Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Welcome to University of Minnesota Extension's Nutrient Management Podcast. Each month we bring you the latest research in nutrient management for crops and how you can incorporate the latest tips and best management practices to your farm.
Hello, and welcome back to University of Minnesota Extension's nutrient management podcast. I'm Jack Wilcox in extension communications.
Jack Wilcox:Today, we'll talk all about micronutrients. We are joined by three guests today. Can you each introduce yourselves?
Daniel Kaiser:This is Daniel Kaiser. I'm a nutrient management specialist with the University of Minnesota located out of the Saint Paul campus.
Carl Rosen:Hello. I'm Carl Rosen. I'm also a nutrient management specialist in the Department of Soil, Water, and Climate on the St. Paul campus, University of Minnesota.
Jeff Vetsch:Hi, and I'm Jeff Vetsch. I'm a researcher at the Southern Research and Outreach Center in Waseca, and also of course with the University of Minnesota.
Jack Wilcox:Jeff, let's start with you. What does the research tell us about micronutrients and corn specifically that growers should consider?
Jeff Vetsch:Well, I think across most of the state, the micronutrient that's probably the most of interest in Minnesota for corn is zinc. I did some research with that funded by AFREC back when AFREC started. Wow, Dan. That's been a long time ago, 2008. And it ran through 2011.
Jeff Vetsch:I think we did 11 sites. We went out and found farmer fields or research center fields that were kinda soil sampled on small grids or one acre areas. We kinda identified some areas of the field that we knew were low soil test zinc, and we put a small zinc, you know, half acre zinc study right there in that small area. We looked at zinc sulfate, which I believe was 33% zinc, dry, broadcast incorporated, and we looked at chelated zinc, 10% solutions along with starter fertilizer. Our soil tests ranged from what should have been quite responsive down to point four part per million DTPA zinc up to one and a quarter, which is probably typical of most fields across Southern Minnesota.
Jeff Vetsch:Did not see a tremendous amount of response, and I think part of that can be related to the fact that you may see zinc deficiencies early, but it doesn't always translate into a yield response. And part of that can be related to the fact that when spring conditions are cool, you plant early, maybe you get a lot of cloudy days, it can affect the uptake of zinc into the corn plant, and you might see visual symptoms. And if you took an early season plant test, you might find deficient plants, but it does not always carry out into a yield increase or pay for itself. What we did see is an advantage to zinc sulfate, but at that point, you know, some of that may have been confounded with sulfur. We were also looking at sulfur treatments at the same And one of the positives of the study was we did show that even these pretty low rates of zinc sulfate broadcast could raise the zinc soil test, you know, as much as 300%, which would keep that field more than adequate for zinc for several years.
Jeff Vetsch:I think that was probably the big take home message from that study.
Daniel Kaiser:So, yeah, it's interesting because I do get a lot of questions. And, you know, I've looked at zinc for I mean, probably not as long as Jeff going back to that study that Jeff has, but it's been a major question. And, you know, one of the things that we do know that there are pockets of the state, you know, especially if you get into the, say, Central and Southeastern part of Minnesota, here's where we get eroded soils that we can get into issues, if the subsoil is exposed with some low zinc. And I'll get some pictures every once in a while of that characteristic, white striping on the upper leaves for zinc, but it's not on a whole field basis. So that's kinda one of the things that I've really recommended to a lot of growers is to think it's a good target if you've got something like a Micros box or something on the the floater where you can variable rate it.
Daniel Kaiser:Just just target some of the areas that you might need it. You know, we had some studies a number of years ago. It's kinda when Micro Essentials SC came out looking at zinc oxide versus zinc sulfate, and they didn't really see a whole lot in most of those fields. I mean, the main thing about looking at those fields that we were in, the the zinc soil tests were were pretty high. And that's, I think, one of the challenges with a lot of the the the studies that we've conducted is finding extremely low zinc soil tests.
