Jackson: Welcome to the FarmBits Podcast,
a product of Nebraska Extension Digital Agriculture. I'm Jackson Stansell, Samantha: And
I'm Samantha Teten, Jackson: And we come to you each week to discuss the trends, the
realities and the value of digital agriculture. Samantha: Through interviews and panels with
experts, producers and innovators from all sectors of digital technology, we hope that you step away
from each episode with new practical knowledge of digital agriculture technology. Jackson:
To wrap up our series on quantifying and responding to soil spatial variability, we
are joined by Dr. John Fulton, a professor in the Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological
Engineering at the Ohio State University. John's research and extension specialties
are in digital agriculture, data analytics machinery automation, and application equipment.
Samantha: Our discussion today will center around how we go from maps to variable rate applications
and then how these applications are executed in the field using modern machinery technologies.
Some aspects of this are considerations of the products applied, the algorithms used
to go from measurements to target rates, and the accuracy of prescription execution
with contemporary application technologies. Jackson: This episode will touch on elements of
all the previous episodes in this series so if you haven't had an opportunity to listen to those yet,
I highly encourage you to do so. Samantha: So, with that introduction
out of the way- there is a lot to learn in this episode, so here we go with our interview
featuring Dr. John Fulton. John:
Jackson, Samantha, thanks for having me on and it's always good to interact with the folks at
Nebraska. I compliment what you guys do and it's kind of a two-way street, we've talked to a lot
of folks out that way and they and that's a good way of learning, but also challenging yourself
to improve things and this is one thing is getting people together and talking about
hot topics and important topics, so I appreciate the opportunity to be here.
Samantha: So, this episode with you is wrapping up our series on quantifying and responding to soil
variability. So, we've had the pleasure of talking about soil sampling, on-the-go soil mapping and
data processes that turn these measurements into maps now let's talk about how we're going to
apply all of this. So, the fertilizer side- what fertilizer applications should be informed by
measurements of soil spatial variability and why? John: Well, I think as we stand today for sure
phosphorus and potassium and microbes are going to have to be connected to precision soil sampling
okay and whatever strategy or approach the grower decides or the service provider offers to that
grower, so that's for sure all connected up. You know, I think the challenge is and as as
we all know it is, is how do we deal with nitrogen and things like corn and
wheat in particular through the Midwest, and that's a little bit more challenging
and just because the complexity of the nitrogen cycle and in our ability to sense
or identify what we think is profitable out there in the field and matching that all up
but from a precision soil sampling no doubt-nutrients macros and microbes and lime
is definitely, and I encourage growers even small growers that haven't tried to do some
kind of precision soil sampling to pick a field or two and do that. I think there's a lot of
things today that we've unraveled or at least understood that precision soil sampling followed
by variable rate- there's an advantage there not only profitably but from an environmental
perspective, too when we think about phosphorus. Jackson: What exactly do you think some of those
profit benefits might be? Can you can you kind of quantify the profit benefits and
potential environmental benefits that you may be seeing in Ohio?
John: You bet, so I tell you first our research would suggest on average and
again this is a very broad average that a grower is going to be able to save seven percent on
their fertilizer build and when I say fertilizer we're talking about P and K lyme is a separate
separate piece in terms of that equation and profitability that's no doubt, I think we've
proved that variable lime is profitable, but from a fertility perspective P and K we can
save on average seven percent. Now you know if a grower goes out and maybe has a precision sampled
and all the sudden finds what we call what I describe as hot spots that we have to have
some corrective measures, that bill may go up first but you know over that whatever
your cycle is three or four years, two years in your sampling cycle in in six to ten years
basically you're going to get a maintenance range and when you're at that maintenance range
on average you're going to be saving seven percent that may be more for some farmers but I don't want
to leave the conversation and saying hey we're right out the gate you're going to find savings
because there could be areas that you're just going to have to make some corrective measures and
and kind of throw the potash in particular what we find a lot of times we're going to throw some
potash out that's really going to see some benefit on our soybean crops and the yields to soybeans.
And then on the phosphorus side just again trying to get the maintenance levels across that field.
