Todd Gleason: From the Land to Grant University in Urbana Champaign, Illinois, this is a special edition of the closing market report presentations from the twenty twenty five farm assets conference, why you should use the in rate calculator. On University of Illinois Extension's Todd Gleason. You know, during the December conference, we were joined by a panel of experts including John Jones, a soil fertility specialist from the University of Illinois, Garishnikke, an agricultural economist also from the Ovi, and Laura Gentry of the Illinois Corn Growers Association. In an era of fluctuating input costs, these three believe corn production is about maximizing profits rather than yields. Today, you'll listen to them break down how the in rate calculator and the precision conservation management program are helping farmers protect both the local watershed and their bottom line by finding that sweet spot for nitrogen applications.

We'll begin with soil scientist John Jones.

John Jones: I'll show a quick snapshot of the the core nitrogen rate calculator website on the left, some data from some or excuse me, not data, but sites for some of the trials that we're running this year. But this is really more of a reference slide of the snapshots from the core nitrogen rate calculator website, and this is really the landing point for the database that feeds into the guidelines that we communicate out of of University of Illinois Extension. You'll see the URL up there. You can select your region in Illinois, your previous crop, and then enter the price considerations for for corn and for fertilizer. You can do it on a per ton or per pound of nitrogen basis.

And then that will kick out a an output that you see in the bottom left. There's also some graphs and figures and summaries. But essentially, if if you haven't seen that before, this is the the default output that will occur. We've got some exciting projects to look at how we can refine that to a more granular scale, but not not necessarily have the data to to communicate that yet. But one exciting thing is that we really ramped up the data production side of of the amount of response to nitrogen data going into this effort.

They're a little hard to see on the screen. There's supposed to be U of I orange, but you can see the dots across the state. Annually, in the past few years, we've usually ran under the advisement of doctor Nafsinger and Dan Schafer with IFCA, around 30 to 40 trials a year, and we really kind of ramped that up this year. And this summer, I think we ended up having about 91 response trials around the state. And I think that's a a pretty realistic number to continue on.

These are a combination of on farm and small plot trials, about 85% of them are are on farm strip trials. So we're pulling data off of commercial scale investigations on nitrogen rates, some on nitrogen timing. And the idea going forward is we'll have some some pretty comprehensive reports for those individual farmers involved in the trials, but then summarizing some some regional data as well. So if you don't see a a dot around where you're farming, come talk to me and we'd we'd love to work with you on on some on farm research. This is, again, a table that I I think can maybe be referenced more in a in discussion, but this is just output from the calculator.

And it's in the context of specific anhydrous ammonia prices. We look at the the point five and up to point point five two range that might be considerable when we start thinking about spring spring spring end prices. But this is some different way that that data is summarized. So looking at moving from regions in the North, Central, and and Southern Illinois, previous crop, and then the pricing scenarios. One thing that you'll see is there's only one single value here that's communicated.

If I'll go back and show the output of the calculator on the bottom left of the screen here, you'll see a range and that profitable range is communicated as a $1 per acre range in maximum return to nitrogen or the economic return to that last pound of of n that was applied. So I'm not showing the ranges here in this table, but generally, they're about 12 plus or minus 12 to 14 pounds of of n on on each side of these values. If you've used the calculator in the past and you've maybe looked at it recently, one thing that we did so the numbers should change because we update them annually. And this year, we also started dropping data that was over ten years old. That was another change.

Previously, it included data back to 2006, and we just thought thought some of the yield levels and some of the more cropping system components, and there were some odd years didn't really represent our our scenarios that we're dealing with now. So the data should look different in the 2023 moving into the 2024, and now will be updated eventually with the '25 data. Something we did drop was the continuous corn consideration for the southern part of the state. If you are growing continuous corn in the southern part of the state from the data that we we, at least have and we don't have a lot of trial data and that's why I dropped that that option in the calculator was because the the data was over nine to ten years old, and I just didn't think it it was rigorous enough to to provide a a recommendation from. So we we recommend and there's some language up there about following the corn after soybean n rate if you are growing continuous corn.

But you can also, you know, advise that or or adjust that depending on previous previous crop production in your given field. This is just another way of showing those ranges. So if you can again go from corn following soybean on the top, corn after corn on the on the bottom, north, central, and south. So again, it's just a different way of communicating those ranges. You'll see those n numbers, that's the number of trials that is represented in the output of the data.

And I think that's that's probably one of the the strengths of this this process of of identifying optimal nitrogen rates and communicating them is that it's a very data driven process. So this is, I'll I'll say probably one of the higher amounts of N rate trials that that the any state in the country has ran to create database that that we can that we can have some trust and and replicability of. These are just some other on farm research trials that we've got in our research group going into 2026. If you're interested, feel free to to reach out on those. I'll I'll say one thing on on p and if that's alright.

