Soybean News

Don’t Rush The Replant: Field Conditions And ROI Outweigh The Calendar

Thu, 14 May 2026 20:34:56 GMT

Corn and soybean growers facing slow emergence, shrinking planting windows and cool soils shouldn’t reach for the replant button too quickly, say University of Wisconsin’s Harkirat Kaur and Shawn Conley. They emphasize that field conditions, stand uniformity and return on investment matter more than the date on the calendar.

When damage occurs in corn, the first step is to diagnose what happened to cause the loss, advises Harkirat Kaur, Extension corn specialist at the university.

“Are you seeing stand loss because of seedling issues? Was the hybrid vigor not there? Is there waterlogging? Those things are important to understand, because replanting a field which is damaged is still an extra cost that we incur,” Kaur says.

She believes stand uniformity often matters more than the plant population for corn.

“A uniform stand at a low population is better than having a stand which is at a higher population but has quite a few gaps in it,” she says. “No. 1, it will impact your overall nutrient uptake for the entire field. Secondly, it will also impact your overall operations as you move further into the season.”

Calendar date, surviving stand quality and hybrid maturity all have to be weighed together in the decision.

“If you are looking at a surviving stand which is less than 70% of what your original target was, then you might want to go for a replant,” Kaur says. “But is that replant going to be this soon? It depends if the field is clearly showing no signs of recovery, showing a complete loss of uniformity across the field.”

In many cases, she recommends patience – especially when a frost or hail event enters the picture.

“It is always good to give the crop some time to recover,” she advises, particularly when hail strikes while the growing point is still below ground. “Most of the corn plants in May or early June have their growing point still under the ground (in Wisconsin), and those plants often have the ability to recover from these stresses.”

Running The Corn Replant Math

To frame the replant decision, Kaur walks through a replant return-on-investment scenario for a southern Wisconsin field that was planted May 5 with a full-season 113-day hybrid.

Extension corn specialist Harkirat Kaur shared this example of when replanting would deliver more ROI than sticking with the existing crop. The decision to replant would make sense, depending on how many acres would be able to deliver this financial advantage.

(Harkirat Kaur)

In her example, a stress event drops the stand from a target of 34,000 plants to around 18,000 — roughly 60% to 65% of the original population. That moves expected yield from about 215 bushels per acre to a range of 130 to 160 bushels, or roughly $602 per acre in gross income at current price assumptions.

Replanting later in May means giving up some yield potential to fewer heat units, but it may still pencil out.

“With replanting, the yield potential comes down to about 80% to 85%, which brings the number to approximately around 180 bushels per acre,” she says. “Then we need to account for the replant cost — the cost for new seed, the cost for your fuel, and the time that you’re spending.”

In her example, even after those expenses, the net return on replanting comes out ahead.

“That would bring us to a net of around $675 per acre,” Kaur says. “We are having anywhere around a net advantage of replanting of about $70 to $72 per acre, which could be a bigger number when we are looking at hundreds of acres.”

Still, she frames replant as a decision of last resort.

“Replanting only when the ROI is likely to be positive is critical,” she says. “Keeping ROI over all the operation in mind is the No. 1 thing.”

Nitrogen, Natural Gas And Timing

Kaur also links replant timing to nitrogen management and volatile natural gas markets.

“Natural gas is very critical for agricultural production, because it drives the production of our nitrogen fertilizers,” she says. “When we are looking at overall gas price instability, it reflects in our agricultural cost anywhere between two to eight weeks when it is happening at the global scale.”

Before deciding to replant, she urges farmers to know where they stand on nitrogen availability.

“We need to ensure how much nitrogen is already in the ground and how much nitrogen is still available to be used for the crops,” she says. “Doing another soil analysis might be of use. It might help save the cost of applying more nitrogen, or also putting in hours of applying that fertilizer.”

Kaur says split nitrogen application strategies become more valuable in a tough economic year like this.

“Protecting existing nitrogen investment is critical,” she says. “If you (can), plan for a sidedress. Then replanting before the sidedress is something that can help you save some of your time and also some of your money.”

For Soybeans, ‘Don’t Change Anything’ — Except Row Width

On the soybean side, Shawn Conley, Extension soybean and small grains specialist at the University of Wisconsin, offers his take on next steps at this point in the season.

“In short, basically, don’t change anything except maybe narrow your soybean rows up if you can,” he says. “

Most of his university research plots across Wisconsin are already planted, though some beans are still sitting in dry soil waiting on a rain.

Conley adds that he expects Wisconsin farmers to plant roughly a half-million more soybean acres in 2026 than they did in 2025, based on current projections and spring conditions.

Prioritize Corn Now, Finish Beans After

For growers juggling both crops, Conley says the yield penalty curve has flipped solidly in favor of corn.

“At this time of the growing season, where we are sitting in May, we’re really in this significant decline in yield penalty for delayed planting in corn versus where we are with soybean,” he explains.

“We’re obviously losing yield by delaying soybean planting, too, but not to the extent that we are with corn,” he adds. “It pains me to say, and I tweeted this out last week — it’s time to prioritize corn planting, if possible, if the ground is fit.”

His message to farmers: get corn wrapped up, then come back and finish soybeans.

Seeding Rate And Replant Thresholds

Conley does not see a need to bump soybean seeding rates for now, even with cooler conditions.

His economic analysis shows little payoff to cutting rates aggressively at this point, once seed cost and yield are both considered.

Optimal seeding rate for planting would be 100,000 seeds per acre, even in mid-May, according to Shawn Conley. “But, that really doesn’t take into effect delayed canopy and management of waterhemp,” he notes. For replanting considerations, Conley says he tells farmers that unless they have under 60,000 plants per acre and actively growing, his advice is “don’t do anything.”

(Shawn Conley)

“Optimal seeding rate would be 100,000 seeds per acre, even in this May 13 timeframe,” he notes. “But, that really doesn’t take into effect delayed canopy and management of waterhemp.”

In high weed pressure, Conley says most farmers should stay with about 140,000 seeds per acre unless they have a “very strong weed management plan on the waterhemp.”

On replant decisions, his threshold is clear.

“Generally, what we tell farmers is that unless you have under 60,000 plants per acre and actively growing, don’t do anything,” Conley says. “Don’t even touch that crop.”

If stands fall below that mark, he recommends what he calls a repair plant, not a full reset.

“If it is under 60,000, just do a repair plant, which means you don’t start over from scratch,” he says. “You just go into that field, set the planter at an angle so as not to run over or disturb any of those existing growing plants, and then just plant into your existing stand.”

“The population that’s in the field right now has a higher yield potential than anything you’d be putting in the ground today,” he adds.

Consider Row Spacing

Row spacing is the one area where Conley does advise a change for mid-May and later planting — when farmers have the equipment to do it.

“As our yields have increased due to earlier planting, the yield difference between wide rows and narrow rows shrank,” he says. “However, as we get into lower yield potential — i.e., later planting — then we see those yield differences still remain.”

That shows up particularly in 30-inch rows planted in mid-May and later.

“The longer it takes from planting date to when those soybeans hit R3, the smaller the yield difference between row spacings,” he explains. “Because we’re delayed planting, the number of days between when you plant today and when you get to R3 is going to be in that 50- to 60-day range. You’re going to see a yield penalty if you stick with the 30-inch rows.”

“If you have the capacity — you still have a 15-inch row planter and you maybe haven’t been utilizing that — I think you need to be able to break that out and use that for finishing off your soybean planting,” he says.

American Soybean Association Clears Up E15 Stance as Senate Debate Intensifies

Thu, 14 May 2026 19:09:57 GMT

The House vote to expand year-round E15 on Wednesday should have been a clean policy victory lap for ethanol supporters. Instead, it’s become a multi-layered debate involving competing economic models, social media confusion, and an increasingly complicated Senate runway that may determine whether the win in the House actually translates into law.

The House narrowly passed legislation Wednesday allowing year-round sales of E15, 218 to 203, marking a major win for ethanol advocates and corn growers. But that bill also included reallocation of Small Refinery Exemptions (SREs), which some groups say made the bill more complicated than just a straight bill that would clear the way for year-round sales E15.

But even as supporters celebrate, the conversation around what’s actually in the bill, and who benefits most, has only intensified.

And according to the American Soybean Association, much of the online backlash in recent days is rooted in a misunderstanding of the legislation itself.

“We Support Year-Round E15. 100%.”

ASA CEO Stephen Censky told Farm Journal the organization is not opposed to year-round E15.

“Absolutely. We have always supported year-round E15. We think it’s positive,” Censky says.

But Censky argues the social media controversy stems not from the ethanol provision itself, but from additional language in the House bill that deals with Small Refinery Exemptions (SREs) under the Renewable Fuel Standard.

“It’s those other provisions that provide exemptions to small refineries that undermine that positivity,” he says, also noting that multiple independent analyses suggest those provisions could shift the broader farm economy in less favorable ways.

ASA Statement on House Passage of Year-Round E15 Legislation: pic.twitter.com/bbewbGSF6c
— American Soybean Association (@ASA_Soybeans) May 13, 2026

FAPRI Study Adds Fuel Ahead of Vote

One of those studies came from the University of Missouri’s Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI). Just ahead of the House vote, new modeling from FAPRI added fresh insight into the debate show that when you add in the reallocation of SREs, the House bill is a net negative for agriculture.

The analysis found that year-round E15 alone is relatively modest in its near-term market impact, largely shifting demand between corn and soybeans. But when paired with changes to Small Refinery Exemptions, the economic picture becomes more complicated.

“It takes what is really a trade-off between corn and beans and makes it an overall negative for both what the government spends and for the farm income for the sector,” says Seth Meyer, director of FAPRI.

NCGA Disputes Modeling Assumptions

After the report was released on Tuesday, groups like the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) pushed back on the recent economic analysis by both FAPRI and the CBO.

NCGA Chief Economist Krista Swanson argued that key assumptions in the studies underestimate both policy strength and adoption speed.

“Year-round E15 saves drivers money at the pump, supports America’s corn farmers and improves energy security for our country,” she says, adding that the group’s own modeling shows stronger outcomes for farm income.

ASA Pushes Back on “Corn vs. Soy” Narrative

Even though controversy swirled on social media, claiming ASA’s lack of support for the House version of the bill shows a split between corn and soybean groups, Censky rejects the idea.

“No, I mean, again, I think that comes from a misunderstanding or maybe too simplistic of looking at things,” he says. “We support year-round E15, so does NCGA.”

He points to shared support from the NCGA, while emphasizing that the disagreement centers on refinery exemption language, not ethanol blending policy itself.

“It’s those other provisions (SREs) that were attached to that bill that we have the problems with,” he says,.

Senate Outlook: A Far More Complicated Road Ahead

If the House vote represented momentum, the Senate introduces a much higher degree of uncertainty .

Washington analyst Jim Wiesemeyer says the House approval was still a meaningful breakthrough for ethanol supporters, but the path forward now runs into procedural hurdles, committee jurisdiction battles and a Senate math problem that doesn’t easily resolve.

“Senate passage remains uncertain,” Wiesemeyer notes, pointing to the fact that Clean Air Act authority tied to E15 summer sales rests largely with the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, not the Senate Ag Committee.

Wiesemeyer reports while Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has expressed support for including year-round E15 in a broader farm bill effort, the jurisdiction split complicates the path forward. EPW Chair Shelley Moore Capito has supported compromise language similar to the House bill, but without the more controversial SRE-related reforms. Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), meanwhile, is expected to oppose expansion efforts tied to ethanol policy under Clean Air Act authority.

That leaves Senate Ag Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.) in a key position, but without full control over the underlying regulatory levers.

But even Boozman was clear after the Senate vote that the House version could face resitance in teh Senate. Boozman, who akso serves as Chairman of the House Ag Committee, telling Politico the House version may not have enough support to make it through the upper chamber, saying after the vote, “I think we have a good chance to pass an E15 bill. I don’t know if it will be that one.”

Senate Ag Chair John Boozman tells @politico the House-passed E15 bill doesn’t seem likely to survive the Senate:

“I think we have a good chance to pass an E15 bill. I don't know if it will be that one.”

Reiterates he and other Rs have small and medium size refinery issues https://t.co/4suzybfgrr
— Meredith Lee Hill (@meredithllee) May 13, 2026

Even if a path emerges through committee, Wiesemeyer notes that a stand-alone bill would still need 60 votes for cloture on the Senate floor, an uphill climb given opposition from refining-state senators and lawmakers concerned about emissions, fuel volatility, and air-quality standards.

That bipartisan resistance could force supporters to consider alternative strategies.

One option, according to Wiesemeyer, is something increasingly discussed in Washington: attaching year-round E15 to a must-pass legislative vehicle later this year, such as a broader energy package, government funding bill, or end-of-year omnibus-style agreement, where controversial policy riders are often resolved in larger negotiations.

For now, Wiesemeyer’s bottom line mirrors the broader tone emerging from both the economic analysis and the policy debate: the House delivered a meaningful win for ethanol supporters, but in the Senate, the path forward is anything but settled, and the final outcome is still very much in play.

Where the Uncertainty Really Sits

Much of the debate now centers on variables that remain unresolved: how quickly E15 is adopted, how EPA interprets Renewable Fuel Standard obligations, and how aggressively Small Refinery Exemptions are implemented in practice.

Those unknowns, analysts say, will ultimately determine whether the legislation is a modest reshuffling of crop demand or a more meaningful shift in long-term farm income trends.

Why High GDUs Aren’t Guaranteeing Quick Emergence This Year

Tue, 12 May 2026 20:35:28 GMT

While farmers keep a close eye on the thermometer and their favorite weather app during planting season, Phil Long says the most important metric right now might be the one they can’t see: the temperature beneath the soil surface.

Long, a regional agronomist with Liqui-Grow, says growers in north-central Iowa are reporting sluggish emergence for corn and soybeans. That’s despite the fact the region accumulated roughly 197 Growing Degree Units (GDUs) from April 10 to May 1, outpacing the 30-year average of 121 GDUs.

“It takes about 130 or so GDUs to get corn or beans out of the ground,” says Iowa-based Long. “So why aren’t more crops emerged?”

The discrepancy, he contends, lies in the difference between air GDUs and soil GDUs. While air temperatures are important, seed reacts almost totally to the heat of the soil surrounding it. For a seed to germinate and push through the soil surface, it requires consistent warmth that hasn’t materialized during recent chilly conditions in some areas.

“What’s most important to the corn and beans out there in the ground is soil GDUs,” Long says. “Even corn up to V6 is regulated primarily off the heat in the ground.”

