From 2020 through 2024, Purdue’s comparison found higher soybean production costs per ton on its typical Iowa farm than on its typical Mato Grosso farm in every year. Brazil’s costs climbed much faster, but the modeled Brazilian farm remained profitable throughout the period; the Iowa farm recorded losses in 2020 and 2024. These are results for two modeled farms—not national averages—and differences in cost mix, revenue and farm structure matter when interpreting them.
What the 2020–2024 comparison measures
Purdue University Center for Commercial Agriculture’s February 2026 analysis compares standardized “typical” farms based on Agri Benchmark Network data: one in Iowa, United States, and one in Mato Grosso, Brazil. Their reported average planted areas were 1,800 acres and 5,900 acres, respectively. Costs and revenues are expressed in U.S. dollars. The farms are intended to reflect prevailing systems, not to represent every farm in either country or to form a controlled comparison of identical operations. Purdue Center for Commercial Agriculture
Purdue groups costs into direct expenses such as seed, fertilizer, crop protection, irrigation, insurance, drying and finance; operating expenses such as machinery, labor, contractors, fuel and other energy; and overhead, including land, buildings, repairs and interest, property taxes, insurance and miscellaneous expenses.
How costs changed, and where the gap stood
| Typical farm and location | Cost per ton, 2020 | Cost per ton, 2024 | Reported change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mato Grosso, Brazil | $172 | $337 | Nearly doubled |
| Iowa, United States | $399 | $448 | 13% increase |
Figures and changes in the table are from Purdue’s 2026 comparison of these two typical farms. The Iowa farm’s cost per ton was higher in every year from 2020 through 2024. Brazil’s much steeper rise narrowed the difference, but did not reverse it.
Why the farms had different cost structures
Brazil: direct inputs made up the largest share
Direct costs exceeded 60% of total costs on average for the Mato Grosso farm during 2020–2024. Purdue connects the input-heavy mix to spending on fertilizer and crop protection in tropical agriculture and to soil fertility needs. Costs rose sharply from 2022 as international prices for imported inputs, especially fertilizer, climbed. A weaker Brazilian real against the U.S. dollar added to local costs. Purdue reports that Brazil typically imports nearly 85% of its fertilizer needs.
United States: land-related overhead carried more weight
On the Iowa farm, overhead accounted for nearly half of costs, primarily because of land costs. Overhead was approximately 25% of total costs on the Brazilian farm. Iowa operating costs also rose 14% from 2020 to 2024. Purdue identifies increases after 2021 in hired and family labor, contractors, machinery and diesel, linking the pattern to pandemic-era supply disruptions and inflationary pressure.
What the profit results do—and do not—show
The Mato Grosso farm remained profitable in each year studied, although its profitability weakened after 2022. The Iowa farm’s results were more volatile: it had strong margins in 2021 and 2022 and recorded losses in 2020 and 2024. Those outcomes describe the modeled farms in Purdue’s analysis; they do not establish that farms across Brazil or the United States shared the same results.
A lower production cost per ton is not, by itself, proof of higher profit or superior efficiency. Profit also depends on revenue, yields, currency movements and the characteristics of the operation. The comparison is useful for seeing the contrast between these two farm systems, but its locations and standardized farm models limit how far the result can be generalized.
Rank #3
How earlier USDA estimates fit into the comparison
A separate USDA Economic Research Service report, published in 2023, provides historical context rather than a continuation of Purdue’s series. It covers marketing years 2017/18–2021/22 and compares production costs, producer returns, inland transportation and shipping to a common export destination. In its earlier cost series, Brazilian soybean production costs per acre averaged 22.5% below U.S. costs over MY 2010/11–2021/22. For MY 2021/22, it reported total production costs per bushel of $8.67 for Brazil and $9.85 for the United States. These figures come from a different period and source and should not be combined directly with Purdue’s 2020–2024 per-ton figures. USDA ERS, EIB-262
Accounting definitions can also affect comparisons. USDA’s U.S. commodity cost-and-return accounts include cash and noncash costs: owned land and unpaid labor may carry opportunity costs even when no direct payment is made. Annual estimates combine producer survey data—typically collected every four to ten years for a commodity—with annual estimates of prices, acreage and production. USDA ERS commodity costs and returns
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