But when when looking at our so one of the large efforts that we're doing is also working on updating phosphorus potassium recommendations. There's large we've got a large network of of trials going around the state. And what we usually do with this as well is look at the yield response to phosphorus and potassium fertilizers, but also look at the ROI to the to those fertilizers and sometimes categorize that in different different crop price scenarios. And and the thing that that we're looking for is that this break even point, it matches what we're seeing and where we're plateauing yield or we stop seeing a yield increase with phosphorus or potassium fertilizers. I think this gives us a little more confidence in the recommendations and guidelines when we're comparing yield responses to an ROI consideration.

So I'll stop there and we'll just have these slides for options.

Todd Gleason: I want to take you back to some of the slides to First, begin if you want to find the in rate calculator, search Google at in rate calculator. It will show up. There is you can do corn in ratecalc.org, but search Google for in rate calculator. I do have a couple of questions. Oftentimes, for our part of the world, it'll come up around one eighty five, thereabouts, a 185 pounds of in that need to be applied. What variables can a farmer input? So can they input the price of in?

John Jones: Yeah. So there's there's four main variables that go into this. Your region of the state, your previous crop, the price of corn, and then the price of nitrogen fertilizer. So those are those are the input variables that that are Right. Living as the the calculators

Todd Gleason: You can say, but I expect to raise 200 bushel corn or two twenty five and I think it'll be worth $4.20 cash and it will

John Jones: There's no yield number that's an input. So it's just the the price of the price Oh,

Todd Gleason: there's no yield number.

John Jones: Yeah. Because the we've we found that not a strong relationship between the yield at optimum end rate and the optimum nitrogen rate that's applied Ah, gotcha. Due to the colors of soil you see on the map. Okay. So you just input the price of price of corn grain.

And then it gives you

Todd Gleason: it max it optimizes the nitrogen rate for

John Jones: It shows the nitrogen rate that pays for the last bushel or excuse me, the the it shows the nitrogen rate that produces the last bushel that pays for the nitrogen. So the the last pound of n applied is paid for by the last bushel produced.

Todd Gleason: So it shows me a 185 pounds of n. Is that what I set the anhydrous rig to?

John Jones: That is not what you set the anhydrous rig to, but that would be what you'd you'd do that's a product base. But these are the pounds of n per acre.

Todd Gleason: Right. So So you're counting how you're counting n and what nitrogen applied plus what else?

John Jones: Nitrogen applied. So you you can you can also because you can choose your fertilizer source, it will give you a pound of product output as well. So if you see the pound of nitrogen applied for this scenario, the optimum end rate was $1.83, and the pounds of anhydrous would be $2.23.

Todd Gleason: wait. Doesn't it

John Jones: This include this includes all of the n that's applied. So when when we look at the

Todd Gleason: data the 02/23, you have to subtract your map and dap and those things. Right? That that's that's what I was trying to get to. I'm sorry. I was I was getting there the long way around, I suppose.

But this is not the numb this is not the number you apply. That's the number you but this is not the end hydration.

John Jones: There's only an end source indicator

Todd Gleason: there. Yeah.

John Jones: So this this kind of brings up another another ongoing effort that we've got right now to build a state specific calculator that has more options. And we're working with some other collaborators at U of I to do that so that we can maybe get a little more granular than just North Central and Southern Illinois, splitting things like prairie and timber different soil associations. One thing about the data that's that's included here and interpreted is it does count all nitrogen that's applied in the fall as MAP and DAP and your specific end source. And that the decision to do that is really comes from research results where we've compared the available end in fall and spring applied DAP, and we did not see a difference between those two or spring applied UAN. So the fall end could be counted on in your total end budget.

Todd Gleason: Okay. I know you'll get this question, so I'm going to ask it. I'll ask you a question first. Who remembers the nitrogen formula for the state of Illinois? Anybody?

Oh, surely you some of you used it. Excuse me, 1.2. There it is. Yeah. I won't say it out loud, but that's that's the one I'm talk minus 40 pounds for and we always get asked, does the credit.

The is there an in credit for soybeans here? And it doesn't appear to show up. Why?

John Jones: The the answer is that the change in available end, soil available end from a previous crop of soybeans and corn is already represented in how the data is interpreted. Because you click pick your previous crop, we have n rate curves or response curves to nitrogen for both scenarios. So when you pick your previous crop, we're already seeing how that corn would have responded following corn soybeans. So the change in soil and availability after corn and after soybean is already represented in the dataset. We don't really call it this the credit the way that that the 40 or 50 pounds would have been considered before.

Interestingly enough to the 1.2 number, I wish we just stopped talking about that because most

Todd Gleason: That's why I didn't wanna say it out loud.

John Jones: Well, most farmers, if you look at your end budget, are nowhere close to that. And that's considering the output of this or not, when we look at on farm research, we're bouncing between point eight five and point nine five more more likely than not. And so I I think we need to stop mentioning that that that number in decimal and and go go off to some some results of of relevant data.

