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 am Jack Wilcox in communications with Extension.
Jack Wilcox:Today is our annual Spring Fertilizer Outlook, and this year there's a lot to discuss. We have four panelists here with us today. Can you each introduce yourselves?
Brad Carlson:Yeah. Brad Carlson. I'm an Extension educator. I work in the regional office in Mankato statewide. I work with a lot of water quality issues, which means I do a lot of work with nitrogen and occasionally dip my toes in phosphorus.
Jeff Vetsch:Hey. This is Jeff Vetsch. I'm a researcher here at the Southern Research and Outreach Center in Waseca and primarily focus on nitrogen management in corn, but Dan drags me into p and k and zinc and sulfur and everything.
Daniel Kaiser:I gotta keep you busy, Jeff. This is Dan Kaiser. I'm a Extension soil fertility specialist located out of the Saint Paul Campus.
Lindsay Pease:Yeah. And I'm Lindsey Pease, and I am also an Extension specialist in nutrient and water management. I am based out of the Northwest Research and Outreach Center in Crookston.
Jack Wilcox:One of the reasons why this panel is great for this Spring Fertilizer Outlook is that everybody occupies a different corner of the state. What are field conditions like throughout Minnesota? Lindsey, let's start with you in Crookston.
Lindsay Pease:Yeah. Up here in Northwest Minnesota, we had we had some snow cover for most of the winter, unlike the rest of the state, where I know there is very minimal snow cover for a lot of the year. But we actually did have some snow. But we did have a warmer March than we typically do, so a lot of that snow melted. You know, we're getting a bit of a you know, today is is April 2.
Lindsay Pease:We're getting a bit of a fresh dusting and could get some more snow over the weekend. So we're not done with snow, but this is pointing to grounds being thawed a little bit earlier, possibly having a little bit of moisture, in the topsoil from this snow that's falling. So this is pretty good conditions to start the season. You know, things can change, of course, but as of right now, things are are not looking too bad up in the Northwest for field conditions.
Brad Carlson:I'd say in, Southern Minnesota, it it there's been a general moisture deficit, but not a severe one. We had fairly typical fall conditions. The trend the last, decade plus is to have much waterfalls, but this past fall was not extremely wet. And so we're coming into the spring, just a tick dry. It's, rained some this past week.
Brad Carlson:We got a large snowfall couple weeks ago with very little frost in the soil. A lot of that soaked in. A lot of anhydrous went on last week. There was I noticed a lot of dust clouds blowing, so it it certainly wasn't like it was being put into muddy conditions. However, I think we're in decent shape here.
Brad Carlson:And I I guess I think pretty ideal in that the loss processes of nitrogen are water based, and that happens when the soil is saturated. And we haven't really seen those saturated conditions. In general, that happens most springs, but it hasn't happened yet.
Jeff Vetsch:Yeah. I I agree with you, Brad. We don't have a lot of tile flow in our tile drainage studies, but I have seen some tiles in fields that are flowing, but not not heavily. So clearly, we're, you know, somewhere around field capacity. When I looked at the drought monitor that was posted today on the DNR website, it still has parts of Southwest Minnesota either as abnormally dry or moderate drought or minimal drought, along with the areas in North Central Minnesota.
Jeff Vetsch:But the rest of the state, I think, is actually quite good. It's probably a little wet in the eastern, southeastern part of the state here last week after all that snow melted. Some of those areas got a lot of snow. We had a lot of precip in that snow too, so I think, you know, I wouldn't be concerned about drought, and hopefully, the amount of rain we get today in the next few days isn't too excessive, and I see field work could could start pretty pretty much next week in pretty decent conditions.
Daniel Kaiser:Yeah. We've been starting to roll a little bit with some of our research here of kind of like these springs where you can start getting a few things done, you know, specifically Southeast. We've got some funding this year to look at oats nitrogen rate response. So I know there have been a few growers down that way that have gotten a few fields put in in oats, not maybe other small grains in that area. But, you know, it's interesting because I've been trying to get a handle on some areas where we could get some work done in.
