In 2025, China became the leading supplier of fertilizers to Brazil, overtaking Russia amid shifting global price pressures and Brazilian farmers’ pivot to lower‑concentration, cost‑effective fertilizers. This structural change has significant implications for agricultural input logistics, supply dependence, crop nutrition strategies, and geopolitical risk exposure for Brazil’s major soybean and corn sectors.
Introduction: Fertilizer Supply Shifts in Brazil
Between January and October 2025, Brazilian fertilizer imports reached 38.3 million tons, marking a pivotal change in the supplier landscape. For the first time, China eclipsed Russia as the principal exporter of fertilizers to Brazil. This reordering of trade priorities reflects price pressures from global instabilities, rising nutrient costs, and producers’ strategic adaptation to cheaper, lower‑nutrient products that require higher physical volumes.
The shift signals not only a change in market leadership but also emerging risks in logistics, dependency, and future harvest security — especially for the 2026/27 soybean and corn seasons.
Why China Took the Lead: Prices, Preferences, and Product Mix
Global Price Pressure and Fertilizer Choice
Fertilizer prices spiked in recent years due to geopolitical conflicts, including the war in Ukraine and tensions in the Middle East, along with rising raw material costs. With tight farm budgets, Brazilian producers began favoring fertilizers with lower nutrient concentrations and lower per‑ton prices, even if that choice means importing more fertilizer by weight to meet nutrient needs.
This trend accelerated China’s rise as a key supplier.
Supplier Rankings: China Edges Ahead of Russia
Although both China and Russia each supplied about a quarter of Brazil’s fertilizer imports in 2025, China secured a slight advantage — approximately 40,000 additional tons — to take the top spot in the supplier ranking. In practice, half of Brazil’s fertilizer imports continue to come from these two countries, underscoring Brazil’s concentrated dependence on a narrow supply base.
Product‑Level Dynamics: Nitrogen and Phosphate Fertilizers
Nitrogen Fertilizers: Urea vs. Ammonium Sulfate
Nitrogen fertilizers are critical for crops like corn. Urea, which contains 46% nitrogen, saw price increases of about 13% in October 2025 compared to October 2024. In response, Brazilian importers and producers scaled back on urea and shifted to ammonium sulfate, which contains about 21% nitrogen but is significantly cheaper per ton.
2025 Trend: Brazilian imports of ammonium sulfate jumped 44% compared to 2024.
China’s Role: Chinese suppliers accounted for approximately 99% of that increase, cementing China’s dominance in supplying ammonium sulfate to Brazil.
This shift reflects both economic pressures and changing procurement priorities.
Phosphate Fertilizers: From MAP to SSP
Phosphate fertilizers such as MAP 11‑52 (monoammonium phosphate) are a cornerstone of soybean production due to their high phosphorus content (52%). Traditionally, Russia supplied around 45% of MAP used in Brazil.
However, rising MAP prices pushed producers to seek cost‑effective, lower‑concentration alternatives. In this shift:
Simple Superphosphate (SSP) emerged as a cheaper option, despite its lower phosphorus concentration (18%–24%).
China’s Contribution: China supplied roughly 24% of all SSP imports into Brazil during the first ten months of 2025, reclaiming significant ground in the phosphate segment.
Logistics and Infrastructure Impacts
Doubling Weak Fertilizer Volumes
Switching to lower concentration fertilizers reduces per‑ton nutrient cost — but it also means transporting and handling a much greater physical volume. This surge in tonnage intensifies pressure on Brazil’s ports, storage facilities, rail, and road networks.
Consultancy Argus highlights the following infrastructure challenges:
Port Congestion: More vessels and longer berthing times due to larger shipment volumes.
Storage Strain: Increased demand for warehouse space and inventory turnover.
Rising Logistics Costs: Even if fertilizer appears cheaper on the invoice, overall expenses may rise because of higher transport and handling costs.
In essence, the volume surge dilutes some of the cost savings achieved through lower product prices.
Harvest Outlook: 2025/26 vs. 2026/27
Current Season (2025/26)
For the ongoing 2025/26 soybean crop and the first corn crop, fertilizer supplies are largely secure. Argus estimates that already‑purchased nutrient volumes cover most immediate needs.
Next Season (2026/27)
Concerns mount for the 2026/27 soybean and corn seasons. Although about 75% of fertilizer for the second corn crop has been procured, a significant portion of nutrient volume for next year remains undecided.
Market indicators point to continued strong demand for low‑concentration fertilizers through 2026, reinforcing China’s position as a principal supplier of ammonium sulfate and SSP.
Risk Factors: Dependency and Regulatory Uncertainty
China’s advancement in the Brazilian fertilizer market raises strategic concerns:
Export Regulation Risk: China’s domestic market is heavily regulated. During periods of heightened internal demand, export restrictions could emerge — limiting Brazil’s access to critical inputs.
No Current Restrictions — Yet: At present, China does not impose export limits on ammonium sulfate. However, China’s regulatory posture could shift if domestic agricultural demand strengthens.
Geopolitical Vulnerability: Combined with Russia’s continued relevance, Brazil’s fertilizer dependency on these two nations exposes its agricultural supply chain to external policy changes, diplomatic tensions, and sudden export constraints.
Should restrictions occur, Brazil would need to pivot to more expensive alternative suppliers, compounding costs just as major crop planting cycles begin.
Conclusion: Strategic Dependencies and Future Imperatives
China’s emergence as Brazil’s leading fertilizer supplier in 2025 represents a rapid reconfiguration of a critical agricultural input market. Driven by price pressures and producer demand for lower‑cost nutrients, this shift also brings logistical headaches and strategic vulnerabilities.
Key takeaways:
Producer preference for low‑concentration fertilizers has reshaped import patterns.
China now plays a central role — particularly in ammonium sulfate and SSP supplies.
Brazil’s fertilizer logistics and infrastructure face increased physical volumes.
Dependency on China and Russia heightens risk exposure, especially if domestic policies change.
Looking ahead, the fertilizer mix, logistics planning, and diversified supplier strategies will be vital for ensuring Brazil’s soybean and corn crops remain competitive and sustainably nourished.