Todd Gleason: The first time I heard the point nine number was in the mid nineteen ninety, mid to late nineteen ninety's at some point, but we were well above that using still the old 1.2 formula at that point. Let's turn our attention to a long running research project now called PCM, Precision Conservation Management that the Illinois corn growers started to put together. I'm going to let Laura give the history on this one with Gary Schnitke at the University of Illinois. But Laura, why don't you start with kind of history and background about precision conservation management. This on the flip side is about nutrients coming off of your properties and trying to control them in some form and what might be the best opportunities to do that in a whole bunch of different ways.

Laura?

Laura Gentry: Thanks. Thanks Todd. So everybody cast your memories back back to the 2014 and think about what that fall was like if you remember and it was already referenced up here once today the Des Moines waterworks lawsuit does everybody remember that so that was that was happening in the 2014. And then there was also who remembers the huge algal bloom on Lake Erie that fall, that late summer and fall, does anybody remember that? When nobody could drink the water.

Nobody could cook with the water. You couldn't you couldn't even give your dogs and cats the water. You couldn't they they were warning you about even bathing because it was a harmful algal bloom. That was happening at the same time. The city of Toledo, Ohio at that time was under a do not drink the water ban for for a couple of weeks.

There was just a lot going on in the 2014 and back here in Illinois we also had the Illinois nutrient loss reduction strategy was about to be released. It actually came out in July 2015 but we had all the stakeholders were engaged in developing that nutrient loss reduction strategy and here at Illinois Corridors we knew that that was going to be a really relevant document that when it came out everyone was going to be talking about it in the Midwest and maybe around the country because it wasn't just Illinois, there were a total of 12 states that had to develop the nutrient loss reduction they called them nutrient reduction strategies. Illinois is the only one that referred to ours as a nutrient loss reduction strategy, emphasizing that it's not that we want to reduce nitrogen, it's that we want to reduce the loss of the nitrogen and the phosphorus. So 12 states were doing this, so it was a big deal all up and down the Mississippi River at that time. And it it was just clear that there were going to be long term ramifications from that document.

And in response to that, Illinois corn and a lot of other agricultural groups in Illinois as well were thinking about how we were going to address water quality issues. And Illinois corn started a program in 2015 called Precision Conservation Management, PCM. And we launched it in 2016 with the help of a regional conservation partnership program grant from NRCS. We got $5,350,000 to start that program. And that was a ton of money back then that seemed like a lot and and it was a it well it still is yeah if it's just yours it's a lot but we are now on the tenth year PCM and the whole idea behind the effort of the Precision Conservation Management Program is that we work one on one with farmers so every farmer who enrolls in the program has a we call them a specialist a precision conservation specialist that works directly with them.

It has a very strong data component and these guys I look at them because they both know very well all the different pieces that go into it. And we sit down with farmers two to three times a year and collect data and we put it into our secure data platform, our farmer portal and it includes information about your management decisions. So every farmer puts in information about every pass that they make across their field and the details of that in terms of what their equipment that they use were what was the pass for was it a tillage pass a spray pass planting harvesting and we assigned the equipment to that and the inputs Were you applying? Were you spraying an herbicide, a fungicide? Were you, applying a fertilizer?

How much of the fertilizer? What type of fertilizer? And so it's it's got quite a lot of data points in there, but our specialists are there to ease the pain points of getting that that data into the program. So it's a very data intensive program. And every year in February and March, our specialists come out to the farmers in the program and deliver a custom made report them.

A RAP report. A resource analysis and assessment plan. And that RAP report spells out all the different the data that we took summarized by field for that year and all previous years and it shows it to them in terms of their tillage decisions, their nitrogen management decisions for corn and their cover cropping decisions. And then it allows them to be able to compare their own economic decisions their own economic outcomes and agronomic outcomes with those of farmers who are near them like in the same region of course not by name or by field, but it's, at an aggregated and anonymized level. The farmers can say, oh, this is my one pass tillage system with a vertical till for my soybeans, and I want to compare it to how farmers were doing who grew corn, grew soybeans with no till or with two tillage passes.

So it's a benchmarking type of system. And what doctor helps us to do is to take an assigned cost for every single one of those passes that they make. We assign costs using data that he gives to us. And so the farmer can actually compare their their own net bottom line with those of farmers who are using other practices. And so that's the big idea behind the biggest part of the Precision Conservation Management Program, helping farmers to make decisions, financial decisions about conservation.

Todd Gleason: Gary, how did you get involved?

Laura Gentry: Todd, don't sound so impressed.

Todd Gleason: I was. I just wanted to get to Gary. I was just gonna skip the rest way over you.