Daniel Kaiser:I mean, I know they're out there. You get to the West Western Minnesota, Northwestern Minnesota, the high pH soils which affect availability. Certainly, I think you're you're got a shot to maybe get a DTPA test in that, you know, half PPM, 0.5 PPM or less, that would be more responsive. But, you know, lot of growers will use one part per million, but it's it's kind of a crapshoot. But more recently, I may have got some I mean, I've had a study out at Lamberton since, I think, 2011 or 2012 where we've been looking at kinda some low input broadcast p and k strategies.
Daniel Kaiser:And the last nine years, we actually have been looking at I mean, what it is is it's it's kind of a half and what I consider half and full rate PK combination, versus nothing. So there's three blocks. And within each of those blocks, there's using a rate of five gallons of three eighteen eighteen to corn. So just kinda looking at a very low input strategy if a grower just wanna go with starter only, you know, haven't heard that for a while, but was out there for some of those low rates, of some of those highs of those low salt fertilizers that you could get away with adverse. And then within that starter block, we actually had it with and without a a 9% chelated zinc, so kind of a fully chelated DTPA source.
Daniel Kaiser:And, you know, for the first nine years of the study well, the first actually, six years, we really didn't have a first three years, were no zinc treatments, and we had, I think, Ascend in there for years four through six, and then years seven on, then we had that 9% product. That third rotation, which would have been years seven, eight, nine, no response to zinc. But once we got to rotation four and five, these are corn, corn, soybean rotations. Rotation four, you know, a four bushel per acre difference between the with and without the one quart of chelated zinc. And then, the last three years, if you average the two years of corn together, it's it's roughly a six to eight bushel response.
Daniel Kaiser:So it's kinda surprised me because I didn't really expect that. That's what I've been kind of looking for in some of the data because, you know, with zinc, it's you know, with any micros, it's one of those issues that there's probably some spots out there that might be deficient in some of these micros, but they're not gonna be widespread. And that's kind of the issue with us with research is finding those spots where it makes sense. The Lamberton data, you know, where we're seeing those responses still kind of puzzle me because it's, point nine to one part per million average across that field. So theoretically, it shouldn't respond, just based on the soil tests, but, you know, consistently the last six years, we're seeing a response.
Daniel Kaiser:I mean, we were putting soy, treatments on the soybeans too in that third every third year, and we saw absolutely nothing with that. So, you know, mainly, I'm concerned about it with the, with the corn most most of all. So, you know, there might be some call for it out there. The big thing, though, on the the chelates is, knowing what source you have because think, I Jeff, yours was ammoniated zinc, I think you used for it.
Jeff Vetsch:Yeah. I'd have to go back and look, Dan, but I think you're right.
Daniel Kaiser:And then the other there's there's a there's a 9% product and a 10% product. The 9% is fully chelated. It's typically more expensive. I mean, DTPA is a very good chelate for zinc. If we we talk about micros, chelates, what they essentially are is a molecule that kinda surrounds and protects the micro and, you know, depending on the central the micro that you're using, there can be some differences in how well those chelates will protect it.
Daniel Kaiser:The 10% product is only partially chelated. There's some, you know, citrate, citric acid or or ammonium citrate or something in there that will act as kind of a poor chelation source, but there can be some differences. And one of the things that a lot of growers will always point to with zinc is that interaction with phosphorus. And, I mean, there is some concerns, with some poorly chelated sources of, zinc phosphate forming just combining if you have orthophosphate in your fertilizer source. So, I mean, every once in while, you might see some, gray precipitate in the bottom of your tank that's likely zinc that's precipitating out.
Daniel Kaiser:So I just I've been kind of more of a proponent, and if you're gonna use it, I mean, just looking at some of that 9% product. The other issue that really comes up every once in a while is this issue of fallow syndrome, and, you know, it's really more of a problem beyond sugar beets. So what fallow syndrome is is there's some some fungi in the the soil, what they call mycorrhizae that infect the roots of plants. And what those mycorrhizae will do is they aid in the uptake of phosphorus and zinc in well, as water early in the growing season. So if you've got non host crops, sugar beet's one of them that at times, you'll see purpling even though you may have had phosphorus or something applied to the field.