On an environmental perspective, what I would tell you if we're matching soil needs made in
keeping ourselves below the critical level in a maintenance range that opportunity for there to
be offside transport of phosphorus is going to be minimized when we're doing variable rate versus
a fixed rate okay because one maybe a very simple example is if I'm doing fixed-rate phosphorus and
I continue to do that and maybe that or some history of pretty manure I may have some real
high IP test levels and where a lot of times those are on the borders or on one side of the
field just again because of history of what we've been we've applied to a field, but it's in those
if I had a P, you know I'm going to have loss the soil is like a sponge right if the sponge is full,
and I add another drop of water that drop of water is either going to have to be absorbed and then
put out the other side with that sponge or it's going to just run off of the sponge. So, with that
in mind, it's kind of similar with phosphorus. I just think with matching your phosphorus to your
and getting yourself into the maintenance range the the opportunities for loss in the system
is much less, much greater much less however you want to put that than than just doing
a fixed rate type approach across fields. Jackson: That's a good way to describe it.
I think that's really easily tangible for people out there to understand.
Samantha: I think it's great that you've taken the time to put some numbers to that profitability
looking at the average across the state, that's really cool to see. Okay, so does the type of
fertilizer being applied so if whether the grower can't apply manure versus dry spreading urea
or map change whether the application should be spatially varied. So are some fertilizers
better to spatially vary than others? John: I don't know if i would say it's
better necessarily, Samantha, what I would say is in general source
isn't as, doesn't matter as much when talking about inorganics. So whether I use urea or
28 you know and granted, as long as you have the units they're there when the plant needs them.
The source doesn't matter. Same for phosphorus and potassium.
What I would say is that there are some nutrients probably easier to vary than
others today and probably my easiest example or simplest example would be manures are a
little bit more challenging. Sure we can do it but it's a little bit more costly to implement
and fully execute today. But when we look at 28 we look at urea as an example as nitrogen sources we
look at map at least here that's our primary phosphorus source dry and we look at potash
those are systems and we have the equipment to be effectively to apply them out across crop fields.
But manures I would tell you it's a little more challenging especially on the liquid
side and even on the dry side it's more challenging to effectively deliver manures
as we do some of these inorganic fertilizers. Samantha: So, I know there's lots of different
methodologies behind it- but can you describe to us the process by which you would convert
a soil property or a nutrient map and convert it to a spatially variable prescription application?
How you would recommend that to farmers. John: So, I'm going to tell you two two
approaches that are the first one is pretty common and I think we all do it and then the
second one is is really - when I think across the U.S. Midwest in particular is becoming probably
the I don't want to say norm but highly adopted way of doing precision fertility management. So,
the first one of course is what we talked about either grid is a zone sample you send those to
the lab and then you use your university recommendations or what the university
mentions as their recommendations to convert those soil sample results into
an applied amount of whatever source that you've chosen to create those prescriptions.
Most softwares, if not all, precision ag softwares today I don't want to say it's automated within
three to four steps you can go from sampling to having a prescription done on the field today.
We've become as a industry much more efficient. I don't know if people are interested, I'd tell you
we're probably somewhere between 60 to 70 percent more efficient with time today going back you know
15 years. There was a lot of steps, I mean 8 to 20 steps to go from sampling or creating points
to sampling the points or zones to sending that off getting that data back that was like
depending on this program a 12 to 20 step process. Today, most the software packages that handle this
in terms of not only creating points or zones and handling it you can get down to three to four
manual steps. So, just think about the efficiencies that's brought to the industry
in terms of just creating prescription maps for farmers today and accuracy of that in my opinion,
too. Because every time we automate make sure that's accurate we're taking an error
source out of it. The second method today is in becoming fairly common across the Midwest,
farmers are generally sampling every other year or every three years it seems like in a lot of cases
okay in between and so it's the same process but it's becoming more of a check
have I moved my soil fertility you know if I have how much and kind of learning from that.