Why Some Crops Have ‘Just Sat There’

The formula for calculating GDUs relies on a base temperature of 50 degrees Fahrenheit and a ceiling of 86 degrees. When nighttime temperatures dip into the 30s, as they have recently in Iowa and parts of the Eastern Corn Belt, the soil temperature can linger in the 40s and 50s. At those levels, the “heat engine” for the seed essentially stalls.

“We’re not getting that soil temperature up there very far,” Long explains. “That does not stack up GDUs very quickly.”

Long notes that along with the chilly weather conditions, two additional factors can act as “buffers” against soil warming: crop residue and cloud cover.

While heavy residue is often a benefit in the heat of July, it can act as an insulator in the spring, preventing the sun from reaching the soil. In some cases, high-residue fields can see a 50% reduction in GDU accumulation compared to conventionally tilled ground, Long notes.

Furthermore, a stretch of overcast days will rob the soil of solar radiation.

“If there’s heavy cloud cover, that can reduce solar radiation by 80%,” Long says. He explains that even on a cool 55-degree day, direct sunlight can push soil temperatures much higher. But persistent clouds have kept the ground locked in a cool cycle.

As planting continues into the heart of May, Long advises farmers to look beyond the air temperature and keep in mind the micro-climate of the seedbed as they plant.

“Although we’re ahead in terms of air temperature GDUs for this year compared to the ‘average’ year, we’re probably behind in terms of those seeds sitting in the ground,” Long says. “That soil GDU is a big factor when it comes to getting crops out of the ground.”

Xi-Trump Summit May Yield Farm Deal, But China Has Limited Soybean Appetite

Tue, 12 May 2026 19:00:21 GMT

China and the United States may reach a farm deal at their summit this week that expands Beijing’s purchases of grains and meat, but market watchers said they did not expect major new soybean purchases beyond what was agreed in a deal last October.

Agriculture is among the less-contentious areas of the bilateral relationship, but the final shape of any deliverables from the May 14-15 summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping remains uncertain just days out, officials, traders and analysts said.

The White House is seeking bigger commitments from Beijing on soybean and other agricultural purchases, said a person familiar with the talks.

“They know it’s something that they need. They know it’s something we want to sell. So, whether it’s at the trip or shortly thereafter is to be seen,” said a senior U.S. official who briefed reporters on the trip, without specifying any products.

More than a dozen CEOs and top executives , including Brian Sikes, chair of U.S. grain trader Cargill, will join Trump on his visit, according to a White House official.

However, traders and analysts said any deal is likely to be limited by what they see as Beijing’s unwillingness to buy more soybeans, the biggest-ticket crop, beyond a commitment made last October , given weak demand and cheap alternatives from Brazil.

Instead, markets are looking for new deals for corn, sorghum and milling wheat as well as beef and poultry, some of which was hinted at during high-level talks in March.

“There’s still some space to strike purchase deals for other major U.S. exports. That could take the form of volume purchase deals for key products like corn and sorghum,” said Even Rogers Pay, director at Beijing-based consultancy Trivium China.

In 2024, before Trump returned to office, China bought roughly $4.5 billion of those products, a sum dwarfed by $12 billion in soybeans.

China’s Ministry of Commerce and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Soybean Status Quo

China has dramatically scaled back its reliance on U.S. farm goods since Trump’s first term, sourcing roughly 20% of its soybeans from the U.S. in 2024, the year before he returned to office, down from 41% in 2016.

Last year, China bought just 15% of its soybeans from the U.S.

Markets are awaiting clarity on how China will fulfil last year’s commitment to buy 25 million metric tons of soybeans annually until 2028, which would be the most since 2022.

“China hasn’t ever officially confirmed the details of the agreement. It’s also not clear whether the targets apply to calendar years or crop years,” said Pay.

Any confirmation of renewed Chinese demand for U.S. soybeans would likely lift Chicago soybean Sv1 prices, which are already near two-month highs, partly on expectations China will step up purchases.

“When President Trump and Xi meet, we’d be thrilled to see additional purchases from China that would put us closer to the typical amount of exports in a typical year,” said Virginia Houston, director of government affairs for the American Soybean Association, declining to specify a target volume.

(Reporting by Ella Cao, Lewis Jackson and Trevor Hunnicutt in Beijing, Naveen Thukral in Singapore and Heather Schlitz in Chicago; Editing by Sonali Paul)

Soybean Gall Midge Emerges As Top-Tier Threat

Mon, 11 May 2026 20:19:27 GMT

Soybean gall midge is no longer just a curiosity or annoyance for many Midwest farmers. The pest is chewing into yield and profitability for soybean growers across parts of at least seven states – Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota.

Iowa State University Entomologist Erin Hodgson reports the pest’s footprint is significant, present in at least 42% of the 45.4 million acres of soybeans farmers harvested across the seven states in 2025.

“At least 19 million soybean acres are potentially impacted by this pest,” Hodgson says, noting that the pest continues to spread. Eight new counties were confirmed in 2025, with five of those being in Iowa .

According to a recent farmer survey led by University of Nebraska Entomologist Doug Golick, the pest has become a major threat in parts of Nebraska. “In the last year or two, soybean gall midge is approaching as near high of concern as herbicide-resistant weeds for survey respondents,” Golick says.

Since 2018, the soybean gall midge has spread to 185 total counties in seven states, including five new counties in Iowa this past year, according to Erin Hodgson, Iowa State University Extension entomologist and professor.

(Erin Hodgson)

Look For Small Orange Or White Larvae

Damage from the insect starts at the base of the soybean plants, largely out of sight. Adult midges emerge from the ground in May and June, then seek out tiny fissures in young soybean plants near the soil line to lay eggs, according to Thales Rodrigues da Silva, a master’s student at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

The larvae cause severe, localized yield losses from 20% to 100% loss along field edges and 17% to 50% reductions in entire fields average under heavy infestation, according to University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) Extension. The larvae – small, orange worm-like pests – feed inside the base of the stem, causing plants to wither, die, and lodge (break), with damages sometimes extending 100+ feet into fields. Scouting for the pest should occur after the second trifoliate (V2) growth stage, according to the Crop Protection Network.

This damage in a soybean plant at the soil level shows the result of soybean gall midge larvae feeding.

(University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension)

Because the pest often feeds along field edges, the damage in affected plants is often mistaken for issues caused by compaction or herbicide injury, according to Stine Seed Company .

To confirm the pest’s presence, Stine agronomists recommend digging up compromised soybean plants and splitting open the stem. If white or orange larvae are found feeding within the inner layers, growers should check the Soybean Gall Midge Alert Network tracking system to determine whether the pest has been reported in their area. Next, they should contact their local Extension specialist to help confirm the diagnosis and report the finding if their county is not yet documented in their area.

Cultural Practices Show Promise

Unfortunately, there are few strategies to manage and control soybean gall midge, according to Tony Lenz, Stine technical agronomist.
With no labeled, consistently effective in-season insecticide program and no established treatment threshold, researchers are testing cultural and mechanical tactics that might give farmers at least partial relief.

Tillage ahead of planting — a tough sell in no-till systems — shows some promise in reducing early infestations in current-year soybean fields.

“Turns out that disking alone, at least in (our) study… did reduce infestation,” says Justin McMechan an entomologist and associate professor at UNL.

“There’s a significant reduction as we move from no-till to that… where it’s just disked and planted into, and then disking and hilling (a practice used in growing potatoes), which really is effective, because you’re covering up the infestation site,” McMechan adds.

He notes that even subtle changes in seedbed shape may help by covering fissures or altering microclimates at the stem base.

On planters running row cleaners, McMechan says adjustments at field edges might be one of the more accessible tools.

“There are not huge differences, but they are statistically significant,” he adds.

Field edge management has been another area of experimentation, including mowing or managing dense vegetation next to infested fields. Results are mixed, but McMechan says there are situations where mowing modestly cuts pressure.

“Nebraska saw on occasion where mowing would reduce infestation and lead to marginal yield benefit… we’re talking like 6-bushel differences,” he says, adding that weather and nearby corn canopy can override those gains.

There are no insecticides currently available to control soybean gall midge. A combination of cultural practices and mechanical efforts is likely the best option, for now, to stop or slow the pest.

(Justin McMechan)

Scientists Evaluate ‘Out-Of-The-Box’ Practices

Other work by researchers is pushing even further outside the box to find control measures. At UNL, graduate research assistant Kristin Heinrichs Stark is testing whether a biodegradable surface barrier called BioWrap can physically trap larvae in the soil and prevent emergence.

The work is early-stage and raises reasonable questions about cost and field-scale application rates, but it points to the kind of layered, non-chemical tactics Extension researchers say will likely be needed to address the pest.

Even as these cultural and physical strategies are developed, Hodgson reminds farmers that the ag industry still lacks any clear control option once larvae are inside the soybean stem.

“We really don’t have a treatment threshold, or a rescue treatment option at this time,” she says. “We know that the soybean gall midge certainly can cause yield losses, plant death, and that directly relates to yield. But we don’t really have great answers on like, how many plants does it take? How many larvae per plant (causes yield loss)?”

For now, farmers dealing with soybean gall midge are being asked to combine careful field scouting, crop rotation, and targeted cultural tactics to address the pest as the research community races to find answers and close those gaps.

Specialists from three Midwest universities provided the latest updates on soybean gall midge (SGM) this spring in a webinar, available at the link below:

Are Your Fields A Green Light? Use the Three-Factor System To Guide Planting Decisions

Fri, 08 May 2026 16:52:22 GMT

Farm Journal Field Agronomist Ken Ferrie is urging farmers to pay close attention to soil conditions and local weather forecasts as planting accelerates across the Midwest.

Ferrie and his team at Crop-Tech Consulting recommend using a “red-yellow-green light” system to guide planting decisions. The practice is based on three factors: soil moisture, seed chilling risks and the 10-day emergence forecast.

The information on the green-yellow-red color system for planting is pretty self-explanatory, says Ken Ferrie. Once you know the light color, you can see the meaning and the action he recommends taking.

(Crop-Tech Consulting)

Regional Forecast And Recommendation

Despite ongoing weather struggles from cold and rain in some parts of the country, planting progress continues across much of the upper Midwest.

For central Illinois, Ferrie says there is a green light for Monday, with some areas getting a yellow or red light for Tuesday. The U.S. National Weather Service says a weak cold front will bring the next chance for storms later on Tuesday, some of which could be severe. Temperatures will turn cooler for midweek.

Ferrie warns that the first 12 to 24 hours seed corn is in the ground are the most critical. During this window of time, the seed absorbs 30% of its weight in water. If that water is below 50 degrees Fahrenheit, the cells lose elasticity and tear. Chilled seed corn can easily result in a 10% stand loss.

“You can literally tell the difference between fields that were planted in the morning compared to in an afternoon that’s going into a cool night,” Ferrie says. “That is why you’ll see our lights change at noon some days, trying to get enough water absorbed before the soil temperature drops.”

You can get more information from Ferrie on the perils of seed corn chilling in this brief video:

Ferrie says if corn takes longer than 11 days to emerge, those kernels that were planted “spike down” will struggle to compete.

“The spike-down plants can be a week or two weeks behind the spike-up plants,” Ferrie explains. “At that point, they will be more than a collar behind and not produce a regular-sized ear.”

Listen to Ferrie’s complete recommendations in his Boots In The Field podcast:

Soybean Farmers Detail ‘Sustainable Practices’ That Can Pay Off

Fri, 08 May 2026 12:57:17 GMT

Cover crops were nearly scratched off Laurie and Jim Isley’s list of practices on their Michigan farm a few years ago. The reason? Production costs were adding roughly $35 an acre to their budget, which was already stretched beyond thin.

“Things were really limited for us, so we looked at that practice really, really hard,” says Laurie, who farms with her husband near Palmyra, Mich. “We can absolutely be environmentally sustainable, but the bottom line is we’re not going to stay in business unless we are profitable.”

The use of cover crops is back on firmer economic ground now, she adds, thanks to cost-share programs such as Farmers for Soil Health (FSH), which help make soil health investments possible for income-strapped growers.

Making Cover Crops Cash-Flow

The biggest hurdle for cover crops has always been the upfront cost versus the delayed gratification of better soil structure. The Farmers for Soil Health initiative is currently bridging that gap for growers in 20 states. Isley says the program offers up to $35 per acre in cost-share, plus technical assistance.

For many farmers, the frustration with government or industry programs often lies in the “fine print.” Isley highlights two specific features of the FSH program that make it a more useful tool for many row-crop growers:

The “No Look Back” Policy: Unlike many programs that only reward “new” adopters, FSH is open to almost any grower. “You are eligible for this program whether you are planting cover crops for the very first time, or whether you’ve been planting them for 10, 15 or 20 years,” Isley says.
Short-Term Commitment: “It’s a one-year contract, but you can re-enroll in it year-after-year (with up to 2,000 acres per operation) through the length of time Farmers for Soil Health continues,” Isley notes.

Beyond the dollars, the program addresses the “how-to” hurdle. Each state has designated advisers to help with cover crop species selection, seeding methods (including the use of drones), and termination timing.

“It isn’t just, ‘Go forth and find cover crops,’” Isley says. “Sometimes you just need some expert help in order to get started on something. Even if you say, ‘I’m only going to do 100 acres this year,’ that’s still 100 acres you’re going to get that $35 an acre on to get started.”

High-Oleic Soybeans: A Revenue-Side Opportunity

While cost-shares help manage expenses, Matthew Chapman is looking at the other side of the ledger: revenue. For his east-central Indiana farm, high-oleic soybean contracts have been a game-changer.

“This project’s really been a home run for the whole soybean industry,” Chapman notes. He says that backed by checkoff investments and partnerships with industry giants like Bayer, Corteva, and Beck’s, the specialty beans have already delivered over $400 million in total returns to U.S. farmers.

Chapman started off growing high-oleic soybeans on 20% of his acreage and eventually scaled to 100%. The premiums — ranging in his area from $0.75 to $1.25 per bushel last year — were a huge boost to his bottom line. But he says they have some requirements that farmers need to consider.

“Oftentimes you’re going to need to store this crop, depending on how far away your purchaser is,” he notes. “Your weed program and your plan need to start in the fall. There’s just a lot to consider ahead of time.”

The market is also evolving. High-oleic oil is prized by restaurants for its long fry life and trans-fat-free profile, and new markets are emerging. Chapman notes that his 2026 crop is destined for dairy feed — the beans will be roasted, cracked and fed whole.

United Soybean Board (USB) projections suggest that by 2027, about half of the U.S. high-oleic soybean crop could be headed to the dairy sector. Industrial uses are also gaining traction in asphalt, bioplastics and fire-resistant hydraulic oil, especially in sensitive environments like mining or near waterways.

