Manure and Nutrient Management

Young Farmer Bets On ‘Lightning In A Tank’ To Tame His Fertilizer Bill

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 19:48:28 GMT

Farmer talk at the coffee shop often follows a predictable script: weather, grain prices and the eye-watering cost of inputs. But Carson Kahler, based in Martin County, Minn., is giving viewers of his 6th Gen Farmer videos on YouTube something more unique to discuss.

He’s decided to manufacture his own nitrogen.

“Starting my farming journey, I’m quickly realizing that there are certain things that I have to look at differently than a lot of other farmers do,” Kahler says. “One of those is the increased price in fertilizer and other inputs.”

While most corn and soybean growers are writing checks to their local co-op for all their nitrogen, Kahler is standing in his family’s machinery shed next to something he calls an “ugly conglomeration” of tanks and hoses. It’s a Green Lightning machine, a system that essentially tries to bottle a thunderstorm.

The Science Of The Spark

The technology behind the machine is an attempt to harness one of Mother Nature’s phenomenons. During a thunderstorm, a lightning strike generates enough heat and energy to break the incredibly strong triple bond that holds two nitrogen molecules together in the atmosphere. Once freed, the nitrogen atoms bond with oxygen and dissolve into falling raindrops. The result is a natural, nitrate-rich “fertigation” from the sky.

Kahler’s machine seeks to replicate this process in a controlled environment. By forcing compressed air, water, and electricity through a small chamber, it creates a miniature, continuous lightning storm. The output is water “high in nitrates” that can be stored and applied directly to the field.

For Kahler, the initial investment this past year was a calculated risk. Between the machine itself, the reverse osmosis unit to ensure water purity, the tanks, and the plumbing, he has approximately $10,000 in the system. His current unit is the smallest version available, rated to produce about 6,000 gallons of nitrate water annually. According to the manufacturer, that volume is equivalent to roughly 18,000 pounds of nitrogen.

However, as a young farmer who values data over marketing, Kahler isn’t taking those numbers at face value. “I took a sample out of one of my storage tanks and sent it over to the lab, and sure enough, it has nitrate in it,” he confirms. But knowing it’s there and knowing how the crop will react to it are two very different things.

Navigating Farmer Skepticism

Online, the reputation of Green Lightning is mixed. On forums like AgTalk, some farmers swear by it, while others say it’s a scam.

Much of the early failure associated with the technology stemmed from growers trying to use the nitrate water as a 1:1 replacement for traditional synthetic nitrogen. Research from Precision Planting’s PTI (Precision Technology Institute) Farm in Pontiac, Ill., backed up these concerns.

Precision Planting researchers have conducted a variety of tests on the Green Lightning technology at its Precision Technology Institute Farm based near Pontiac, Ill. More Info

(PTI/Carson Kahler)

Kahler points to data showing that in 2024, using the product as a total nitrogen replacement resulted in a nearly 45-bushel-per-acre yield hit, with similar disappointing results in 2025.

“When it first came out, a lot of people were thinking of it as a nitrogen replacer,” Kahler says. “But based on my research, that’s not the case.”

A Three-Pronged Strategy

Rather than asking the machine to do the impossible, Kahler has developed a strategy where the green lightning water acts as a supporting player — a utility player in his nitrogen lineup. He has identified three key areas where the product might provide a good ROI.

1. In-Furrow Advantage: Kahler modified his 12-row planter with two small tanks and a simple electric pump to apply the product in-furrow. One of the primary benefits of the nitrate water is its lack of salt.

“You don’t need to worry about burning the seed, burning the crops, creating a salt stress,” he says. “Also, if I have a leak or a spill or something, it’s not going to corrode my planter.”

He plans to run about 5 gallons per acre in-furrow, potentially pairing it with biologicals like Novonesis Torque IF. Based on PTI trials that showed a 3.5- to 5-bushel bump, Kahler is optimistic about the synergy.

2. Sidedress Blend The second pillar of his plan involves blending the product with UAN (28% or 32%) during sidedress. While the product performs poorly on its own, studies have suggested that when mixed with traditional nitrogen, it can enhance uptake. Kahler is planning a 70/30 ratio of UAN to green lightning.