Daniel Kaiser:It's been some areas that they've tried. It's about a week ago. I've been about the last or second to last week in March. They were trying to get out and get it in some the fields that was still a little bit wet. So it's been a little hit or miss around in terms of what I've heard, but, you know, we've got a little bit of soil sampling done this spring.
Daniel Kaiser:A few fields, that we're trying to get done. Was hoping to get our alfalfa fertilized at Rosemont, get some of those trials in, but that didn't get done. So I think the next week or so, this first full week in April, I'm kinda hoping at least to get small grains in because it you know, things were looking really good for a while, but I've kinda come to expect that here in Minnesota. It'll it'll give you just a glimmer of maybe, you know, a week of of good weather, then all of a sudden, you'll get about six inches of snow, and then things start to slow down. But kinda see what happens here this spring and said some new stuff going in, so I'm kinda hoping we get a little bit earlier start.
Jack Wilcox:Brad, how is price volatility impacting input planning, or is it?
Brad Carlson:Well, I think it's important to kinda take a step back. There's been a lot of coverage in the news lately, obviously, related to the war in Iran and the Strait Of Hormuz. But I think, you know, like I said, if we step back, we realize that a lot of what we were dealing with coming into this year was actually more related to tariffs and and international shipping patterns. There was a lot of other things that were going on. In addition to that, we also deal with the fact that a large percentage of the nitrogen we use in the Upper Midwest is domestically produced, and so it's not really affected by that at all.
Brad Carlson:Most of our potassium is coming out of Canada. It's not affected by that. There is some impact of phosphorus. However, a lot of that's coming from other places that aren't impacted by that either. I think, you know, some of our commodity groups have been been involved with discussing what some of the phosphorus issues are.
Brad Carlson:I'm not gonna get into that here. So, yes, the prices of fertilizer have been up a lot on the world markets. However, given the fact that most of our input suppliers in the Upper Midwest needed to have locked in their supply and their prices prior to this stuff shooting upward, I don't think there's gonna be a lot of issues. I mean, I haven't heard any reports of the local suppliers jacking their prices way up because the prices are up on the the world markets. So for this year, I don't see this as being a big deal.
Brad Carlson:You know, long term, what happens when the prices go up on world markets is is it starts to tug our domestic fertilizer and wanna draw it out of The United States to export it for those high prices. And so our prices are going to go up accordingly. I think the bigger question is going to be how this plays out through the summer when we start getting into fall when our retailers start looking at, building in supplies for the 2027 growing season. And, of course, that's yet to be written. I think there's a couple other things worth noting here.
Brad Carlson:One is, like, for instance, in Southeast Minnesota, we've been kind of advocating to use triple super phosphate as a phosphorus source in the fall. There were some dealers that were carrying it. They reported they weren't able to get it last fall. Additionally, we're hearing, that that poly coated urea, you know, ESN, that those products are difficult or not even possible to get this year. So there are some specific products, that we're having problems with.
Brad Carlson:But across the board, far as just getting in p and k, I don't think that's a really big issue right now.
Daniel Kaiser:When I think with the the the polymer coated urea, I have don't really have a handle on what's going on with that with ESN, but I know that's one of the things that I've heard people talk about, in terms of availability. You know, Brad, I think, is kinda right looking at right now if growers and these retailers have booked or have most of their product in. I can't imagine we'll see a a big issue. I mean, unless there's enough an fair number of people out there that hadn't purchased anything. Going into spring, I would assume where we'd see maybe more of an effect would be in the summer if we've got a bad year where we need to look at some supplemental nitrogen where you might start seeing some of the effects, and I would expect to see more of the effects this fall when, people are booking.
Daniel Kaiser:Because I think even if things would open up now, we're still looking at a lag time before things kind of get back normal. And, you know, as Brad was saying, domestically, if you look at our nitrogen production, we don't quite produce all the urea we use. There is a small amount that we do import. I mean, the issue with a lot of this stuff, though, is it's a global market. And, you know, especially if you look at where fertilizer prices, specifically nitrogen tend to be effective, it it's always looking at fossil fuels because we need natural gas to produce these things.
