Study finds U.S. farmers pay higher input prices than Brazil

CHESTERFIELD, Mo. — U.S. farmers often pay more than Brazilian competitors for key seed and crop production inputs, with the largest gaps occurring in corn seed, fungicide and herbicides, according to a new report.

The study was conducted by Kynetec in partnership with the National Corn Growers Association.

The findings include:

Corn

Across all corn seed comparisons, U.S. prices were considerably higher, averaging a 68% premium over Brazil from 2023 to 2025.

The gap remained substantial even against Brazil’s higher-cost summer corn, with U.S. prices 63% higher than Brazilian summer corn and 74% higher than winter corn.

Seed traits and production systems differ between countries, but a notable gap remains even when comparing widely used trait packages.

Manufacturer-level comparisons show the difference is not limited to a single company or product line; major brands show sizable U.S. price premiums, as well.

Soybeans

Overall, soybean seed prices were higher in the United States, with a 24% premium over Brazil from 2023 to 2025.

In Brazil, most soybean varieties include both herbicide and insect resistance, while U.S. farmers more commonly use herbicide-only varieties.

Even so, the premium for herbicide-resistant soybean seed was larger to the broader soybean seed gap, despite much of the Brazilian seed included insect resistance.

That makes the comparison especially noteworthy and reinforces that farmers are paying not just for seed, but for the traits, pest-management tools and risk protection built into their production systems.

Fungicides

Fungicides show some of the largest price differences, with some comparisons showing U.S. prices more than double Brazilian levels depending on the crop, product category, active ingredient and year. Part of that difference reflects the different structure of the two markets.

In Brazil, the top five global research and development manufacturers account for less than half of the fungicide supply for both crops, compared with roughly three-quarters or more of the market in the United States.

Products from global R&D manufacturers generally carry a higher value per unit than products from other manufacturers, including generics or older active ingredients.

Brazil also uses a larger share of lower-cost fungicide treatments, while U.S. growers more often use higher-cost, multi-molecule formulations. Even when the comparison is narrowed to single active ingredients used in both countries, notable price differences remain.

Herbicides

Across corn and soybeans, Kynetec reports that U.S. herbicide prices were higher than Brazilian prices, with many comparisons showing U.S. prices near double Brazil’s levels.

The herbicide market structure is more similar across the two countries than the fungicide market, but important differences remain.

The top five global R&D manufacturers lead in both markets and hold a somewhat larger share in the United States than in Brazil.

Their products carry a premium in both countries, but that premium is much larger in the United States, reflecting a greater share of more complex formulations.

Brazil relies more heavily on lower-cost active ingredients, while U.S. growers use some of those same molecules alongside more expensive formulations.

Widely used active ingredients in both countries, including glufosinate, 2,4-D, atrazine, mesotrione and S-metolachlor, followed the overall trend of higher U.S. prices.

Even glyphosate, a more commoditized active ingredient used broadly in both markets, tracked more closely than other herbicides, but still cost U.S. growers about 35% more than Brazilian growers in 2025.

Insecticide

Insecticide gaps varied by crop, but often favored Brazil.

Kynetic’s results show that U.S. corn insecticide prices were materially higher, averaging 87% higher from 2023 to 2025. The soybean insecticide gap was smaller, averaging 31% over the same period, but still meaningful.

Molecule-level comparisons reinforce the general finding that Brazilian growers often pay less for the same or similar active ingredients. Unlike some other crop protection categories, local manufacturers dominate the insecticide market in both countries.

Products from global R&D manufacturers carry a premium over local or generic alternative in both markets, but that relative premium is more similar across the United States and Brazil than other categories.

The larger difference is in product mix: Brazil uses a higher share of lower-cost molecules, including roughly 60% of corn insecticide treatments and 50% of soybean insecticide treatments, while U.S. growers more often use different molecules or more expensive premixes.

Input Task Force

The report is the culmination of months of work by NCGA’s Inputs Task Force, chaired by NCGA President Matt Frostic, of Applegate in eastern Michigan, and formed to identify the factors contributing to sustained record or near-record input cost highs facing farmers in recent years.

The task force identified the research to understand U.S. costs versus those of their South American counterparts as a foundational piece of work for understanding how input costs affect global competitiveness.

NCGA has been raising concern about and acting on rising input costs for years.

Beyond seed and pesticide products, phosphate prices spiked in 2021 following a successful petition by the Mosaic Company, and later J.R. Simplot, to add countervailing duties to imported phosphate. Corn growers forcefully opposed that petition and called on Mosaic to withdraw its petition.

Corteva Agriscience followed suit several years later, with a successful petition to impose duties on 2,4-D supplies, and just recently Bayer filed a similar petition to impose duties on imported supplies of glyphosate.

“I think there has long been a belief among U.S. farmers that we pay more for the same products compared to our international counterparts,” Frostic said.

“This work confirms our fears: We are paying substantially more for our inputs. But the price gouging that is happening for U.S. farmers is even worse than many of us suspected.”

“In recent years, rising input costs have put intense pressure on corn farmers,” said Krista Swanson, NCGA chief economist.

“It’s easy to focus on corn prices when talking about the farm economy, but that misses a big part of the story. The other side of the equation is what farmers are paying to put a crop in the ground, and those costs have kept climbing to levels that are becoming unsustainable.”

“Corn farmers are on track to lose money for a fourth consecutive year,” Frostic noted. “We certainly want to see higher prices for our corn — and NCGA works every day on building demand — but we can’t ignore the prices we’re paying for inputs right now.

“On top of the premiums we’re paying, companies are now using trade remedy laws to consolidate their market share and increase prices even further. If this trend continues, input providers will force their own customers out of business.”

Transparency

NCGA is calling for increased transparency from input providers and for pricing to better reflect the realities of the current economic environment.

It is also pursuing policy initiatives that will make U.S. farmers more globally competitive, calling out how Brazil imposed tariffs and trade barriers on U.S. ethanol, while at the same time enjoying lower input prices.

NCGA is also pursuing legislative reform to the countervailing duty process that will require the interests of the public to be considered before duties on agricultural products are imposed by the Department of Commerce and International Trade Commission.

Study Methodology

Kynetec analysis was prepared for the NCGA using FarmTrak and sigma Seed farmer-panel data for the United States and Brazil.

The analysis compares what growers in the United States and Brazil pay for key crop inputs, including seeds, fungicides, herbicides and insecticides, across corn and soybeans. The study period covers 2023 to 2025, with trend analysis spanning the last five years.

Seed prices are compared in U.S. dollars per pound, converted from per-bag pricing. Crop protection inputs are compared in U.S. dollars per liter or kilogram of product, with active-ingredient-level comparisons where possible. Taxes are excluded.

Purchasing power parity analysis is used to help separate currency effects from underlying market differences.