Daniel Kaiser:That's just because the mycorrhizae aren't initially colonizing the roots. So, you know, I don't it's not automatic that that happens, but, you know, some people might, especially with growing beets, if they have liquid in furrow, might be, you know, looking at more consistently putting starter on. So there's some things to kinda consider with that. I mean, zinc is really my number one when it comes to corn. We've done some other work with copper.
Daniel Kaiser:We'll talk about boron here in a minute. Manganese, I've looked at on corn. That's been mainly it. I mean, the issue with micros, what makes them micros is the fact that they're essential, yet they're essential in small amounts that the that the plant needs them. In many of our soils, particularly mineral soils with, if you if you're dealing with neutral to acidic pH, I mean, micros are are highly soluble.
Daniel Kaiser:So in effect, I mean, really, they shouldn't be needed as much. Although, I mean, it comes up and, you know, sitting through one of the recent AFRIC board meetings, I mean, I think micros came up as well because I know growers out there are really looking at trying to push yields and just tweak get these small yield responses. Yet I think you need to kinda consider that, you know, if it isn't needed, it isn't needed. I mean, in many of these crops, I mean, it's it's not gonna be needed on a widespread scale. So, you know, putting everything on all your fields, I mean, really can be kinda questionable whether or not you're gonna get much return on investment.
Carl Rosen:Yeah. Just to quickly follow-up, Dan, on the types of soils where micros might be needed. If you have higher organic matter soils, you could get particularly, if they're in the organic range, meaning, you know, up to 20% organic matter. And sometimes in those pockets, you'll get some high organic matter, low low lying areas, some very high organic matter levels. They actually act as a chelate as well, but it's not a soluble chelate.
Carl Rosen:And what ends up happening is it ties up some zinc and and particularly manganese and copper. Manganese and copper. And sometimes you can run into problems there.
Jack Wilcox:Dan, you mentioned boron. What do growers need to keep in mind about boron?
Daniel Kaiser:So, you know, that's one of one that when we talk about boron, that a little bit can go a long ways and too much can actually hurt you with, you know, particularly boron, and that's one of the things with micros is that, I mean, there is this these instances where some of the micros we can get into toxicity issues with over application. And boron, I think, is the easiest one to hit that. And that's why, you know, I wanna spend a little bit of talking about it because, it's it's interesting with a lot of the the tissue testing, that boron, a lot of times, will come back low, and I think a lot of that just because it's dry. Dry conditions tend to lead to poor boron uptake, and and, so a lot of growers then will get concerned about it and go out and apply boron. And when it comes to, say, corn, I mean, we've looked at it, and I haven't really seen a consistent response.
Daniel Kaiser:I mean, there might be some of the irrigated soils that are, you know, very sandy soils, low organic matter, where there might be a response to boron. But when you look at it, it it hasn't really been that consistent. I mean, really, the crops that should be more sensitive to boron deficiency would be sugar beet, which I've done work on that on on high organic matter, high clay soils. I've seen no response. And in fact, some of the higher rates, we actually started to see yield decrease, kind of out of that toxicity issue.
Daniel Kaiser:And the other one, I mean, really, I think a lot of growers are pretty consistently applying is alfalfa. And I just, wrapped up a study, for what the first year of a study, you hopefully, carry it on for multiple years looking at boron where we applied a half and one pound of boron in the spring of, 2025 to alfalfa, and we saw, you know, roughly about four to 500 pounds of additional forage yield per cut on average across the four cuttings with the boron with the one pound treatment. So that's, I mean, where I would target. That site actually was at Rosemont. So, I mean, probably three to 4% organic matter, silt loam soil, be a situation where I might, you know, be more likely for a boron deficiency.