Daniel Kaiser:So, you know, it's it's one of the things that's really, you're looking at kinda what we're we're looking at now. I just we'll kinda see what happens here in the next few months, but I'm kind of assuming some of these price increases would really start to reflect itself more towards the fall. DAP and MAP, I know a few of the commodity groups have been kind of lobbying towards some of the tariffs that are or or at least trying to release some of them and specifically some of the tariffs over at Morocco? Because looking at phosphate, that's really where looking at the source wise, I mean, I don't really see domestically where most of these mines are gonna open back up and increase production unless prices get to a point where that's profitable, that really we need to be looking at some of these other foreign sources. One of the things I think people think about, with phosphate is kind of global production, that Morocco, East Or West Africa in that area is where we get a lot of the phosphate, but traditionally, a lot of the production was in China.
Daniel Kaiser:So that's where that kinda took the hit really in terms of the markets increasing was the fact that China stopped exporting just to try to keep prices lower in China. So that really affected the DAP market, specifically because I think, if you look at some of our data, I mean, roughly only about half or so the DAP or less that we use was produced here. So China had, kind of you look at it in terms of the effect, they had, the greater effect when it comes down to some of the dApp market globally. So we'll kinda see. I mean, it's really, a few things have to happen with this.
Daniel Kaiser:I guess on the positive note, potash really hasn't changed price all that much, but, it seems like that's the nutrient that tends to get, kinda be the third in line when it comes to some of these other ones. And, you know, I think really looking at MAP and DAP, it's one of the things with soil testing that growers could use the soil test a little bit more than they are and identify areas where they could have a little bit more cost savings.
Jeff Vetsch:As a consumer, you know, I would propose that, you know, it's kind of the gas price scenario. It goes up really fast, but it's always pretty slow to go down. So the fertilizers that are needed are probably already paid or in stock. I def definitely agree with both of you on that. But this lingering effect of these prices returning to normal could take a lot longer than we might think.
Jack Wilcox:Dan, you just brought up soil testing. Should growers lean on soil testing, or is it more important during times like this? Or are there other things that should be avoided? Any practices that farmers might want to, you know, punt until next year?
Daniel Kaiser:I don't know how much can I beat a dead horse here in terms of kind of what I keep telling people? You know, looking at it with with p and k, I think it's really kind of boils down to really prioritizing what you actually need. And the concern that you know, looking at if you you ask your retailers, I mean, they're really concerned that you're applying exactly what you removed, especially for phosphorus the previous year with that that higher yield you might have had. And the thing about it is I think we're too overly concerned about hitting the bullseye in terms of exact amounts to removal year after year where there's more flexibility than that. So that's kinda one of the things that, with especially phosphorus, little bit can go a long way when it comes down to growers that have been looking at removal based systems that they've built and maintained to a certain point, that they have more flexibility in terms of what they can do.
Daniel Kaiser:I mean, gets more of a problem for Lindsay's area or Western Minnesota where you've got lower soil test values. But, you know, in effect, when you look at those areas, the the returned even with the the higher prices for the the fertilizer tend to be enough that you can cover the price of the fertilizer itself. So it's just looking at kinda getting a balance of, really what you need, and that's one of the discussions I had. I was talking to John Jones who's over in, the University of Illinois, and we were discussing even these, these lower soil test values that, I I think more acidic to neutral soils that meet even a removal base in those areas may be enough to get you through the year. It might not be anything that where you can increase your soil test, but it might be enough of kinda looking at, you know, trying to cut costs at least to make sure that you're near maximum yield potential.
Daniel Kaiser:But, you know, soil testing is the best option. And phosphorus, it's pretty solid in terms of predictability of where you're gonna get a response. Potassium, it's one of the ones that worries me more is that it seems like growers will forget about that, and then you start looking at their case oil test levels, and they start dropping down into medium to low that they've been underfertilizing when in effect they've been overfertilizing phosphorus would have been made more sense for dollar wise to invest in in, potassium. So, I mean, it's it's looking at it, I mean, there's been cost increases with soil tests, but with the the price volatility of fertilizer, it's kinda nice to know what and how much you need. So it's it's still a good option.