Gary Schnitkey: So that that year I did a sabbatical with Illinois corn and that was one of the things that I worked on was helping develop the procedures for collecting the economic information with with associated with PCM.

Todd Gleason: He went on vacation with Illinois corn for a

Gary Schnitkey: whole year. So that that you can look at it that way. Most people would pick a different place to go. Just just so just so we all know know that.

Todd Gleason: Usually it's a sabbatical over seas somewhere.

Gary Schnitkey: Bloomington is a good place to go. Yeah, I was happy with that.

Todd Gleason: In the ten years of data Gary, what are the most striking things you have learned?

Gary Schnitkey: So, well, we'll start with nitrogen. You know, that MRTN, PCM would show that that is correct. That that, one seventy to one eighty pound range is is the profit maximizing range. We do see higher yields occasionally above that and that's not every year but on average above that but additional bushes do not cover the cost of that. And that's particularly important now because you're gonna have four twenty corn and eight fifty anhydrous ammonia that's that's That's what I looked at, that's the last value from the Illinois production cost report.

So you're looking at a relatively low cost price, high price input. So you look at those those charts, John was using four fifty. That that would be optimistic by my by my ag economist look at things. The other thing that's really interesting and by the way there's a lot of farms that apply well above that level and we're talking well above that level so we're not talking slightly above well above. If you're higher than MRTN you're doing that this is the prediction that I would look at from that data.

If you're above MRTN you're doing more tillage, more passes applying nitrogen, you're applying more fungicides and you're applying more herbicides. So that so by the way and that's most people. When you're above in one profit maximizing level you're likely above in all of them. So here's what what I would tell you tell you is maximize profits not yields. And I would and you know there's only probably about only one person that comes out to your farm that suggests lowering inputs and that person won't but the person is the FBFM field staff who says cost matter right?

The rest of the people we can spend $10 and we'll get an ROI of 150%. That's pretty much the sales and you add up all those sales pitches and we have inputs that are well above the profit maximizing levels. So maximize profits, not yields.

Todd Gleason: There's a lot of room for improvement. Did the ag economist in you put a number on how at that dollar bill amount is per acre?

Gary Schnitkey: So, you know, when it's significant and again, we see this all and it's not just PCM, it's FBFM as well.

Todd Gleason: Farm business, farm management.

Gary Schnitkey: Farm management. You're in a commodity based business, Corn and soybeans primarily, commodity based business. The way a commodity based business producer differentiates themselves from the other people is lower cost, it's the only way. So if you want to maximize profits you have to have lower cost. And you know, if you begin adding it all up you can get $40.50 dollars per acre pretty quickly.

So.

Todd Gleason: So it's about efficiency then, PCM is to some extent. About, well, Laura about avoiding regulation in the future, think one of the had, must have been one of the reasons that the program began to begin.

Laura Gentry: It was entirely the the effort around it and knowing what was happening with the Illinois nutrient loss reduction strategy being released. All the other black eyes for agriculture that were happening back in that period of fall twenty fourteen and 2015 that it was all around concern of regulation and and it was more than this idea that many people have about you know keep the government out of my business it was about maintaining the flexibility that we had and you know we we'd already lost a great deal in terms of other regulatory requirements but this was about maintaining the freedom that we have to be able to respond to climate issues, to markets, to other economic factors that that we need to have some flexibility around, without the constraints and being hamstrung by onerous record keeping and regulations for, around our fertilizer applications.

Todd Gleason: And and I think, but I'm not sure that this is the right timing, one of the things that came up at the very end of the policy section was the Des Moines Water Works and that was an issue. It was a scary issue at about that time. Am I right?

Laura Gentry: Oh, it was. Yes. That every everybody in every farmer in the Midwest was aware of the Des Moines Water Works lawsuit and was keeping their eye on it at that time. Every ag magazine that came out had an article about what was happening with it.

Todd Gleason: John, I suspect you learned a lot about that over time. And you and your agronomist friends probably talk about the movement of nitrogen and other things through the water systems. How well and how easily does it move and what happens when you over apply?

John Jones: We've got a leaky system by nature. When we look at the amount of water, nitrogen is gonna follow water in most cases, both up and down as as we lead to water induced volatile losses of of nitrogen into gaseous forms or if we lose nitrogen through through tile tile lines or if we lose nitrogen leaching through non tiled fields that tracks right along a fragipan. If anyone's in Southern Illinois and has fragipans or root limiting layers that are about 24 18 to 24 inches deep, water can track horizontally on top of those as well. And this is just an inherent part of the system, it's it's leaky. And one of the interesting things that some myself and some colleagues have found when looking at what nitrogen is found in the tiles is it's not necessarily fertilizer nitrogen.

The majority of that nitrogen is from organic and in the system that's been mineralized and then lost. We have a lot of organic matter in Illinois soils. We've introduced oxygen in many different ways and it burns up organic matter. That's also how our plants get get nutrients is that organic matter has to burn up. I think there's there's three things maybe related to to what we've talked about so far that I wouldn't wanna hit on.