But, we're also blending in those off years using yield maps for those cases where we're
in a maintenance range of supplying back what we've taken off of that field whether it's a
two or three year rotation, so whatever I take off in a lot of cases we'll just use a corn, soybean
where I took off with my corn that took off with my soybeans with from a
P and K and micro perspective my prescription map just gets converted basically as a yield map back
to a removal map and ultimately a a prescription map. So, I don't know if that's answering the full
question, but those are become the two common ways kind of the basic and normal approach and
then this kind of modified approach where yield maps are becoming such a critical data layer to
fill in those off years where we're not sampling. Jackson: Yeah, I think that answers the question
you know it's basically which algorithm do you want to use- do you want to use the
calculations from the yield or do you want to use those university recs based on the
soil test to get back to what you need to do. John: Yeah, and it's both right we don't want
to over fertilize but at the same time we want to use the university recommendations
because that's plays into this environmental piece, too. Let's not forget that when groups
look inside from the outside in they want to see standards and they want to understand
the standards of course university recommendations become those standards
and so when we can state that or a farmer states that that's going to in my opinion will
help out on that environmental discussion and the sustainability discussion at the same time because
you can point to- I am following those standards. Samantha: Would you like to put a plug in here
for collecting good quality yield data to help with these recommendations? John: Well,
you know, yield data is such the critical data layer right at the end of the day you know. I
always talk about there's two primary data layers and then we can talk about second or
secondary later but yield year in year out is one of those primary data layers that becomes
so important if your farm is utilizing precision ag or precision ag services.
And so if it is that important being a good combine or harvester operator
in conjunction with a technology operator becomes crucial to get quality data out. So, if
I'm a grower and I'm looking at trying to use the data layer to put into my fertility planning and
and rec process then I need to know what those low yielding areas are to those high yielding areas,
as well relatively to be effective in using that yield data. So, I don't know if I've got anything
great other than calibrating and paying attention and doing some checks basically as conditions.
Moisture within the crops change, test weights change, you need to be checking your calibration.
I always say at least two points on, on test weight and so those are just general
things to think about as you go through the the season and just doing some checks
to make sure things are calibrated. Jackson: Seems like you and Dr. Luck
are on the same page there, that's for sure. John: We'll say we've had some discussions.
Jackson: So, you know we've talked about using these university algorithms to
create nutrient prescriptions We've talked about you know basically
using your your yield maps to create these nutrient prescriptions. Are there any newer
processes or algorithms that some of these private companies like say a climate corporation
or somebody like that is using that may not match these university recs or you know just accounting
for our uptake of our previous crop that are gaining some traction out there for growers?
John: Well, the obvious ones would be the nitrogen tools that and there's four of them out there. You
know, I think there's some validity in those those tools to help with nitrogen management.
When we talk about site-specific meaning per field type analysis can be challenging.
I think they can give you some suggestions and help you explain some things but ultimately it's
going to be yourself or the consultant tying rates to zones to make that happen on the nitrogen side
though they've made a lot of progress I don't want to discount those nitrogen tools. On the P,
K side I really haven't seen other than maybe some new technology coming down the road.
Nothing today commercially that's really changed dramatically, changed what we're seeing from
from our for macros and and micros in terms of how we manage and do that on a variable rate.
You know, we've automated or beginning to automate the sampling process out in the
field we're seeing that grow, but in terms of the algorithms I think you're asking Jackson, I
don't, I haven't seen a lot of movement on that part. One thing I would add to the discussion or
at least the thought around this discussion is we're starting to see some companies get pretty
significant volume of samples and information about fields built into their databases. So,
I know a few of people are trying to begin to explore how to tap into that knowledge
those data and maybe think about the P and K in particular and micros. But, I haven't seen
any results here yet. That how do we, how do we take some of those pretty significant databases
that have been built over the last 15 years 10 to 15 years and extract new knowledge about how we
may or think about doing phosphorus and potassium. Samantha: That does make me think. I did see some
research come out of Corteva. The people that have like put their soil samples into Granular
and then they were just able to see across certain regions where there were lots of deficiencies.
Like I said, I don't know how they're using that or what that's going to translate into, but it is
fascinating to see those trends. John: Yeah yeah, and I think we're just starting to get to the
cusp of that, Samantha because we've got a couple companies here on the eastern side again
when you're able to connect yield fields with yield and some other descriptive layers, data
layers, elevation possibly of course soil types always out there. But, some other things that are
very high resolution that gives us fuel by field, I think we can begin to explore some trends. We'll
see where that takes us, but I would think here in the near future we would start to see
some of those trends and how we can translate that into a farmer using that for their recommendations
or tailoring recommendations to their farm. Jackson: So, we've been talking a lot about
soil spatial variability and how that data might be useful for determining spatial variable
applications. What are some other layers that you would like to see and you do like to see currently
integrated with this soil spatial variability data to inform our spatially variable applications?