Daniel Kaiser:So probably one of the cheaper options to be able to at least, have some information to make a decision. It's really better to have something rather than nothing.
Jack Wilcox:Lindsay, do you concur? Dan mentioned that phosphorus in your area is something to focus on.
Lindsay Pease:Yeah. It's definitely one of those phosphorus up in our area, definitely, you know, a lot of the soils are prone to those perennially low testing, you know, soil test values, the high pH soils really tie up the phosphorus. You know, but one thing to keep in mind though is, you know, and as Dan mentioned, even with soil testing, if you have some spots in your field, you know, these are gonna be possibly some lower areas where where maybe soil might accumulate or if possibly by an old barn. You know, sometimes these areas can have pretty high phosphorus levels, so even looking at something like a variable rate application or zoned application where maybe you're applying a little bit less on areas that test higher, if you do happen to have spots in your field where that soil test phosphorus is in that kind of medium category, you can get away with with lower or skipping that phosphorus application altogether. We really do still see that even with our high pH soils, could still get some response.
Lindsay Pease:And there have been years where we've struggled to get phosphorus response even on low and very low soils, you know, particularly with soybeans. So the the phosphorus is likely not gonna be the thing that sinks you this year. So if, you know, there is a place where you can cut back even in our corner of the state, I I definitely also talk all the time about maybe just thinking about maybe cutting back that rate a little bit, save yourself a little bit of money, and trust your soils to, provide what the soil test is is saying.
Daniel Kaiser:And I'm gonna kick back here a little bit too with starter because, I mean, Lindsay, I know your area, Western Minnesota, there's still a fair amount of growers that are using infertil starter. And one of the things that I think more growers often make the mistake of is they don't count any of the nutrients that they're applying in the starter towards their total fertility program. And, you know, ten thirty four right now, it's interesting. Normally, if you look at the the pounds per unit phosphate with ten thirty four or any liquids, it's higher than than would be for dry. But when I start looking at some of the numbers, they kinda start to be a little bit even to even slightly less with some of these liquids.
Daniel Kaiser:So it's one of the things to kinda consider that you get into some of those situation Lindsay was talking about those higher soil tests. If you're putting on two and a half, three, five gallons of ten thirty four o, I mean, two and a half gallons is about 10 units p two zero five. Five gallons is 20. That there's something there for that. It might be enough in those areas to get you through if there's gonna be a response.
Daniel Kaiser:So that's kinda I'll see what the prices do on this, but it'll be interesting to see because it'd be the first time I've seen where the something like $10.34 o were, when I calculated things out last fall where the prices were pretty competitive to the dry phosphate. So just remember that there's something there that you could back off the dry to make sure you credit for it because that's really where you're gonna make your money. I mean, where yield is made is really in the total nutrient supply. It isn't just starter, and that starter effect really seldom has a has an impact on yield. It's really the nutrients that you're applying in that fertilizer.
Jeff Vetsch:I would add a a couple of points. One is at times, we get criticized that I don't believe the you know, those soil fertility people. You need to you need to do this, but we're not the only people or land grant people that are saying this. I've read articles from our colleagues in neighboring states and around the Midwest, and and they've all had been asked this question, and they're all giving very similar answers. In fact, just yesterday at DTN, I saw a story from John quoted John Laurrie at Missouri, and he said almost exactly what you just said, Dan.
Jeff Vetsch:So we're not the only ones that are saying this, so don't don't discredit this information. The second thing is one of the things that that John mentioned in that story that I think is really good is to think about the response function of fertilizer, and how often the yield response, the most of it comes from the first few increments. So maybe you don't if you don't feel comfortable putting on no p or K, if your soil tests are very high, go with a half rate. And if you're going to get a response, that's probably more than enough to give you that response and yield that you're going to get. And Lindsey kind of iterated to that.
