Is university fertility research outdated? The future of micros and bios

Shay

Foulk: Welcome back everyone to another episode of the Ag View Pitch. You have Shea and Brad here today. And Brad, I want to give you a minute to go ahead and introduce yourself, tell everybody where you're located, kind of what it is that you do, and then we'll jump into the conversation today.

Brad

Hobrock: Very good. Well, Shea, thanks for the phone call here today and the opportunity to do this with you. I'm from central Illinois, Versailles to be exact. I farm here with my brother. Roughly 3,000 acres. I'm also co-owner of AgroBioSystems. It's based out of Jacksonville, Illinois, with Adam York.

Shay

Foulk: Great. Thanks for the background there. And today, we're going to cover a wide variety of topics related to soil health, some of the biosystems out there, and maybe rethinking the way that we look at fertilizers and some of our inputs. And a lot of that starts with trials and trying new things, as you and I were talking about here earlier. So if you could give us just a little bit of a background on this concept, where it came from, and what that looks like for your operation today with some of these things.

Brad

Hobrock: Oh, absolutely. And so Agri-Plus Systems was created back in 2015 because we had learned a lot in terms of soil health. We'd learned a lot in terms of soil biology. But in the years previous, and especially 2014— which 2014 for us in central Illinois generally most of the Corn Belt, was still the most ideal weather year that we have ever seen. We were never too hot, we were never cold, we were never too wet, we were never too dry. Got borderline dry a couple of times in 2014, but we stayed cool. We only had like 2 days here in central Illinois in the growing season 2014 above 90°F. And so, back here, we had half a dozen fields that we had split basically half and half, where we had taken a more simplistic biological approach with no DAP, no potash, no P&K applied whatsoever, drastically reduced nitrogen rates at the time.

And then the other half of the field, 300 pounds of that, 300 pounds of potash, 300, 350 total pounds of nitrogen in 3 to 4 different applications. Depending on the field environment then, also anywhere from 30 up to 60, maybe even 70 pounds of total sulfur. And so, in these fields, we've been through the growing season. We sap tested, which sap testing, S-A-P, as in sap that's in the xylem and phloem of the plant.

We did multiple sap test analysis through these fields in the conventional— or maybe not conventional approach then, but more of the high-yield type approach— versus the other half, biological systems type approach, with greatly reduced input costs because of greatly reduced amount of fertilizer that we were And so this growing season, and it was things that we had done in 2012 and 2013, and 2012 thankfully was all irrigated experiments or fields, but 2014 again being this perfect weather year, we will probably likely never see another one this perfect again, a lifetime. But anyhow, we knew that year at about V10, B11. We weren't likely to see a single field average in central Illinois above 300 bushels.

We knew that because of comparing our side-by-side trials and doing this FAP test analysis, where we were comparing the biological approach versus a very, very high management approach, also very, very high input costs. In terms of N, P, and K uptake in this analysis comparing these 6 different fields, there was no difference in plant uptake of N, P, or K. Some of the other micronutrients, trace minerals, actually were a little bit higher in some of those micros and trace minerals, and some of those also are needed as cofactors. And so to get nitrogen, whether it is in the nitrate form or the ammonium form, to get it uptaken into a plant, it first has to bind itself to calcium. So, we talk a lot with growers today about nitrogen use efficiency. In other words, how many pounds of nitrogen are we applying to produce a bushel of corn?

Today, we have several growers consistently in this half a pound of applied nitrogen to produce a bushel of corn, especially on some of the more highly productive prairie-type soils here in central Illinois. So, it's not uncommon for guys to apply 100 weight, 125 pounds, and producing 40 to 250 bushels of corn. But anyhow, back to the 2014, we knew halfway through the growing season the likelihood of seeing a single field average above 300 bushels was very, very— sorry, not likely to happen because we didn't have the mineral uptake that we needed, and we had the proof in that particular year and previous years of how important all of these minerals are from a systems perspective.

Shay

Foulk: One question I have there, Brad, when you talk on mineral uptake, how is that differentiating from the availability within those fertilizers in the system, right? From your high input system to the ones that you're running the biological trials, were you running soil tests in conjunction with the sap test to look at actual availability? And then how did that correspond to the actual plant uptake in these systems?

