge percentage of a countries grow able land out because it stops raining then food proces go up, often dramatically.

        Desalination uses far more power than AI ever would.

        • hnthrow0287345 25 minutes ago
          And if we wait until large scale desalination becomes profitable, it will be too late to respond quickly without massive upheaval and deaths.

          This is where capitalism drives humanity off a cliff.

      • HelloMcFly 26 minutes ago
        The energy required to transport water from the coast to our major agricultural areas would be astronomical, and the resulting brine waste would create its own environmental crisis. If we get to a point where we're forced to bypass natural water cycles entirely, our native ecologies will have already collapsed. At that point, we'll be trying to engineer our way out of a total ecological apocalypse as masses starve in bread lines.
  • evanjrowley 46 minutes ago
    Same region all the new data centers are being built. Unfortunately, humans can't eat data like they can wheat.
    • Jgrubb 43 minutes ago
      "All the new data centers" are being built everywhere.
      • dgellow 31 minutes ago
        They are planned everywhere, if they are actually being built is a different story
      • jeffbee 22 minutes ago
        Largely not. Data center people aren't idiots. They site their projects in places with water and power, or if not power then at least gas. I don't think you'd be able to point out a project that actually exists and is competing for a scarce local water resource.
        • bluGill 18 minutes ago
          Data centers don't use much water on the scale of things. The numbers look big in isolation, but most people have no idea how much water a country really needs and isolating the numbers makes data centers look bad.
    • 9rx 37 minutes ago
      You can eat soybeans, though, which are seeing record production thanks to it supplanting what is affectionately known in agriculture circles as poverty grass.
      • threetonesun 34 minutes ago
        There's some cosmic irony that this is happening when the people who came up with the derogatory term "soy boys" are in office, but I'm too depressed to laugh about it.
      • fullstop 26 minutes ago
        Perhaps someone in the industry can chime in, but I had read that the soybeans that the US primarily grows and previously sold to China were used for pig feed. In my mind I pictured it like "cow corn" -- humans technically can eat it, but it's chewy and not very good.

        Are there different grades of soybean?

        • bluGill 21 minutes ago
          There are different grades with different properties. However very few are consumed by humans. When sold for humans it is called edamame.

          The most common use is crush the beans, and collect the oil feeding the rest to pigs. If you read the ingredients at the grocery store, soy bean oil comes up a lot. Soy bean oil is also often used in diesel engines after processing.

          • fullstop 17 minutes ago
            My wife couldn't understand why I didn't care for edamame. After 40+ years on this planet I finally figured out that I really struggle to digest soy protein. They sneak that stuff in everywhere, but I do my best to avoid it.
          • walthamstow 15 minutes ago
            > When sold for humans it is called edamame.

            or tofu, soy sauce, miso, natto, tianmianjiang, a thousand other things made from soybeans

            • bluGill 11 minutes ago
              all of them are heavily processed and don't look like soy beans. (not everything heavily processed is unhealthy)
              • 9rx 9 minutes ago
                Natto still looks like soybeans when they arrive on your plate. They are fermented, but calling that heavily processed seems like a stretch.
          • 9rx 17 minutes ago
            > When sold for humans it is called edamame.

            Edamame is limited to special varieties that are harvested before ripening, which isn't the soybeans those supplanting wheat will be growing. You're probably thinking of tofu, natto, or something in that vein.

            • bluGill 10 minutes ago
              Most of those things don't look like soy beans. (then again almost nobody is eating unprocessed wheat either)
        • forshaper 6 minutes ago
          I would appreciate tofu being cheaper than pork again.
        • 9rx 21 minutes ago
          > humans technically can eat it, but it's chewy and not very good.

          Not just technically. It is a relatively common food. A fair bit of it is crushed (i.e. turned into cooking oil). But it is also a product used in a number of processed foods, tofu, etc. Granted, it does seem to be eaten less commonly in the USA, but is more often used in Asian cuisines.

          > Are there different grades of soybean?

          All crops have different grades. Poor weather conditions is the most likely reason for a downgrade.

    • jeffbee 25 minutes ago
      Wheat, being basically worthless, is predominantly not irrigated. A data center that draws water from a river or aquifer is not a rival to wheat, which relies on rain. When farmers have invested in irrigation they largely grow something else that's worth actual money.
  • belzebub 42 minutes ago
    Why do we have a drought USDA?
    • superxpro12 34 minutes ago
      Well if we dont test for it, then is there really a drought???
    • 9rx 31 minutes ago
      Little to no rain.
  • jmyeet 28 minutes ago
    This is about China. The timing of this article coming out during the Trump-China summit is no accident. The article beat around the bush (pun intended) that the real issue here is that China stopped buying (or seriously cut back) US agricultural products (particularly soy) because of tariffs imposed on China last year that got to over 100% at one point. China now buys significantly more soy from Argentina instead.

    The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is another big factor here as fertilizer prices have massively gone up. Diesel is more expensive too. Many crops this planting season (in the northern hemisphere) haven't been fertilized like they would normally and it's too late now so that will absolutely impact food prices later this year. The Global South will be disproportionately affected.

    Lastly, the continued Russia-Ukraine war continues to impact Ukraine's wheat crops. Ukraine is (or was?) often called the "bread basket of Europe" because it was such a significant wheat grower and exporter.

    We (the world) are genuinely going to have much more expensive food prices later this year and, in some places, there will be genuine famine.

    • bluGill 20 minutes ago
      You are mostly correct, but note that China has resumed buying US soy beans in the past few months.
    • alt227 19 minutes ago
      > This is about China.

      From what your saying it sounds more about Tariffs

  • redsocksfan45 48 minutes ago
    [dead]