Jeff Vetsch:And then the other thing, think sulfur rate, and Dan and I have Dan studied this so much, and we have too, and the common practice is 20 or 25 pounds or a 100 pounds of AMS, and we've shown so much data that in many cases on our on some soils as little as five pounds gives you, like, 95% of your yield advantage. But certainly a 10 pound sulfur or or no more than 15 is is all that's needed.
Daniel Kaiser:Yeah. And, I mean, really, with those higher rates too, it will carry over. So, I mean, you could cut a year or so with sulfur, and I don't think it would really have much of an impact just with the carryover effect we're seeing. But, I mean, I think I mean, it's it's just looking at the data. Yeah.
Daniel Kaiser:I kinda like the dartboard analogy where, as I said before, I think more people are concerned about hitting the bullseye year after year when it comes to the removal values and, you know, what I found just beyond the board somewhere be close. And as Jeff said, I mean, a lot of the data I have, I mean, has shown that I can hold, you know, medium to high soil tests with, you know, fifth 50% of removal in a two year rotation. The thing I would recommend, though, if you are gonna cut back on that, is it's better to essentially apply ahead of the corn and, you know, focus on that more than the beans. Because as Lindsay said, I mean, it's we struggle here in the state getting consistent response. There are circumstances with the very low soil test where there might be some benefit for year after year, but there seems to be more of a push.
Daniel Kaiser:A grower is really trying to, really push yield of beans higher, and I've just found that, you know, if the soil tests are high enough, there's not a whole lot you're really gonna be able to do, and you can overfertilize them too from the standpoint where you can actually see yield go down. So, I mean, it's the thing. I just look at your crop, what makes more sense. Corn always p and k seems to be they like fresh p and k, soybeans not so much. So, you know, if you're looking at, you know, reducing some costs, you could save a little bit there too.
Daniel Kaiser:If you're doing fertilizing every year is just cutting back and not, having that application cost ahead of the soybean crop too. So, I mean, there's a lot of things that could be done. It's just, essentially weighing where the I think the the best benefit for the fertilizer is gonna be is really what you're you're gonna wanna do right now, just to try to make as much as you can.
Jack Wilcox:Before the podcast began, we discussed a little bit about biologicals. Is there any other data that might suggest different courses of action this year?
Jeff Vetsch:Yeah. I I think we've covered this fairly well, and I think that really pertains to phosphorus because by and large, when people, farmers, or the people I work with that also farm here at the SROC, they bring in their soil, you know, maps and their prescriptions, and and by and large, they they have very high and high soil test phosphorus, and the prescription is still for at least crop removal on those fields. And this those are great examples of place where they could probably get by with zero if it's very high, very high p, soil test phosphorus. And but if you don't feel comfortable with that, that 50% option is a good way to go. And to and Dan's just right.
Jeff Vetsch:It it'll still maintain your soil test. It's not like it's gonna fall off the end of the earth and drop, you know, to to low or medium levels in a year or two. It's just not gonna happen. So that that would be my recommendation as far as phosphorus. And I also agree with him in in case of potassium.
Jeff Vetsch:It's generally right now still one of the least expensive nutrients we're applying, so maybe it's not the one that you skimp on.
Daniel Kaiser:And I've been getting a lot more questions about products right now. So I had a consultant that I know pretty well. We've worked with him for quite a while. I was asking him, there's a few companies out there selling some of these phosphorus solubilizers. Think they're mostly, enzyme products that try to release organic phosphorus.
Daniel Kaiser:And, you know, the thing is, I mean, looking at that, if you're gonna go that route, if you've built your soil test and whole held at a certain point, we know the probability if you're at the high to very high soil test level is very low that you're gonna get a response to any fertilizer you're applying. So you're essentially just replacing what's being taken up. So from that standpoint, then looking at some of these products trying to solubilize more, I mean, really, you're still looking at almost the same pool that you're trying to pull from. I mean, you're theoretically trying to solubilize some of that the phosphorus, but you're not making more with these products. I mean, you're just making, you know, potentially more available.
