True Grit Ag — Northwest Minnesota — December 2025

I'm done trusting the John Deere digital gods.

This year, we ran multiple product trials across corn and soybeans, and I made one decision early: if we're going to claim a product works (or doesn't), we're putting grain on a scale. Period.

The yield monitor can tell me whatever story it wants. I'll trust the cart weights.

And thank God we did, because the monitors were all over the place.

On soybeans, especially, the yield monitor showed virtually nothing on strips where the scale showed 3-4 bushel gains. I wasn't the only one; I heard reports from across the country of guys seeing the same thing.

Yield monitors measure flow, and soybeans don't flow like corn.

Most years around here, we don't grow enough plant material to keep the combine running at full capacity. Beans burp into the feederhouse in bunches, and I suspect they hit the mass flow sensor the same way.

Add in a dry August that turned our crop into Frankenstein plants, fat pods on the bottom, BBs on top, and seed size was all over the place.

Even corn was wonky. The weighed strips didn't match the monitor well. So the trials I'll focus on here are the ones we weighed, because I trust them most.

This isn't academic research. I sell these products and need to know whether they actually work.

So we test them.

And the answer, after two years of testing: yes, they work—but not everywhere, and not for everyone.

That second part is what I want to get into.

We wrapped up our main Source trial on November 10th. 35-acre field, Peterson Farms Seed 73S84, planted May 7th. The whole field got Blueprint and Nachurs Green Flag with zinc at planting.

On June 5th, at late V3, early V4, we banded Source on everything except two 24-row check strips. That's a bit earlier than recommended timing, but once I get going with the band sprayer, it's tough to yank the reins.

Had help running the grain cart so we could call out every weight as we dumped. Check strips went to one truck, Source strips went to another. Each strip was weighed individually. Moisture and test weight came from the elevator tickets on each truckload, not strip by strip.

I don't know why check Strip 2 yielded 167 while Strip 4 hit 194. Same soil, same everything visible. Just field variability we can't explain.

But the Source strips didn't do that. Four treated strips, all within 7 bushels of each other. Four check strips, 30 bushels apart.

I don't know if Source is smoothing out some stress we can't see or if we just got lucky with placement. But if this holds, the consistency might matter more than the yield number.

Here's why. When you're marketing a product that averages 16 bushels in a trial, half the guys are gonna see more and half are gonna see less. The ones who see 6 think you sold them snake oil.

You can't plan around a 30-bushel swing.

And you sure as hell can't build trust on it.

I ran the data through ANOVA because someone always asks. The p-value came back at 0.134—short of the 0.05 academics want. But getting statistical significance on farm-scale trials is damn near impossible. You'd need way more reps than anyone has time or acres to run.

Most guys test a product once. Two strips, maybe three. They peek at the yield monitor while they're combining, see a number they like or don't like, and that's it. Opinion formed. They'll tell their neighbors about it at the coffee shop, and that story becomes gospel for the next decade. Doesn't matter if the monitor was off, if the check strip ran through a wet hole, or if they applied it at the wrong timing. The verdict is in.

I'm trying to avoid being that guy. So I weigh everything, run the math, and look at the trend. The trend here is consistent. The Source strips clustered tightly, while the checks were all over the map. That's not nothing.

Source runs $15/acre. Blueprint is another $12, so figure $23-27 for the pair, depending on order timing and discounts.

Both products carry performance guarantees—if your yield monitor says they didn't pay, Sound cuts you a refund check. They don't make you haul grain to a scale to prove it. I hold myself to a higher standard for testing, but they're not going to make you jump through hoops.

In the corn trial, we ran Source alone. At $4.00 corn, 16.6 bushels is $66 gross. Subtract the $15, and you're looking at $51/acre net.

Beyond yield, the Source corn came off at 58.1 test weight and 18% moisture. Checks were 55.9 and 19.3%. Heavier grain, drier at harvest. That's a healthier plant finishing stronger. It won't show up on your settlement sheet, but it's another receipt for the story.

The soybean trials ran Source and Blueprint together. At $9 beans, a 4-bushel gain is $36 gross against $23-27 in product cost. Tighter margin, but still in the black.

Both soybean trials ran under zero broadcast P conditions. Just three gal/ac Soyburst (3-18-18) in-furrow at planting. Seasonal rainfall totaled around 11 inches. It was a dry year, and August hit us hard.

