When Minnesota farmer Carson Kahler began evaluating Green Lightning technology this season, he wanted to answer one question: Could he reduce synthetic nitrogen fertilizer use without sacrificing corn yield?
The sixth-generation farmer, who shares his farming experiences on his 6th Gen Farmer YouTube channel, put the technology to the test by comparing his traditional sidedress nitrogen program with reduced nitrogen rates, both with and without Green Lightning.
The system is designed to let farmers produce their own nitrogen fertilizer on the farm using air, water and electricity.
At harvest, one treatment caught Kahler’s attention. Corn that received 18 gal. per acre less sidedress nitrogen, along with Green Lightning and fulvic acid, yielded nearly 2 bu. per acre more than the full-rate nitrogen check.
“Not only did it do something, it actually yielded better than the 30 feet over that had 18 gallons per acre more nitrogen,” he says.
The results have given Kahler reason to reconsider a decision he had been weighing: returning the Green Lightning machine after repeated equipment breakdowns.
“Maybe I’m not returning my Green Lightning machine,” he says. “Maybe I’ve got to figure out a permanent solution for it this winter.”
Positive Results, But Only One Season
Kahler’s trial was conducted in a field of corn averaging approximately 260 bu. per acre. His standard fertility program in the field included about 40 gal. per acre of 32% nitrogen applied as a sidedress application.
For the comparison, he reduced the N rate to 22 gal. per acre in one strip. In another, he applied the same reduced nitrogen rate, plus 12.4 gal. per acre of Green Lightning mixed with fulvic acid.
The harvest results provided some interesting insights:
- Full-rate nitrogen: Using approximately 40 gal. per acre of sidedress nitrogen produced 264 bu. per acre.
- Reduced nitrogen: Applying 22 gal. per acre of N without Green Lightning yielded 260.6 bu. per acre.
Reduced nitrogen plus Green Lightning: Applying 22 gal. per acre of nitrogen followed by Green Lightning and fulvic acid yielded approximately 265.8 bu. per acre.
The reduced nitrogen treatment without Green Lightning yielded about 3.4 bu. per acre less than the full-rate check. However, adding Green Lightning to the reduced-rate program not only made up that difference but also produced a yield advantage of nearly 2 bu. per acre over the full-rate treatment.
“That’s insane,” Kahler said, as he worked through the numbers.
He also evaluated a treatment using 32 gal. per acre rate of sidedress nitrogen with Green Lightning. That strip yielded about the same as the 22-gal. nitrogen treatment without Green Lightning, indicating the response wasn’t consistent across all the comparisons.
Potential Fertilizer Savings Drive Interest
While the yield difference caught Kahler’s attention, the potential fertilizer savings are what make the results of particular interest to him.
The potential to reduce sidedress nitrogen by 18 gal. per acre while maintaining or improving yield could have a meaningful economic impact across his corn acres.
“One-point-eight bushels per acre better than just running full nitrogen doesn’t seem like that big of a deal until you take the cost of the nitrogen out of it,” he explains.
If he can consistently reduce nitrogen rates and maintain corn yields, the savings could make the technology worth considering, even if it doesn’t produce a dramatic yield increase.
However, Kahler isn’t ready to draw final conclusions from one trial alone. He acknowledges the results represent just one year’s data and need to be validated with additional testing next season.
He also experimented with Green Lightning in some planting trials, including an in-furrow application, but he didn’t see the yield response he had hoped for.
“This is really the only trial I did,” he says. “One year of data, one trial, right?”
Equipment Challenges Temper Enthusiasm
Kahler’s experience with Green Lightning hasn’t been entirely positive. He says recurring equipment breakdowns and unsatisfactory customer service from the company – though he references positive interactions with his dealer -- have made using the system frustrating. The ongoing mechanical issues have him questioning whether the technology is worth the time and effort he invested this season.
For now, he says the harvest results have given him a reason to continue experimenting with the technology. He’s currently considering how he might set up the machine at his farm this winter to make it easier to use in future trials.
He wants to see whether this season’s results can be repeated next year and, most importantly, whether the potential fertilizer savings will translate into better returns.
Watch Kahler’s video – and find out what other farmers are thinking and sharing with him – at the link below:
