As energy and fertilizer prices climb, American farmers feel the impact of the county's conflict with Iran

Synthetic urea-based fertilizers are commonly used to provide nitrogen to U.S. crops. American farmers
worry that an extended war with Iran could make supplies scant. (Global Trade Tracker graph)

Whether it's citrus crops in Florida, corn in the American heartland or wheat grown in the Dakotas, U.S. farms, which are thousands of miles from the Straits of Hormuz, are already feeling strained by the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran. The length and intensity of the conflict will determine how deeply American farms and the businesses and consumers that rely on them will be affected. 

"Farmers are now feeling the impact in Iran with not only higher fertilizer prices, but the concern that farmers may not even be able to find enough fertilizer for spring," reports Tyne Morgan of Farm Journal. "As the situation unfolded over the past week, analysts say the reaction across commodity markets illustrated just how closely agriculture is tied to global energy and political dynamics."

The war has already led some U.S. farmers to shift the amount of corn they plan to grow. "Corn is far more fertilizer-intensive than soybeans, particularly when it comes to nitrogen," Morgan explains. "When fertilizer prices rise sharply, the relative profitability of soybeans often improves quickly." Most U.S. farmers use synthetic urea fertilizer or anhydrous ammonia to provide their crops with sufficient nitrogen for high-yield, healthy growth.

Beyond corn, wheat crop farmers generally use hefty amounts of urea-based fertilizer, so those farmers may change how many acres of spring wheat they decide to plant this April. Chip Nellinger, founder of Blue Reef Agri-Marketing, told Farm Journal, "There’s a lot of nitrogen that needs applied on U.S. wheat acres here over the coming three or four months ahead of us.”

U.S. farmers want to see the situation with Iran de-escalate and shipping lanes reopen. Morgan reports, "Much of the global focus right now remains on reopening critical energy shipping lanes and restoring stability to oil markets. . . . If that happens quickly, the agricultural ripple effects may prove temporary."

Rural voting posts bigger percentage than urban or metro in Texas primaries

Graph by The Daily Yonder, from New York Times data

Texas election primaries last week drew a big turnout, with a surprising number of rural voters showing up at the polls. "Texas primary voters turned out in striking numbers this week, with early voting fueling a surge that dominated state headlines," reports Madeline de Figueiredo of The Daily Yonder. "Compared to their urban and suburban counterparts, a greater share of rural voters cast their ballots in the Texas primaries this year."

Both parties had dramatic challenges for seats that will be highly competitive in the November elections. De Figueiredo writes, "Major outlets reported record-breaking Democratic participation in a closely-watched Senate showdown between U.S. Representative Jasmine Crockett and State Representative James Talarico."

Republican voters had a hard time choosing between U.S. Sen. John Cornyn and state Attorney General Ken Paxton. Since neither Cornyn nor Paxton received a majority, their contest moves to a runoff in May.

Amid the surge in voter engagement, rural counties led the charge. "About 26% of registered rural voters showed up to the polls on Tuesday, the highest turnout rate among all county types," the Yonder reports. "The majority of votes were cast in the Democratic primary, the first time this has occurred since the 2020 presidential primary."

The number of ballots cast across the Lone Star State in the primaries increased "47% compared to the last midterm elections in 2022," de Figueiredo writes.

Although suburban and urban voters posted the largest gains in voter turnout, rural counties still "posted the highest turnout percentage among all county types," the Yonder reports.

Energized voting bases and increased population were both cited as reasons for the increase in voter turnout.

JBS beef meatpackers in Colorado plan strike over pay and company charges for protective equipment

JBS is the number one beef producer in the U.S.
(JBS photo)

American consumers are paying at or near record prices for beef, while nearly 3,800 workers at a JBS beef meatpacking plant in Greeley, Colorado, say little of the extra cash Americans are shelling out is going into their wallets, and they're planning to go on strike next week, reports Tom Polansek of Reuters.

The planned strike ‌"pits a workforce made up largely of immigrants against the world's largest meat company, and it has already driven ranchers to deliver cattle to alternate facilities," Polansek explains. "Meatpackers, including JBS, benefit from climbing prices but also must pay ​record costs to buy cattle to slaughter."

Despite livestock costs, JBS is still posting significant profits. Polansek notes, "JBS in November reported third-quarter profit of $581 million, ⁠down from $693 million a year earlier.

Kim Cordova, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7 union that represents workers in Greeley, told Reuters, "While customers are paying more than they ever have, none ​of that is trickling down to the frontline worker that's actually doing all the heavy work."

Cordova said JBS fails to adhere to labor laws and has "not negotiated fairly on a new contract over the past eight months," Polansek reports. She told Reuters that workers want a wage that helps them keep up with inflation, and they "want the company to ​stop charging them for replacing protective equipment they wear to do their jobs safely."

For now, JBS has denied Cordova's claims and is standing by its contract offer. JBS told Polansek, "It is strong, fair, and consistent with the historic national contract reached in 2025."

Meanwhile, cattle feeders are moving where they plan to sell their livestock. One feeder told Polansek, "We've ​got way more kill space than finished cattle ready ​to slaughter."

