Yes, but the number of acres used for farming has been steadily decreasing for a long time, thanks to higher yields, thanks in large part to fertilizer. Phosphate use for fertilizer looks pretty steady: During this time farm production has increased. Farms are getting more crops out of less land, without increasing the total amount of phosphorus used. As you point out, using less fertilizer can reduce expenses for farmers too. They have natural incentives to improve technology to become ever more efficient at producing products that consumers want. Where is the market failure that requires intervention? You liken "food policy" to "disease." Elsewhere you refer to farm legislation as one of "the two most egregious, sinful miscarriages of justice" and "the biggest piece of garbage that our government force feeds us." I submit that the way to cure this disease is to eliminate it, not to beg people with compromised incentives to rejigger it so it will possibly be less harmful.Yes, but its use has been steadily increasing on a per acre basis for a long time.
Following World War II, fertilizer use expanded rapidly in the United States, but leveled off in the early 1980s after reaching a peak of 23.7 million nutrient tons in 1981. The United States is a mature market for fertilizer; as such, annual changes in use are typically driven by changes in planted acres, but are also influenced by relative crop-to-fertilizer prices and other factors.