John: Well, for talking a little pie in the sky I would love and you know industry is kind of
driving some of this in terms of development. Boy, it'd be nice to have
a couple things. Number one, the ability to you know I guess we can measure some of this with
sensors but slow moisture variability across the field- being able to model that
continuously over the growing season really cool data layer to play into some of this fertility
management. I think in time if we can get you know maybe a couple more years of development
work under our belts here we may have some you know fertility type sensors that we can stick in
the ground and complement that as well. And you know, it's kind of like small moisture sensing
you know how many do you need to stick out in the field, well probably going to be quite a few if
you really want to do it right you know just from a statistical standpoint. But, if we get fertility
at some level- let's say nitrate and aspiration and even some kind of P level understanding-
I will tell you and soil moisture boy, I'd love to be if we could model those and be fairly
confident over the growing season. I think that would really change our mind, coupled with weather
and weather predictions how we do fertility management more in season. I'll say it that
way from planting to end season type management. Jackson: So, just to kind of piggyback on that
how would you like to inform where those sensors are placed
in a field I know you said there need to be a lot but how you know what would be your choice about
how those those locations would be informed? John: Yeah, so we would I think for us
we probably again you guys have a lot different soil and topography and just your field conditions
are different in Nebraska. So, when I say this I'm speaking, I want to make everyone
understand I'm speaking in Ohio. What our conditions are you guys need to kind of address
what your major variables are. I want to tell you that organic matter and measuring that and having
a high resolution organic matter map is a would be a big step for us. Next, I mentioned this before
drainage and basically it's water hoarding capacity and drainage and coupled together
is if we can take elevation and build in a fairly high resolution where water flows where it's
going to stand in certain conditions having an elevation map and doing the derivatives of that
and then doing our organic matter. We're going to have a lot of insight of where we need to replace
sensors across the field because we're going to have highly eroded areas to
essentially low organic matter potential. You know, in those areas to other areas that
might be three plus percent organic matter, so being able to use some of that tech information
and it's fairly readily available in Ohio but that we can I think we could do a pretty
effective job determining where we would place those sensors to inform some of the if we're
trying to model that or use that information to make decisions on I think that would help us
greatly. Those would be the data layers I'm thinking about of course yield, love to put
yield into that too. But, you know every year is a little different in terms of weather patterns as
well so we'd have to have quite a few years of yield data to put into that equation too. But,
those would probably be my three here in Ohio. Jackson: So, when we're thinking about
prescriptions still how can we start using or are people already doing this using these precision
technologies to execute on-farm research to then inform prescriptions on individual
fields, what are some of the advantages and benefits that we may get out of that?
John: So, my first comment is if you got precision technologies on on your farm I
would encourage grower to be doing some kind of on-farm research answering their own questions
you know you guys have a great you know on-farm research network out there. You're learning things
not only for yourselves but the grower that's cooperating and there's just a lot of value,
and when I think about prescription maps you know there's two things right. There's essentially
we'll generalize this- there's the zones, are the zones right for the particular product that
I'm trying to bury that's your first question and the second question is how do I determine
in most cases what rate or source that I'm going to put in that zone that's profitable
and so my thing is if we're not if you're not doing some on-farm research to
evaluate your zones and then evaluate your rate or product or source that's going to go into that
zone I question how reflective agronomically those prescription maps are and are they truly
profitable for your operation. And, I'm not sitting here pointing fingers and saying people
are doing things wrong there's a lot of room for all of us to improve but for grower my question
always is- is how do you know that's effectively providing a profit to you and you've delineated