Navigating The Carbon And Fuel Frontier

While the federal process for carbon intensity (CI) modeling is still unfolding, farmers see opportunity in markets tied to carbon scores and renewable fuels.

USB is currently funding research to ensure farmers aren’t left behind as these markets mature. One surprising finding from Iowa State University: simply planting earlier can reduce nitrous oxide emissions, a major contributor to CI scores.

“That really costs us nothing to do,” Isley says. By documenting this “free” practice change, farmers can potentially lower their CI scores and increase the value of their grain in renewable fuel markets.

However, participation requires data. Chapman emphasizes that farmers need to be the masters of their own information.

“Whenever you’re selling the data off your farm, which is what this is, it starts with knowing what we have,” he says. “It’s hard to sell something unless you know what you’ve got when you start off.”

In southeast Kansas, farmer Charles Atkinson sees this playing out in the biodiesel and renewable diesel sectors. He believes that using the product on the farm is the best way to support the market.

“It’s a product that we’ve developed, that we’ve raised, and it should be No. 1 on our priority list to use it,” Atkinson says.

The “Plan A Through F” Mindset Is Needed

Beneath all the programs and markets, the three growers say long-term profitability still depends on flexibility: having enough tools and plans on the shelf to adjust to whatever the season and markets throw at them.

The need for flexibility shows up in day-to-day decision-making. Atkinson describes his operation, based near Great Bend, as one that constantly shifts among no-till, cover crops, chemistry options and even occasional tillage, depending on the year’s weather, pests and markets.

“It seems like we have plan A, B, C, D, E and F, and depending on what gets thrown at us and what Mother Nature gives us, we have to figure out what plan to run,” he says. “Last year, I had a beautiful plan together. It was all going to work. And I think we were down to plan D before we got finished up.”

Chapman takes a similar view. He says farmers like having “a lot of tools in the toolbox,” even ones they rarely use.

“As the world’s always changing, we want to be proactive and we want to do stuff that we can voluntarily do on our farm,” he says. “Move towards that goal of leaving the farm better than you found it, and hope the day never comes that something’s your only option.”

Isley says programs such as Farmers for Soil Health, along with EQIP, CSP and state or watershed initiatives, help move more growers toward that toolbox mentality by reducing risk.

In her view, profitable sustainability isn’t about any single practice, but about using the right mix of programs, premiums and practices to fit each farm.

“I think we often are hesitant to look for help, because we want to be self-reliant,” she says. “But sometimes it really makes a difference if we look for technical assistance and for those resources that are out there and available to us.”

Isley, Chapman, and Atkinson shared their perspectives in a webinar, “How Sustainable Production and Economic Viability Can Coexist,” on Thursday. The program was hosted by Agri-Pulse in partnership with the United Soybean Board.

A Frustrating Spring: Spotty Spring Rains Push Southwest Iowa Planting Slightly Behind

Wed, 06 May 2026 18:33:19 GMT

USDA’s latest Crop Progress Report showed as of Sunday, 22 percent of Iowa’s corn crop is planted, which is right in line with the five-year average. Soybean planting sits at 11 percent, which is just slightly behind. But those statewide numbers don’t tell the whole planting story this year. In southern Iowa, spotty spring showers are creating a far more uneven planting picture for farmers trying to make progress in the field.

In the far southwestern corner of Iowa, farmer Pat Sheldon is finally back in the field and relieved to see planters rolling again after a stop-and-start spring.

“We’ll be 25 or 30 percent done with the beans by the end of the day,” says Pat Sheldon, a farmer from Percival, Iowa.

While Sheldon prefers to be wrapped up planting by now, this season is running just a bit behind his typical pace.

“Usually we like to try to have almost everything done by now. We’re shooting for the end of April, but we usually don’t make it. So we’re a little behind where we normally are,” Sheldon says.“For no sooner than we started, we’ve come right along.”

About 80 percent of his corn is already planted, but some acres remain too saturated to finish, especially on his heavier ground.

After being out of the field for much of the past week due to wet conditions, Sheldon says the moisture hasn’t been as severe as in other parts of the region, but still enough to delay progress.

“We’re not as wet as it’s been east and south, but just enough to keep you out,” Sheldon says.

Even so, he is confident that progress will accelerate quickly if the forecast holds.

“The forecast looks good for here anyway, dry weather for a week or so, and I can get a lot done on the bottom when it’s dry,” Sheldon says.“ Just need dry weather and sunshine and let us work. It won’t take long. It’ll go in fast once it stays dry like this for a few days.”

Input costs have been a concern across agriculture, but Sheldon says his operation avoided the worst of recent fertilizer price spikes by planning ahead.

“We had all of our dry on last fall and over half of our anhydrous before it got too nasty for us to keep going, and we finished it up this spring,” Sheldon says. “We had it all pre-bought before all the prices went crazy, so we were fortunate on that aspect.

With planting back up and running this week, Sheldon says their operation is “in good shape,” and it’s that sense of stability is a stark contrast to conditions just seven years ago.

Sheldon’s family farm is situated next to the Missouri River. It’s fertile ground that’s been in his family for generations. But in 2019, Sheldon’s farm was devastated by flooding along the Missouri River, with water levels reaching several feet high in areas that are now being planted.

“There was probably three feet of water where we’re standing. Nothing got planted in the bottom ground. There was some stuff in the hills, but that was about it,” says Sheldon.

The floodwaters lingered for months, leaving lasting reminders still visible today.

“The water was here about 100 days. It was late June, I think, when they closed the breach,” Sheldon says.

And he says for the water lines still stained on the rain bins, it’s a constant reminder of what the Missouri River can take away, often without warning.

“You have a reminder every day,” says Sheldon. “You see it every day.”

Farming along the Missouri River means managing both risk and resilience. Despite the challenges, Sheldon says recent years have brought more favorable growing conditions, and he’s hopeful this year is shaping up to be the same.

“Are you optimistic about this growing season,” we asked.

“Very, very, as far as raising a crop,” Sheldon says of his outlook for 2026. “We’ve got decent moisture, probably better than we had going in last year. We’ve been lucky the last two or three years—timely rains, not a lot of rain, but at the right time—and we’ve raised really good crops. We’re hoping for more of the same.”

Metabolic Weed Resistance Crisis Builds Across The Heartland

Wed, 06 May 2026 16:51:05 GMT

Waterhemp, Palmer amaranth and some other tough broadleaf weeds and grasses are no longer slipping past just single herbicides. Across the Corn Belt and beyond, they are tolerating entire herbicide programs. Weed scientists say that pattern points to a critical issue more farmers are facing: metabolic resistance.

Unlike traditional target-site resistance, which is often specific to a single herbicide class, metabolic resistance is even worse because it can confer cross-resistance to multiple, unrelated herbicide groups .

Aaron Hager, University of Illinois Extension weed scientist often warns that when a tough weed like waterhemp learns to metabolize one herbicide, it becomes easier for it to “learn” to detoxify others. That ability has helped lead to the 7-way resistance with waterhemp seen in some Illinois counties, according to weed scientist Patrick Tranel, one of Hager’s colleagues.

At least 13 states have reported having some degree of “highly suspected” or confirmed cases of metabolic weed resistance. Here are three of the broadleaf weeds demonstrating metabolic resistance and states where they’re located:

Along with these broadleaf weeds, some common and giant ragweed, marestail/horseweed, annual (Italian) ryegrass and barnyardgrass populations have also demonstrated metabolic resistance.

(Weed Science Society of America, GROW, BASF, Syngenta)

Target-site resistance can be identified through DNA tests. But metabolic resistance is a “guessing game” involving potentially dozens to hundreds of genes working in tandem, making it difficult for scientists and farmers to know which products will still work in their specific fields.

Tommy Butts sees the trend for metabolic resistance taking root in Indiana. He says HPPD resistance in waterhemp is “getting widespread,” and the failures are expanding to other chemistries as well.

“We had more complaints last year about things like mesotrione or Callisto starting to fail, which is really scary in the corn acres,” says Butts, Purdue University Extension weed scientist. “Corn is supposed to be our easy year to control waterhemp, and now, all of a sudden, we start losing Callisto.” He addresses this in detail in the latest Purdue Crop Chat .

The bad news does not stop there.

“You start talking auxins and glufosinate, and we have confirmed resistance in the state to those,” he says. “I wouldn’t say that’s as widespread, but it’s definitely popping up.”

With metabolic resistance chipping away at PPOs, HPPDs, atrazine partners, auxins and glufosinate, the old playbook of “just switch products” no longer works well.

Glufosinate alone 😀⁰Mesotrione alone 😕⁰Glufosinate + mesotrione 🔥😎

That’s the power of effective herbicide tank mixtures.

Deploying synergistic tank mixes with multiple effective sites of action is critical for improving weed control and helping delay herbicide resistance… pic.twitter.com/FggZJrQQ1Q
— Rodrigo Werle (@WiscWeeds) May 6, 2026

“Hammer With Residuals” And Build Effective Combinations

Butts’ first message to corn and soybean farmers is straightforward: no more solo herbicide passes in the field.

“We have to hammer weeds with effective residuals and then mix up our posts as much as possible,” he says.

In his view, that means at least two things for row-crop growers. First, use layered residual programs that keep fields clean as long as possible and reduce the number of emerged weeds that ever see a post pass. Second, use post-emerge applications that combine multiple, truly effective modes of action at full labeled rates.

Cutting rates, he warns, is exactly how growers “train” metabolism-based resistance to take root.

With soybean trait systems, he pushes hard against relying on a single flagship product.

“If we’re growing Enlist soybeans, don’t just rely on Enlist and don’t just rely on Liberty,” Butts advises. “Do the tank mix. The tank mix trumps everything.”

This field shows the result of waterhemp seeds that were spread during harvest by a combine.

(Aaron Hager, University of Illinois)

Pay More Up Front To Avoid Making Expensive “Revenge Sprays”

Metabolic resistance can thrive when weeds are hit with chemistry they can partially tolerate. That is why Butts keeps coming back to strong, early, soil-applied programs.

He hears pushback from farmers every year on using multiple products in the tank.

“A lot of people tell me, ‘Well, it costs way too much up front with $20 for a pre. Corn gets even more expensive,’” he acknowledges.
However, Butts points to work by Purdue University Extension and other states showing those dollars pay off when the entire season is measured.

“If you can get a strong residual program out and get it activated, the whole-season economics of it makes sense,” Butts says. “It’s consistently shown that if you have that strong pre up front, you don’t have what I like to call the revenge sprays in August, where we’re going across the field three different times trying to kill waist-high waterhemp.”

Check out this tool from GROW on how to address waterhemp specifically.

Protect Herbicide Tools To Extend Their Use

As more herbicide modes of action come under pressure, Butts singles out metribuzin as an example of a product that still pulls its weight in soybeans.

“Metribuzin is a big one in soybeans, because we don’t have a lot of resistance to that,” he says.

“I will also put in the plug for AMS in general, across the board,” Butts says. “That always helps with some of those products… when we start getting later in the season, we get more stressed weeds. AMS even tends to help there.”

Butts does caution farmers that AMS is not allowed in dicamba tank mixes for XtendFlex soybeans.

Underlying all of it is a blunt warning about what happens if growers decide to skimp on their weed control efforts.

“If you let it go even one year, now you’ve made yourself a mess for the next five to 10 years,” he says. “You’ve got to try and stay on top of weeds as much as possible.”

5 Practical Recommendations To Address Metabolic Resistance

Because metabolic resistance is so unpredictable, weed scientists have shifted their advice away from “rotating chemicals” toward a “zero-threshold” approach to control. The following metabolic resistance management recommendations have been presented by Aaron Hager, University of Illinois Weed Scientist, and Beck’s agronomists:

1. The primary focus of metabolic resistance management should be on decreasing the weed seed bank. This means that weeds must be eliminated before they ever go to seed.

2. A robust residual herbicide program should be used, not because residuals represent a different herbicide family but because they eliminate weeds at the earliest growth stages – slashing contributions to the weed seed bank.

3. Physically cutting weeds out of the crop must be included in the management plan, because physical elimination of weed escapes further slashes contributions to the weed seed bank.

4. Post-herbicide programs should shift from calendar-based timing to scouting-based timing. Once weeds break through a pre-emerge residual program, they must be eliminated. Such early targeting further slashes contributions to the weed seed bank.

5. Mechanical techniques, field cultivators, etc., should be used where possible to further the cause of decreased seed production.

Corteva Brands Seed And Genetics Business With New Name

Mon, 04 May 2026 21:50:06 GMT

Corteva announced on Monday that its advanced seed and genetics business, formerly operating under the placeholder “SpinCo,” will be branded as Vylor, Inc. The spin-off remains on track to become an independent company no later than the fourth quarter of 2026.

Corteva will continue to sell crop protection products – herbicides, fungicides, insecticides and biologicals.

For farmers who have spent decades planting Pioneer, Brevant and Hogemeyer branded seed products, the changes mark a massive consolidation of research and development power. Vylor will launch with a significant intellectual property portfolio, including more than 4,000 germplasm patents and 2,000 biotechnology patents, according to a Corteva press release.

Heritage Meets High-Tech

The branding is a deliberate nod to the past and the future of the American farm. The name “Vylor” is derived from valor, a tribute to the grit of U.S. farmers and workers who have helped “feed the world.”

Even the new logo carries a hidden meaning: the stylized “l” represents the shape of a single chromosome—the building block of the company’s genetics-first mission.

The company’s visual identity also honors its roots, using a color palette of green, maroon, and blue to pay homage to the Pioneer, Brevant, Hogemeyer and Corteva legacies.

A New Pipeline for the Field

Vylor isn’t just rebranding existing products, according to future Vylor CEO Chuck Magro. He says it is positioning itself to lead the next generation of “gamechanger” technologies. According to the announcement, farmers can expect a pipeline focused on:

Proprietary Hybrid Wheat: A long-sought breakthrough in wheat productivity.
Gene Editing Leadership: Faster development of traits to combat evolving pests and weather patterns.
Multi-Disease Resistance Corn: Reducing the reliance on over-the-top pesticide applications.
Next-Generation Biofuels: Expanding the profit potential of row crops beyond the food supply chain.

“Vylor traces its roots back a century, to a single idea: that innovation could transform agriculture,” Magro notes. “From food security to energy security... Vylor will be uniquely positioned to help solve some of the world’s toughest challenges.”

Global Footprint

Vylor enters the market from a position of dominance, boasting the largest seed production network in the world, Corteva reports. The brands under its umbrella already hold No. 1 and No. 2 market share positions in nearly every global region they serve, backed by a history of world-record yields in corn and soybeans.