Daniel Kaiser:So, you know, that's one of the things. These those products are it's kinda interesting thing to me because eventually, I mean, if you are stabilizing some of that organic pool, you're gonna put more pressure on it. You're gonna draw it down quicker to the point where you're gonna need fertilizer at some point in time because you can't create more phosphorus in the the soil. I mean, two molecules don't get together and make a third. I mean, it just it that's not the way it works with it.
Daniel Kaiser:So there's really nothing magic out there, I think, with that to try to get some of these, get get more access to fertilizer, more access to some of the the phosphorus, and eventually, you're gonna have issues where you're gonna draw the soil down. So I don't have a lot of data on a lot of these newer products. I don't know, Lindsay. I don't think you've worked with any of the Fos Fertilizer type. I think Paulo's worked more with those.
Daniel Kaiser:They know that's what a lot of people are looking at because, you know, $510 an acre, I mean, put these on it. I still think it'd be better off investing that in fertilizer because I know what's gonna happen to that, long term. But the thing is, if your soil test is at a certain point, I mean, the probability, again, like I said, is low that you're gonna get a response. So you might as well either go with the cut rate, a lower rate, and try to put something on that you know is gonna be there or, just reduce entirely. That's really your best option.
Daniel Kaiser:I mean, the biostimulants for nitrogen, I mean, that right now, I mean, I know there's a a state program, where you can get part of it cost shared. I think a lot of that, you know, looking at the cost share in these companies is banking and the fact that growers are probably a little bit on the high side anyway, so they can reduce by 30 pounds. They can buy this product and not see any reduction in yield. But, you know, I would encourage some growers if you are doing that, just look at your reduced rate without the product if you can do that and just see if you get the same yield because, I mean, that's you know, you could save the costs on the nitrogen and the product, which is costing about the same amount as the nitrogen that you you're you're supplementing it, and our data shows that it's a very low probability that we're gonna see anything that, you could save the cost on both ends. So, I mean so we'll kinda see.
Daniel Kaiser:I mean, I don't know that programs are in place. We'll see what happens. I know it seems like there's been a lot of activity talking to MDA for people applying for cost sharing of some of these biostimulants. I just, you know, don't think there's anything out there that's a miracle product right now that's gonna be work a 100% of the time, and that's really the the challenge with a lot of these things. There might be spots where they work, but, you know, I think most of the time, they're just banking the fact that growers are probably twenty, thirty pounds high in some of these fields anyway that, they can get away with reducing and buying their product, and they save a little bit with by buying the product.
Daniel Kaiser:But, you know, maybe they could have just reduced anyway and saved the cost on both.
Brad Carlson:I think another point that we haven't talked about yet that when you talk about ongoing research, and that's just relative to our ongoing nitrogen rate studies. Jeff, you do quite a lot of that, and Dan's, you know, overseas that there's various things all over the place. It's worth stressing the fact that that uses price ratios of the price of fertilizer to the price of corn, and we are at historically high price ratios. And when you get those high price ratios, point one five and in some cases point two, you know, if you look at the pound, you know, the price per pound of nitrogen for for instance of 28% or 32%, you're at point two, in in a lot of cases that that shifts the the rate recommendations down, that that that the return on that fertilizer when it's really expensive doesn't justify higher rates. And so, I would encourage producers, to at least go on to the the nitrogen rate calculator, cornandratecalc.org is the website, and look at those price ratios and kind of explore what those recommendations do in our current situation where the price of nitrogen fertilizer is really high.
Lindsay Pease:Yeah. And, you know, to that point, we have been a little bit behind in Northwest Minnesota on getting some of that corn data, but we're getting actually quite we now have quite a few years of good data on corn for Northwest Minnesota in Crookston, you know, thanks to the long term nitrogen trial that that we've been working on with AFREC, you know, for many years now. So we and we are. I'm really excited that we're gonna start expanding that work a little bit to be other soil types and other locations in Minnesota, thinking, you know, further east onto the Beech Ridge and further north because we know there's corn grown all the way up to the Canadian border. So, yeah, the Minnesota corn growers have recently approved that a project to start some of that work.
Lindsay Pease:And so in the future, we're gonna have even better data for Northwest Minnesota than we have in the past, and I'm just really excited to get that going, especially in a time when, you know, that maximum return on nitrogen is so important.
