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 the Nutrient Management Podcast from University of Minnesota Extension. I'm Jack Wilcox with communications here in Extension.
Jack Wilcox:Today, we're gonna talk about the recent increase in nitrogen rates for corn. We have three nitrogen specialists to walk us through this. Can you each please introduce yourselves?
Jeff Vetsch:Hi, Jack. This is Jeff Vetsch. I'm a researcher at the Southern Research and Outreach Center in Waseca focused on nitrogen management.
Daniel Kaiser:This is Daniel Kaiser. I'm a nutrient management specialist located out of the Saint Paul campus. I work a lot with the fertilizer guidelines.
Brad Carlson:Brad Carlson. I'm an Extension Educator. I work statewide, but out of the Mankato Regional Office, a lot of work relative to water quality and nitrogen fertilizer use.
Jack Wilcox:Jeff, let's start with you. Why are suggested nitrogen rates for corn increasing over time?
Jeff Vetsch:Well, I think the the key factor that that we're seeing is, you know, we know yields are going up, but yield does not always have a direct relationship with the optimum end rate for a given site. But the other main thing is that we're getting wetter. And when we look at the southern three tiers of counties across the state of Minnesota, those are the counties that have seen the greatest increase in spring precipitation, about 25% over the last thirty or forty years. And it's spring precipitation that drives nitrogen loss in the spring. So if we're having greater loss, we're gonna need more and to compensate for that loss.
Jeff Vetsch:And our yields are increasing, our total end uptake is increasing. So those are the factors that are driving those decisions. Looking at Waseca alone, we used to get 30 inches of annual precipitation in the period from 1941 to 1970. Now our our thirty year normal is for from the period 1991 to 2020 is up to 38 inches. So you can see that's a significant amount of extra rainfall which is driving N loss.
Brad Carlson:You know, and another part of that, Jeff, it's not it's not just, you know, not just around Waseca. We did a a whole curriculum on adapting nitrogen management to climate for our advanced nitrogen smart classes, and we did a precipitation analysis. Historically, the Western side of the state was a lot drier than the Eastern side, and we've seen it consistently wet pretty much all the way to the South Dakota border now for the last thirty years, whereas previous to that, Southwestern Minnesota had been quite dry for a long time. So, you know, that's causing that effect to really go all the way across the southern third of the state. I think another point that's worth noting is we've been kind of harping on the the fact that, you know, the the historic the historic nitrogen rate calculation, if you will, that that was drummed in a lot of people's heads was 1.2 times bushels equals pounds of nitrogen.
Brad Carlson:And and really with modern modern breeding, we've really been emphasizing yield and not really worrying a whole lot about protein content. And so actually the protein content in the grain has been going down, and we no longer see that 1.2 pounds of nitrogen per bushel. It is somewhat hybrid specific, but in a lot of cases, it's down at point six or even lower. And so there there is a going to be a increased demand for nitrogen as yields continue to go up because the math does say that if you have higher yields, there will be more nitrogen necessary to produce those higher yields. But it's really important to recognize that it's not 1.2 times the the the yield, it's it's something less than that.
Brad Carlson:And so, you know, as we're now commonly seeing yields, you know, in the two fifty plus range, it's only natural that we're going to see nitrogen demands increasing.
Daniel Kaiser:And what we're seeing here in Minnesota isn't necessarily unique. We've seen this in the, I think most of the Upper Midwest. If you look at it, you know, just to the south of us in Iowa, there's some work where they looked at trends over time, and they were seeing, you know, just a a steady just maybe about a one pound or two pound increase yearly in the amount of nitrogen, if you start looking at the the energy response database. And I've seen the same thing here in Minnesota. Specifically, the the the corn on corn data we have, has been pretty consistent for the increase over time, and I think that one could be explained.
Daniel Kaiser:And I've I've talked about this before by the amount of residue that's out there, because the difference between corn soybean and corn corn that typically we'd call that N credit, but I think it's more of the penalty, that we're seeing for the tie up of nitrogen from the well, just be immobilization due to decomposition of of the corn residue. And just looking at the data, I mean, I've I've been working, with the the corn N rate calculator, the corn N recs here in Minnesota since about 2015. I went in and looked, about the time I started, tracking yearly what we're seeing for this average optimal nitrogen rates in our fields across the years. I mean, you can see some pretty significant trends in that data, especially wetter years. It make think make a lot of sense to people that we need more nitrogen than drier years.