While the corporate structure is changing, Corteva says Vylor’s “north star” remains the same: leveraging scientific expertise to help farmers feed and fuel a growing population. As the separation nears its 2026 finish line, Vylor signals an aggressive intent to “vye” for new opportunities in row crops and beyond.

Watch this video to learn more about Vylor.

EPA Opens Public Comment Period On Draft Fungicide Strategy

Mon, 04 May 2026 16:20:14 GMT

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is offering the U.S. public an opportunity to help shape the future of agricultural safety, unveiling a draft Fungicide Strategy designed to balance the needs of American farmers with the protection of the nation’s most vulnerable wildlife.

The proposal marks a significant step in the agency’s effort to meet its dual mandates under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). By creating a more efficient and transparent framework for pesticide registration, the EPA says it aims to “safeguard more than 1,000 federally endangered and threatened species” while ensuring growers maintain the tools necessary to protect the nation’s food supply.

A New Framework for Modern Farming

The draft strategy focuses on conventional agricultural fungicides across the lower 48 states — an area covering approximately 41 million treated acres annually. Rather than a one-size-fits-all mandate, the proposal introduces a three-step framework:

Identify Impacts: Assessing potential population-level effects on listed species.
Mitigation Planning: Pinpointing specific measures to reduce those risks.
Targeted Application: Determining exactly where these protections are most needed based on where endangered and threatened species live and how fungicides move through the environment.

The agency emphasizes that while this strategy guides future regulatory actions, it does not impose immediate requirements. Instead, the strategy serves as a roadmap for upcoming registration reviews, with the EPA promising public input on every specific action before it is finalized.

Balancing Innovation and Conservation

Saying that it recognizes farmers are the backbone of the U.S. economy, the EPA’s draft includes several updates to provide greater flexibility. Notably, the plan expands options for reducing spray drift buffer distances and introduces new mitigation tools, such as the use of “guar gum” as a spray adjuvant.

"[American farmers] need a diverse toolbox of innovative agricultural technologies to manage crop disease, prevent resistance, and produce the affordable, nutritious food that feeds our country,” the EPA says, in a press release. “The draft Fungicide Strategy is designed to ensure those innovative tools remain available and that they are used in ways that protect the environment and endangered species.

How to Get Involved

In a push for transparency, the EPA has opened a 60-day public comment period to gather feedback from scientists, conservationists, Tribal partners and the agricultural community.

Public Comment: Stakeholders can review the strategy and submit formal feedback via (Docket: EPA-HQ-OPP-2026-2973) through June 29, 2026.
Informational Webinar: The agency will host a public webinar on May 20, 2026, at 2 p.m. ET to walk through the proposal and answer questions. Register here .

The EPA expects to review all public input and finalize the Fungicide Strategy by November 2026.

Cold Snap, Wet Soils Put Corn on Hold, but Beans Still Get Green Light

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 21:26:22 GMT

A soaking rain has pulled much of the Midwest out of drought, but it’s also put the brakes on corn planting just as a cold snap settles in, says Ken Ferrie, Farm Journal Field Agronomist.

Ferrie explains that recent storms dropped anywhere from a half inch to 4” of rain across farmers’ fields and, with it, erased lingering drought stress and filled ponds that “will probably stick around a while.” The moisture, however, has saturated soils to the point that most of his planting “signal lights” for corn are now red.

“Due to wet conditions, most everyone is red at this point, and that doesn’t change until the soil is fit,” says Ferrie, who’s based in central Illinois. “We don’t mud in corn.”

Cold Spell Drives Conservative Corn Strategy

Ferrie bases his current recommendations on the close agreement between the Global Forecast System (GFS) and European weather models through May 9, both of which point to a stretch of cold conditions unfavorable for corn establishment.

“When they’re close together, the accuracy is usually higher and they both indicate a cold spell,” he says.

With that outlook, he’s cautioning growers across multiple regions to be conservative on planting corn especially until temperatures and soils improve. He emphasizes that while model divergence after May 9 could change the picture, he’s focusing on the 10-day window where the models agree to set planting guidance.

“Three days is a long time in weather forecasting, but they do seem to hit the temperatures closer than the rainfall amounts,” Ferrie says. “So, we’ll reevaluate on Monday to see how this forecast changes.”

Regional “Signal Lights” For Planting Corn

Ferrie uses a green-yellow-red “signal light” system to simplify planting decisions:

In areas around Jacksonville, Ill., and further south, conditions shift to a green light for corn starting Sunday noon, May 3, before turning more cautious midweek.
Along the U.S. Highway 136 corridor, he calls for a yellow light on May 3, switching to red by next Wednesday noon, May 6, likely holding through May 9.
In northern Illinois and around Iowa City, Ferrie highlights there will be rapid swings in planting opportunities as forecasts point to a seed-chilling event moving in.
In northeast Iowa (Cresco area), Rochester, Minn., and across much of Wisconsin, the guidance is straightforward: “It’s going to be a red light until May 9,” he says.

Across all these regions, Ferrie’s advice centers on patience with corn until soils are ready and the coldest temperatures pass.

The map released today shows the Midwest with only a handful of dry areas, unlike in the West and Southeast where farmers are seeing extreme drought to the degree that some have parked their planters for lack of rainfall.

(U.S. Drought Monitor)

Beans Offer Opportunity—If Ground Is Fit

Even as he urges caution on planting corn, Ferrie says the forecast still allows room for farmers to progress on soybeans where field conditions permit.

“We still have a green light on beans if the ground is fit,” he says.

He urges farmers to pay close attention to seed quality and stand establishment, especially where soybeans are untreated.

“Watch your percentage germ on your tag, especially if the beans aren’t treated,” Ferrie says. “You may need to bump those populations up a little for weed control.”

Most of the “frosted off” early beans in Illinois have already been replanted or patched, he notes, but some drowned-out ponded areas will likely need follow-up patching once water levels recede.

Manage Corn Risk In The “Yellow Windows”

For growers who have not yet put any corn in the ground, Ferrie recommends using upcoming yellow-light windows to strategically manage risk — without forcing corn into marginal conditions.

“If you haven’t planted any corn yet with the planter, and to mitigate some risk, you may want to get some corn planted in these yellow windows so you’re sure that you can put the hammer down when this cold snap passes through,” he says.

That approach, he explains, helps spread risk across planting dates, while still respecting soil fitness and seedbed quality. The goal is to avoid having all corn acres exposed to the same stress event, whether it’s chilling, crusting or prolonged saturation.

Ferrie encourages growers to stay tuned for updates as the forecast evolves, noting that temperature forecasts tend to be more reliable than rainfall projections in the short term. He directs farmers to ongoing updates and deeper discussion via his team’s online and audio channels.

To stay up to date, check out Ferrie’s website at croptechinc.com and subscribe to his podcast, Boots In The Field. You can listen to it at the link below:

Analysts Fear 2027 Could Be The Toughest Year Yet For Farm Margins

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 21:27:02 GMT

The most important tool on many U.S. farms this spring isn’t a tractor or a high-speed planter — it’s a pencil. Faced with climbing fertilizer costs, some growers are still hunched over spreadsheets and notepads as April shifts to May, trying to determine if corn or soybeans can pencil out.

Market analysts Naomi Blohm of Total Farm Marketing and Matt Bennett of AgMarket.net say they believe the current planting season remains in a state of flux as farmers’ input budgets are tightened to the breaking point.

According to a recent American Farm Bureau Federation survey, 48% of Midwest farmers say they cannot afford their full fertilizer needs for this season.

“Farmers who haven’t paid for fertilizer, are running behind, or are stuck out of the field due to weather are having to factor that into their decision-making,” Bennett says.

Blohm is seeing this reality play out in real-time with her clients. “Two of them openly shared this [past] week that they booked some fertilizer early and went with corn on those acres,” she reports. “But for the remaining acres, they had to stop and think it through and ultimately decided to switch to soybeans.”

Bennett notes that while soybean futures aren’t necessarily “explosive,” they could be a safer bet for cash-strapped operations. “If I’m a grower, and I’m sitting here trying to figure out whether I can make money putting $1,000, $1,100 [of nitrogen an acre] into this corn crop, I look over on the board on beans, and you’re looking at a price a lot of growers can make work just with average yields,” he says.

Blohm adds that what farmers decide to plant will be much clearer by USDA’s June 30 acreage report.

A Three-Year Financial Drain

The current financial stress isn’t happening in a vacuum. Bennett points out that consecutive years of financial pressure have taken their toll across the Midwest.

“The liquidity drain over the last three years has made it really tough for people, and we are even seeing an equity drain for some,” Bennett says. “When cash is this tight, it highlights why you might plant soybeans if you don’t have your anhydrous or urea on yet.”

The fertilizer crisis is fueled by global energy markets and geopolitical instability. Blohm points to India’s recent, aggressive moves to secure supply as a sign of things to come.

“I saw that India this week booked what they needed for fertilizer at double the cost,” she says. “But they don’t have a choice really, based on the amount of wheat that they grow in the world. They have to have a good wheat crop there, and they need that fertilizer.”

Bennett adds the issue isn’t just price — it’s access. “India bought 2.5 million tons of urea to front-run a potentially problematic situation,” he notes. “Disrupted natural gas facilities create a cascade effect that impacts anhydrous and urea production globally.”

2027: “It Scares the Daylights Out of Me”

While 2026 is beyond difficult, analysts are sounding the alarm for 2027. During an afternoon AgriTalk segment , host Michelle Rook asked if 2027 will be even worse.

“It scares the daylights out of me,” Bennett replied. “Projected cash flows and breakevens for 2027 don’t look good at all. Even if someone talks about $5 corn, you have to look at what you’ll have invested in it.”

Blohm agrees that the uncertainty is unprecedented. “Producers have to stay on their toes,” she says. “We don’t know if this shock will be a springboard for higher prices or if it will simply compress margins further.”

The Rotation Debate: Markets vs. Agronomics

How will crop rotations look by 2027? Farm Journal regularly reaches out to a vetted list of 80 ag economists from across the industry. Providing directional insights, the latest Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor shows almost half of the respondents (seven of 16) to the April survey expect soybeans to gain more acres due to renewable diesel demand.

Northeast Iowa farmer Tim Recker sees some potential for a shift. “Renewable diesel demand underpins my local market,” he says. “I see value in policies that turn surplus crops into fuel, but we have to remember that Brazil is still eating our lunch in the global market.”

Central Illinois grain producer and hog producer Chad Lehman has a more cautious outlook.

“Pigs need corn,” Lehman says. “There are real risks with bean-on-bean rotations, including yield penalties and agronomic challenges. Even with more crush capacity, soybean meal prices remain strong, which reinforces the need for steady corn production.”

University of Missouri Agricultural Economist Ben Brown suggests that while “swing acres” might lean toward soybeans next season, many farmers will stick with their rotations.

“I believe 85% of acreage is determined by rotation,” Brown says. “That leaves only 15% to be adjusted based on outside influences.”

Long-Term Risks Of Changing Rotations

Shifting rotations in 2027 can’t be a financial decision only; it carries long-term agronomic consequences. Connor Sible, associate professor and row-crop field researcher at the University of Illinois, cautions that fertilizer cuts made this season could contribute to nutrient depletion in soils.

“If we pull back on nutrients now, those minerals are going to have to come from somewhere — likely the soil supply,” Sible says. “We want to maintain a healthy system over time, so we can’t go too far with input pullbacks.”

For those farmers already eyeing a move to soybeans in 2027, Sible recommends starting the planning process now.

“Think about what herbicide programs you are putting out this summer,” he advises. “You need to account for potential carryover effects if you switch the rotation in a field that was planned for corn to go with soybeans.”

You can hear more from farmers Chad Lehman and Tim Recker and their thoughts on the year ahead in this discussion on AgriTalk, available at the link below:

Can Biologicals Fill The Gap From Reduced Fertilizer Use?

Tue, 28 Apr 2026 20:04:34 GMT

As thin margins and high fertilizer costs squeeze budgets, many corn and soybean growers are asking a hard question this spring: can biological products help out and pay their way in the field?

The answer depends on the goal, according to Connor Sible, University of Illinois field researcher and associate professor.

“Is the goal to get more out of what we’re already doing, enhance the yield in an already pretty intensive, progressive system?” he asks. “Or, are we trying to reduce inputs and then make up for that by maintaining yields with a biological?”

Sible studies high-yield corn and soybean systems and has spent years looking at how biologicals fit into real-world management. He says profitability hinges on getting a biological and a farming system to match. He offers two trains of thought on reaching a return-on-investment (ROI).

1. The Yield Response: Achieving a direct yield increase to offset the product cost.
2. The Efficiency Response: Improving nutrient uptake to maintain yields while reducing traditional inputs.

That framework for biological use underpinned the discussion during an Illinois Soybean Growers webinar on Tuesday: “Stretching Every Pound: Using Biologicals to Maximize Fertility During Input Shortages.” The program was hosted by the University of Illinois and Valent Biosciences.

Drew Harmon, Valent technical agronomist, provided an overview of row-crop farmers’ persistent struggles with accessing and covering the cost of fertilizer going into the 2026 season. He referenced recent American Farm Bureau and Bushel surveys showing the struggle underway across the Corn Belt and how the strain on farmers is changing their behavior.

(AFBF)

Nearly one-third of farmers Bushel surveyed said they will be doing more to manage costs and inputs this season.

(Bushel, Valent BioSciences)

“A lot of people are considering cutting their fertilizer by about 25%,” Harmon says. He reports that on his own farm, where soil tests are “on the higher end of a maintenance plan,” he and his tenant “decided to cut back our P and K by about a third this year.”

Cutting back fertilizer raises a practical question: how do crops still access enough nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) to perform and meet yield expectations?

One potential answer, Harmon and Sible say, is to use arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, or AMF, especially where phosphorus rates are being reduced.

Harmon explains that mycorrhizal fungi are essentially a beneficial relationship that the fungi have with a host crop such as corn or soybeans. The root system supplies carbon through root exudates and, “in return for that carbon, the mycorrhizal fungi exchange nutrients and water.”

Applied as a seed treatment or in-furrow, AMF spores germinate in response to root exudates and colonize roots, then spread out as fine hyphae – branching, thread-like filaments – through the soil. That network effectively enlarges the rooting zone.

“Utilizing the mycorrhizal hyphae can expand the amount of surface area that [the crop] has to interact with, and it can expand that area by upwards of 50%,” Harmon says. “What that does is increase the opportunities for P and K uptake through diffusion, and it also allows greater access to soil water.”

In fields with lighter soils or facing recurring drought stress, that extended reach can be important. Even as much of the Midwest moves out of formal drought classification, according to the most recent U.S. Drought Monitor, Harmon notes that “we still can get those stretches of heat stress or stretches of flash drought… where we can see strain on our plants for needing water.”