Brad

Hobrock: Yeah, actually, Shay, we did. That's a great question. And that's one of the other things that as producers, as agronomy folks in this industry, we tend to look at soil tests as being the gospel. And if our phosphorus levels are X, and if they're below a certain threshold, we have to apply. The same thing with potassium. Well, the problem is soil tests, they give us the amount that is potentially available the day that those samples are pulled. Those levels are going to change daily, weekly, and monthly depending on soil conditions. Means temperature, soil moisture, how well are the soils aggregated, what kind of biological activity do we have. Are the soils predominantly dominated by beneficial soil microorganisms, or are they dominated by non-beneficial anaerobes?

In our in-season testing in 2014 and the prior years, and also incorporating the SAF testing, which is a much more sophisticated form of tissue analysis, we learned, and there are others today that will also agree with this next statement, the fact that soil test levels, or soil test values, are very poor indicators of crop uptake. There's a lot of reasons behind that, but if we as producers and agronomists would incorporate this ink testing into our systems, we would be able to learn these same things that we learned several years ago. It's helped us turn the page on becoming more efficient, more consistent, more profitable, especially with the decisions that we make. Case in point with soil test calcium levels. You can have a soil test calcium level which is at the top.

You can have a soil test calcium base saturation percentage that say it's 70, 75, maybe 80% and still have a calcium deficiency in your plants because the calcium in your soil is not functional. This is where we have to do a better job of the education and the understanding. One simple test we can do to measure, one is through a refractometer, but number two, especially as corn plants enter the rapid growth, get about that V7 growth stage and later, we simply go out and we look at the stock shape of our corn plants. If our stalk shape is perfectly round or very nearly perfectly round, we know that our calcium uptake and availability was very good. However, if the stalk shape is a teardrop shape, maybe even very oblong, even a football-type shape, we know we've got some calcium problems, even in a soil that says calcium levels are high.

Shay

Foulk: With the sap test corresponding with that, then once we see the symptomology there, recognize that we have a problem, some producers out there might be asking themselves, well, what do we do end season? How do we adjust for that calcium uptake that the plant needs? So what are your thoughts on that?

Brad

Hobrock: This is where better management overall calcium is critical. And calcium in terms of plant nutrients, there's really 3 different ways and how plant mineral nutrition should be looked at. Number one, the total amounts. Often today it's still looked at as NPK. This is going to be a little bit long-winded, and I will get back to your answer on this. I think we have to start from the basics to get there. That make sense? Absolutely. Okay. And so often today it's still looked at— if I were to ask, or if you were to ask, any— almost anybody in this industry today, "What are the 3 most important minerals in crop production?" And probably 99% of the time or greater, your answer that you're going to get is N, P, and K. Because that is what has been driven to us by the industry, by the retailers, and by the people that really have made a lot of the decisions for the last several years.

The problem with this becomes, at maturity, whether it's a corn plant, a soybean plant, a cotton plant, a rice plant, anything that we're growing. Could be a tree for that matter. At maturity, in a corn plant, N, P, and K actually make up a little less than 3% of the total plant biomass, which will include the kernels, the ear, the shucks, et cetera. How can we look at something, or 3 minerals that are still deemed today as being the 3 most critical for plant growth, that make up less than 3% of that total plant biomass. The 3 actually that make up the majority of total plant biomass at maturity is carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Those 3 together make up between 95% and 96% of total plant biomass. Those are actually the 3 primary minerals that drive plant growth. Now, not to say that N, P, and K are not important because they are.

Very, very important, but so is calcium, so is boron, so is zinc, so is manganese, so is magnesium, so is iron, so is every other mineral. Today, science recognizes, depending on where you look, 17 or 18 essential minerals. That number is actually in the '70s, but some of them are needed in such small, minute amounts, they're not recognized as being a fig— or not as being essential today. And so if we back the conversation back up to the whole cofactor piece,— and relate it to sap tests, and basically our report card. Calcium is often the most overlooked mineral in desert management plans, because most of our soils today tell us that we have enough there. But if it's not functional, it doesn't make any difference. But calcium also plays a tremendous role in the uptake of every other single mineral.