One is that interestingly enough in the if we're talking about yield levels at at at different rates of nitrogen that are applied, the difference between the end rate that maximizes yield in a lot of our trials, and they're they're very relatively high yielding trials when most when the the mean average is two sixty eight to two seventy two across a wide range of of soils in the state. It's about one one to two bushels is the difference between maximizing yield and then maximizing profit. And that's not always the case. Some sites, the the bushels or the yield drops a little bit more when you get down to the economic optimum nitrogen rate, but it doesn't vary that much. And in fact, that's one way that we check our dataset to see was this maybe an odd site year or odd trial as we look at the difference between the end rate or the yield that or the yield when it's maximized versus the yield that led to an economic optimum rate.

Two more things is that interestingly when we look at nitrogen losses and what nitrogen rates exacerbate that, we really don't see a big difference between, I'll say, 30 pounds of N applied. So if you only put starter N on versus the optimum N rate around one seventy five to one eighty. It's after that and the 30 pounds after that rate that we start to see an exponential increase in nitrogen loss. Interestingly, we see that the same way in phosphorus. The soil test level that optimizes yield with p, that between zero p applied is generally no no difference in p loss and surface runoff or through tile lines, And that was part of the work that I did in graduate school in Iowa.

Speaking of the nutrient loss reduction strategy there, a lot of the research that, I'll say, fertility specialists around the Midwest have done is present in a lot of the nutrient loss reduction strategy targets application or practice efficiencies. But with phosphorus it's the same thing, not until you increase soil test phosphorus 20 to 30 parts per million past the agronomic optimum, that's when you start to see exponential losses of PE, both subsurface and with runoff. So I think those are something to to think about and maybe it's not always talked about a lot is that agronomic efficiencies also usually parallel with environmental efficiencies and reducing losses.

Todd Gleason: Thank you. That is a really insightful thought. I I had not come across that one. In PCM, you talked about efficiency some, the number Gary of passes, tillage passes. First, I don't know whether and Laura, you may have an idea.

I don't know whether this is related to keeping nutrients on the property, probably is. But it certainly is related to maximizing efficiency. Gary can you talk about number passes and passage passes that is?

Gary Schnitkey: So PCM regularly summarizes data and we do it in no till, one pass, two pass, and two plus pass systems. You'll see that if you go to the business case for conservation you'll see that on the website. The one pass systems versus the no till systems will often have roughly the same profitability sometimes a little bit higher sometimes a little bit lower. There does appear to be a a bit of a yield advantage for one pass sort of system. When you go to two and two plus pass systems we don't see an increase in yields and all you're doing is if you're not getting an increase in yields and we don't see a reduction in herbicide or pesticide cost.

In fact pesticides don't vary much depending on the tillage system. You know if you're not getting a yield advantage all you're doing is adding cost. I mean and we're putting in every tillage pass will be roughly $15 an acre. So you see sort of that reduction in in cost or excuse me, in in returns.

Todd Gleason: And from the water quality side, how much difference does it make ore from we've had issues with wind borne dust storms as well in recent years.

Laura Gentry: Well, from the water quality side, and I I was gonna add this on based on on John's comment about it's that it's the extra you know twenty five thirty pounds that farmers are putting on of nitrogen that that insurance nitrogen that they're putting on be sure they're not leaving any any yield on the table it's that amount that they're losing that's coming out of tile lines and that is going to if we don't curtail this loss of nitrogen leaving through our through our tile lines it is very likely to result in lawsuits or additional regulations down the line and and I don't say this to scare anyone I don't say it because it's what anyone wants to see happen I just it is the most likely scenario for the next line of regulation in the Midwest is going to be around water quality issues and this is what I think is so interesting, Lowell Gentry, my husband I should I guess say, but his work in Central Illinois finds that the average nitrate nitrogen losses from tile lines is 27 pounds of nitrogen per acre and you just heard John say that it's it's usually and and I'm comparing myself the MRTN values with what the average PCM farmers applying it's anywhere from well there was a low number in 2021 farmers the average nitrogen above the MRTN it was only eight pounds the average farmer only applied eight pounds above the MRTN that year but in all other years that value is ranging from 25 to up to 48 and that's the average pounds above the MRTN and the MRTN works it literally is it's a it's an economic model and it does exactly what it's supposed to do it it does predict the most profitable nitrate nitrogen rate and in the PCM program the only years where we have seen that it didn't work were in those years when the soil when the soil conditions were just perfect or the weather conditions were just great and the soil released more nitrate than it than it was predicted to and in those years the MRTN overestimated the amount of nitrogen needed.