Daniel Kaiser:With, soybean though and then dry beans are the one that really bother me, particularly when growers start asking me questions about it because I know there are retailers out there that are trying to sell people on applications, but those particular crops are highly sensitive to toxicity. So it doesn't take a lot to push it over the edge where you start to lose yield when you apply it. And I remember, it's probably been ten years ago, and I as I dig through my emails, I probably can find the pictures of a it was a consultant sending me a picture of a field that was right down to the line where they had applied foliar boron versus where they didn't where you were seeing clear boron toxicity issues in kidney beans. And I've done the same thing with soybeans. Even with, you know, one pound or a really low rate, I can start to see visible symptoms of leaf scorching due to boron, over application that it's really not worth it.
Daniel Kaiser:It's it's not worth it to look at applying anything to if you're looking at dry beans or soybeans. I don't care what your soy I don't care what your tissue test tells you. They just do not tolerate over application, and foliar applications a little bit can really push them over the edge where you might be losing yield. So it's one of the things really to be just be careful with on some of these micros is it can be a toxicity issues. And, you know, if your your retailer is pushing it, just ask them if they'll guarantee you the the yield loss you have if they get into toxicity issues with what they're recommending you apply because there is some significant risk, particularly on soybeans.
Daniel Kaiser:With corn, corn will tend to tolerate, you know, higher rates. Most grasses do, but, some of these these, broadleaf species, you know, while, you know, it can impact things, there can be some positives for some. There's others that it it's really a negative, and that's one of the things that I'm hoping to look at maybe next year is on sugar beet. You know, a lot of questions out of growers still looking at boron applications because boron can affect sugar translocation in plants. So, you know, here's some thinking that maybe late applications, you could boost, you know, potentially sugar content.
Daniel Kaiser:I don't think it, you know, necessarily works that way, but that that's kind of the thinking. Because with a lot of these micros, the margins are pretty high in a lot of these products that that the retailers can make a fair amount of money on them. So there's some reasons really to to really recommend a lot of these treatments.
Carl Rosen:I think, as Dan said, you really have to know which crop you're applying the boron to to know whether it's a boron responsive crop or one that could be highly sensitive to boron applications. As Dan mentioned, lot some of the legumes like dry beans and soybeans are very sensitive. On the other hand, alfalfa can take much higher application rates, and and and it you'll see that it's needed. I've done a lot of work on the sands, and you'll whenever you do a a boron soil test on a sand, it's usually gonna be about point one part per million, which is what we would consider in the deficient range. So if you're growing a crop that needs boron at that level, then I would suggest applying it.
Carl Rosen:But something like soybean, as Dan said, maybe hold off on the boron. I've done work on potatoes, which is not a highly responsive crop to boron, but we do get responses on our sandy soils with boron on on from potatoes. Other crops, vegetable crops that are are highly responsive are the what we call the cold crops, broccoli and and cauliflower. Those will also respond to boron as well on particularly on sandy soils.
Daniel Kaiser:But there's one thing too. I mean, Carl, and I've kinda seen this. If I look at a lot of the the pictures of efficiencies, it tends to be always sandy soils, particularly those situations where we're dry. If you look at a lot of the alfalfa, you know, pictures I've seen, actually, a year or so or maybe two years ago, 2324, somewhere in there. There is a few pictures I was getting from up near, you know, between Ada and Manoomin in that area kinda on some of those sandier grounds with sugar beets showing, potentially some deficiency symptoms.
Daniel Kaiser:So, I mean, there are out there, but, you know, a lot of it is when you look at boron is, you know, there's a linkage between soil moisture and availability. I mean, there there's kinda always been that. Sometimes you'll see that with alfalfa. You'll see spots that might go deficient if it's dry, but then you get a rainfall event, and essentially, then they start to green up. You know, when we're assessing things, a lot of times, tissue analysis is used.
Daniel Kaiser:When it comes down to that, I mean, I think a lot of some of these things with micros and tissue might essentially be related more to the, the soil moisture status and kind of plant stress at that point in time. So it becomes kind of a, you know, which came first scenario, like a chicken or the egg scenario in terms of what do you fix to to correct the issue?
Carl Rosen:Particularly on dry land soils. A lot of the sands I work on are irrigated, so I wouldn't expect the moisture to be as much of an issue there. But particularly on dry land, that's a that's a really good point, Dan.