Daniel Kaiser:We see some dips, but overall, we're still seeing that increase. I mean, what was interesting to me was the soybean corn data. If you looked at a lot of it, up to about 2015 when I started working on this, the really, the numbers were relatively flat. Then Fabian Fernandez started here at the University of Minnesota. He there's a lot of nitrogen work, and we started adding more trials in the database, and we saw an uptick in the amount of nitrogen, or the optimal nitrate for that that soybean corn.
Daniel Kaiser:So, know, you some people, you start talking about, that increase in in where some of that nitrogen's going. I think, I mean, some of it, you know, with some of these increases are just the fact that we're, I think, getting closer to probably what the true number was, with the sheer number of data points we have. Because one of the the things with our system right now, what we call the maximum return to nitrogen or, you know, we might refer it to it as the MRTN approach in, you know, in this podcast that since it's database driven, really, the number of sites, you know, tends to especially if we start getting more recent data, can tend to skew things slightly in terms of seeing a slight creep in the amount of N. But it's been pretty consistent for the increase, at least in some of it.
Daniel Kaiser:So, you know what You know, the others may have talked about. You turn like, talk about increases in yield and things like that that could explain some of this, some of this increase over time, but it is real. And that's one of the things that with the particular approach we're using, we're not just making these numbers up. We're actually using real world data to explain our recommendations so we can back it up with numbers that are in the field. What I will say with a lot of the numbers that we have, they almost are, you know, pretty specifically spring applications.
Daniel Kaiser:So it's one of the things everybody asks with fall applications. You know, do those numbers change? And the the thing we, you know, kinda like to we'd really don't like to see in terms of having to change our rates based on timing because that's the case we need to be looking at other things, to try to stave off some issues when it comes to nitrogen loss. Because as we've seen recently, I mean, we're talking here, it's October 2025. We see some some big differences in terms of the price ratios, that we typically use for our recommendations where, nitrogen's getting more expensive at this point in time.
Daniel Kaiser:So, yeah, I mean, it it's that that increase is real. I think we could explain it with a number of factors. I think later on, we'll talk a little bit about kinda how, you know, some of our recommendations relate to loss, particularly, to loss to water because that's what a lot of people, when we start looking at these, these increases are really worried about is the fact that to and where that nitrogen's going.
Jeff Vetsch:One thing that I would add to what you said, Dan, that I think is really good is you talked about the mobilization factor and that being a penalty. And I agree with that. And I think that penalty has gotten larger and larger over recent maybe twenty, twenty five, thirty years. And the reason why I say that is I think one is that our corn on corn yields are much better today than they were twenty, thirty years ago.
Jeff Vetsch:And then the second part of that is that with better yields and better corn on corn, we have less N left over in the system for the following year in the soil. And I see that in the fact that we get lower yields with zero N, especially with corn on corn than we used to. If there's just not as much N in the soil and the system in continuous corn as there used to be, and it may be because the plants are better scavengers, better root systems, or just maybe because the overall yield and that and that penalty for immobilization as you get bigger biomass and and better plant growth is creating a bigger negative.
Daniel Kaiser:And one thing too I wanna throw out there to follow-up, Jeff, on that is, you know, there are a lot of companies out there that are trying to sell microbial products or tell you that you need to put some nitrogen down for decomposition of residue in the fall. That's just to me a bunch of misinformation in terms of, you know, where our limiting factor for residue breakdown in Minnesota really is the fact that we freeze, and that stops a lot of our decomposition. So, I mean, the best thing, I mean, if you're trying to look at decomposition really is I mean, if you can't remove it, is to look at sizing it down, chopping it down to a smaller size. But, I mean, no, Jeff. There's we've had data looking at, and you have it too.
Daniel Kaiser:I mean, looking at residue removal and corn silage systems, if you look at continuous silage versus, you know, continuous grain corn for grain that the seems like we get more or at least it it takes more nitrogen for that corn for grain system with all that residue there. So, I mean, I think that's that's a big thing, I think, with these the amount of biomass we're producing is kind of where we're we're seeing, I think, a lot of these, you know, part of these trends where these increases in in nitrogen corn, particularly for continuous corn.