Harmon also lays out an economic example for a typical two-year corn–soybean rotation under a biennial maintenance plan for phosphorus and potassium.

Using removal rates, yield estimates and recent DAP and potash prices, he calculates that a 25% reduction in P and K could offer “savings of mid-$40-ish per acre over a two-year period.”

The cost of using AMF in that scenario, he says, is about $6 per crop or just under $13 per acre over two years.

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi are essentially a beneficial relationship that the fungi have with a host crop such as corn or soybeans. The root system supplies carbon through root exudates and, “in return for that carbon, the mycorrhizal fungi exchange nutrients and water,” according to Drew Harmon, technical services representative for Valent Biosciences.

(Valent)

“AMF can be a potentially economical tool that could help increase nutrient uptake efficiency for the P and K that we’re reducing,” Harmon says, “while still protecting yield and preserving the majority of the fertilizer savings that you were looking to do.”

Harmon and Sible emphasize, however, that biologicals are not replacements for good agronomy—or for basic fertility.

“I don’t know a biological today that will fix a pH,” Sible says, as a for instance. “If we have a pH issue in the system, we probably need to resolve that before we go looking at new practices.”

A similar principle applies to nitrogen. Sible says nitrogen-fixing products can be useful as “a third source” of N, but they do not remove the need for a sound base rate.

“We often see an early-season biomass bump and higher kernel number potential [resulting from the biological product],” he says.

But to turn that into yield, the corn plant must have the nutrient resources to fill ears, which means adequate nitrogen and in-season management such as late fungicide use and/or supplemental nutrients.

For many farmers, another option this season for consideration is organic acids. Such products are positioned as biostimulants that support nutrient use efficiency, improve stress tolerance, and contribute to early growth.

Across both AMF and organic acids, Sible reminds growers that many biologicals are living tools, whether bacteria or fungi, and must be managed that way.

“A happy plant probably indicates happy microbes. Just like we need good conditions for plant growth, we need good conditions for microbial growth,” he says. “Plants need water, microbes need water. Plants need nutrients, microbes need nutrients.”
Harmon offers a similar caution on having the right set of expectations for using a biological.

“These products are not silver bullets,” he says. “They’re not fertilizer. They’re not going to [deliver] crazy amounts of yields. The majority of time you’re seeing it [improve] somewhere around 5% to 7% if you do see a biological response.”

'Losing Glyphosate Would Be A Disastrous Blow For Farmers'

Fri, 24 Apr 2026 17:29:49 GMT

Farmers warn that access to cornerstone herbicides like glyphosate is not just a policy debate but a make-or-break factor for conservation, food prices and the future of U.S. agriculture.

On a media call hosted by the Modern Ag Alliance on Friday, three veteran Midwest farmers say they are farming through some of the tightest margins of their careers while shouldering growing uncertainty over crop-protection tools. They argue that science-based regulation, consistent labeling and a predictable legal environment are essential if they are to keep adopting conservation practices and stay competitive globally.

“We depend on crop-protection tools every single day that we’re raising a crop,” says northwest Missouri farmer Blake Hurst, who grows corn and soybeans. “Losing access to crop protection chemicals like glyphosate would be a terrible blow, a disastrous blow for farmers, as we’re facing these tough times.”

The discussion on Friday morning came about as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments in the Monsanto v. Durnell case scheduled for Monday, April 27. At the same time, Congress continues work on the farm bill, which contains provisions that could shape how crop-protection products are regulated.

Modern Ag Alliance Executive Director Elizabeth Burns-Thompson says the organization sees the Supreme Court case and farm bill development as landmarks.

“At the end of the day, I think the crux of the question is, if we cannot get the clarity or consistency around labeling, what does that mean big picture?” Burns-Thompson says.

She argues that without clear, uniform federal rules on what constitutes a sufficient label, companies may pull back on manufacturing or innovation, particularly inside the United States.

The Economic Reality Of Crop Protection

Hurst says farmers already operate on “margins that are negative,” forcing them to stretch machinery life, cut back on inputs and take on more debt just to stay in business. If a widely used and relatively affordable herbicide like glyphosate becomes unavailable or more difficult to access, he says the resulting cost increases will ripple from the farm field to the supermarket.

“That eventually shows up on food prices and grocery store shelves,” Hurst says. “We don’t have the margins to absorb major increases in costs, so we will pass those costs along eventually.”

Mark Jackson, who farms with his son southeast of Des Moines, says glyphosate is tightly linked to the conservation systems he has spent decades building. Jackson, a fifth-generation Iowa grower describes a lifetime of watching soil erosion give way to the use of more sustainable practices.

He says his farm has been in no-till for at least 25 years, a shift he also sees is taking root across much of Iowa.

“Roughly 40% or better of Iowa is in no-till conservation status, which is a tremendous mindset and a cultural mindset,” Jackson says. “When you talk about glyphosate leading the charge in conservation, I think we also need to remind people that we don’t use chemicals just willy-nilly.”

Relying On Science-Based Regulation

Jackson points to multiple federal agencies involved in approving and reviewing pesticides as evidence that farmers are using tools vetted by science and regulation.

“They have been approved by the EPA, the FDA, the USDA — you might say all the A’s in the government have gone through the pipelines to allow these chemicals to be used, and then they are reviewed at regular intervals,” he says. “So, I think we need to have confidence in what our government is there for, which is to maintain quality. We still do have the best and most consistent food supply in the world.”

Jackson also cites long-running health research involving farmers as pesticide applicators. Referring to a large North American study that monitored tens of thousands of farmers, including on his own farm, he says the findings in the study do not match public fears about glyphosate.

“Let’s not let emotion drive the conversation, but let’s follow the science,” he says.

Current Agronomic Tools Are Invaluable

For Bill Couser, a central Iowa corn and cattle producer who is “very heavily involved” in the ethanol industry, access to reliable herbicides is part of a larger system that includes livestock feed and low-carbon fuel markets. He says any disruption in tool availability quickly translates into higher input costs and lost opportunity.

“When I grow the feed, I have to make sure I have the lowest cost feedstuffs I can going into my farming operation, and also the safest feedstuffs that we can,” Couser says.

He ties herbicide use to carbon intensity scores that increasingly shape ethanol markets. No-till practices and efficient weed control, he says, help farmers lower carbon intensity levels, which in turn benefits both farmers and ethanol plants.

“When you look at just the state of Iowa and the 43 [ethanol] plants here, why, the way we bring this to our plants and to our livestock operations is huge,” Couser says.

Couser, who serves on an EPA Farm, Ranch and Rural Communities advisory committee, says having farmers at the table with regulators is essential.

“It gives the farmer a seat at the table, and we’re not on the menu,” he says. “We have to make sure that we sit with these industry leaders and make sure that we help them understand and educate them about the science and the products that we need to be able to use to be able to stay profitable in this industry.”

Stifling Innovation And The Path Forward

The farmers on the call said they accept that some older products have been removed from the market for safety reasons. Much of their concern now is that litigation and regulatory uncertainty could chill innovation and push companies to avoid introducing new technologies in the U.S. altogether.

“If we get a negative ruling [on Monday], that is going to make it easier to sue over not only glyphosate, but the other products we use, that means we won’t have new products introduced, because what company will take that risk?” Hurst says, referencing billions of dollars in legal costs tied to glyphosate litigation.

What worries him, he adds, is not just losing glyphosate, but the outlook for future products and continued innovation.

“The question that has to be asked and never is, is what next?” Hurst says. “We’re not going to go back to farming like we did in 1990. We don’t have the labor, we don’t have the diesel, we don’t have the people, and people won’t want to pay what food costs will be if we don’t have these products. So, what next? We’re going to use other chemicals that are more expensive, increasing feed costs, that are more dangerous.”

The farmers describe a common expectation of federal oversight and a shared belief that existing science supports continued use of glyphosate under current labels. Burns-Thompson says that is exactly why the Alliance is pushing for national clarity on labeling standards.

“By having shades of gray state-by-state, as to how that is ultimately satisfied, [it] creates a patchwork of confusion,” she says. “At the end of the day, the product doesn’t change from state-to-state. So neither should the safety warnings.”

For these farmers, what they say they want from policymakers and courts is not a free pass, but a stable, science-led framework that lets them plan years ahead — and keep farming with the next generation.

“We know this thing is changing again,” Couser says, noting that his sons are now the fifth generation on the family operation. “How do we make sure we continue that legacy to make sure they can farm in the future?”

Why Your ‘Worst’ Soybean Fields Should Be Planted First

Thu, 23 Apr 2026 16:32:23 GMT

When fields are ready to plant, soybean growers often head to their best ground first. Connor Sible is asking you to consider doing the opposite.

“If you want to maximize soybean yields across your entire farm — not just in one field — start by planting your lowest soil-testing fields first and save the highest soil-testing fields for last,” he advises.

That shift in focus is counter to what many farmers currently do, and it is at the heart of the planting strategy he recommends. The University of Illinois row-crop field researcher and assistant professor contends that it’s when and where you pull the planter into each field that can raise your overall farm average.

In practice, that means when an early planting window opens in April or the first of May and several soybean fields are dry enough for a green light, the first acres you plant should be the ones with lower soil test values — not the “good” fields on the soil test map.

“This gives the late-planted soybean the advantage it needs to put on more bushels relative to early planting,” Sible says. “Between the soil testing data and the planting date response data we have, it makes a lot of sense.”

Why Early And Late Soybeans Behave Differently

Sible says there is a decade-plus of field trials from the University of Illinois comparing planting dates, soil tests, and yield responses, verifying that this change in planting strategy makes sense. The full study, led by Marcos Loman and advised by Fred Below, summarizes their findings and is available here .

Part of Sible’s explanation is that early-planted soybeans in April tend to yield more overall, but these beans grow slowly at first in cool, often wet soils with lower solar radiation. Their nutrient uptake is long and gradual.

“Early soybean, while yielding higher, has slower growth and probably doesn’t need fertilizer” he says.

Because those plants grow and require nutrients slowly, the soil can usually keep up with nutrient demand, even in lower-testing fields. That’s why he says early planting is the best “boost” you can give to weaker ground.

Later-planted soybeans, going in during late May or even into June, are going into a different environment: warmer soils, longer days and more solar radiation.

“Late-planted soybean, while lower yielding and a lower total nutrient requirement, grow so fast that if we want to optimize the return on fertilizer investment, it’s probably going to pay back better on late-planted beans,” Sible says.

Fast-growing late-May soybeans in Illinois pull nutrients at a higher rate, and Sible’s data shows they respond more strongly to higher soil test levels and applied fertilizer. That’s why he wants the best-testing fields held back for the later planting window.

“Late-planted beans grow so fast, the soil (fertility) probably cannot keep up,” he explains. “The late-planted soybean benefits more from that high soil test environment.”

How Farmers Can Implement The ‘New’ Planting Strategy

Sible is quick to acknowledge that in the real world, farmers will start the planting process in whatever field is fit at the time.

“Obviously you’re going to plant the driest field first,” he says, noting that central and northern Illinois have had recent rainfall.

But once more than one field is ready, he contends farmers can start making more intentional choices.

His recommended process for soybean planting looks like this:

Sort fields by crop and soil test.
Start out by grouping soybean fields by soil test levels — lower-testing and higher-testing, especially for phosphorus and potassium, but considering overall fertility.
Identify likely early-plant candidates.
Look at drainage, residue and soil type to consider which soybean fields typically dry out first. Within that group, mark the lower-testing fields.
Use early planting on “weaker” fields.
When an early planting window opens and several soybean fields are fit, move the planter to the lower soil-testing soybean fields first — those that usually don’t win the “yield contest” on your farm.
Reserve high-testing fields for later.
If weather or logistics push some soybean acres into late May or early June, prioritize the higher soil-testing fields for those later planting dates, where their strong fertility levels can support rapid growth.
Align fertilizer decisions with timing.
On early-planted soybeans, especially in lower soil-testing fields, be conservative with extra fertilizer unless there is a clear nutrient deficiency. On late-planted soybeans in high-testing fields, consider that any fertilizer investment is more likely to deliver ROI.

“If we line up planting date, soil test and fertilizer strategy, we can do a better job of maximizing soybean yield across the farm,” Sible says.

From Field-by-Field To A Higher Farm Average

Sible frames his planting strategy for soybeans as a mindset change. Instead of asking, “How do I make my best field even better?” he wants farmers to ask, “How do I pull my whole average up?”

“The principle is pretty simple,” he says. “Early planting is a powerful yield tool — use it where the soil is weakest. High soil fertility is a powerful growth tool; use it where beans are going in late and growing fast.”

Farmers won’t always see the highest absolute yield on those late-planted, high-testing fields, he acknowledges. Weather and your calendar date still matter. But he believes the relative performance and return on fertilizer can improve when planting order and soil tests work together.

For growers struggling to manage tight margins, it’s a strategy that costs nothing to try except a reshuffled planting list.

“Hopefully you can take these concepts back and take them to your acres,” Sible says. “It’s about getting the most from the whole farm, not just one field.”

Sible laid out his planting recommendations for soybeans during the 2026 Crop Management Conference at the University of Illinois.

Farmers Emphasize Demand, Not Payments, Is The ‘Bridge To Better Times' For Agriculture

Wed, 22 Apr 2026 22:26:14 GMT

Two Midwest farmers are pinning their hopes for the future on stronger demand for corn and soybeans — especially the latter — as they navigate tight margins, high input costs, and an uncertain price outlook.

Northern Illinois farmer Steve Pitstick and south-central Iowa farmer Dennis Bogaards say they have exhausted most cost-cutting options for this season. They believe future profitability now rests on whether demand for both crops — particularly from domestic soybean crush and fuel markets — expands enough to support higher prices.

One silver lining currently, Pitstick says, is his relatively strong position on fertilizer heading into the 2026 planting season.

“We will do pretty much the dry spread program we always do,” he says. “We cut the rates a little bit on the phosphates just because of price. We booked our 32% in September, something we traditionally do. We have all the nitrogen bought, so I feel good about 2026 from that aspect.”

While he believes additional fertilizer is available, he notes it will likely be priced at a premium.

“I believe I can get more if I need it. I may not like the price, but I can get more,” he told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory during the weekly Farmer Forum segment.

Little To No Expansion On The Horizon

As the season begins, both farmers emphasize that the coming years will have farmers focusing on survival and strategic adjustments rather than acreage expansion.

One adjustment Bogaards is making is front-loading some of his nitrogen needs this season while leaving a portion open in case prices break.

“We booked anhydrous early on for this year, back in early fall, and got an OK price,” Bogaards says. “I have a little bit of sidedress that we do. We book about half of that, and I sit open on the rest of it. I’ll wait and see where it goes.”