It has never once, Todd, never once in the work that I've looked at under predicted the maximum nitrogen rate. So farmers can feel like it's a good conservative estimate and very few farmers seem to believe that and Emerson says it all the time, it's a conservative estimate. John, you feel comfortable with what I said there?

Gary Schnitkey: When you say conservative, mean we're going to get most of the yield.

Laura Gentry: Yes, I mean it's under, predicting a nitrogen rate that you will not be under applying nitrogen at the MRTN, that's what I'm trying to say and if you wanna correct or add to that.

John Jones: No, agree with that and one of the ways that we show that in some of the data sets is you'll see a percent yield achieved and it's usually at 99% when we think about these studies. And one of the, I'll say criticisms maybe of this approach is that yield isn't considered, we talked about that But there's the lack of relationship between yield and optimum nitrogen rate made up really caused by the amount of nitrogen from our soils is the difference there. Now there's certain cases in the southern part of the state where you have relatively lower nitrogen mineralization rates or conversion to plant available. There's a little more of a trend between yield level and optimum nitrogen rate. One of the things that I think is important though to to break apart there though is that, and what I just mentioned, is that the yield level isn't necessarily kicking off any any need for more nitrogen.

The question of does the plant does that corn plant need more nitrogen when it produces more kernels is yes, but what we're finding is that the soil keeps up in many cases with that additional requirement of nitrogen. Now interestingly enough as well what we're finding is reductions in nitrogen concentration in the grain as we've increased yields over time. So there's there's some evidence that our hybrids have become more efficient at using available nitrogen that's present as well. And so all of this is happening at the same time. One thing that's really interesting in the dataset is we look at the yields at zero nitrogen or zero to 30 pounds of N, which may have been the lowest nitrogen treatment.

Those are increasing steadily over time. What's the difference? Breeding, really. I mean a lot of good things happen when you breed for higher yields, things like nitrogen use efficiency, leaf angle orientation, everything like that. When you breed for higher yields, other components of that plant usually are optimizing themselves to create those more kernels per plant.

Todd Gleason: I've got a question, for one trip comparison, I fall strip till nitrogen, is that one trip?

Gary Schnitkey: The question is Strip till would be one one trip across the field, but and we would separate out. But, yes, it's one strip unless you're freshening it, then you get two passes, but one one trip.

Todd Gleason: Other questions?

Gary Schnitkey: Yeah.

FAC Attendee 1: Okay. It's it's all well and good to do this, but are there any things coming down the pike to help us out? Like, we've been tissue testing. We're looking for something to to measure mineralization during the season so we can we've been told spoon feed nitrogen through the season. Is there anything out there that we can say in April, May, June, and see how the mineralization is coming?

Because this year, we raised two eighty to two ninety bushel corn on that same thing. And for no reason, it was dry at the wrong times and all that kind of stuff. So is there a way to figure this out?

John Jones: Yeah. So one of the things that we implemented this year so I feel like production agronomy research are either coming from the top up or the bottom down. I'm a soil scientist by training soil chemist and so always call soil fertility soil chemistry with dollar amounts. And and I think what what we've implemented this year in a lot of those trials, and we haven't got the data all analyzed yet from the yields, is that we're measuring soil nitrogen at different times to create a database to predict that. So the the, you know, the the soil testing for nitrogen kind of boomed and busted.

There were certain states that ran pre plant nitrate tests, pre side dress nitrate tests. There was a presence of kind of an organic mineralization proxy of the Illinois soil nitrate tests that existed for a while, but they've all boomed and busted. And and the the challenge has been if you're just measuring nitrate, that it's a very quick snapshot of what's available there. And it's more of a site characterization than you can say, you need to apply a 150 pounds from a 18 part per million PSNT pre nitrate sample. So

Todd Gleason: there's work

John Jones: on that. I would say we don't have the tools yet to say this is mineralized. There's some efforts in modeling and that's really where we have to combine a lot of the work our group does and we try to measure everything. We're in the lab and in the field quite a bit collecting a lot of data. We're working with modeling teams like Doctor.

Kai Huang's group at University of Illinois to say, now can we start to predict that? My hope is that you take and this is again kind of pie in the sky moment, but I I don't think it's worth I don't I don't think it's bad to shoot for these things, is that you start out with the the optimal nitrogen rate that's maximized profit in the last ten year dataset. And as you move to incur different environmental changes in a given year, that adjusts to consider what you're talking about. Did we have were we coming out of a dry fall where there happened to be residual nitrate? Usually residual nitrate in, let's say, 2032 got flushed out pretty quickly in 2013.

That was why there was a big, I think it was the end watch program that that doctor Brown worked on and Dan Schafer and and Emerson did as well, looking at what was hanging out there. And my hope is that then as those processes are occurring that's leading to more or less soil nitrate availability we can adjust that optimum rate. Are we there yet? No. Just the simple answer.

But we're trying to come up with proxies and circuits to look at that.