Rural hospitals will be hurt the most from Minnesota Medicaid cuts

Government action, such as cuts to Medicaid in Minnesota, has an “outsized impact” on rural residents, Sarah Melotte reports for the Daily Yonder.

The Trump administration recently announced its intent to withhold $259 million from Minnesota’s Medicaid reimbursements due to fraud concerns. CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz said Medicaid funds in Minnesota were going to "bogus" centers for autistic children and a behavioral health organization that had bills showing doctors working 24 hours a day for more than 450 days.

Percentage of hospital revenue coming from low-income health insurance programs. (Map by Sarah Melotte, Daily Yonder, data from the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, Click to enlarge)

Rural hospitals are disproportionately affected by these cuts. Melotte explains that rural hospitals are more likely to operate with negative profit margins than urban hospitals, and 39 of Minnesota’s 98 rural hospitals have negative operating margins. This means the rate of uncompensated care will increase even more in these rural hospitals.

Some of these hospitals are able to stay open using non-operating revenue, such as taxes or philanthropy, but this isn’t the case for all of them, reports Melotte. More than 100 rural hospitals throughout the U.S. have had to close in the last decade, causing rural residents to have to travel farther to access the care that they need.

One nonprofit in Minnesota that houses people with disabilities reported to Minnesota Public Radio that “any cuts to Medicaid funding will directly result in reduced services.”

Medicaid now accounts for around 19% of discharges in rural hospitals nationwide, Melotte writes. “In communities where hospitals operate on thin margins, even small cuts in federal spending can destabilize entire systems of care.”

Food manufacturers tell Trump and Republican lawmakers to choose sides

NAM's report works to explain the food industry's many moving
parts. (National Association of Manufacturers graphic)

After months of trying to avoid direct conflict with  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or drawing ire from President Donald Trump, the food industry decided it's done dodging the battle.

"America’s food-makers have a message for Trump and Republican lawmakers: You must choose between Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s agenda and ours," reports Amanda Chu of Politico. At its core, Kennedy's "Make American Health Again" plan includes more regulation, and manufacturers say that will increase costs, potentially limit food supplies or consumer access to certain foods.

To drive their message home, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) released a video and report titled Manufacturers Feed America, which "warns the food industry is 'under increasing strain,'" Chu writes. The video explains that American consumers won't benefit from a state-by-state "patchwork" of rules that don't account for food production dynamics and challenges. The report points out that regulation will inevitably increase food prices.

NAM wants national uniform standards along with "a seat at the table on policies stemming from Kennedy’s MAHA agenda," Chu adds. NAM CEO Jay Timmons called Kennedy's policies and tactics "a business killer." Timmons maintains that Kennedy's attacks on U.S. manufacturers don't align with Trump's promise to reinvigorate U.S. manufacturing. 

Meanwhile, Kennedy has given food-maker concerns "little deference," Chu adds. "He said he thinks the deference policymakers have shown them in the past was a byproduct of the Washington swamp."

The timing of NAM's publicly shared report and video reflects the industry's awareness of "Republican vulnerabilities on the economy in an effort to push their agenda ahead of the November midterm elections," Chu writes. Midterm outcomes will "shape Trump’s influence for the remainder of his term."

Whatever the agenda, American consumers are weary of increasing food costs. Chu reports, "November’s Politico Poll with Public First found Americans across demographics rank cost of living as the nation’s top problem, with 45% naming grocery prices as their 'most challenging' expense, surpassing housing and health care costs."

Newly formed nonprofit can help with heath care copays, prescription payments and heath insurance denials

Last year the two companies awarded $200k to patients who
needed financial health care help. (Photo by J. Trierweiler)

Uninsured Americans or those with health insurance coverage who are facing sky-high bills or insurance denials might be able to turn to a newly merged nonprofit for assistance.

The Patient Advocate Foundation and the Patient Access Network Foundation joined together and are now operating as the Patient Advocate Foundation. Peter Loftus of The Wall Street Journal reports, "The merger created a nonprofit with more than $800 million in assets to help patients pay for drug copays and appeal health-plan coverage denials."

For many Americans dealing with expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies, job loss or employment that doesn't offer health care benefits, the merger offers a safety net. Loftus writes, "The nonprofits said the combination will allow them to better serve low- and middle-income patients facing rising healthcare costs, including many who have lost insurance coverage."

Patient Advocate Foundation Chief Executive Alan Balch told the Journal, "More people are struggling to pay for care and basic needs than ever before, and the safety net’s being stretched thinner and thinner."

Before the merger, the two nonprofits focused on different health care challenges faced by many Americans. The PAN Foundation helped patients "defray co-pays and other out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs," Loftus explains. The Patient Advocate Foundation assisted patients who needed to file appeals for health care insurance denials.

In 2025, the two companies made "$273 million in direct payments to patients," Loftus adds. "They awarded financial assistance to nearly 200,000 people during that period."

As one company, the Patient Advocate Foundation will need patients to complete only one application to access all its services.