Bogaards remains committed to sidedressing as long as product is available and prices do not continue ratcheting up. “If I can get it, I’ll put it on, unless it is a crazy, crazy price,” he says.

Like many U.S. growers, both Bogaards and Pitstick say there is virtually no room left to cut fertilizer use without risking yields.

“There is no place to cut back. We are being as efficient as we can be,” Pitstick says.

Bogaards agrees, noting that nitrogen is not the place to skimp. “Maybe a year or so, you can cut back on the P and K a little bit, but you do not want to get caught in three or four years of that.”

He also remains reluctant to drop fungicides. “Fungicides really pay off,” he says. “In the past, we did not use them, but the last few years they really paid, and I would hate to not spray them.”

Uncertainty About The 2027 Crop Mix

While the 2026 crop is largely “business as usual,” both farmers told Flory that 2027 brings real uncertainty—especially regarding nitrogen supplies. Pitstick is concerned about how global demand could impact costs for U.S. producers.

“I am worried about the price of the nitrogen,” he says. “It may not be an issue in the United States from a supply standpoint, but the rest of the world… could export our product because of opportunity cost, and that drives the price up. It is a total wait and see.”

Flory underscored how global trade flows directly shape what American farmers pay, noting that some fertilizer shipments originally destined for the U.S. were recently rerouted.

“Some boats are diverted from the U.S. to other countries,” Flory says. “If you want your share, you have to beat the next guy in line with the price.”

If nitrogen prices soar while corn prices stagnate, Pitstick says his rotation could shift. “That might change how we do things in 2027. We may have to go to more soybeans,” he says.

Bogaards also expects to alter his corn–soybean mix, given the potential demand from domestic crush and renewable fuels.

“In the past, we were probably 60% to 65% corn,” he says. “We have been backing off of that. I still do a little bit of corn-on-corn, but I might try to go to a 50–50 rotation.”

Flory believes this shift could help rebalance supplies and improve price prospects. “If we can pull some acres away from corn and get this thing rebalanced, maybe that is our bridge to a better time,” Flory says. “Our bridge to a better time is more demand across the board and crops competing for acres — not another payment.”

Bogaards says the shifting economics are already evident. “A couple of years ago, people said soybeans are a drag on our financial statements. It looks like almost the opposite right now.”

Even so, Bogaards is cautious about making long-term decisions based on short-term signals. “I can change acres right now, but by next fall, it might be the worst decision. I think you have to go with your rotation and stick with it.”

Pitstick links his long-term outlook to fuel sector growth, noting that both corn and soybeans increasingly function as energy crops.

“Some of the most profitable years of my career were when we had high fuel prices because we were also a fuel crop,” he says. “I have some optimism that these high fuel prices will cause some demand and increase our crop prices.”

For now, both farmers say their immediate job is to manage through 2026 while keeping their options open. With high costs for fertilizer, fuel, and machinery, they see expanded demand as the only realistic path forward.

“It is just survival at this point,” Bogaards says. “We just have to make sure we can survive and keep plugging through it.”

You can listen to the complete discussion between Bogaards, Pitstick and Flory on AgriTalk at the link below:

Assess Soybean Frost Damage: Ken Ferrie Urges Patience, Replanting Discipline After Hard Freeze

Wed, 22 Apr 2026 15:53:31 GMT

Earlier this week after a series of storms and subfreezing temperatures swept through central Illinois, agronomist Ken Ferrie walked his March-planted soybean test plots south of the Bloomington area and didn’t like what he found.

“We had a substantial frost, reports of temperatures from 29 to 32 degrees, with the frost hanging around three hours or more,” Ferrie says. “Things are kind of crunchy in the grass this morning.”

That crunch underfoot translates into real damage in soybeans. Some plants, Ferrie says, are not going to make it.

“The worst hit are soybeans in the unifoliate stage or more and that were planted in our low ground,” he notes.

Illinois wasn’t the only state where soybeans were hit by frost. Weather reports from Monday and Tuesday indicate a late-season cold snap brought frost and freezing temperatures to at least four additional key soybean-producing states, impacting parts of Iowa, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio.

According to the USDA Crop Progress report released on April 20, roughly 12% of the national soybean crop had been planted. States like Illinois and Indiana were slightly ahead of their five-year averages, making crops there more vulnerable to this specific frost event.

Don’t Rush To Replant, Be Disciplined In Your Approach

Ferrie describes a clear set of visual cues growers can use to evaluate frost damage in their crop.

“Look for unifoliate leaves that are dark and deflated, and the cotyledons have a dark color,” he says. “The biggest telltale is the stem has no turgor pressure right below the cotyledons.”

He notes that those beans with discolored cotyledons and limited turgor pressure will require more time to see if they will refire at the cotyledon node.

Ferrie urges growers to take a systematic approach to evaluating frost-damaged soybeans with these four steps:

Check bean growth stage and field position (low ground vs. higher areas).
Inspect unifoliate leaves and cotyledons for dark, deflated tissue.
Pinch stems just below the cotyledons to feel for turgor.
Flag concerning areas and return in a couple of days to reevaluate survival and stand uniformity.

This bean is at the VC growth stage. While leaves look nipped and are discolored, what matters even more is what’s happening just below the cotyledons. Ferrie says there is no turgor pressure in the stem underneath the cotyledons. Turgor pressure serves soybeans a number of ways, including support for the movement of nutrients and water. “This plant is going to dry up and die on us and not make it,” Ferrie says.

(Crop-Tech Consulting Video)

This plant shows some leaf damage and possible stem damage just below the upper leaves. However, turgor pressure lower in the plant looks good. This plant is likely to survive, but Ferrie says farmers would want to reassess plants like this a few days following a frost to make sure.

(Crop-Tech Consulting Video)

Young soybeans, like this one, handle frost better than plants at VC and older because they are closer to the ground, allowing them to benefit from soil warmth, and they have thicker, waxy cotyledons. This plant is going to do fine.

(Crop-Tech Consulting)

Once you’ve assessed damage, the questions then are, how many beans survived, and how uniform a stand remains?

Replant decisions, Ferrie emphasizes, should be based on surviving plant counts and uniformity, not on first impressions the morning after a frost. That will take a few days to assess.

Why Risk Planting Soybeans In March?

Ferrie addressed the broader strategy that put March-planted beans at risk in the first place — and why many growers benefit from planting early.

“Guys ask me why plant beans in March, when you can plant them April 15,” Ferrie says. “If you can plant them April 15, not much is gained. But if you get rained out at May 1 or later, you could definitely miss the early flowering window.”

That early flowering window, he notes, remains a key driver of soybean yield potential. The risk of frost is the tradeoff.

“So that risk of early planting and dealing with frost and the need to help them up with a hoe and things like that, that always needs to be weighed against missing the early flowering window,” he says.

Go Time For Planting More Soybeans

Ferrie says the next few days are a green light for planting soybeans in central Illinois.

“If you don’t have your full-season beans planted by April 24, you may want to switch to your shorter-season beans, giving them a better chance at early flowering. Our early flowering window is closing for these full-season beans,” he adds.

The freeze may claim some of the earliest soybeans, but Ferrie insists growers still have tools to protect yield — from switching maturities as key dates approach to making informed replant calls based on stand counts and plant response.

Younger soybeans typically handle the cold and frost better.

“Population is, here at the campus, the last emerging beans, still in the cotyledon stage, are in good shape,” he says. “And the beans that we plant in the covers are protected well.”

Ferrie’s message to farmers this week is clear: get out and assess your crop, but don’t rush to replant. “By the end of the week, we’ll know how rough this frost damage is, and we’ll reassess replanting decisions after that,” he says.

You can watch Ferrie’s brief video on how to assess soybean damage here .

Illinois Farmers Sidelined by Rain and Storms, as Southern Farmers Plant at Record Rates

Wed, 22 Apr 2026 15:21:30 GMT

While many Southern farmers are shattering speed records for the 2026 planting season, planters are sidelined for many farmers in the Midwest who are facing wet conditions. For the father-and-son duo of Dave and Chris Harrell, the 2026 season is off to a slow start. However, the corn and soybean farmers in Hancock County think the slight setback could be a setup for a successful season later.

Chris and Dave Harrell test the planter in Carthage, Ill.

(Haley Bickelhaupt)

“[There’s] little to nothing going on at all this week,” Chris Harrell said April 17.

“I know we’ve had roughly five-and-a-half inches in the last in the last two weeks,” he adds. The Harrells received 2 more inches of rain and storms last weekend.

The nation’s corn crop is currently 11% planted, sitting 2 points ahead of the five-year average. Much of that momentum is coming from Illinois and Indiana, which both had a big week in the field. Illinois is now 13% planted, and Indiana follows closely at 14%. However, the western Corn Belt is seeing a different pace. Iowa is off to a slow start, with just 2% of its corn crop in the ground as of this week.

Soybean planting is moving even faster relative to historical norms. Nationally, soybean planting is 7 points ahead of the five-year average at 12% of the soybean crop planted.

Harrell says farmers south of his family’s farm in Carthage, Ill., are further along planting. The Harrells planted one field of beans March 30 before rain paused their efforts. With 40 years of experience under his belt, Dave Harrell thinks the rain won’t set them back too far and that it will helpful in the weeks to come.

“We’ve got ample time,“ Dave says. “You know, it’s still middle of April, so we’ll be fine.”

Shown is the Harrells’ bean field as of April 17, 2026.

(Haley Bickelhaupt)

Navigating the Bottom Line: Diesel and Inputs

While the rain may eventually prove to be a blessing in disguise for yields, input costs, specifically fuel, are weighing heavily on the books. According to AAA, the average diesel price in Illinois this week is approximately $1.80 higher than it was this time last year.

“The diesel prices, I think, is No. 1 top of mind subject right now,“ Chris explains. “I mean, the price of corn’s gone up with it, but I think a lot of farmers would say it’s not gone up enough to offset some of it.”

To combat these rising costs, Dave is utilizing strip-till practices. He also relies on early contracts to lock in fuel prices.

“We lucked out and had some contracted to kind of cover our spring needs, so we’ll be OK through the spring,” he says.

(AAA)

Finding Opportunity in Non-GMO Premiums

In addition to conventional corn and soybeans, the Harrells also plant non-GMO corn from Wyffels. While the process requires more management, Dave said the financial upside makes it a win-win situation.

“It’s a little extra work on segregation and storage and clean out,” Chris says. “You just kind of have to have a little checklist and get through it all, but the premiums are nice, especially in a tougher environment like this.”

Four generations of the Harrell family stand for a photo. Dave’s dad still helps out on the farm today at 95 years old.

(Chris Harrell)

Looking Ahead

As the fields in Carthage begin to dry out, a new challenge has emerged: High winds are currently preventing spraying operations. However, the Harrells are rolling with the punches, expecting farmers in their area to potentially move back into full-scale fieldwork by Wednesday.

Chris Harrell works on the planter while waiting for fields to dry out.

(Haley Bickelhaupt)

This barn on the Harrells’ farm was built in the early 1900s. It’s been through storms and been given updates. Today, it serves as a shop for the family.

(Mike Byers)

Historic Gains in the Corn Belt South

According to latest USDA reports, corn planting in Kentucky and Tennessee is moving at its fastest rate since 2012. The numbers tell a story of an efficient window:

Tennessee — Farmers have 64% of the corn crop in the ground, which is a massive 40-point jump ahead of the five-year average and 42 points ahead of last year.
Kentucky — Growers are nearly halfway finished, sitting roughly 30 points ahead of the normal pace.

Soybeans See Record-Setting Pace

The speed isn’t limited to corn. Soybean planting is also rewriting the record books in the Deep South:

Louisiana — Leading the pack at 58% planted, which is 26 points ahead of average and the fastest pace in USDA history.
Mississippi — Currently at 55% planted, running 32 points ahead of the usual pace, another record.
Tennessee — Soybean planting has hit the 50% mark, 41 points ahead of the historical average.

The ‘Dry’ Reality: Farmers Forced to Wait

While the dry weather allowed for uninterrupted field time early on, the lack of moisture is now a major hurdle. David Hula says for growers in the Southeast, the dust has become too much.

“We’ve been dry all season so far, and we actually stopped planting because we’ve been so dry,” Hula says. “Can’t just get the planter in the ground, but it’s the first top, the first planting window. We waited till things warmed up, you know; I’m very diligent and patient about that, and all that corn has come up awesome.”

He says they stopped planting last Thursday, and there’s no measurable rain in the forecast.

“I don’t know when we’re gonna get started back,” Hula says.

Pocket of Extreme Drought

The topsoil moisture maps highlight a stark reality for the region. In a corridor stretching from Virginia to Georgia, topsoil rated “short to very short” in ranges from 83% to a staggering 97%. It has become one of the driest pockets in the country, creating a sharp contrast to the Midwest.

Canadian Farmers Look For A Fresh Start After The Driest Year In Decades

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 18:47:51 GMT

The way Tim Webster tells it, his 2025 cropping season was nearly a disaster. Summer delivered the lowest July–August rainfall his area had seen in 50 years. That lack and abnormally high temperatures pushed corn and soybeans to their limits.

“We had just enough moisture to get to the finish line,” recalls Webster, a sixth-generation farmer based just west of Lindsay, Ontario, Canada. The end result: corn and soybean yields came in at about half of normal.

Webster and fellow farmer Steve Crothers, who farms on the north shore of Lake Ontario about 50 miles east of Toronto, recently sat down with Illinois-based Farm Journal Field Agronomist Ken Ferrie to talk about how they’re adjusting cropping plans for 2026 after last year’s drought.

Drought Reshapes Farmer Expectations

For Webster, last season was a stark reminder of how quickly yield potential can evaporate. Ultimately, Webster’s bottom line took a hit.

“We’re hoping that doesn’t repeat again,” he told Ferrie.

Crothers’ experience, though slightly better, was still defined by drought. Growing corn, soybeans, wheat and edible beans along Lake Ontario, he says it was the driest of his 40-plus years in farming.

“We had a couple half-inch rains, so we kind of ended up with three-quarters of our long-term average yield. So, we fared a little bit better,” Crothers says.

Still, the season left him and Webster concerned about their cropping plans and finances for this year.

Crop Insurance As A Lifeline

Ferrie drew a comparison between Canadian and American safety nets as he listened to Crothers and Webster describe their experiences. In the U.S., Ferrie notes farmers often lean on multiple levels of crop insurance to blunt losses in a bad production year. He asked whether similar options exist for Canadian farmers.

Webster replied that growers there do have a provincial crop insurance program, but participation and coverage levels vary.
“I think we all felt after last year, maybe we should have been insured a little higher. But we were very happy to have what we had to help pay the bills, that’s for sure,” Webster notes.