the variability of whatever you're trying to vary out there appropriately, so
and I think you guys do a great job and I you know you can confirm with me that's why we do a lot
of with our growers strip trials where we're not really varying whatever it is the rate or source
for the strip but we're changing that between strips and that gives us two ways number one
to evaluate our delineation of zones where should that be happening for that particular
treatment and secondly understanding within that zone then we can go back and analyze and say what
was our optimum or what was our economic optimum that should have been applied in that year. And if
I replicate that over you know I'd say like six years if you're in a soybean corn rotation but
if I can bear with the grower the grower can bear with us and we step through that all
I think they're going to be better off and what they're going to find
in the case of seeding and maybe even some of this fertility at times basically nitrogen there's
going to be some cases where man it's just a slam dunk. I should be doing it all the time
in that field to an adjacent field. I either need to learn more or let's just stick with the fixed
rate because it's profitable and it's easy for me to do on this field. But, we find there's a
lot of fields that are very tailored or because of history or because of the the topography a
lot of times for us it's drainage and topography right it's elevation and drainage for us. If we
can understand that and then we can understand how we should be delineating and then adding
and what's our profitable either seeding rate or fertility rate that goes into that zone. So but
technology, precision ag technology and easily enables on-farm research and growers
need to be profitable and if they're having people make prescriptions that's great but they got to be
evaluating some of this themselves they should be asking their own questions on their farms and
evaluating that to be able to understand what is profitable what practices work what doesn't work
and be doing that out on a field by field basis in my view. And, if they can get to that there's a
real value and a real learning experience for them as they get into all this. I make a comment and I
can't remember Dr. Luck was I don't think he was involved with this project. We did a survey back
in 2017. In fact, I think he was involved and we surveyed only farmers that have been doing
precision ag, so I'm talking about farmers that are all in on technology they're real up they're
probably doing variable rate seeding for and to some level and variable rate fertility. Do you
know how many of them are doing on-farm research? Jackson: I don't even really want to take a guess
because I think I'm going to be wrong. John: 84% of the respondents are doing
some kind of on-farm research and I guess I use that as my testament that technology
I don't know if it simplifies on farm research but it really enables growers to go out and
test some of their hypotheses or interests or questions very simply and with that it becomes
that learning experience that they really want to understand you know learn from and make changes
or document you know what I am doing it right. Jackson: Dr. Fulton further recommended that
farmers and researchers consider machinery capability and availability when considering
implementing variable rate applications. John: I think as growers farmers and even us as
you know research I think we need to keep track of the equipment and and processes that precision ag
service providers are offering to us. I mean it's one thing to be able to create a prescription
map and it's always I separate out to execute that's a different strat is a different whole
different component to the equation right. I can create all kinds of maps and I can even
confirm that that map's as good as it's going to be
scientifically but in terms of executing it and having the ability to do that is a whole different
component of this and so as growers I just think you need to be thinking about
both of those as two different pieces of of your fertility management and then thirdly and
come back to the on farm, I still believe that on-farm experimentation really helps
farmers fine-tune their fertility management. What practices, what rates how are things profitable
within my system that's a necessity to keep at it and it only the real advantage that is the
acceleration of learning that goes on with that farmer when there's doing that type of research.
Samantha: So, building on that you kind of talked about where we are like at adoption
and the technologies we do have what machinery technologies do you think will
be coming? what are people working on? Jackson: And, in particular maybe with
those dry spreaders and some of the section control that you were talking about earlier?
John: Yeah, we're going back to switch back to the the spinner spreaders that we've been using.