Beck’s Hybrids 2025 research shows Green Lighting can replace a significant percentage of UAN:

Trial Insights: Beck’s PFR data shows that using Green Lightning as a starter (2x2x2) followed by a UAN sidedress was highly effective, yielding 207.6 Bu./A. However, when Green Lightning was used to replace the entire sidedress pass (UAN 2x2x2 followed by Green Lightning at V3), yields dropped significantly to 186.1 Bu./A.
Best Use Case: It is currently best utilized as a supplemental nitrogen source or to replace 25% to 55% of synthetic nitrogen. It excels as a “spoon-feeding” tool through foliar applications rather than a single bulk replacement for high-rate soil applications.

3. Water Conditioner: Perhaps the most overlooked benefit of the Green Lightning system, Kahler notes, is the water quality itself. Because the process starts with reverse osmosis water and ends with a product that has a pH of roughly 2.7, it could serve as an ideal carrier for fungicides.

“If you go and use a water that has a pH of 9, for example, the half-life of that fungicide… can go down to 2 minutes,” he explains.

By using the highly acidic, pure nitrate water as a carrier, he hopes to maximize the effectiveness of his chemical passes. “The water… is very pure, so it’s going to be able to be absorbed into the plant leaf a lot better than if you just took some well water and threw some AMS in it,” he estimates.

Dollars And Cents Have To Add Up

For Kahler, the math has to work. With electricity and water costs estimated at roughly 4 cents per gallon — or about 20 cents an acre — the operating costs are negligible compared to traditional starters that can run $20 to $30 per acre.

He is also being disciplined about his “nitrogen bill.” He doesn’t credit the green lightning for his total nitrogen needs in his primary calculations, treating it instead as a bonus or a conditioner. This conservative approach prevents him from under-applying traditional nitrogen and risking significant yield loss.

Despite the hurdles, Kahler remains a realist with an optimistic streak.

“If you add up all the small bushel increases from planting to fungicide, I think that there is a lot of potential efficacy for this product,” he says.

As the season progresses, Kahler will be watching his check strips and his storage tanks. He even has a safety valve in his contract that allows him to return the machine mid-summer if the results aren’t there. But for now, the 6th Gen Farmer is betting on the lightning.

“I’m pretty excited,” he says. “Sure hope it does good.”

Watch Kahler’s video on Green Lightning here:

‘If You’re Still Farming, You’ve Already Done Most of It’

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 14:27:15 GMT

On Chad Ingels’ northeast Iowa farm, every pass across the field is under the microscope as he fights to keep tight margins from slipping into the red.

“Oh, it’s tough,” Ingels said during an AgriTalk Farmer Forum discussion on Wednesday. “I think we’re going to have to really look at in-season passes that we planned to do. Maybe we’ll have to cut back one or two of those.”

Ingels, who splits his time between the farm and the Iowa Statehouse in Des Moines, says he can’t afford to simply slash expenses without weighing the risk to corn and soybean performance.

“You don’t want to impact yield,” he says. “You really want to take a look at what your return on investment is going to be on those passes.”

Across the Midwest, farmers like Ingels and Wisconsin grower and United Soybean Board director Tony Mellenthin are grappling with what they both describe as an “input price problem.” Corn and soybean prices have improved modestly from their lows, but fertilizer, pesticides and other inputs remain stubbornly high.

“I don’t think we necessarily have a corn or soybean price problem,” Mellenthin told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory. “We really have an input price problem, and until that can kind of get that addressed and fixed, that’s what I’m more concerned about than the price of corn and beans.”

Squeezing More From Every Dollar

On Ingels’ operation, the immediate response to high input costs is a sharper pencil and a more disciplined marketing plan.

In the field, that means reassessing every in-season trip across the crop. He’s eyeballing fertilizer or crop protection passes that might have been routine in good years, but now must clear a stricter bar: Will they pay?

On the balance sheet, Ingels says the focus turns to risk management and pricing discipline.

“Then it’s going to get to the marketing side,” he says. “We need to really do a better job of marketing corn and beans and — if we get a price run up — protect that run up so we can take advantage of it.”

The livestock side of the farm, he adds, is helping stabilize the operation, though it’s no windfall.

“The hog side is better than the crop side, but it’s not anywhere near like the beef side has been,” Ingels explains.