It's often said that calcium's the truck and boron's the driver, gets every other mineral to the plant. So, as we get a sap test back, the first thing that we look at is calcium. If calcium's deficient, we're going to have a tremendous amount of other deficiencies within that plant, because we will not uptake those other minerals properly without first having enough available calcium. This is where, in a corn plant especially, as we enter those rapid vegetative growth stages and approach tassel time, we might have a stalk shape in the bottom foot of a corn plant that might be perfectly round or nearly perfectly round, which tells us early in that plant's growth stage when it wasn't needing a lot of minerals, wasn't needing a lot of calcium, there was enough available or there was enough being mineralized that it was able to uptake sufficient.

Then as we enter this rapid growth phase, starting about V7, that's when we can often start to see our stalk shape taper off to this teardrop or to even an oblong football-type shape. And so, again, we have the 3 most critical, which is carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. We then have a hierarchy within plants of how they need minerals, first, second, fourth, fifth, and so on in terms of uptake. This is where the cofactor piece comes into play. It actually starts with sulfur. Sulfur is a compound that is needed for several different pieces or aspects of plant growth. But to make this pretty short and sweet, sulfur is the mineral that gets all of these processes, and especially enzymatic processes, going with that plant. From there, number 2 is boron, number 3 is silica, number 4 is calcium. Number 5, nitrogen.

And so, if we're missing one of those first 4, we're still looking at nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium being the most critical, we're missing efficiencies and we're missing the boat. This is where we've run into some struggles at times with the education understanding process and helping people understand how do we change this. Well, number 1, we have to understand the fact that We can apply any phosphorus, or almost any phosphorus form, in the fall, spring, year one. 90% of it is likely to be tied up in the soil by other factors, those mainly being calcium, iron, and aluminum that is going to tie up 90% of the applied phosphorus within 30 days. So, if we're going to spend money on a phosphorus product or products, and 90% of that is not going to be plantable within 30 days, Why are we even considering spending money on it?

And this is where different trials, this is where doing sap testing, so you know on your own acres or the people that potentially you're consulting with, is it working? Is what we're doing right? And if we look at the genetic potential of different crops, say again corn and soybeans, and if we look at profitability, goals of 200, 300, maybe 400 pounds an acre, we will never ever get there consistently continuing to stay in this conventional mindset of we have to apply so much nitrogen, we have to apply so much phosphorus, we have to apply so much potassium, when if we'll do our homework and if we'll do our due diligence, we can actually prove to ourselves this is not true. Then, if we focus on the things that actually matter, This is how we'll get to these kind of profit goals, $200, $300, $400 an acre. Now, today at $3 corn, is $400 net profit possible?

Probably very, very, very unlikely. Some cases, is even $200 profitable? If we're making the right decisions, if we're cutting costs where we need to cut costs, and we're still producing very high or even higher yield levels. By how we change our management theme and our education and understanding, absolutely we can get there.

Shay

Foulk: Right. You bring up some great points there. As far as the in-season applications though, when you recognize these issues and whether it is the phosphorus application in a more timely manner so that we're not having that 90% tied up, or recognizing that it's your calcium deficiency that you have there, Overall, for better management, that makes sense over time, but are there in-season decisions that we can make once you get that sap test back, once you see that you have that oblong shape in the corn stalk? What can producers do from that point in order to lose less yield potential throughout the rest of the year, Brad?

Brad

Hobrock: Another great question. Some of this we actually might need to follow up on another podcast at some point in time. I know we're limited on our time today, but number one, foliar applications can be very, very helpful in helping plants overcome mineral nutrition deficiencies if the foliar applications are done properly. Foliar applications oftentimes in the business look at as snake oil. And there, once again, when things go wrong, we don't see the expected outcome, There's always a reason why. Let's say that we plan a foliar application, say of some micronutrients. Say it's a mixture of some zinc, some manganese, some iron, some magnesium, maybe it's a little bit of sulfur, something to help improve, increase photosynthetic rates. If that's done at the wrong time of the day or in the wrong weather conditions, possibly even a wrong moon phase, you just wasted your money.