We're starting to see quite a bit of technology come in play. Some of this
has kind of been around but I think just having access and many manufacturers provided number one
having dual or multiple bin dry fertilizer spreaders have been around for a while,
but it's not until recent years that you could go to your retailer and actually look on the lot
and actually see one on the lot. And so, from a farmer perspective what I like about that is I
can put two prescriptions in if not up to four depending on what you're trying to do. Make one
pass across the field and so that's been a a big area where today you know think about planters
I mean Jeez we can put eight prescriptions in if we're controlling hybrid seeding rate
fertility. And insecticide per se I mean you could do that today my point on fertilizer spreaders is
we can very effectively today, with the software making the prescriptions and applicators do one
pass multiple products executing individual prescriptions because now those prescriptions
are all going to be equivalent spatial in terms of where the highs and the lows are. So,
I think that's been a real advantage in real development over the last five years to see that
come into play. First, secondly you're starting to see what I would call the European influence
on spinner spreaders and so when I say that is number one you're starting to see some new designs
come into play that enables swath control not full with swath control but a lot of times it could be
15, could be 12 sections depending on the company but I can actually effectively with changing the
position and the speed of the spinners on there they can actually implement swath control like
on your planter. So, when I'm working in point rows or kind of abnormal shape fields
it can shut off in sections and not just shutting off in like a 90-foot swath all at once and coming
back on it's actually broken down. Take your 90 and divide it by 12 or 15 it could be shut off
and come back on in sections like that and we're seeing that come in play here in the U.S. And so,
I'm starting to see though that technology starting to be available or being on at
retailers when you stop in and look around and see what they have for equipment. So, that's another
thing that's really come is the improvement of section control and doing it by zones now on
these fertilizer spreaders. I think that's a big advantage to not only them but also the growers
in terms of more uniform application of product. Jackson: So, I'm not super well versed in terms of
how this equipment works but how difficult is it to assess the accuracy and distribution of what's
applied with these pieces of equipment because you know as data analysts people who are trying
to figure out what goes on with yield, we kind of want to see that as applied, so how accurate is
that right now? John: For fertilizer, basically you're getting a pretty coarse resolution
as applied map and so again going back to even the machine behind me, I mean if you had a raven
basically you're going to get full width whether that's 90-120 full width coverage map and you're
just kind of getting an average right. Across that whole boom, so we're getting pretty course on our
as applied maps if I understand where you're heading with that and that where it comes back
there's a couple things. Number one if we can get some sensors to put in place especially on
the granular side to know exactly across the machine the uniformity that's going to give us
granularity that I think you're looking for to be able to overlay with your yield map and other data
layers spatially and it won't be until we do that in my opinion that we can look at response curves
in a lot of cases, because again we can be off by a hundred pounds sometime on a coverage map
in an area on average across the whole thing. It's okay, it's you know 200 pounds per acre but
in some cases I could be off you know quite a bit 50 to 100 pounds in some conditions and so
I might be using 200 pounds of perceived applied product. In reality, I might only have a hundred
you know if it was some nitrogen or had some nitrogen in there that's going to be a
big significant treatment difference for you. So, I think when we get some of these improved
technologies too, that takes us to the next level for what I consider are as applied fertility maps.
You're going to be able to do a much more improved analysis both from the farmer perspective
but also for us that really interested in research and all with our ultimate goal is can we ever get
to a point of going suitably row by row or small area by small area to see some response and start
to build those response curves that I think you were alluding to earlier, Samantha. We
just can't do that today because of the I don't want to say inaccurate it's just there's just not
the resolution to do some of the analysis. I always frame up and you guys probably get tired of
me so I always talk about today and you're I know you've got some growers I know some of the growers
in Nebraska that have all the technology if you're doing a high speed planter regardless if you're on
a high speed or not I would argue with you almost know where every seed was planted in the field.
That's pretty high resolution regardless that's a 12 row 24, 36 plus row planter. But, we don't
have anything to be able to overlay across that that relates to fertility to understand well I
know what got planted. I can use a drone today to do my stand counts across that planter and know
that well hey I had maybe some issues or I didn't get a good enough emergence in this area. But,
I don't have anything on the fertility side to add into that analysis at a fairly high scale or
a high resolution. Does that make sense on that? Samantha: Yes it does yes yeah. It'll be
interesting how we're going to get to that point where we do have higher resolution. So you
mentioned earlier the two bins for dry fertilizer, so kind of speaking along those lines you know
are we going to get to the point where planters have two separate fertilizer products that can be
applied at different rates for starter or we've talked about machines that have both anhydrous
and liquid fertilizer and that they're applying at different rates. How are those being developed
are we going to see more of that in the future? John: So, yes from a planter perspective you
can put very simply a starter package on plus an infrared
and put stuff in and furrow whether that's fertility to if you want to do some of the
other biologicals is another piece that people are really interested in on that. So,
being able to do multiple fertility products to multiple sources for sure we can do that on
planters today and do that pretty effectively. And, I would state that if you want to spend
the money you could do that on a row by row basis very very easily but it's going to cost you money
that's probably the big hurdle on that front for that. On these other machines whether it's dry or
liquid anhydrous or something like that, currently when we look at the if you want to call them
strip till we call them zone till type implements where you're kind of doing a you know eight foot
or eight inch by three inch depth kind of zone and you're putting fertilizer in that in some fashion.
