Managing profit with tight margins

By Travis Kimmel, CCA, Director of Innovation, Advanced Agrilytics LLC

During the last two growing seasons, margins have become uncomfortably tight amid an increasingly uncertain market. Global market scares with unrest in the Middle East and Ukraine have put pressure on essential nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Two nutrients that are critical for corn, soybean, and wheat production. Here in the United States (more specifically, Ohio), many are coming off two of the driest growing seasons in recent memory. The local weather challenges, coupled with market uncertainty and high interest rates, have many of us putting our production costs under the microscope. With that said. How should we handle this while still putting together a solid plan for 2026? The short answer is, it depends.

Controlling input costs to maximize nutrient use efficiency

Working through where to cut and how much is especially hard when we don’t have great metrics on what the impact might be. For example, you may be thinking that you have been strong on your fertility applications, and with the recent growing seasons, that same dollar doesn’t go as far due to the cost of our macro nutrients (N, P, K, S). This begs the question: where do you cut, and by how much? As our team has been working with growers during the last decade, we have been diligent when it comes to optimizing soil fertility for times like these. Our approach is not to overapply or build a surplus, but rather to address the influences that impede nutrient uptake, so that each acre is in the best position to optimize productivity.

Defining optimized nutrient levels on the landscape

As part of the Advanced Agrilytics management strategy for fertility, we start with the environment. To optimize nutrient use efficiency and uptake, we must understand the environment we are trying to manage. Regardless of soil type, how that acre lies, in combination with its physical and chemical properties, drives our understanding of how it should be managed to maximize efficiency. For many of us, the adoption of variable-rate fertilizer has been a big part of this efficiency gain since its broad adaptation in the mid-1990s. While differences exist, nearly all variable-rate P and K prescriptions are driven by a basic equation.

Application Rate= ((Critical Level- Soil test Level) * buffering Factor) + (Yield Goal * removal)

With the advent of yield monitors, some have adopted the use of spatial yield data to account for removal, thus addressing areas of the field where yield variations can be addressed. However, with these applications, we don’t address the critical level. In fact, most of us across Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan use the Tri-State as our guide for establishing critical levels for Phosphorus and Potassium applications. So, while critical levels vary across crops, they remain constant across states.

Infusing mechanism with environment

As we think about uptake mechanisms of phosphorus and potassium, they are primarily taken up by the plant through diffusion. Knowing this, we understand that diffusion is regulated primarily by soil moisture. So, the less soil moisture you have, the less efficient this process is. Despite these known influences in availability, our current guidelines don’t take this into account in fertility recommendations.

A more effective way forward

At Advanced Agrilytics, we patented a method of addressing these known factors by developing spatial critical fertility management. After executing many field-scale trials, as well as conducting water quality research at our research facility outside of Huntington, Ind. We have been able to refine our approach to nutrient management with the goal of decreasing nutrient loss risk and increasing yield stability. With so much emphasis on being placed on reduced phosphorus loading in our water bodies, knowing where the greatest risk for loss is without limiting yield potential has been our core focus.

Example of Spatial Critical levels for a field.

Not just theory, but actionable

Using the graphic above as a reference, we have been able to provide supporting evidence of how this variability across the landscape drives yield consistency when adequately addressing the environmental influence. The chart below shows corn yield across two different growing seasons as an aggregate across a geography. As we have isolated acres of sufficient soil potassium (soil K >= spatial critical level), notice the response to phosphorus as the landscape position changes. As the slope of the earth’s surface increases, the greater the yield penalty that is realized when soil test phosphorus drops below the established critical level. Keep in mind that the critical level on the acres closest to the water table is lower than the critical level in higher-elevation/low-om environments. Back to my earlier points, we know that acres closer to the water table are more efficient at diffusion, so the critical level should not be the same as that of other acres within the same field, let alone in another state.

Putting it into practice

Utilizing this knowledge from our work across the corn belt has allowed our customers to move forward with confidence, knowing that they can dial it back and keep the pedal down where it makes sense.

Example of a MES prescription utilizing spatial critical fertility management to maximize efficiency.