I can also assure you that if your calcium levels within your plant are not sufficient or close to sufficient, the likelihood of seeing a return on a foliar mineral application is very, very small. Why? Because essentially calcium is, again, the most overlooked mineral that this industry overlooks every single year. We have to start by focusing on this mineral hierarchy in plants. If we've got a calcium problem, we have to understand why. Boron is the regulator or the cofactor that is needed to balance calcium. One of our products at Agribiosystems— sorry, not trying to make this a sales pitch— but Calibrate is a calcium and boron mixture. There's not enough boron in there to satisfy the major boron deficiencies within a plant, But there's enough boron in there to facilitate the uptake of the calcium in the proper way.

So, foliar nutrition done properly, the right time of the day, in the proper weather conditions where we do have sufficient levels of calcium within a plant, can be done very well. Calcium can also be foliar fed. This can be done also with gypsum, whether that be A high-quality gypsum from a mine, a pelletized gypsum applied early in spring, can also be very, very effective. This, again, is where application does not mean available. Because if we always apply our gypsum in the fall, and we do a lot of fall-applied gypsum here in central Illinois to help alleviate or offset excessive magnesium levels, it's, uh, But if we're looking for this gypsum, which gypsum is calcium sulfate, if we're looking for this gypsum to be a readily available calcium source for a plant, we have to delay that until the springtime.

Because about 40 to 50 days after the application, that calcium is also more than likely going to be tied up by something else in the soil. In other words, not available. Pelletized lime can also be used. There are some other calcium products that can be used. But again, it goes back to focusing truly on science, that if we don't fix these things first, it's like trying to climb a ladder. If we have some bottom rungs that are missing, it makes it tough to do this. There are also growers who are being very successful in producing over 300-bushel corn yields with zero applied fertility whatsoever. This comes from— 79% of the air we breathe every day is nitrogen gas.

That could be made available to grass crops such as corn in the same way that it can be, or in a similar fashion, of how legume crops with their relationship with rhizobium strains of bacteria can pull that into the plant, into the soil, and make it available. Now, with these grass crops, that process is It's not as efficient. There's some other pieces of the puzzle that have got to be there, molybdenum being a big one, enough plant-available levels of phosphorus. Again, plant-available, meaning are we mineralizing enough? Are we breaking that fraction off the soil? Because if we think that we apply it and that's going to fix our availability problem, knowing that roughly 90% of it is tied up within 30 days, we just spent money that we wasted. Right.

Shay

Foulk: Well, I think that's a lot to think about, looking at the high management portions that can maybe go into not only a higher yielding crop, but a more profitable crop. When we look at some of these key steps that maybe we haven't considered as much in the past, something for producers out there and those listening to the podcast to really think about. Brad, if anyone has more questions on this, where can they reach out to you at?

Brad

Hobrock: Best way is through our website, which is agribiosystems.com. From there, there's an email link that you can send an email to info@agribiosystems.com, and there will be— I think there's 3 of us that get those emails, and then we can reach back out and provide some information to help people overcome some of their problems. Because regardless of whether it's just the products, selling just general services, consulting, It's about providing solutions to people's problems. And too much of the issues today, we're looking at Band-Aids, and we're using Band-Aids every single year that— are they working? Depends on how you actually determine what is working. Does that mean that I'm making it through this year and probably going to do the same thing next year? Or yes, it's working.

Does that mean we're providing solutions to these problems to the point where we may not have these problems again? These growers that are producing 300+ bushel corn on zero applied fertility have amazing soil health. They have amazing resistance and resilience in soils that they're not fighting disease. They're not fighting insects. And that's something also that plants can be nearly 100% immune to insects and diseases if we have the right mineral balance. And again, I really appreciate your time and the ability to do this, and maybe I want to follow up with maybe some other information at some time. But our goal, again, is to help provide solutions to people not constantly fighting some of these same things every single year.

Shay

Foulk: Absolutely. Well, and as always here on the Ag View Pitch, our goal is to provide value and perspective to those listening. And Brad, we really appreciate the perspective that you provided today. Look forward to catching up with you down the road and stay safe here the rest of the season.

Brad

Hobrock: Absolutely. Thank you.

Shay

Foulk: And thank you, everyone, for listening. We will catch you next time on the Ag View Pitch.