His hogs are sold into a specialty market through Niman Ranch, which ties its base price to grain and input costs.

“They’re setting a good base for us based on the corn and bean prices and our input costs,” Ingels says. “As we look out in the futures, the commercial price last year got higher than our base price, and so they adjusted our contract to say, ‘Hey, you’re going to get the better of the base price or the increased commercial price if the commercial price is higher.’”

That kind of contract flexibility, Ingels suggests, is one way the broader ag industry can help farmers weather volatile cost structures.

‘Not A Whole Lot Left To Do’

In western Wisconsin, Mellenthin says most of the fat has already been trimmed from farm budgets.

“If you’re still farming today, you’ve already done most of it, so there’s not a whole lot left to do,” he says. “There’s a little bit of tweaking to do, but I wouldn’t say there’s really any cuts to do.”

Instead of dramatic reductions, Mellenthin is stretching out capital decisions and switching to lower-cost inputs. That includes extending machinery trade cycles to delay big-ticket purchases and substituting generic fungicides for name-brand products when performance is comparable.

On the fertility side for corn, Mellenthin’s farm has been managing its nitrogen use through smaller, more targeted applications.

“We’ve been doing that for over a decade now,” he says. “There’s some of our ground that gets four passes of nitrogen.”

Recently, he’s begun to lean into alternative nitrogen sources to reduce dependence on high-priced synthetics. He points to biological products as one example.

“We have started utilizing some Pivot Bio,” he notes. “We haven’t seen a yield reduction, while at the same time reducing synthetic nitrogen, but we haven’t seen a yield gain, either. So I think we’re able to maintain there. And this year, that was the cheapest form of nitrogen a guy could buy.”

Policy and Industry: What Farmers Want Next

While individually they work to control what they can, both Ingels and Mellenthin are looking upstream — to input suppliers, processors and policymakers — to tackle what they can’t fix alone.

Regarding policy, Ingels points to the impact of global conflict and trade policy on fertilizer costs.

“There’s still some concerns out there with the war and how that’s impacted fertilizer prices going forward,” he notes. He adds that the greatest worry may lie beyond the current season to 2027, as farmers consider the next round of purchases.

During the discussion, Flory referenced efforts by the National Corn Growers Association and other ag organizations to push the administration to remove countervailing duties on phosphate imports from Morocco — one example of how farm groups are trying to pull down input prices through policy changes.

Ingels says those kinds of structural issues in fertilizer pricing could ultimately have more impact on future acreage decisions than anything farmers can do on their own fields this spring.

Demand, Renewable Fuels and Market Signals

Both farmers also stressed the importance of growing demand for the crops they produce, to help offset stubbornly high costs.

From his seat in the Iowa House, Ingels is backing measures aimed at strengthening markets for corn and soybeans, including renewable fuels. He references the Iowa Farm Act, saying it would increase the cap on the renewable fuels infrastructure fund grants to retailers from $100,000 to $150,000, and also help finance upgrades so more stations can offer E15 and higher ethanol blends.

“Retailers are taking advantage of that,” Ingels says “A few years ago, we had an E15 bill that went through… It certainly incentivized that all retailers handle E15 over time. And so this fund is being utilized all the time, and we’re trying to get to those last bit of retailers that maybe their costs are higher.”

At the federal level, though, Ingels is frustrated with delays on year-round E15 approval.

“This is the most frustrating thing I think the federal government has done to us,” he says. “They just keep kicking this down the road. We need to get it done.”

For soybean growers, Mellenthin is looking for similarly clear, long-term signals on low-carbon fuels.

In Wisconsin, he notes, lawmakers and the governor have already taken a supportive step by promoting “soy-based firefighting foam” to replace PFAS-based products. Nationally, Mellenthin wants to see the same kind of certainty for biomass-based diesel and other soy-driven fuels.

“We’ll take the good news when we can get it,” Mellenthin says of recent positive developments for biomass-based diesel. “Hopefully that could give a little certainty so infrastructure and investments can maintain being used.”