Yes you can do that and do different sources all in one pass no doubt about it. And so,
I'm just saying about three companies off top my head they all have the capacity to run multiple
sources on one implement and do that all in one pass. But, I think that's where we're at
in some cases where research is going to have to determine the real value on some of that.
For us, placing nutrients below the soils subsurface is an environmental
value in our neck of the woods. Everyone says that if we get our nutrients, in particular nitrogen
and phosphorus in the soil that greatly reduces the opportunity for that to leave
the field. And so, that's kind of does that translate to profitability I would argue yes
if it's done properly and we have some knowledge to supplement in there to understand how we need
to be doing that. But, maybe for others it's more just to be able to kind of the right to farm right
environmentally it's keeping people off my back. And, I'm able to do what I want to do in some
cases. So, but yes we can do multiple products, multiple sources on liquid anhydrous and and
dry today it's becoming the technology's there. I guess I'm saying and companies have the solutions.
Samantha: So, what should farmers be thinking about right now what would advice do you have
that to them for like planning out the next year? John: Well, I'm gonna say if your growers are like
ours they've probably already got quite a bit of fertilizer purchased and if not quite a bit
of their seed and seed packages that go on top of that purchased. But, I think going into the
first year as it relates to fertility management you know I think making sure you review your plan
or plans if you're doing variable rate-making sure those are intact. They're sound
agronomically as well and I guess I would throw in that the challenge becomes is when
when can I execute those and if I get a spring, late winter and early spring that's pretty wet
all sudden you know do I need to make adjustments, plan in terms of what I want to actually apply
when and that's a big challenge. I mean we've had to change some sources here in the last few years
in Ohio. But, my point in all that as we go into January and February is hey I got to plan and play
I know what my costs are hopefully. They've you know what your costs are but have a plan B in
mind especially given if you guys are like us with some of these spring rains you know if I've got to
adjust things and maybe put a little bit more down on my planter or I got to do a little bit
more in-season application. I don't think there's anything wrong with that as long as it's done with
the right source and the timing. But, I think plan a when I'm going into the season thinking I want
to do and have all that cost estimates laid out but have a plan B back in my back pocket
and be able to just give some of the spring conditions that we're encountering these days.
Samantha: Thank you to Dr. John Fulton for joining us today on the FarmBits podcast.
As you heard, he has expansive knowledge in fertilizer and manure application technology
and also how to utilize data layers for informed
nutrient and lime prescriptions. Jackson: I think my favorite parts of
this episode were Dr. Fulton's discussion of some of the new variable rate application technologies.
For example, on dry spreaders and how we don't yet have a good way of measuring as applied rates
at a high resolution. So, we're thinking less than the 90 foot or 120 foot boom especially with those
machines. I also thought it was pretty cool to hear John say that we're at a point now where we
could actually be applying four or more variable rate prescriptions at one time, particularly with
the planter between variable rate seedings and nutrients and everything in between in response to
that spatial variability out there in the field. Samantha: Absolutely, and for me I liked his
comments on how with many of these technologies they show an obvious benefit to the environment,
but we also have to find a way to show the value to a producer and on many cases such as in lime,
phosphorus and potassium the return to the producer's bottom line is already there in most
situations. I also liked his point about having a backup plan for fertilizer application timing
but then being sure to adjust your source to that timing to have the best outcome.
Jackson: Absolutely and having a plan B is never a bad idea, so that wraps up our soil spatial
variability series. We'd like for you to tune in next week as we get started on another digital ag
topic here on FarmBits. Thank you for taking the time to join us today on the FarmBits podcast.
If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe to the podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts,
YouTube or wherever you listen to podcasts to be informed about the latest content each week.
Samantha: We welcome your feedback, so if you have comments or questions for us please reach out to
us over email, on twitter or in the review section of your favorite podcast platform. Our contact
information can also be found in the show notes. Jackson: We would like to thank Nebraska Extension
for their support of this podcast and their commitment to providing high quality
informational material to members of the agricultural community in Nebraska and beyond.
Samantha: The opinions expressed by the hosts and guests on this podcast are solely their own
and do not reflect the views of Nebraska extension or the University of Nebraska
-Lincoln. We look forward to you joining us next week for another episode of FarmBits.