Jeff Vetsch:And I think partly the same can be held true for corn after beans if we get extraordinarily high bean yields and produced a lot of biomass in soybeans as well. Sure. The carbon to nitrogen ratio of soybeans double is a lot lower than it is of corn residue, but it's still creating some immobilization factor.
Jack Wilcox:Dan, talk to us about regional differences within Minnesota. We were talking about the portion of Minnesota being wetter overall. How does that go, for example, to the Dakota border?
Daniel Kaiser:So, you know, Jack, this is an interesting question. I know there's a lot of growers out there. I mean, if you're in, say, in Southeastern Minnesota versus Southwestern Minnesota, you've got differing soils. I mean, there may be some belief there that your nitrogen requirements aren't necessarily the same. And, you know, the way our recommendations are set up right now, that'd be the case.
Daniel Kaiser:I mean, essentially, we recommend the same amount of nitrogen regardless of where you're at in the state because, historically, if you look at a lot of data, there wasn't a lot of information there to really dig into different regional differences. And, you know, the area that I've been really specifically interested has been the Southeast, particularly the Karst because we have, you know, historically a fair amount of data. If you look at you know, Jeff was talking about control yields, and I've seen it in a lot of my studies is that we tend to get higher yield without nitrogen for some of those soils. And historically, we've always pointed to many of those soils since they're very well aerated, even with lower organic matter in some of those soils that they they have very high mineralization rates. That's been one of the things that I have been interested in looking at, and I know there's, you know, a lot of lot of things going on in the Southeast right now in terms of water quality to try to hone in on a little bit this a little bit more and see what's going on.
Daniel Kaiser:So, I mean, recently, I went back through and I looked at some of the data because, you know, Brad's working on a publication, you know, it's geared towards the Southeast just to see our glacial till data versus, the the loess soils, which would be, the that karst region in the Southeast to see if there is actually any difference in the actual datasets. I mean, the thing that I'll warn a little bit when I talk about this is the problem with this is we don't have equal number of sites, when it comes to the two of them, so that does weigh into it a little bit. And that's one of the reasons why in the past, I haven't really been really keen on going in and splitting this data set up because I kinda wanna have a critical mass or critical number of sites before I start splitting some of this data out. But if you look at where we're at right now, I'll just go in. This is and we're talking October 2025.
Daniel Kaiser:The corn in rate calculator, I'm just gonna use a point one price ratio. So let's talk where we're looking at $4 corn and 40ยข a pound in. I know right now, I mean, it's it's a little bit more out of whack, especially if you're looking at some spring applications. But just for simplicity's sake, I'm gonna focus on this, that our corn following soybean, the what we call the maximum return to nitrogen or the MRTN. So, essentially, this is the point at which we are covering the cost of our nitrogen.
Daniel Kaiser:Essentially, for this is what we're looking at for our recommendations is every increment in nitrogen, looking at the the return per bushel net re the that return per dollar invested, and we're trying to get that at with the MRTN is that the maximum return of nitrogen is we're essentially returning a dollar in crop value for the last dollar invested. And right now, the recommendation for corn following soybean, that's around one fifty. Corn following corn would be, it's one eighty seven, but I'd say about one ninety in terms of the average across the state. So if we kinda compare, I went in and I dug into this a little bit more. And if you look at the glacial till soils, they follow pretty close to that.
Daniel Kaiser:So if you're looking at, you know, their clay loams, loams, silty clay loams, those types of soils, I think that one fifty and that, you know, relative about one ninety are kind of the ballpark. It's it's kind of when I split it out, it's it's pretty close to that for that. But if we look at these, southeastern soils, we look at these glacial tills, just comparing that, it's about one forty and one seventy five. One forty for soybean following or corn following soybean and one seventy five for corn following corn. So, you know, if know, I've had my general recommendations for some growers.
Daniel Kaiser:If we get the situations where you have higher mineralization rates, you know, going towards the low end, we have, are built into our recommendation what we call the profitable range, which is looking at that maximum return to nitrogen value, and it's going plus or minus a dollar from that value, you know, to give us a little bit of flexibility in in grower attitudes towards risk. But it, you know, follows pretty close if you look at it. I mean, a lot of our, you know, some of our less sites are seemingly following closer to low end of that range, and, you know, the glacial till sites are kind of the midpoint to maybe the upper end of that range, for nitrogen requirement. That's gonna be, I think, one of the difficult things moving forward right now, you know, regionally. You know, if we do split this, I mean, what what do we do?