Use Hybrid Flex To Time Nitrogen Use: ‘When It’s Needed, You Better Be There’

Mon, 30 Mar 2026 20:50:17 GMT

“Know your hybrids” isn’t a new message. But Farm Journal Field Agronomist Missy Bauer is urging corn growers to take it a step further this season. She wants growers to understand how their hybrids flex under stress, so they can prioritize field management practices and time nitrogen (N) applications for maximum efficiency and ROI.

What Is Hybrid Flex—And Why Does It Matter?

Hybrid flex describes how a corn ear adjusts its size and development in response to plant populations, growing conditions and nutrient availability.

Some hybrids are “fixed” and perform best when grown in higher populations and with consistent nutrition to reach top-end yields. Other hybrids will “flex” considerably, with ears adjusting in length, girth (rows around), or kernel depth when stressed.

“All ears definitely are going to flex, just some flex more than others,” Bauer says.

Here are the three different kinds of flex that occur in corn hybrids and how N application timing impacts them:

1. Length Flex: The Sidedress Priority

Hybrids that flex in length are sensitive to mid- to late-season N application timing. If weather or logistics delay a sidedress or Y-drop application, these hybrids commonly “tip back,” losing kernels off the end of the ear. This can cost 20% or more of potential yield, notes Bauer.

“If the weather’s pushing us on Y-drop, which field are you going to make sure you get to first? Any hybrid that is a length flexor, you better be there,” she says.

2. Depth Flex: Late-Season N “Hogs”

Modern genetics have shifted hybrids toward developing deeper kernels with more starch. Twenty years ago, hybrids commonly produced 90,000 kernels per bushel; today, that number is often 60,000 to 65,000 kernels per bushel. In 2024, Bauer’s average was 62,000, with some dropping as low as 54,000.

“Those things are hogs,” Bauer says of hybrids that emphasize depth-of-fill. “These are the hybrids we’ve got to make sure we’re really taking care of late-season, or they are going to flex backward on us.”

To optimize performance, growers should ensure these hybrids receive late-season N and fungicide, especially in high-yield zones. Also, be aware that if these hybrids don’t have adequate late-season N, kernels will be smaller and lighter, dragging down test weight.

3. Girth Flex: Early-Season Opportunity

Hybrids that flex in girth (rows around the ear) are most affected by early-season conditions and nutrition. Factors like planting quality and the use of starter fertilizer are big needle-movers for these hybrids.

“We’ve seen this type of hybrid respond a lot to early-season N applications with a furrow-jet and things like that,” Bauer notes.

A Practical Plan For Nitrogen Timing

Bauer acknowledges that tracking how every hybrid flexes can be a tall order. “This is no easy task,” she told farmers during a recent meeting. “This is why you need to be paired up with a very, very good dealer.”

She suggests a three-step approach to matching genetics to a good nitrogen plan:

Classify your hybrids: Ask your seed dealer which hybrids you’re planting are “fixed” and which ones flex in length, girth or depth.
Match hybrids to field zones: Place high-response length or depth flexors on your best soils where you can justify mid- to late-season N applications. Use conservative, stress-tolerant hybrids on marginal ground.
Set application priorities: Use hybrid flex type to determine which fields get N applications first, especially when application windows are short.

Sound Principles To Adopt

Regardless of whether a hybrid is fixed or flexes, Bauer’s broader nitrogen message is that total N availability to hybrids matters. In dryland corn–soybean rotations, her current research points to total N use in the 225- to 250‑pound per acre range to optimize ROI. But where and when that nitrogen is applied increasingly depends on the genetics in the field.

Bauer advocates these three principles:

Band nitrogen in-season whenever possible
Surface-broadcast urea rates low on her list of preferred tools. She favors banded UAN solutions that deliver the N directly where corn roots can access it, especially in sidedress or Y-drop systems.
Always stabilize surface-applied N
With Y-drop or other surface bands, Bauer insists on using N stabilizers, even when ammonium thiosulfate (ATS) is in the mix. Generics are fine, she says, but notes that skipping stabilizers is a “false economy” when N is expensive, like it is currently.
Keep sulfur in the program
Bauer views ammonium sulfate as nonnegotiable in most corn programs and likes to see sulfur used in starter and in-season passes as well. Variable rate application nitrogen maps can be paired with sulfur placement to ensure high-demand zones have both nutrients.