Gary Schnitkey: Just just so we know every time a spoon feeding nitrogen means more passes across the field. Everyone on what's that? Unless Unless you're irrigating which maybe. Every time you go past the field there's a cost. Just just just remember that.

Todd Gleason: So I wanted to ask both John and you can jump in Laura on this too but I think it'll be data that that Gary has worked with. Is there very much of a difference in when the nitrogen is applied? So whether your fall applies, spring applies, side dress, how how many times you make it pass? I I think I wanted I want John I've heard Gary's several times. So I John, what what what do you know about this and what does your training tell you?

John Jones: Sure. We've got a few papers in review on this and and we talked about this this summer at a nitrogen use efficiency conference. So one of the things that's interesting when we compare optimum nitrogen timings to when we'll say that corn plant is taking up seven pounds of N per acre per day, is that the fertilizer timing research doesn't necessarily align saying you have to have your N, you put your N on exactly when the corn plant is taking that up. And that's because of what happens to fertilizer when we immediately apply it. It get a little bit may get taken up by the crop immediately, but a lot gets mixed into the cycling of microbial biomasses or dead microbes in soil.

Your fertilizer gets immobilized pretty quickly. So the timing research is a lot more muddy. Now where there's some more clear trends, so a paperwork we've got in review right now is a comparison of all spring or all spring versus all fall in hydrous ammonia. What's the difference between optimum nitrogen rates and yield. We don't see any difference in yield between our optimum nitrogen rate being applied all in the fall with anhydrous and all in the spring.

Now there's some big big risks to take with doing that, and I I don't think many people are putting all their their end on in the fall anyway. But the the comparison is kind of a stark contrast, and there's about an 18 to 24 pound and optimum end difference or lower optimum end with the spring end. When we start to compare timings after planting, things get a little more muddy. In the southern part of the state where you can lose a lot of end by volatilization, let's say if you just surface apply UAN in dry conditions like this year, then it pays for getting it knifed in at side dress versus a later Y drop where you're just setting it on the surface. Everything is always going to be environmentally dependent on what that corn crop sees in a given year, But that's probably the biggest challenge.

And I think one of the things that's shown up in a lot of nitrogen timing research, and we've got a new project this year looking at that, that'll be on long term across the state, is that getting at least half year end upfront usually pays off when we have those low nitrogen availability years. Now the challenge I think and what I'd like to see is our ability to adapt as between planting and v six environmental conditions come about, then you can adjust maybe what your side dress rate is going to be. Because in in earnest what what the major decision is is what your side dress end rate adjustment is going to be. Sometimes whatever your base rate end is, is is what it is for your for your whole farm maybe unless you can start to vary that. So that's something we're looking a little more into is how do we really dial into not just the total N rate recommendation but specifically that side dress N rate recommendation.

Gary Schnitkey: So in PCM we divide it up by fall mostly fall mostly pre plant spring mostly post plant and then there's three way applications. Fall does not turn out to be the most profitable, does not, and the primary one of the primary reasons is the nitrogen inhibitor that goes on with it and that's typically a 14 to $15 cost. So even though you're putting anhydrous ammonia on you're adding that $14 to $15 cost. You go pre and post plant we don't see much difference in our data whether most is pre plant, most is post plant. I would note that if you want to put a nitrogen the least expensive way put it on is anhydrous ammonia.

And that has its own sort of issues. The three way did not also did not have the highest profits and one of the things that's going on there is you got three three three three passes through the field. And the other thing for whatever reason the three passes through the field follow the same thing that they do a lot of other things so they also had higher nitrogen rates. So the two so if we could find some three pass systems with MRTN rates we might see something different than than we've seen. Those do have differences as far as losses which, Laura might might want to say something about but they're they're the obvious ones.

You know the one one thing I would say is don't forget that every time you go across the field you're adding cost. So, you know, spoon feeding three three passes, you know, every pass is a cost.

Todd Gleason: Any other questions out here?

FAC Attendee 2: Yeah. I, attended your webinar about a year ago and I'm some pulling data from that. I remember seeing Strips Hill wasn't as profitable as I thought it could be. And I was was wondering, like, if you're banding your p and k and your nitrogen and you're eliminating a floater truck pass and you're banding everything and maybe possibly lowering rates, what why aren't you seeing that as profitable as other?

Gary Schnitkey: Yeah. So I would say we need to do a better job with our strip till. We always say this every year when this comes up, we do so when you're looking at strip till, there's a number of things that get thrown in there. Strip till and then then the minute you add a freshening pass, those two things get in there. If you just do a strip till pass without the freshening pass, you're you're going to be comparable to a one tillage system versus a two tillage system.