Daniel Kaiser:If the Northwest Minnesota, that's completely different. I wouldn't use these numbers. And if you're irrigated sand, that's completely different as well. The issue is that right now in the the online calculator, you can only find essentially the Southern non irrigated sites. So that's, I think, one of the things we might be working towards is adding some more of this data in because, we have more data to add, and that was been one of the challenges is, having the number of sites try to make some of these these, regional recommendations.
Daniel Kaiser:Jeff, you've been working in the Southeast, and I think you've seen some of the same things. If you look at some of those silty clay loams versus those silt loam soils where there there seems to be a difference between the two.
Jeff Vetsch:Yeah. You're right, Dan. You get into Mauer County, especially Eastern Mauer County, you're really close to the karst area, and most of the drainage from those landscapes go into the into the karst region. But the soils are poorly drained, they have tile. And and if they had that old till that's also goes down extends down into the Northeast Iowa area, those soils can be very tight and act like some of our most poorly drained soils of South Central Minnesota or or Central Minis or West Central Minnesota.
Jeff Vetsch:And they definitely, and the data that we have, need more end. Especially as the climate is or in that region and the springs have gotten wetter, we see an advantage for greater N rates and high on that range, that acceptable N rate range. And we also find more likely or probability to see a response to split application there, which does make sense as well. Then when you get into the loess soils, like you said, Dan, they're better drained. There's more oxygen in them even when they're wet.
Jeff Vetsch:It seems like the plant's roots can penetrate in there and scavenge nitrogen. And we especially for corn after beans, we can seem to get by with a 140, 150 pounds most years, some years, even a little bit less than that. Corn on corn has been a little bit more of a wild animal. It seems to vary a lot more, and that's probably just purely driven by in the late twenty teens and here in the last few years, we've had some pretty wild weather swings and some very wet growing seasons, springs, and falls in that region. A couple of years that the, you know, all time state record for precip.
Jeff Vetsch:And in those years, your your loss potential is pretty significant. You're gonna need more in, and, obviously, corn on corn is gonna drive more in than corn after beans.
Daniel Kaiser:Yeah. And I think in 2014, I mean, we had some studies around the Saint Charles area, and I think that was the year I think 2012 or '14. We had a lot of rainfall in June, and it really drove higher nitrogen requirements. So, I mean, there there's some risk there with those shallow soils. And it really just mostly depends on where that when that that rainfall comes because I can you know, it'd be interesting seeing the data from Waseca here in in 2025 because you got a lot of excessive rainfall late in the season there to see where some of our N rate or or studies come into play because, you know, we'd think we'd have less of a risk essentially for that impacting things, if you get excessive rain in August versus June.
Daniel Kaiser:And, I mean, that's really the the issue that we're dealing with with a lot of this, particularly with the nitrogen requirements and the variability is, some of these these rainfall patterns we're getting. It's when that rain when when that rain's occurring. You know, if I look at a lot of my data, I probably can match a lot of those, those sites up where we see those years or through the spikes into situations where we get, you know, more of that rainfall in, you know, late May or early June where we we tend to see it really spike that, and it really will affect you no matter what. But, yeah, we'll see. I mean, so this regional stuff, think, is interesting to me because, I mean, as we move forward, you know, if we have enough, we we may start looking at making some separate recommendations because I think there is some some call there to do that.
Brad Carlson:And I think it's important also to stress that that, one of the things that we stress a lot in the nitrogen smart training is that the conditions that lead to higher nitrogen demand are knowable conditions, and so, this shouldn't be a big black box mystery to farmers. You should know your soils and, typically what your conditions are from one year to the next and whether, you're likely to need a higher nitrogen rate. One of the points that I like to stress also when it comes to the MRTN rate calculator is it does give a rate recommendation window. So a lot of farmers who have used that or are familiar with that maximum return to nitrogen rate calculator and and what it produces for recommendations over the last twenty years, we've been using that. There's a window of a lower end and a higher end nitrogen rate.