Monitor N Use In-Season

Use in-season testing tools and weather to fine-tune N applications so corn “never has a bad day.” Bauer recommends growers walk through these questions as the season advances:

What has the weather done?
Years with a “mean June” — frequent, heavy rains that trigger leaching and denitrification — may demand extra N, especially on lighter soils or sand ridges.
What do nitrate soil tests say?
Some of Bauer’s clients pull in-season nitrate tests, particularly on irrigated fields or suspect zones. The numbers can confirm whether planned N use is holding up well or a sidedress application is in order.
What are tissue tests showing?
On pivot-irrigated acres, Bauer often samples the ear leaf at silking. If tissue N is short, she may recommend adding a few more gallons of UAN — sometimes with ATS — through the pivot or a late-season application.

4R Management Experts Share Their Big Plans For 2025

Fri, 06 Dec 2024 17:00:00 GMT

We caught up with The Fertilizer Institute’s 2024 4R Advocates—a group of two farmers and two retailers who are committed to implementing fertilizer management practices based on the principles of 4R Nutrient Stewardship. They reflect on 2024, share their sustainability wins and describe how 2025 could look different.

What Does Sustainability Mean To You?

Allen Spray
Chestertown, Maryland, Willard Agri Service
Sustainability means maintaining a profitable farming operation while doing what’s right for the environment and always looking for ways to improve yield with less inputs.

Bryant Lowe
Laurel, Delaware, Lakeside Farms
To me, sustainability means being able to farm the way we have been for years while trying new things along the way to be successful for future generations.

Daniel Mullenix
Auburn, Alabama, GreenPoint Ag
If we are more aware of nutrient stewardship and using the 4R methods of fertilizer applications along with new technology when applying crop protection, we can work toward enhancing environmental stewardship. Focusing on sustainability from a cover crop and soil health emphasis builds organic matter and allows the soil to hold onto nutrients longer. Both of these perspectives preserve our environment, provide an economic benefit to the grower and move toward a path of preserving the land and soil for the future generations to follow.

Mason Roberts
Sylvester, Georgia, MTR Farms
Sustainable agriculture is the No. 1 priority in our operation, and the reason for that is the assurance there is a tomorrow for our future generations to produce food and fiber for the world. That comes from knowing we are making practical and ethical on-farm decisions today to minimize our footprint.

What’s Been Your Biggest Success Story With 4R Management?

Spray: This year, while working with some technology, I was able to reduce phosphorus by 66% in a corn starter and maintain the same yield.

Lowe: Our biggest success story has to be successfully growing high-yielding crops on our sandy soils. Using the 4Rs allows us to manage the crop while minimizing nutrient leaching throughout the season.

Mullenix: When a grower sees the 4R plan as an investment and not an expense, we have been successful. Our greatest successes have come when growers and retailers understand that soil sampling and prescriptive fertility management really help everyone involved. It’s not just about cutting cost or using new technology. Everyone wins when we work together toward success.

Roberts: Practical and ethical decisions that we have made through following 4R have made our farm footprint smaller but also helped our neighbors and other farmers in the community grasp the concept today before we are legislated to make infeasible changes tomorrow.

Are You Trying Anything New Agronomically in the Field in 2025?

Lowe: We are going to try banding almost all of the nutrients next to the row instead of any broadcast in hopes this will raise our ROI even more for 2025.

Roberts: After meeting Bryant Lowe and hearing the successes of farming strictly with liquid fertilizers, I know we will have some agronomic changes take place in our operation. In southern Georgia, most at-plant fertilizer applications and sidedress applications are broadcast dry granules. For 2025, most of our operation will go to an organic at-planting fertilizer, such as chicken manure and compost, and sidedress applications will be done using liquid fertilizers through a Y-drop applicator to ensure an on-target application directly over the root zone of the crop.

As Retailers, What Are You Asking Farmers to Try for Next Year?

Spray: I’m asking my growers not to panic and try some new technologies to help reduce their risk and the amount of fertility.

Mullenix: The biggest thing we’re asking farmers to try for 2025 is to try to stay in business. We have several agronomic and technology tools to help farmers spend each dollar as wisely as possible. Working together is the only way we’ll make it through these economic times.