Jack Wilcox:We'll be sure to add everybody's contact information into the show notes. Carl, is tissue sampling a way to help predict where micronutrients might be needed?
Carl Rosen:Tissue analysis is one way of really confirming whether you have a deficiency or not, or or perhaps even a toxicity in some cases. It's something that, you know, maybe you don't wanna routinely do it, but it really helps to confirm whether you may or may not have an have an issue. There's a very good fact sheet on tissue on the extension website called understanding plant analysis for crops. And I would suggest that you refer to that for proper timing for collecting the tissue, how much tissue to collect at the time, and also sending procedures for sending it to the lab for analysis. I think the main use of tissue analysis is it's really good for certain elements.
Carl Rosen:Zinc, copper, manganese, boron, it's pretty good for those for those elements. For for iron, it can be very iffy. Iron can kind of get onto the tissue, and if there's any soil contamination, it can spike it. And so tissue analysis for iron is is not quite as reliable as the others, but, for those others that I mentioned, it it can be quite, quite useful. There are different ways of doing tissue analysis.
Carl Rosen:You can, do it at a particular time, and that's mentioned in the in the fact sheet that I just talked about. But even if you're not at the correct time, you can send in samples that are look healthy and then samples that look symptomatic, and then you can do a comparison that way as well.
Daniel Kaiser:What Carl said with iron, it's kind of an interesting thing because I've worked a lot with iron chlorosis in the past on soybean, and it's not uncommon, if you send in a deficient area of the field compared to a sufficient that the concentrations will be actually higher in the, the IDC affected area, and that's a lot of it essentially is just dirt and just clay particles that are stuck to the leaves that you can't wash off. And, you know, just simply the fact that some of these stunted plants are still taking up something, and sometimes you see what we call is is more of an accumulation effect where, you know, small plants at times can actually have a higher concentration. So that comparative sampling is is somewhat important. But, with tissue analysis, I mean, really, I think the the the main thing is, you know, getting back to what I I talked about before when it comes to boron in soil moisture is knowing what exactly the problem is because many of the micros I mean, the uptake since most of them are positive, there are a few, like, you know, boron that are negatively charged that are that come in with with water that a lot of the positively charged ones, you can see some impact of some of your macronutrients, NPK.
Daniel Kaiser:I mean, if you've got some of those affecting growth, can affect the uptake of some of these other micros. If you're just getting a general a single sample from a field to report back, kinda starting at the beginning and just seeing if anything is deficient that would be more likely to limit yield versus your micros, because I think a lot of people can make a lot of mistakes in terms of trying to then go out and put foliar applications of nutrients on and not correct the right thing. So what I've seen in the past, if you look at a lot of these micros, is they can be deficient. You know, maybe I the nitrogen's also deficient. I correct the nitrogen problem, then maybe that micro deficiency goes away because plant growth is is adequate.
Daniel Kaiser:And the other thing is, you know, what what the database is that's being used to assess the availability of micros. Because in many cases, I think, you know, Carl, I mean, we see this all the time as luxury uptake of some of these things where if it's there, the plant will take it up. So if I'm, if I'm a company that really wants to push micros, what I can do essentially is apply all of them at a relatively high rate. We get luxury uptake. Then I use the average value of my good or my applied plots to use for, say, a critical of or something to target for because that meal might be the maximum yield because nothing was limited, yet those numbers might be inflated just because of the luxury uptake.
Daniel Kaiser:And that's one of the the challenges is finding good data. And, really, what I like to see with tissue analysis is having, you know, some deficiencies in there so we can actually calibrate or or correlate the test. We correlate we take the numbers. We can correlate them back to the yield response to show that, you know, if my my test is indeed low and it actually means something when it comes to a yield reduction in the field, and that's really what we're lacking a lot in these micros. A lot of the data I know a lot of the labs use this probably from the plant analysis hand book three, which is, a compilation of of a fair amount of data across The US, but I'm not necessarily sure it's a lot of response data.