Brad Carlson:The the point, Dan, you mentioned, and it's worth stressing is that's plus or minus a dollar. And so, you know, if we look at that even if, you know, even if corn is only $4 a bushel, we'd like it to be higher, but at $4 a bushel, you know, that's a quarter of a bushel. So your sensitivity at that that level isn't nearly as high as I think a lot of people really stress about that 20 or 30 pounds, and and in actuality, it's it's really not there because at that flat part of the graph, I mean, you're basically returning on your nitrogen investment dollar for dollar in corn. So, you know, from that standpoint, you know, at point one, you're looking at the increase in yield of point one. You're looking at, you know, instead of the one point, you know, the one point one point two bushels pounds per bushel that a lot of people love to use, you know, your your return there is is minuscule to almost nothing.
Brad Carlson:And so it's it's really not worth stressing about. And so if the if the conditions indicate that you're not in a situation to need higher rates of nitrogen, you know, go towards the bottom end of that rate window, like for instance in the Southeast Minnesota.
Jack Wilcox:Why do suggested nitrogen rates bring economics into the mix? Why should growers target profit instead of yield?
Daniel Kaiser:I think what really brought about this was back in it was around well, it was actually when I was still in grad school. There was a lot of questions at that point. We saw some anhydrous prices spike with because a lot of it's driven by natural gas prices that some growers were questioning, you know, what we should be looking at, whether or not we should be looking at economics and adjusting our nitrogen rates based on the cost of fertilizer. So that's where a lot of this comes from. And, you know, honestly, I can't tell a grower what to do in in terms of that.
Daniel Kaiser:However, if we start talking about a lot of these these large price swings, you know, I think there is some credence at least looking at that for planning purposes. And in general, if we're looking at economics, as Brad said, we're we're managing nitrogen with these maximum return to nitrogen, the MRTN recommendations, is really near the point at which yield plateaus are at maximum. So if you look at, you know, the rates that, we'll just talk about our price ratios, the way things adjust. You know, typically, if you're like a point one or a point one two five price ratio, that's, you know, within about three or about 97% to 100% of of maximum relative yields. So we're not talking about a lot of risk, when it comes to overall yield loss.
Daniel Kaiser:And one of the things too I wanna I wanna make this known is, you know, I talked about this before is the way that the, the maximum return nitrogen approach works, again, it's looking at marginal return to nitrogen. So it's not looking at maximum economic productivity for your field. It's not looking at the total you're making per acre. It's just really looking at that point, the incremental, what you're making per every pound of nitrogen applied. So it's looking again at the, the return per pound event applied and and trying to make some sort of judgment on where that maximum, or what we call economic optimum nitrate or the maximum return to nitrogen.
Daniel Kaiser:They're they're kinda use them interchangeably. So when we get these higher prices, I mean, I think that's the main thing to kinda look at. I mean, *inaudible a little bit more difficult for those with manure because the economics are completely different. So we don't technically use the MRTN for our manure application, recommendations. Those are completely different.
Daniel Kaiser:So one of things nice about the calculator, though. If you are interested, you can look at, different scenarios. If you've got different pricing scenarios for fertilizer just to see kind of what it would recommend. Most of the time, though, it's gonna be within a few pounds. So, you know, unless you see a a large difference in terms of your price of nitrogen, I mean, I tend typically recommend most people, just as a starting point, look at the point one price ratio for planning purposes.
Daniel Kaiser:These tend to be historically where fertilizer prices are moderated around. I mean, I think they said now as of, you know, 2025, the numbers are probably a little bit higher than that, but that's generally, I think, a good starting point. I mentioned this before. A lot of our recommendations are a lot of spring applied in. We use a lot of urea.
Daniel Kaiser:We are getting some more data with anhydrous into some of this dataset, but that's the bulk of the study. So the recommendations themselves really assume that if we start talking about our four r's, you know, the right source, place, time, and rate, those four, that we're assuming that the source, timing, and placement are all optimal for a given situation that that we're not getting any loss from those particular hours when it comes to predicting rate. The major question too, especially with fall application across the state is, you know, some of those areas, I mean, that's always questioned. And one of the things I think you're seeing is maybe some growers change their attitudes towards fall application and maybe airing a little bit more towards spring if it's possible. But I know those air there's there's a lot of fall and that still goes on.