The Race is on to Build the World’s First Carbon-Neutral Dairy

Wed, 17 Mar 2021 18:58:03 GMT

It’s no secret that climate change has become a huge focus in the United States and around the world. The global dairy industry has focused in on this concern with several countries vowing to become carbon neutral within the next few decades.

For example, the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy unveiled a ‘Net Zero Initiative’ last year in hopes of driving the industry to achieve carbon neutrality, optimized water usage and improved water quality by 2050. Similarly, Meat and Livestock Australia, which includes the dairy industry, has set a goal to become carbon neutral by 2030 “to meet consumer and community expectations.”

Recently, the country has been stricken by intense drought and extreme heat, driving the push for sustainability within agriculture. In response, government research in Victoria, Australia, has been conducted to help construct the Ellinbank “Smartfarm,” the world’s first carbon-neutral dairy farm, according to Farm Online National.

The media outlet reports that that the 500-cow farm at Ellinbank is already reputed to be Australia’s leading dairy innovation facility and has been fast-tracking innovative technologies in a research environment then showing them in a way that is accessible to the dairy industry.

Additionally, the “Smartfarm” has been funded through the government’s $115 million Agriculture Strategy, which aims to position Victoria as a leader in low-emissions agriculture and increasing the adoption of new, effective and fit for purpose technology.

Later this year, the farm will be open to visitors so farmers can witness the innovative, sustainable technology in action.

Technologies to be trialed and demonstrated at the farm include roof-mounted solar panels and battery storage, wind turbines, pumped hydro, temperature management in the dairy and the use of waste for energy, according to Farm Online National.

While there is still a long way to go in the race to become carbon-neutral, this new Australian dairy aims to hit its goal by reducing methane emissions, improving fertilizer and manure management, and by generating electricity through several options including solar, wind, hydro and bio-digestion.

New Research Sheds Light On U.S. Agriculture’s Water Usage

Thu, 19 Nov 2020 21:34:35 GMT

Building trust in food begins with empowering farmers through one of the largest and most diverse conservation- and sustainability-focused public-private partnerships in our nation’s history: America’s Conservation Ag Movement. To find the latest news and resources related to the Movement, visit AgWeb.com/ACAM .

U.S. agriculture water use decreased for most crops and livestock production between 1995 and 2010, according to a new research released by the University of Illinois on Tuesday.

Water use for irrigation purposes in most crops decreased by 8.3% while water use for livestock declined by 14%, according to Sandy Dall’erba, regional economist at the university and co-author of the study.

Dall’erba says a number of drivers contributed to reduced water use in grains, fruits and vegetables, namely improved irrigation systems, domestic per-capita income and sales to the food processing industry.

Likewise, Dall’erba and co-author Andre Avelino found that the increased demand for poultry products and less demand for red meat helped reduce the use of water by livestock.

However, the authors report that oilseed crops saw a 98% increase in water demand during the same 15-year period. The two say that this change was primarily driven by international supply-chain linkages.

“It means foreign companies, mostly in China, have purchased large amount of U.S. oilseed crops for further processing,” according to a university prepared news release by Marianne Stein.

In their analysis, the authors looked at 18 factors that drive U.S. water withdrawals across eight crops, six livestock categories and 11 food manufacturing industries.

Based on data from Exiobase, a global supply-chain database, their analysis included water that’s embedded into the production at all stages of the domestic and international supply chain, from crops and livestock to processed food production¬ – highlighting the interconnectedness of global agribusiness, according to the news release.

For example, crops produced in the U.S. may rely on fertilizers produced in a different country. Similarly, soybeans produced in the U.S. could be used for food processing in China, or to feed livestock in Europe.

The current U.S.-China trade war is likely to affect these supply-chain linkages, as Chinese import of oilseeds shifts to South America and Europe.

The U.S. exported less soybean and pork to China over the last two years; therefore, less water was embedded into those exports. However, the next few years under a new U.S. administration may see an improvement in these relationships, Dall’erba notes.
The COVID-19 pandemic is also likely affecting water usage. Unemployment and economic crises have always impacted consumer demand, and in

ternational trade has sharply declined since the pandemic began. The 2008 recession resulted in decreased water usage and similar effects are expected in the current crisis, Dall’erba states in the release.

The complete news release is available for review at https://bit.ly/3f7uQD2