I’ll admit it: I accused Michael Shutt of probing the wrong field.
I got a soil test back a few weeks ago that made me pick up the phone and ask Agvise whether Shutt had accidentally plowed his soil tester into Simplot’s fertilizer bin in a drunken fit.
The Setup: This was our first year running nitrogen rate trial blocks on this field, trying to figure out where the cliff actually is. Last year, we cut fertility and used Source on corn, maintaining yield.
This year, 110 units came back as the most economical rate.
On corn.
That's 60-90 units less than what most guys around here are putting down. At current urea prices, we're talking $40-60/acre we didn't spend.
The Result: That yielded 160+ bu/ac. I know, that's not gonna knock anybody's socks off, but the efficiency we squeezed out of those inputs was phenomenal. We're talking a 0.63 to 0.65 NUE (Nitrogen Use Efficiency). University recommends 1.2 pounds of N per bushel.
That’s almost half the nitrogen for the same yield.
That's nuts. Nuts enough that next year I'm running a range—some blocks pushing toward 0.7, a few where I want to see if 0.5 is even possible. I'm not telling anybody else to do that. I'm just trying to find where the wheels fall off so you don't have to.
Despite that efficiency, there is still 44-110 lbs of residual N sitting in that profile.
And we did this in a year with 11-12 inches of rain from planting to black layer.
I’m not the first guy to figure this out. Plenty of farmers have been running lean for years. They just don’t talk about it at Cenex or the coffee shop because nobody wants to be the guy who says universities are wrong.
And I'm not saying they are wrong, but the recommendations most of us follow were written back when we were still pulling levers instead of touchscreens, and if we aren't constantly challenging the status quo, are we even really farmers?
Michael assured me he was, in fact, in the correct field and had not been huffing glue all afternoon.
To be clear, I never actually thought Michael screwed up.
When the data doesn't match your expectations, you question the data before you question everything you thought you knew about soil fertility.
The results were just so high, and we'd still pulled decent yields, so I found it tough to believe the numbers were real. It’s like checking your gas gauge after a 300-mile trip and finding out the tank is still three-quarters full.
But that’s the 2025 story: late-season heat triggered a mineralization after-party that the corn didn't even need.
(Legal Disclaimer: Michael is actually a stone-cold professional. Please don’t start a rumor that my agronomist is a wino. He was right, I was skeptical, and the soil test proved him right. I’m just giving him hell.)
Turns out, I’m not special. Agvise just released their early fall soil testing data, and they’re seeing the same thing across the region … 20% to 50% of corn ground is coming back with 60+ lbs/acre nitrate-N in the top two feet.
That’s a pile of money sitting in the dirt that many guys don’t know they have.
Look, I’m still skeptical. Two years of data isn’t a revolution. I’m not betting the farm on 110 units forever.
But Sound Agriculture (makers of Source) is underwriting $100/acre in losses on qualifying acres if it doesn't work. That makes this the most risk-free way anybody’s ever seen to try something new.
When's the last time anybody handed you that kind of backstop to experiment?
So what do you do with this information?
Two years of maintained-or-better yield at lower fertility rates is enough to make me comfortable cutting 30-40 pounds of N and backing off the P. If the bank account's already got a balance, you can feed corn on Diddly Squat.
My 2026 game plan? Corn on corn. In Northwest Minnesota.
I know. But it's a one-time deal. So I'm not marrying the practice, just taking it to prom. Desperate times. And all of this depends on spring showing up early enough to get corn in the ground when it needs to be there. Mother Nature doesn't give two shits about my plans or your tillage program.
Why corn-on-corn? Because we’re not rich enough to plant soybeans.
Look at that chart from AGVISE. There's a huge chunk of ground out there sitting with 60, 80, even 100+ pounds of nitrogen left over from the 2025 crop.
If we plant corn, that's money in the bank. If we plant soybeans? Liability.
You take a field with 80 pounds of leftover N, plant beans into it, and you're begging for a yellow, stunted mess. Excess soil nitrates are a primary driver of Iron Deficiency Chlorosis.
AGVISE's data shows half of the samples in our Northwest MN ground are flagging High IDC Risk this year.
We’re not gonna pay for the privilege of watching our beans turn yellow.
And if corn-on-corn sounds crazy, consider following corn with wheat. Wheat will scavenge that nitrogen faster than anything. Find a variety that handles disease pressure (think SY 611 CL2 from Agri-Pro or MN-Torgy).
Don’t skimp on the fungicide, and you’ve got a shot.
The Fine Print on Corn-on-Corn:
Before you think I've lost my mind, let's talk about what we're up against.
Cold soil under all that trash. Slower emergence. Disease carryover—gray leaf spot, northern corn leaf blight, the whole ugly family reunion.
And here's the one nobody talks about: there's no free lunch in farming, and you gotta pay the cleanup crew. The microbes breaking down last year's trash need nitrogen too. So even with 80 lbs sitting in the profile, we can't go as lean as we'd like.
Some of that N is going to feed the biology, not the crop.
This decision isn't a layup. We might only run this on 40 acres as a second-year trial. Mother Nature might not even give us the window. If planting gets pushed late, the whole plan goes in the trash with last year's stalks.
But in a year where margins are already underwater, it's worth considering. The alternative is planting beans into a high-nitrate, high-IDC-risk situation and watching them turn yellow.
Pick your poison.
THE STRATEGY
Pull a spring soil test. That fall nitrate isn't guaranteed to stick around. Heavy gumbo will hold it; lighter ground might've already lost it to leaching or denitrification over winter. Don't plan your fertility around money that's no longer in the bank.
Put 60-80 lbs up front. Enough to feed early growth AND the microbes working on last year's trash. That residue doesn't break down for free.
Pull a soil test at V3. See what's actually available versus what's tied up in decomposition.
Run some SAP tissue tests if you want to get fancy. Corn-on-corn with reduced N is new territory. More data points aren't paranoia, they're insurance.
Spoon-feed via sidedress or y-drop later if the numbers say you're short. This is where the flexibility pays off. You're responding to what the crop tells you in June and not committing to a number in March.
Budget for a fungicide pass. Disease carryover is real. Don't save $50 on nitrogen and lose $100 to leaf blight.
But here's the thing: I only know any of this because I sampled. (And because Agvise sends out such valuable content) If you haven't pulled a fall test yet, you're about to write a check based on a guess.
That's not a fertility plan. It's a donation to the fertilizer industry.
Here’s the reality: 2026 is going to be a knife fight with a dozen raccoons in a phone booth.
When you're already losing money, what's the risk in trying something different?
The real risk is staring down exposed grain prices, $550 urea, and $850 MAP, and deciding to do the same thing as last year, hoping it works out.
A $35 soil test that keeps you from lighting $50/acre on fire might be the best money you spend all year.
Don't buy fertilizer you already own.
Got a soil test you’re not sure what to do with? Reply to this email. I’ll take a look and tell you if there’s money sitting there.
Merry Christmas, ya filthy animals.
P.S. Here's the full AGVISE 2025 Soil Test Summary if you want to nerd out:
And their winter newsletter is another gold mine:
—Adam
True Grit Ag
218-478-4541