Daniel Kaiser:Because we're we're really expecting all those other r's to be optimal. So it's one of the things that's kinda under the major assumption when it comes to that rate calculator when it comes to economics that those are really out of the mix and and that we're just focusing on rate itself.
Brad Carlson:And I know we've occasionally gotten input that at, for instance, at Nitrogen Smart Meetings, we'll have occasional growers say, why are you worrying about my economics? I'll worry about my economics. You just tell me what I need for for the for producing the corn, and, I'll worry about my economics. Well, we know that, when we want to truly maximize yield, you can be applying, three pounds of nitrogen for every bushel increase or whatever it is. That would be a real dereliction if we worried about where we could possibly, maximize yield than the complete, at at, you know, at at the absolute top because, that would be, a completely unsustainable financially, rate of nitrogen, and and it would be polluting the environment terribly also.
Brad Carlson:So we're we're never going to give you that kind of a recommendation. And so, obviously, it does make sense that we just kinda cut those recommendations off where it's no longer paying for itself. You know, it's a topic that I've kind of, you know, I don't wanna say I beat it into the ground, but we keep coming back to the fact that, you know, this analysis I've done the last several years looking at overall profitability on farms and what people are spending on their fertilizer budget. You know, I'll I'll keep saying it that the the 20% least profitable farms in Minnesota are spending 30% more on fertilizer than the most profitable farms. That's going somewhere.
Brad Carlson:And and I think, again, with as bad as the economics and agriculture are right now, if your attitude is, well, I'm just gonna maximize yield because that's most profitable, it's not, and the data shows that. So you really need to be doing a better job of of managing these inputs and and and really, fine tuning your profitability, and not trying to to to just shove it way off to the to the side as far as the yield goes because it's not it doesn't pay for itself.
Jeff Vetsch:One thing that's just super fundamental, but if there's some new people to our podcast, they may not completely understand this, that what Dan is describing in the MRTN or the maximum return to nitrogen and what Brad mentioned is the law of diminishing returns. That last few pounds at some point does not produce enough grain to pay for itself. And that law applies for most fertilizer nutrients, probably all of them. But the difference between nitrogen and maybe phosphorus and potassium is phosphorus and potassium can be held in the soil and used the next year. They can be retained in the soil where the nitrogen is probably gonna be lost from year to year, crop to crop.
Jeff Vetsch:And maybe it won't all be lost, but enough of it'll be lost that it's just there's this environmental consequence that just doesn't necessarily the same as phosphorus and potassium. And that's why that law still works for both, but the impact of putting on more than you need is different.
Jack Wilcox:Brad Carlson, this is big on everyone's mind. Won't higher nitrogen rates make our water quality issues worse?
Brad Carlson:Well, we hear this a lot. I, you know, I guess in in a you know, from 30,000 feet, it would maybe appear that way. However, our data from from years and years of research shows that we minimize nitrogen loss where we are most efficiently using the nitrogen in the crop. And so if higher rates of nitrogen are being demanded by the crop, then it is not being left behind to be lost in the environment. And so that that really is just kind of the the simple answer for that, that that, you know, on the flip side, we'll have people occasionally say, well, maybe we need to put on less than optimal rates of nitrogen, because that will greatly, impact water quality in a positive way.
Brad Carlson:And unfortunately, our data shows that's not the case really either, that that a lot of, the nitrogen that we're losing is is actually not even from the nitrogen fertilizer that we're applying. It is coming from soil organic matter, and in a lot of cases is being mineralized post growing season. Data from Waseca at the drainage plots has kind of supported that for a long time, that a big chunk of that really is going to happen almost no matter what we do with our nitrogen fertilizer inputs, and therefore, you know, that sensitivity of that fertilizer input is not as great as some people think. Now, you know, that being said, the the caveat I wanna give to that all is that if you over apply, it's pretty much left behind in the field pound for pound. And so increasing nitrogen rates when it is necessary for the crop should really not impact water quality.
Brad Carlson:Increasing nitrogen rates at a rate where the crop is not demanding it will have a very severe impact on water quality.
Jack Wilcox:Thank you, Jeff Vetsch, Daniel Kaiser, and Brad Carlson. We appreciate you joining us today.
Brad Carlson:Thank you.
Jeff Vetsch:Thanks.
Jack Wilcox:Do you have a question about something on your farm? Just send us an email here at 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.