Source + Blueprint vs. Untreated Check

This one's complicated.

You could see a color difference at the flag all season. The Source and Blueprint strips were noticeably darker.

But when we got in there with the combine, we found green spots buried in the check strips that we couldn't see from above. Once you're nosed in, you're committed. That threw off the moisture readings, making the comparison messy.

The treated strips came in drier on the elevator ticket, but I can't say how much of that was the product and how much was the check running through those green patches. So I'm not going to hang my hat on this one. The visual was there all year. The scale showed a gain.

But the data's muddier than I'd like, and I'd rather tell you that than pretend it was clean.

Gain: +4.1 bu/ac

Source + Blueprint + NanoYield vs. Untreated Check

Gain: +3.7 bu/ac

Average gain across both weighed trials: +3.9 bu/ac

At $9 cash beans with ~$25/ac product cost: 3.9 bu × $9 = $35.10 gross, minus $25 = ~$10/acre net gain.

Zero broadcast P. Eleven inches of rain. Dry August. And the yield monitor saw basically nothing, but the scale told the truth.

Not everything worked this year. And honestly, the failure taught me more than the wins.

We ran Source on a beet field that had gotten the royal treatment: 10 tons of lime last fall plus 154 lbs N, 50 lbs P₂O₅, and 25 lbs AMS—Cadillac fertility.

The result? Basically nothing. +0.3 tons/acre—statistical noise. No sugar bump. No ROI.

Here's the thing: Source works by amplifying the plant's signal to soil microbes when the plant is hungry for nutrients. If the plant isn't hungry—if you've already laid out a fertility buffet—there's no signal to amplify.

This proved my hypothesis: Source shines under lean fertility, not when you're feeding crops like kings.

I had to talk a guy out of buying Source just last week because he'd already put his fall fertilizer down heavy. That's not the play. Selling him product in that situation would've been taking his money for nothing.

After two years, there’s no doubt in my mind that Source and Blueprint work. They change the plant. Healthier growth, bigger and denser root masses, results you can see in Haney tests and SAP tissue work.

But here’s the real question: where do they pay you back?

A bigger root mass doesn’t always mean more yield. Sometimes the plant already has everything it needs.

These products aren’t for every acre. In fact, I can tell you exactly where Source won’t work, and that’s more important than where it will.

Source pays when the plant is hungry. Lean ground with lower OM or CEC and tied-up nutrients, or good ground where you've pulled back on fertility. Josh and I run it on every acre, but we've cut our program to match.

It doesn't pay on top of Cadillac fertility. If you're not willing to pull back, it's not your product.

Here’s the frustrating part: even when the plant looks healthier—bigger roots, better color, cleaner soil tests—it doesn’t always show up in yield. Healthy plants don’t pay the bills. Bushels do.

But these are products that actually improve soil health and function and pay back over time, not just in one season. Think drain tile: you don’t buy it for the first-year ROI. You watch the maps for a decade, and the trend becomes undeniable.

Most growers can’t wait ten years. They need to see something now.

That’s why placement matters. Put it on the right acres, and you get paid this year while building long-term gains.

Put it on the wrong acres, and you’re just buying lunch for the microbes.

The guarantee helps, but I’d rather get you a return than cut you a refund check.

Corn: +16.6 bu/ac with 78% reduction in yield variability

Soybeans: +3.9 bu/ac average across two weighed trials

Sugar Beets: Nothing, because our test field proved we used it in the wrong situation

The pattern keeps repeating. Under the right conditions—lean fertility, lighter soils, hungry crops—Source and Blueprint deliver.

Under the wrong conditions, they don't.

Finally, none of this happens without help.

Thanks to Josh and Larry for providing the land and putting up with my nagging to stop the combine every few passes so we could get clean weights. That stuff takes time in the middle of harvest, and they didn't have to say yes.

Thanks to Alan for running the grain cart and calling out weights. And thanks to everyone else who made maps, dug roots with me, and helped make these trials happen.

I appreciate the hell out of all of you.

If you've got questions about whether Source or Blueprint makes sense for your operation, give me a call. We'll look at your ground, your fertility program, and figure out if there's a fit.

If there's not, I'll tell you that too.

I'd rather get it right than make a sale.

— Adam

True Grit Ag

218-478-4541