Crothers says specialty crops, including edible white beans and adzuki beans, come under similar insurance frameworks as corn and soybeans, though they have higher premiums because of their higher value.

Most of the white beans grown in his part of Ontario head to the United Kingdom, while the adzuki beans (also called mung beans) are shipped to Japan, Crothers notes. Those export markets add another layer of risk to already weather-sensitive crops, making insurance an important backstop when weather or markets turn against them.

Fertilizer Sticker Shock Hits Canadian Growers

If drought defined 2025, fertilizer prices loom large over this season for Canadian farmers, much like they do for U.S. farmers.

“For 2026 our biggest thing is hope — hope for typical average rainfalls after last year’s drought,” Crothers says. “And then, of course, the economic challenges with the fertilizer situation are obviously troubling to everybody.”

He tells Ferrie most fertilizer in his part of Ontario is not prepaid “The fellows using 28% are usually prepaid, because it’s been hard to get the last few years. But generally, not near as much fertilizer is prepaid as what, in a perfect world, would have been.” Crothers reports.

That leaves many Canadian farmers more exposed to potential sticker shock as they head into spring planting.

Webster says he pre-bought some of his nitrogen (N) in February and is now leaning hard into a strategy of splitting applications and dialing back on more expensive, slow-release N options where he can.

This year, for his wheat topdress program, fertility costs didn’t pencil out, forcing a change in his plans.

“It’s $32 more [per acre] to go with the time-release product versus straight urea,” Webster notes. “So, I think on our wheat this year we’re going to do a lot of split applications.”

With diesel, fertilizer and other costs trending higher, he says, “anything you can do to save small increments adds up … for the whole operation.”

Cropping Plans: Adjust Or Stay The Course?

Both farmers describe their region as an area where crop rotations remain fairly consistent: corn, soybeans and wheat typically share the mix. Asked whether high input prices and drought fears would drive large acreage shifts this season, Webster says his own operation plans to stay the course with its rotation, helped by a marketing strategy that spreads grain sales out over time to manage risk and meet mortgage payments.

Still, he’s aware some of his neighbors are recalibrating their cropping plans.

“I know some guys are going to go less corn, more beans — just less dollars to put it in,” Webster notes. “Maybe the profits aren’t as high, but there’s less risk involved.”

Ferrie notes that, similar to Ontario, many U.S. growers also appear to be largely holding to their established crop plans, as their major fertilizer and seed commitments were already made before input costs soared.

In a region still feeling the effects of the driest season in decades, both Webster and Crothers are essentially betting on a return to something closer to normal this season — average rains, manageable input costs and no repeat of last year’s extremes.

“If we get good yields, then we can deal with those [costs],” Crothers says. “But another weather year like last year would definitely be a struggle for a lot of people.”

Crothers and Webster spoke with Ferrie during a meeting hosted by the Durham Soil and Crop Association, a grassroots group that works under Ontario’s agricultural umbrella to bring new ideas, funding opportunities and conservation programs to farmers in the region.

You can catch the entire conversation between Ferrie, Crothers and Webster on this week’s Boots In The Field podcast, available below.

Survey Says Farmers Cut Corn Acres Since the War Started

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 18:15:51 GMT

Surging input costs and questions about fertilizer prices and availability have some farmers reconsidering their planting intentions.

A private survey conducted by grain merchandiser Farmer’s Keeper shows a sizable cut in corn acres since USDA’s March Prospective Planting report . Remember, the USDA survey was fielded in early March before the full impact of the war in Iran was felt. Since then the fertilizer supply crunch and price spike might have forced some farmers to move away from corn last minute.

Farmer’s Keeper asked nearly 4,000 of its customers in 27 states the following question: “Since fertilizer prices have risen, how have your corn acres changed?”

The results show:

No Change - 76%
Decrease - 20.3%
Increase - 3.7%

(Farmer’s Keeper )

“We just saw in March a surprisingly high to many of us corn acreage number from USDA and a relatively lower soybean number,” says Nick Tsiolis, CEO, Farmer’s Keeper. “What that tells us is potentially we might start to see those numbers converge with corn acres coming down and soybean acres coming up.”

Acreage Shifts Tied to Fertilizer Prices and Supplies

Tsiolis says the fertilizer supply crunch is one factor causing last-minute shifts.

“What we’re hearing from the co-ops is many farmers are not even going to be able to get the fertilizer they want,” he explains. “Even if they wanted to increase their corn acres, they wouldn’t be able to do that.”

The near-record high prices, especially for urea, are also playing a role in the decision, according to Tsiolis.

“When you get a price spike in fertilizer, with already a challenged ag economy out there, it’s going to lead the farmer to say, ‘Man, I’m spending several hundred dollars an acre more to put in this corn crop for relatively less profitability when I could put in some bean acres and almost know that at least at today’s current prices, I’m going to break even or a little bit better.’”

A fertilizer study conducted by the American Farm Bureau Federation shows 67% of Midwest farmers pre-booked fertilizer. Where are the shifts likely to come from?

“I think if we’re going to see any kind of big movement from the March intentions for corn and soybeans, it’s probably going to come from the fringe area,” says Brian Grete, CommStock Investments. “I will include [that area] up into the Plains and the northern Plains and down through the South and Southeast. Those are the areas where we could see the biggest shift.”

There probably won’t be many acreage changes in the central Corn Belt, he says, so the crops most at risk are peanuts, cotton and others specific to the South.

The 20-Bushel Wake-Up Call One Farmer Is Using To Boost Soybean Yields

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 16:42:59 GMT

For years, Stephen Butz watched his corn yields climb while his soybeans stalled. The numbers didn’t lie: corn was steadily improving, while soybeans were “average at best,” he recalls, running hot and cold from year to year with no clear pattern.

“Our soybeans were just plateauing,” says Butz, who farms near Kankakee, Ill.

The turning point for Butz came several years ago on a 120-acre field split between two soybean varieties — 80 acres on the north side and 40 acres on the south. Everything matched: planting date, field conditions, management. The only difference was the variety planted.

At harvest, the 40-acre section of the field was 18 to 19 bushels per acre better.

A talk with Butz’s seedsman revealed the answer: the higher-yielding soybeans carried the Peking source of resistance to soybean cyst nematode (SCN). That single difference explained nearly 20-bushels-per-acre the farm had been losing to SCN for years.

“Honestly, it was just one of those deals where our seed guy had said, ‘Hey, this is a good number.’ So we’d planted the variety kind of naively,” Butz says. “But lo and behold, it was a huge benefit for us and showed us a problem we had on this farm and other farms, too.”

With the initial finding of SCN, Butz started soil testing to identify how significant the problem was across his farm. Surprisingly, soil tests revealed SCN populations ranging from the low hundreds to as high as 5,000 per sample.

“We’ve got a good amount of farms in that 3,000 to 5,000 count, which is an extremely high amount that I need to address,” says Butz, who samples fields ahead of planting.

Spring 2026: Going 100% Peking

After splitting acres for several years between non-GMO and Enlist soybeans, Butz made a decisive shift to the latter for 2026 as the non-GMO soybeans do not carry resistance to SCN.

“This spring, we are going with 100% Peking,” he says

For Butz, the move is less about chasing bonus bushels of soybeans and more about stopping the hidden losses SCN has been causing. He’s certain he’s left a lot of yield potential on the table in previous seasons.

“We’re not so much adding bushels (with the Peking) as we expect to relieve the stress that’s been taking bushels away,” he says.

Going all-Peking this season is only part of his management plan. The other piece is rotating more between corn and soybeans and, over time, between different SCN technologies, including Peking and PI 88788.

Butz’s cropping pattern follows a rough structure of thirds in any given year: about a third of his total acres in corn or soybeans and another third in continuous corn. That same structure drives his soil sampling schedule and will, in the future, he says, guide how he rotates SCN resistance traits across the landscape.

He also hopes to bring new technology into the mix, including the new SCN solution on the way from BASF Agricultural Solutions, called Nemasphere. It is the first-ever biotech trait designed specifically to address SCN.

Unlike traditional native resistance found in PI 88788 and Peking, Nemasphere is based on a transgenic trait — a Cry14 protein engineered directly into the soybean — explains Hugo Borsari, BASF vice president of business management for seeds in North America.

Beyond Yield: Logistics And Longevity

For Butz, the case for more soybeans, and especially better-protected soybeans, isn’t just agronomic. It’s logistical and financial.
Soybeans help spread out workload during planting and harvest, he explains, easing the strain of managing continuous corn acres. They also inject rotation into fields that might otherwise lean too heavily to continuous corn.

“Years of continuous corn in some spots is fine, but rotation is obviously better,” he said during a recent panel discussion hosted by BASF.

Like he found out by accident, Butz says he believes many other growers might be losing significant yield to SCN without realizing it.

“You might live in an area that you raise 75-bushel beans all the time, or 80-bushel beans, and that’s amazing. But what if the potential is 90 or 100 bushels?“ Butz asks. “There’s plenty of people out there that might be losing 10, 15 bushels off the top, and that adds up fast. You’re freaking losing $100 an acre pretty quick that would help a lot with your bottom line.”

Why Your Herbicide Can Fail Even if You Follow the Label

Thu, 16 Apr 2026 18:37:11 GMT

When weeds break through your herbicide, it’s easy to blame the product, rate or application timing. However, weed-control experts Greg Dahl and Joe Ikley suggest the real culprits might be something else altogether: the water in the tank and the adjuvant — or lack thereof — mixed into it.

Dahl, a retired research manager at WinField United, says hard data tells the story best. After reviewing thousands of university trials, he found
that skipping the herbicide’s required adjuvant is an invitation for weed-control failure.

“We saw a 30% to 90% reduction in weed control when the adjuvant was left out,” Dahl says. “That’s a pretty big sting.”

But simply using an adjuvant isn’t enough. The trials showed that using the wrong class of adjuvant in the tank can slash performance by up to 50%. Even settling for a “good enough” product over a premium version can result in a 25% drop in efficacy. Notes Dahl: In the world of weed control, “close enough” often isn’t.

(Council of Producers & Distributors of Agrotechnology)

Solutions That Work

Hard water in the spray tank is often a contributor to poor weed control. When spray water is loaded with calcium and magnesium cations, that can create a hostile environment for weak-acid herbicides like glyphosate. These minerals physically bind to the herbicide, forming particles the plant cannot absorb.

“Plants don’t eat rocks,” says Ikley, a weed specialist at North Dakota State University Extension.

To counter this, he and Dahl recommend using ammonium sulfate (AMS) as a dedicated water conditioner. Dahl’s research indicates that in cases of extreme hardness, adding at least 8.5 lbs. of AMS per 100 gallons is necessary to fully neutralize the water and restore herbicide efficacy.

However, the battle isn’t just in the tank; it’s often on weed leaves. Ikley points out that certain weeds, like velvetleaf, actually secrete their own calcium crystals onto their leaf surfaces.

“Several of our weed species actually need higher AMS rates because of the crystals on the surface of that leaf,” Ikley explains. “We have to account for that interaction on the weed surface, not just in the water.”

While “all-in-one” adjuvant blends offer convenience, Ikley and Dahl urge caution. To hit a specific price point or fit multiple ingredients into the jug, manufacturers sometimes compromise on the water-conditioning component. University trials consistently show that very few “convenience” products can outperform the gold-standard combination of AMS plus a nonionic surfactant, Ikley and Dahl say.

Conditioners Aren’t All Created Equal

Dahl and Ikley both note that water conditioners and “all-in-one” adjuvants vary widely in performance. To get everything into a gallon and hit a certain price point, they say manufacturers sometimes compromise and come up short on one of the functions, often the one for water conditioning.

Ikley says university trials show only a handful of conditioners outperform the standard combination of AMS plus a nonionic surfactant.

“A few of the water conditioners do quite well,” he reports. “The rest don’t perform as well as AMS plus surfactant.”

Before they select or change the adjuvant used, Dahl and Ikley tell farmers to test their water, and ask the laboratory to report the results to them in parts per million.

“Some labs report in grains, and then you’ve got to do more math,” Dahl says.

Ikley adds a practical tip: always run the water for a few minutes before taking a sample to ensure you aren’t testing stagnant residue from the lines.

Ultimately, adjuvants are a valuable safety net for herbicide performance and weed control. As Dahl puts it, “You can raise herbicide rates until you can’t anymore. When you need help, the adjuvants can help.”

Cut Through The Biological Noise To Find Real ROI

Wed, 15 Apr 2026 21:05:02 GMT

Biologicals are booming across the agricultural landscape, propelled by a surge of new products and high-octane promises. Yet, when the invoice arrives, farmers are often left with this nagging question: Did I actually need that?

University of Illinois field researcher and assistant professor Connor Sible is on a mission to provide clarity. Drawing on a decade-plus of in-field study in corn and soybean systems, Sible offers a farmer-first filter to cut through the marketing noise. His research is helping growers determine where these tools offer a reliable return on investment — and where they fall flat.

“Start with your agronomy, then decide if a biological adds value on top,” he advises. “They’re not a shortcut around good fundamentals.”

One of the key reasons why farmers struggle to cut through the noise and identify which biological products will work for them results from the shear number of biological products in the marketplace. Another challenge is what this class of products is called. Academia and regulators use the term biostimulants. Ag media, companies and most farmers increasingly use the broader term biologicals.

The 2025 crop biostimulant list was capped at 450 companies. Sible notes that most companies offer multiple products, so if the chart were redrawn by product labels instead of company logos, it would “get out of control pretty quickly.” In his own review of just row-crop (corn, wheat, soy) products, he examined 155 products and found 139 unique microbial species used as active ingredients.

(Connor Sible Presentation)

The Baseline: Deliver on Fundamentals

For all the excitement surrounding biologicals, Sible encourages farmers to focus on unglamorous agronomic foundations first. He describes biologicals as next-step inputs; they can sharpen a high-performing cropping system, but they will not rescue one built on outdated practices.

“I do not know of a biostimulant or biological today that will fix your pH,” Sible says. “If you’ve got a soil pH issue, fix that first. Same with drainage, and same with using the same hybrid you’ve used for six years just because it’s still available.”

The Logistics: Is it Dead or Alive?

Once the fundamentals are solid, Sible says a practical next step is to consider whether a product is living or non-living.

Beneficial microbes — such as nitrogen-fixers, phosphorus-solubilizers, residue degraders, and many seed-applied inoculants — are alive. Many biostimulants — including humic and fulvic acids, certain enzymes, and kelp- or marine-based formulations — are not.

That distinction isn’t just academic; it determines whether a product has any chance of working by the time it reaches your field.