Daniel Kaiser:And that's kind of the challenge is if these, micros are sufficient, if the the number is higher than it needs to be in the concentration, essentially, you might be just shooting for something that's not really what you need to be attaining to get to maximum yield. And that's really my challenge, is with a lot of my studies, is is trying to get that correlation piece down where we get responsive data to be able to assess yield versus tissue concentration because it's really what's needed to to make a good good test, especially the tissue tests to to make them work.
Carl Rosen:Yeah. That's a good point. I think a lot of the numbers that are out there are based more on surveys. And so you look at the healthy plants, and you look at all the healthy plants of a particular variety or a hybrid or species. And then you get the high and the low, maybe throw at the very low and the very high, and then you get what we call a sufficiency range.
Carl Rosen:And that's that's the way that you can get a lot of data for lots of different crops, but you really probably haven't calibrated it specifically for that nutrient. And the only way you can do that is by doing a lot of tests and make sure you have a a situation where you can induce a dis deficiency.
Jeff Vetsch:Yeah. I would add to that, Dan and Carl, that, you know, take zinc, for example, in corn. I think the critical value, and Dan, correct me if I'm off, I've seen values reported like twenty, twenty five part per million up to up to 80. But in the study that I did, many of the samples that we analyzed either on the zinc fertilized or unfertilized ones were all in that mid to upper twenties or right around 30 or very low thirties. And I think many would argue that would see that critical range of 20 to 80 and say, well, I'm still very low on that critical range.
Jeff Vetsch:I need zinc. And very few of those were actually responsive sites, even though they were on the lower side of that range.
Daniel Kaiser:So, yeah, Jeff, I'll just kinda back this up. I just went to our our publication, zinc for crop production. So, you know, whole feet whole plants, corn, less than 12 inches tall. The sufficiency range is 20 to 70 PPM. If you're looking at the the base of the year or the the leaf at the base of the year at initial silking or r two, that's it's similar around 20 to 70 PPM.
Daniel Kaiser:So that's a pretty substantial range in values for that. And I know a lot of times, will see the same thing. You'll see a lot of my numbers coming back towards the low end of that range, and, you know, I'm not getting any crop response. So what that tells me, it's likely sufficient whatever I have there if if yield isn't being impacted by the crop. So, I mean, that's kind of the the the issue with it is, you know, some people might interpret maybe that you want to wanna be at 30% because you wanna be at high yield potential.
Daniel Kaiser:But in the end, it doesn't really matter. I mean, it you know, twenty, thirty I mean, there there's I mean, that's why there's a range in values that targeting one value and that you're above or below that by a few PPM. I mean, I don't think it's it's really gonna matter. I mean, you get below, mean, closer to 10, I would say, yeah, you're probably gonna be deficient. But, but in many cases, I mean, that that's kind of the issue with these these ranges and these surveys is that you get this wide range in values that, you know, some people would would try to interpret being near the the upper end of that, which, know, you sometimes you just really can't do it or recreate some of that stuff in in your your field settings.
Daniel Kaiser:It just I think something to be careful of. You really wanna know where your your data's coming from and especially, knowing whether or not there's actually response data behind some of what, is being told to you is is really important. Because a lot of times you run these packages through the labs, and you're running through your, any of your retailers that may have their own set of sufficiency ranges that they're using, that the lab reports back. And if you've got questions, I mean, that's really what I'm here for or some of us are here for to answer some of those questions if you're trying to make sense of that data and diagnose what's going on in your in your field.
Carl Rosen:For tissue analysis, I look at it as a diagnostic tool. It help it's gonna help you confirm if you are deficient based on what symptoms you might see. So, yeah, you'll probably be well below usually, you'll be well what we call the sufficiency or expected range if you are, and that's what it's what it's most useful for. It's not really good for fertilizer rates application and things like that, but it just tells you that something is maybe maybe wrong.
Daniel Kaiser:And it might be better in perennial crops. I mean, annual crops are really the issue more than anything. We just don't get sale as of it.
Carl Rosen:That's true. We use it routinely for fruit trees, and, it's very, very valuable for, for crops that have a extensive deep root system. It's actually a little more accurate than than, soil analysis, for for those types of crops.
