12:18 AM, still staring at these numbers

It's raining.

Again.

We were supposed to dig beets tonight, but Mother Nature had other ideas. So instead I'm on the couch with my laptop, Josh's field data, and a gnawing feeling that something doesn't add up.

Last time I sent you Field Notes, I showed you where Source lost—the sugar beet trial where we dumped 10 tons of lime and ran a Cadillac fertilizer program.

When you overfeed, biology becomes irrelevant.

Tonight I'm looking at the flip side: where Source wins.

And here's the thing—this is the second year in a row we've cut nitrogen and come out ahead.

Not a fluke. Not luck. A pattern.

We ran five nitrogen rates across this field. 110, 140, 170, 200, 230 lbs per acre. Source and Blueprint on one side, straight fertilizer on the other. The kind of trial that's supposed to give you a nice clean curve—more N = more yield, up to a point, then it flattens out.

And that's exactly what happened. Only the curve peaked way earlier than expected.

140 pounds yielded the same as 200 pounds. I've been staring at these numbers for three hours, trying to figure out whether I screwed up the math or if this is actually real.

It's real. And it's the second year in a row.

This system isn't for everybody.

If you're the easy button guy, the one who can afford to dump 200+ lbs of N on every acre "just in case"—you don't need this. Keep doing your thing.

But if you're looking at 2026, wondering how to cut costs without gambling your yields?

Keep reading. Because we just proved you can.

Read that again. 140 pounds yielded the same as 200 pounds. And every pound of N we threw on past 140 either did nothing or actually dropped yield.

The check side (no biology) showed a similar pattern, but it needed more N to hit peak yield and was less efficient overall. Still, even the check maxed out around 167 bu/ac and started declining past 200 lbs.

So where was the extra N coming from on the Source + Blueprint side?

In early July, we sent soil health samples (Haney Test) from both sides to the lab. The S+BP side had 107.8 lbs of available nitrogen in the soil. The check had 73.2. That's 35 pounds of N we didn't buy—the biology unlocked it.

Two years. Two fields. I know that's not a PhD dissertation. But it's enough to make me ask questions, and enough to change my recommendations for 2026.

Here's what’s keeping me up tonight: If this is true on our farm, it's probably true on yours.

We've been trained to think more nitrogen = more insurance. And maybe it was, back when our soils were different.

But what if that story no longer fits?

Nobody wants to be the guy who left bushels in the field, so we all nod along and write the check.

This isn't about being regenerative or sustainable or any buzzword the marketing people are pushing.

This is about looking at your checkbook and asking: What am I paying for that isn't helping?

At $0.65/lb for N and $3.45 cash corn, you need 5.8 bushels per 30 lbs of N just to break even. Going from 140 to 170? We LOST 3.2 bushels. From 170 to 200? Gained 3.2 bushels—still underwater. Every increment past 140 lost money.

The extra nitrogen doesn't boost yield. It just boosts your fertilizer bill.

How many years have we done this? How many fields? How much money thrown at a problem that didn't exist?

The phosphorus story is similar. Soil tests showed we're sitting at 60+ ppm on H3A P. We've been applying 100 lbs of MAP per acre, way more than we need.

Next year, we're cutting that in half. That's another $30 per acre in savings.

But I'll save that breakdown for another time. Point is: you're probably overfeeding more than just nitrogen.

Is this program gonna make you rich? No.

Yield king? No.

But it's gonna make you money. And that's something nobody else is gonna come to your farm offering this winter.

Not fertilizer dealers. Not seed reps. Not agronomists. They're all selling you MORE. I'm showing you where LESS actually works.

We just proved you can cut nitrogen and maintain yields if the biology is doing its job. Real strips. Real data. Our own operation.

If you're tired of throwing insurance nitrogen at fields that don't respond, let's talk. I've got room for a handful of 3-year pilot programs—500-1000 acres each. Performance guaranteed over the 3-year average.

This isn't a quick fix. It's a system build. And if you're serious about changing how you farm, you need time to see it work.

Text me: 218-478-4541
Email: [email protected]

We're not selling seed. We're selling survival.

— Adam

P.S. Next time, I'm going to tell you about the soybean trial where the yield monitor said "no difference," but the scales told a completely different story.

If you're making decisions based on what your monitor says instead of what actually comes off the field, you might be cutting products that actually worked.

More on that soon. For now, think about your nitrogen program for 2026.

P.P.S. If this was useful, forward it to another grower who's thinking about 2026 fertility. Word of mouth is how we grow.