“If you’re buying something living, you’re buying a responsibility,” Sible says. “You have to keep it alive from delivery to application.”

He urges farmers to evaluate their shop conditions: Can you provide temperature stability? Is the product sitting against an uninsulated exterior wall? If the logistics of babysitting a living organism do not fit your management style, Sible suggests using only non-living biostimulants.

Nutrient Efficiency: Boosting Nitrogen

Few biological categories have generated as much buzz as nitrogen fixers. Sible’s work suggests they can play a role — but not the one many farmers might first imagine.

For a typical corn crop, about half the nitrogen comes from applied fertilizer and about half from soil organic matter and mineralization.

Biological N fixers are best thought of as a third source of nitrogen, he says, helping to cover shortfalls when fertilizer is lost or tied up, or soil mineralization doesn’t keep pace with crop demand.

From his data on a 230-bushel corn crop, the key number is 7 pounds of nitrogen per acre per day. That’s how much the plant must take up every day for about three weeks at peak demand. At 300 bushels, that jumps to around 9 pounds per acre per day. One of the questions farmers need to ask their retailer on a nitrogen-fixing biological they’re considering is, how much will it help provide during the key periods of demand?

Corn requires significant amounts of nitrogen during key growth stages to deliver a 230-bushel corn crop. The demand makes it hugely challenging for a biological to deliver sufficient N as a standalone product.

(Connor Sible)

Sible makes two critical points:

Don’t cut N and expect a biological to fully replace it.
When growers drop early-season nitrogen in hopes that microbes will fill the gap, his team often sees corn respond by reducing kernel set. The yield ceiling falls before the biological has time to colonize and contribute.
Placement and mode of action matter.
Products marketed as N fixers don’t all work the same way. Some colonize roots externally, some live inside the plant as endophytes, and some may enhance N assimilation rather than truly fixing atmospheric N. That affects:
- Whether they’re best applied in-furrow, on-seed or foliar.
- What they can be tank-mixed with.
- When they’ll begin supplying nitrogen.

Farmers trialing N-fixing products this season should treat them as insurance or a supplement and not a license to slash N rates across the board, Sible advises.

Phosphorus-Solubilizing Microbes

Soils often hold a high volume of total phosphorus, but much of it is locked in forms plants cannot access. Certain microbes can free up this nutrient by secreting weak organic acids that chelate soil cations away from phosphate.

In field trials, the most consistent benefits occurred when microbes were supplied in-furrow or very near the roots and applied alongside phosphorus fertilizer. Using “difference methods” to track uptake, Sible reports that baseline efficiencies often sat between 4% and 7%. With a P-solubilizing product, that jumped to the 7% to 11% range in some environments.

“It’s still not great, but it nearly doubled our efficiency in some environments,” he says. However, he cautions that cutting fertilizer back significantly and expecting microbes to “mine” the difference is not a reliable strategy.

The Carbon Battle: Residue Management

Residue degradation is where Sible sees some of the strongest opportunities for biologicals, especially in high-yield or no-till systems.

Every 10 bushels of corn adds about 440 pounds of residue; over a decade, a yield gain of 25 bushels can mean an extra half-ton of residue per acre.

The challenge is the high carbon-to-sulfur ratio in corn stalks, which ties up nutrients. Sible’s research has found that biological degraders are inconsistent on their own but show significant synergy when paired with nitrogen and sulfur.

“If you’re going to use these, understand they’re fighting an uphill battle against carbon,” Sible says.

He also stresses application timing: “Spray on cloudy days or in the evening to take advantage of overnight dew. You have to set the product up to succeed.”

Carbon and Humic Products

When evaluating humic acids and molasses-type products (sugar), Sible notes a clear divide between crops. In soybeans, results have been largely inconsistent. In corn, however, in-furrow carbon and humic products produced small but consistent yield gains that held up under economic analysis.

Sible attributes this to crop physiology. Corn makes major yield decisions twice: during early vegetative stages (kernel potential) and at pollination (kernel retention). Supporting the plant during these specific windows has offered a measurable response.

Soybeans, by contrast, adjust yield daily from flowering through seed fill, making them a much harder target for a single application of a biostimulant.

Stress-Mitigating Products

Sible sees value in some stress-mitigating products — often kelp or marine extracts — that claim to help crops tolerate drought, heat or other abiotic stress. He notes these materials are often rich in metabolites that help plants survive extreme fluctuations in temperature, moisture and salinity.

When applied to crop leaves, these materials can trigger stress-defense pathways.But they only work if they’re applied before the stress hits.

“You have to be proactive, not reactive,” Sible says. “If the corn is already curled or the soybean leaves are flipped over, it’s too late for these products to do much.”

He tells farmers to watch their 7- to 10-day forecasts and time applications ahead of expected heat waves or dry spells, adding that these products are ineffective as rescue treatments.

From Products to Purpose

Across all categories of biological products, Sible’s advice remains the same: define your “why.” If a product doesn’t clearly fit a specific goal — such as improving N efficiency at peak uptake or accelerating residue breakdown — it may not be worth the investment.

“There are some really exciting tools out there,” Sible says. “But the value comes when you use them precisely, not when you expect them to fix everything.”

As farmers evaluate biological products, Sible notes there are about 10 frequently used types of “active ingredients” that are better-understood, likely credible and worth evaluating. They include:

Bacillus amyloliquefaciens
Bacillus subtilis
Bradyrhizobium spp. (classic soybean inoculant – “the original biological”)
Azospirillum spp.
Trichoderma spp.
Azotobacter spp.
Several other Bacillus and related species are in the top-10 list, as well.

Sible’s framing of these for farmers’ consideration:
If a new product contains one or more of these top 10 species, it “fits the larger narrative of this market.”
If it has something totally different, it might be:
— a random/unproven one-off, or
— truly novel and promising – but in that case he suggests being more cautious and asking more questions.

Treat Soil Moisture Like A Checkbook To Sharpen Irrigation Decisions

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 21:07:09 GMT

As irrigation costs climb and weather grows more erratic, farmers are under pressure to make every inch of water count. One of the simplest, most practical tools they can use this season won’t require new hardware on the pivot — just a different way of thinking about soil moisture.

North Dakota State University associate professor and irrigation engineer Dean Steele encourages farmers to manage soil water like their checkbook: track deposits and withdrawals, and don’t let the account get overdrawn. That mindset, he says, is the foundation of better irrigation timing and improved efficiency.

“The soil is our bank account. We’ve got withdrawals and deposits,” he notes. “Your deposits are the rain and irrigation. Your withdrawals are the crop water use and things like the deep percolation and maybe some runoff.”

The soil profile starts each growing season with a certain balance of water. Every day, evapotranspiration (ET) — the combined effect of evaporation from the soil and transpiration from the crop — pulls moisture out. Rain and irrigation add it back in.

Just as with a financial account, it’s not enough to know how much “money” moves in and out over a year. What also matters is when it moves — especially during critical periods like tasseling or grain fill, Steele says.

Why Seasonal Totals Can Mislead

Steele uses a favorite classroom trick question to show why irrigation timing is so important.

He asks students: If a crop needs 18 inches of ET over a season and the farm receives 12 inches of rain, how much irrigation is required?

The obvious answer is six inches. But that is incorrect.

“If all the rain of that 12 inches comes on May 1, and you get nothing the rest of the season, then you still need 18 inches,” Steele explains.

In that scenario, early-season rain may fill the soil profile, but if it’s not replenished as the crop draws water in July and August, the soil account will be overdrawn exactly when the plant is most sensitive to stress.

The lesson, Steele says, is that seasonal totals hide risk. Farmers need to track the running balance in the soil, not just the sum of rainfall and irrigation on a yearly chart.

Build A Simple Water-Balance Ledger

Steele says growers can implement a practical water-balance approach with tools many already have: a rain gauge, basic ET information and records of irrigation events, often available in their spreadsheet.

A basic checkbook-style water balance would include these four elements:

1. Starting balance: Estimate available water in the rooting zone at planting (for example, after pre-watering or spring recharge).

2. Daily withdrawals: Use ET estimates (from local weather networks, Extension tools or ET calculators) to subtract crop water use.

3. Daily deposits:
- Add effective rainfall (total rain minus runoff or obvious losses).
- Add irrigation applied (inches per pass or per revolution).

4. Running balance: Track how much water remains in the effective root zone relative to field capacity and a chosen depletion limit.

Steele compares ET and side losses to an unavoidable set of expenses — “groceries… housing and taxes” — that must be paid out of the account every day. If those outflows consistently exceed deposits, the crop will eventually experience stress long before the calendar suggests it should.

Adapting The Method To Different Climates

The same accounting framework applies whether you farm in the upper Midwest or the High Plains, but the numbers in the ledger will look very different.

In North Dakota, Steele notes, seasonal ET is relatively modest and summer rainfall sometimes helps “catch up,” meaning there can be more opportunities to pause or reduce irrigation when rainstorms arrive.

In the central and southern High Plains the withdrawals are much larger, according to Brian Arnall, a precision nutrient management Extension specialist at Oklahoma State University.

“Our max ETs can easily hit three‑quarters of an inch a day; our normal ET is half an inch,” Arnall says.

With 100-degree days, 30% humidity and rapidly growing corn, the soil account in the High Plains empties fast. That’s why, in many of those systems, pivots rarely shut off once they’re started, notes Arnall.

“By the end of our cropping season, we’ll probably be right at neutral, if not negative, as far as total ET and application,” he says.

For growers in Arnall’s area, the checkbook model confirms that almost constant deposits are required just to keep pace — and it can help reveal when small interruptions in irrigation might tip the balance into stress.

Match Irrigation To Crop Root Depth And Soil Type

Steele emphasizes that the size of a farmer’s “bank account” also depends on crop rooting depth and soil characteristics. Deep‑rooted corn on heavier soils can draw from a larger reservoir; potatoes on sandy ground with shallow roots cannot, he notes.

“With a corn crop… two‑thirds of an inch, that’s not a lot of water,” Steele says. In potato ground, by contrast, “if you’re managing 12 inches or 18 inches of root zone depth, that’s maybe what you’ve got to work with, so you’ve got to be around the circle more frequently.”

For farmers, that means:

In deep profiles with good water-holding capacity, the starting moisture balance is higher, and the system can tolerate larger withdrawals between irrigations.
In shallow or sandy profiles, the usable balance is small, so even modest daily ET can rapidly overdraw the account unless irrigations are more frequent.

Using The Ledger To Time Irrigation

Once a farmer has a running soil water balance, the irrigation decision can become a more disciplined approach. Steele advises growers to:

1. Irrigate when the projected balance approaches a chosen depletion threshold, not just when the soil surface looks dry.

2. Adjust application depth so that deposits match likely withdrawals over the next several days, considering forecast ET and possible rainfall.

3. Plan ahead for long pivot runs or “wipers,” where the time needed to complete a pass can allow the far end of the field to spend down its account before the irrigation system returns to that point in the field.

Steele says that on complex systems like windshield‑wiper pivots, he would pay special attention to water balance at both the starting and ending points.

“If I had a windshield wiper, I’d want to keep track of the starting and ending points and see how I’m doing, to make sure… you get back to that starting point in time,” he explains.

In practice, this might mean increasing application depth on certain passes, slowing the pivot at critical growth stages or strategically skipping lower‑risk areas where the account is still healthy.

Adding Sensors And ET Tools To The Checkbook

While Steele’s checkbook analogy can be implemented with simple records, it also provides a framework for using more advanced tech tools. Soil moisture sensors can serve as “bank statements,” verifying that the modeled balance matches reality. ET models and remote sensing can sharpen estimates of daily withdrawals, especially as researchers develop radar‑ and satellite‑based crop water use tools.

“There are people using satellite imagery as part of developing an integrated irrigation management system ... they’re keeping track of weather and soils and doing some estimation of crop water needs, and trying to estimate when the crop is going to need water, and then actually run the irrigation system,” Steele says.

In addition, local irrigation dealers and irrigation equipment manufacturers have apps and tools for managing water in the field, including variable rate irrigation. These tools are typically integrated into phone or desktop apps linked to the control panel of the irrigation system.

He suggests all of these technologies should feed into answering the same core questions: What is my soil water balance today, and what will it be if I do — or don’t — irrigate?

Manage Water Like Money

Behind the math and models, Steele’s message is that farmers who manage soil water like their money are better positioned to use irrigation when it delivers the highest return.

By tracking deposits and withdrawals, recognizing that “when” matters as much as “how much,” and understanding how soil and climate shape their account size, growers can head into this season with a clearer picture of where every inch of water is going — and whether it’s truly helping their crop.

Listen to more of Steele and Arnall’s recommendations on The Crop Podcast Show here .

Corteva Unveils Executive Team Lineup For Its Two-Way Company Split

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 14:58:35 GMT

Corteva Inc. has reached a pivotal milestone in its corporate restructuring, announcing the executive leadership teams that will guide its transition into two independent, publicly traded entities.

The separation, which will result in the formation of New Corteva and SpinCo, is expected to be finalized in the fourth quarter of 2026.

New Corteva: A Focus on Crop Protection

Luther “Luke” Kissam has been appointed as the future chief executive officer of New Corteva, the entity that will retain the company’s crop protection portfolio. Kissam is scheduled to join the firm on June 1 as CEO.

Corteva’s Greg Page says the company board of directors selected Kissam following a global search, citing his ability to drive growth through innovation. Page notes that Kissam’s history of leading public companies and delivering market-focused solutions will benefit farmers and shareholders alike, according to a company press release.

Kissam brings a background in both agriculture and specialty chemicals to the new role. He previously served as the chairman and CEO of Albemarle Corporation and held legal and executive positions at Monsanto and Merisant Company.

Joining Kissam at New Corteva in key leadership roles will be:

Jeff Rudolph, chief financial officer
Brook Cunningham, chief commercial officer
Ralph Ford, chief integrated operations officer
Reza Rasoulpour, chief technology officer
Jim Alcombright, chief digital and information officer

SpinCo: Advancing Seed and Genetics

The second entity, provisionally named SpinCo, will operate as a standalone seed and genetics company. This business will focus on elite germplasm and cutting-edge biotechnologies, including gene editing and molecular breeding for row crops.

Current Corteva CEO Chuck Magro will transition to the role of SpinCo CEO at the time of formal separation. Magro says SpinCo’s success will be built on technological investments that allow farmers to increase yields in row crops and potentially new markets.

Along with Magro, the leadership team for SpinCo will include:

David Johnson, chief financial officer
Judd O’Connor, chief commercial and operations officer
Sam Eathington, chief technology officer
Audrey Grimm, chief people officer
Brian Lutz, chief digital and information officer
Jennifer Johnson, chief legal officer

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.”