Daniel Kaiser:And I guess just kinda closing here, I wanna throw, you know, one thing out here, especially when it comes to tissue analysis. I mean, we we really started to see things pick up, I would say, probably after 2010, when corn prices were really high that people are really looking at trying to push yield. You know, it's interesting when I'll see posts on Facebook, people talking about, you know, how they've gone beyond soil testing into this new horizon of plant tissue testing even though I don't We've been testing plants for probably, you know, fifty, sixty, seventy years. I mean, it just kinda tends to come and go in terms of the popularity of it. So, I mean, I don't think we're ever gonna get rid of it, but it isn't anything I would use as my primary source, as as Carl said, for annual crops.
Daniel Kaiser:I mean, really, the soil test is the best option, and the tissue test is more reactive, but it can be used for diagnostic purposes. And, really, it's really to kinda look at, you know, do we need to look at a field differently? Is there some issue there that we should assess? And I would really do that with a soil test at the same time I take a plant tissue test, so then you've got both of them for both pieces of data to help you make a management decision.
Jack Wilcox:Dan, as we finish up, what might farmers want to take away about micronutrients? Over application might cause toxicity in some situations. And then what might seem like a micronutrient issue could really be actually a red herring, and it's an NPK symptom. Give us a 30,000 foot view.
Daniel Kaiser:Well, I think that's a you know, it's a good thing you're talking about, that red herring. I mean, it's but I mean, I think it's a little different than that, though, because as I said, I mean, looking at kind of margins for what some of these these companies can make on some of these products, Traditionally, micros are one that you have a pretty good profit margin on them. So, I mean, I can see the reasoning for really getting in and trying to push a lot of these products, particularly as growers are looking at pushing yields higher and higher because, you know, that's one thing you you'll hear every once in a while is from growers that we've got, you know, NPKS. We've got that all figured out. Now we're really gonna get in and really go to that next level with these micros.
Daniel Kaiser:And, you know, while we've looked at a lot of this data, it just isn't consistent there now. You know, if you get to 300 plus bushel corn yield or close to a 100 bushel soybean, I mean, is there anything there? I don't know. But consistently, you know, you look at our studies that we can get some pretty high yields, and it still doesn't really matter. And everything we do tissue analysis, will kinda confirm that we're sufficient in many of these plots.
Daniel Kaiser:So would I go out of my way to spend money on micros versus and cut back on p and k? Where we look at where prices if prices are really fertilizer prices are high, I mean, really, your base fertility program is really where the meat of your most of your yield is. So that's really where you want to focus on. And these other things, you know, fun to play around with maybe to look. And if you've got some other information that says they are deficient, certainly apply them.
Daniel Kaiser:But if it's something that you don't know, you're gonna get a positive return on investment, I don't think I would divert money into some of these, you know, these specialty products or these micros and forego some of the money you're putting into your base fertility because that's really where you're making your money. I mean, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, those four are really gonna be key to focus on. Then we start looking at kind of those situations where some of these things are gonna be deficient, and, you know, that's really what I'd worry more about more consistently than than trying to get and play around with some of these things, especially if your profit margin is fairly tight.
Carl Rosen:I agree a 100%. Just make sure that you can document the need for it if you are gonna apply it. And if you're in a an area that is maybe if you're in a sandy soil, that might be an area. If you're high organic matter, organic soil, that might be another one. The type of crop that you're growing.
Carl Rosen:Those are the things to look at as to whether you might consider a micronutrient application.
Jack Wilcox:That was Daniel Kaiser, Carl Rosen, and Jeff Fetch, all with University of Minnesota. Thanks for being here.
Carl Rosen:You're welcome.
Jack Wilcox:Do you have a question about something on your farm? Just send us an email here nutmgmt@umn.edu. Thanks a lot for listening and we look forward to seeing you next time.
Jack Wilcox:We'd like to thank the Agricultural Fertilizer Research and Education Council or AFREC for supporting the podcast.