System. For whatever reason our strip tillers also tend to put on higher nitrogen rates. If we bring those back to MRTN, strip till looks looks looks better. So it's not the strip till is my estimation. It's what some people do in addition to the strip till like having higher MRTNs doing a freshening pass or any of these other things but if you just did a strip till come in and plant and stay with MRTNs, strip till will be comparable to the other systems and we just need to make that more explicit in the data presentation.

So that's your answer.

John Jones: I was just writing something down as Gary was talking about that. Last fall we did start a long term study at least three sites around the state at Urbana Monmouth and North Center. We'll expand that to two more sites this year comparing optimum end rates by tillage system. So strip till with fall chisel and a spring freshener compared to full width chisel and field cultivator and then a no till system. The data from one year, now we we need time to to see the tillage effects of some of these some of these systems, but the data from one year shows that the difference between full width tillage and strip till system, there there was no change in the optimum nitrogen rate.

No till was a little bit shifted off, but some of the the especially to the locations we had a little bit tough year with the dry dry conditions in in the if if anyone's recently converted any field to no till, that's not usually the the easiest first year and this wasn't in Champaign County doing that. But the the comparison between full width tillage and strip till, we didn't see any difference at those three sites following corn or soybean. They were they were similar. The previous crop changed the optimum end rate much more than full width tillage and strip till.

Laura Gentry: Let me get one more thing in there about strip till. We would we believe in strip till, and it's got a lot of great advantages from a water quality perspective. We know that that is is true when you especially when you when you band your phosphorus, with it. So one comment that we're seeing, I think this is important, is that not every year is created equal. And what we've seen in the last two years with the financial, environment being what it is with relatively lower crop prices, relatively higher input costs, especially nitrogen fertilizer.

We've seen the farmers pulling back on their nitrogen rates with strip tillage and in these years, these past two years, '23 and '24 data have shown that strip till has been some of the more, strip till and no till both have been the more profitable systems even relative to like the one pass light. And I think a lot of this has to do with the just the popularity of these vertical till systems that happened around 2017, 1819. You just saw all these farmers that we had a really high yields and farmers wanted to manage their residue. They saw vertical till as a great way to do that. And they did well with it, but they were also they weren't going crazy with their input rates and some of the strip tillers were over applying some of their other inputs.

What we have seen in '23 and '24 is that especially on lower SPR fields we've seen that strip till was I believe the most profitable system in '23 and '24 for corn production just in those two years and then for high SPR and lower SPR it did it did really well. No till and strip till did really well in those two years that were like this client. I'm trying to be a fake economist now. But, you know, sort of the economic environment we find ourselves in now.

Gary Schnitkey: Just one more thing. We haven't mentioned this yet, but if you want to reduce nitrate flows from field, put cover crops from corn to soybeans and all the organic and that may be going into the soil or excuse me into the water will be tied up by the cover crop. And that is quite certain from Lowell's work and everything else. And we can with some some CRP and other sorts of money make that a break even proposition. And maybe maybe longer term profitable with the right rate but that that's one thing that to keep in mind.

Corn to soybeans, cover crops, cereal rye on there will sequester nitrogen and reduce nitrates in water.

Todd Gleason: Laura, I'm gonna have you wrap up. Two things I want from you. How many acres are actually in PCM and how do they get involved if they want to be?

Laura Gentry: Great. Thanks. So right now there's 660,000 acres in the PCM program right now we have a little over 600 farmers we have between four hundred and four hundred fifty in the state of Illinois and we are enrolling more farmers right now so there is room in most regions for that we are in. By the way, PCM is not in every single county in Illinois. We're in about 52 counties in Illinois, so half.

But, if you want to see if you're in a region that we serve and you're interested in enrolling, we would we would love to have you or or farmers that you know. And you can find the website at precisionconservation.org or you can reach out to anyone at Illinois Corn Growers and we will put you in touch with the right folks.

Todd Gleason: John, any final word from you?

John Jones: The the biggest thing right now, we haven't really talked about things like soil testing, to this point in the nitrogen discussion, because usually soil testing isn't discussed. But this is a time when, we just talked about this at over at the Soybean Association's headquarters yesterday that this is a time when you can identify parts of fields that really aren't gonna respond to applied nutrients or that really are going to need applied nutrients to to recover potentially lost yield. So it's really a good time that the ROI for identifying what your soil's got in it pays off. That's my final comment. Now Gary.

Todd Gleason: Gary, you have one I know.

Gary Schnitkey: Maximize profits, not yields.

Todd Gleason: Gary Schnitke is an agricultural economist at the University of Illinois. He, John Jones, soil scientist at the U of I, and Laura Gentry, who is the water quality specialist at the Illinois Corn Growers Association, made a presentation titled Why You Should Use the In Rate Calculator and PCM at the twenty twenty five Farm Assets Conference. You've been listening to the closing market report from Illinois Public Media. Find us online at willag.org. That's willag.org.

I'm University of Illinois Extension's Todd Gleason.