Jack Wilcox:What are some positives out there right now? What are some important silver linings to remember?
Lindsay Pease:Yeah. I think, you know, I think this has been a tough year. 2025 was a tough year, you know, for commodity prices for a lot of the crops, especially up in Northwest Minnesota. You know, maybe if there's something to be, excited about, it is that our weather is looking, you know, potentially favorable for getting in the field a little bit earlier than usual. You know, we can always be optimistic about that.
Lindsay Pease:You know, one thing to say, though, too that I didn't mention before, you know, speaking specifically, you know, to the Northwest Minnesota farmers, if you're growing wheat, one place to not cut back is definitely for your nitrogen rates on wheat. There are places where you can optimize and economize, but that protein content is so important that that's a place where you would probably not wanna cut back. So I did wanna make sure I mentioned that and and, you know, maybe cut back other places like your phosphorus or maybe nitrogen on corn, but do not cut back on on nitrogen in wheat.
Jeff Vetsch:So, yeah, I think that overwhelmingly, the input costs and fertilizer prices and now fuel prices, especially diesel, are all negatives. The only, you know, silver lining, and it's not huge, is that there was a decent price rally for corn and soybeans in March. So if guys were carrying over crop and maybe it gave got some opportunities to sell at higher prices than maybe they expected, and then if we get our typical commodity price rally in June, maybe that will look better than was expected for this growing season, but I think the biggest concern is how this lingers. Now we this will be our third growing season in a row, could it go into '27? This compound multi year is what's really difficult for for farmers, not only established ones, but especially for young ones that have that that have recently invested in lots of equipment or land or whatever and and trying to make those bills paid.
Brad Carlson:I think that we're really in a period of, as odd as this sounds, business as usual, and and that's just simply because with the economics are challenging. I don't think anybody's looking at making any great changes to their operations. I know a lot of bankers, you know, farms are a lot of farms are dependent on operating loans. A lot of bankers are saying, let's not do anything out of the ordinary here and and put ourselves at risk. You know, last fall, we were talking at one point about the basis on soybeans being so bad.
Brad Carlson:Maybe a lot of farmers would switch to more growing more corn acres. However, because of the input cost to corn, a lot of the, you know, the lenders were saying, like, well, that means you're gonna need a lot larger operating loan next year, and we're not so sure about that either. You know, on now on the flip side, the economics of soybeans is maybe looking a lot better because of those reduced input costs and the what's happened with input costs. So I I think, really, probably the main thing I've been hearing this winter as I've been speaking around the state is, I think, you know, a lot a lot of times, we get the reputation of being kinda conservative with what we recommend, and there's a lot farmers who think, you know, I'm I'm a gunner. I really go at it.
Brad Carlson:You know? And I think a lot of them now are kinda coming back and reexamining. You know, maybe I am putting out a little too much of this or doing a little too much of something else. You know, maybe maybe we can just cut back on some of that stuff. You know, shave you shave $10.15 bucks an acre off.
Brad Carlson:I mean, that that with the kind of acres most guys are growing, that's that's a decent amount of money. You know? And so I think that's really probably the bigger thing that's happening this year is is there is a lot of more self examination of existing practices and looking at where we can maybe trim a little bit. And then I would encourage growers, though, you know, we're seeing some signs that maybe crop prices are gonna be turning around. We know that ag is cyclical, and so we kinda hit the bottom.
Brad Carlson:It only makes sense. It's gonna come back up again. You know, if you make some of those adjustments in your operation and you find that it turned out just fine, you know, stick with them. Don't don't say, you know, immediately at a year and a half or whatever prices are better, I'm gonna go right back to doing what I was doing. You know?
Brad Carlson:Kinda kind of pay attention to what you're getting for results.
Jack Wilcox:Thank you to Jeff Vetsch, Brad Carlson, Daniel Kaiser, and Lindsey Pease. We appreciate it very much.
Jeff Vetsch:Yep. Thanks, Jack.
Lindsay Pease:Thanks for having us.
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.