“When Rising Costs Meet Tight Timelines”
- Apr 13
- 4 min read
Updated: 3 days ago
by Barrett Self
A South Dakota Story with Wider Implications
A farmer from Mitchell, South Dakota, doesn’t usually make national headlines. But this spring, one did.
In a recent Newsweek article, Mitchell-area farmer Chet Edinger described scrambling to secure fertilizer as global tensions disrupted supply lines. Within days, prices surged. Then, just as quickly, supply dried up.
“You can’t even buy it right now if you wanted to,” he said.
For those who spend time on the land, there is something familiar in that kind of moment. Not necessarily the geopolitics, but the feeling. The sense that decisions made far away have a way of arriving unannounced, right when the planter is supposed to be rolling. This is not just a story about one farmer or one season. It is a glimpse into how tightly modern agriculture is tied to systems that stretch far beyond the fence line. Diesel prices jumped sharply in a matter of days. Nitrogen fertilizer—already volatile—spiked as well, with some farmers paying significantly more than just months ago. In some places, it is not just expensive—it is unavailable.
That last part matters.
Because farming does not operate on flexible timelines. Crops do not wait for markets to settle. Spring comes when it comes.
Family Farms Are Living Through Tight Margins
For decades, agriculture has benefited from relatively stable and affordable energy: diesel to move equipment, natural gas to produce nitrogen fertilizer, and global supply chains to deliver it all more or less on time.
But moments like this raise a quiet question:
What happens when those assumptions no longer hold—even for a season?
Not as a political question. Not even strictly as an economic one. But as a practical, on-the-ground reality.
What changes first?
Do we make fewer passes across the field?
Do we adjust planting decisions?
Do we rethink how much fertilizer we apply or where it comes from? or...
Do we simply absorb the cost and hope for a better year next time?
There is no single answer. Every operation carries its own soils, weather patterns, crop mix, and financial realities.
But there may be another way to think about it.
Systems That Require Less – Framing Regenerative Agriculture
Some producers have been moving—gradually and often experimentally—toward systems that simply require less.
Less fuel.
Fewer passes.
Less reliance on purchased fertility over time.
In many cases, reducing tillage means fewer trips across the field, which can lower fuel use and labor. Those savings often show up first. Changes in fertilizer use tend to come more slowly. As soil structure improves, biological activity increases, and practices like cover cropping are introduced, some farmers report being able to reduce nitrogen inputs over time—sometimes modestly at first, and more substantially as the system matures. In the first few years of transition, fertilizer reductions may be modest. But as aggregation improves, microbial nutrient cycling increases, and cover crops begin fixing nitrogen and retaining nutrients more effectively, many farmers report significantly lower nitrogen fertilizer inputs, and some advanced regenerative operations report 30–60% lower synthetic fertilizer use over time.
Not every farm sees the same results. Not every soil responds the same way. And transitions, where they happen, take time.
But the direction is worth noting.
Because the benefit is not only about cost savings in a given year. It is about reducing dependence on inputs that are priced—and sometimes supplied—far beyond the farm gate. Years ago, SDSU's Dwayne Beck made a simple observation that has stuck with us: the farmer’s real job is to harvest sunlight and water. Everything else—fuel, fertilizer, machinery—is meant to support that process.
Somewhere along the way, many of those supporting inputs became central to the system itself. Reliable. Essential. Assumed.
Until, occasionally, they are not.
And in those moments, resilience becomes the real question.
What parts of a farming system keep working when diesel spikes?
When is fertilizer delayed?
When supply chains falter?
The systems that rely less on external rescue tend to bend without breaking. That does not mean every farm should look the same. Nor does it mean every operation must change overnight. But it does suggest that building healthier soils, reducing unnecessary passes, increasing biological function, and growing more fertility in place may be more than environmental goals. They may be a financial strategy. They may be risk management. They may be what keeps family farms viable for the next generation.
Chet Edinger’s story in Mitchell, South Dakota, is not an isolated event. It is a reminder.
The pressures arriving at one gate this spring may arrive at another tomorrow.
The question is not whether agriculture will face more volatility. It will.
The question is:
What kind of systems are we building before that moment comes?
What do you think?
Are rising fuel and fertilizer costs changing how you think about your operation timeline—and could regenerative practices play a role in making farms stronger for the long run?
Visit these “Growing Resilience Through Our Soils” information pages:
1. Podcast page for drought planning fact sheets, Q&As, news, podcasts, and more.
2. Video page to watch videos of other ranchers’ journeys toward improved rangeland/pasture.
3. Follow Growing Resilience on social media:
4. Our homepage: www.growingresiliencesd.com
Comments