Correction Line Ag @CorrectionAg

@traviss22

We apply $100 worth of phosphorus. Why can't we get that $100 back into the plant? 🤔 Most growers get between $10 and $30 of it back that year. We think that could be $70–$80, just by maintaining better microbial levels, and allowing the plant to ask for it. #phosphorus #soilhealth #agronomy #farming #soilbiology #fertilizer

Fertilizer Over-Application is Associated with Increased Grid Size There was a study done by the University of Georgia CAES in 2022 where they looked at how grid sizes affected fertilizer application accuracy. They looked at 1, 2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10 acre grids. Variable-rate prescription maps were made according to the grid sizes and soil sample results from those grids. The paper states that, “the Rx maps were spatially analyzed and compared to assess the application accuracy (%) of different grid sizes compared to reference Rx maps.” The study found that the 1 acre grids had an application accuracy of 80%+ for Lime, P, and K. The 2.5 acre grid fields were all under 80% for Lime, P, and K. 5 acre grids were lower than that, and 7.5 were even lower. At 10 acre grids, accuracy was just above 50% across the board. The lower the percentage, the lower the effectiveness in representing spatial nutrient availability. It is understandable to think that larger grids allow for a reduced cost associated with soil samples and the sampling cost. However, this doesn’t factor in how grid size and application accuracy affects the cost of Lime, P, and K. What looked to be cheaper on the front end was actually more expensive when things were all said and done. There tends to be an increase in overapplication with an increase in grid size. Now you might be thinking, “that is in Georgia, so what?” That is beside the point. The point is that there are costs associated with grids (even 2.5 acre grids) that are not accounted for. There are costs associated with only using standard soil tests on those grids as well. This will affect recommendations and variable rate scripts drastically.

A Quick History of Grid Sampling Soil sampling and recommendations based on those samples have come a long way since the early 1900s in some ways. But in other ways, they have not. Consider the first recorded field that got recommendations based on soil samples. This was published by Linsley and Bauer in 1929. It was: • A 30.89 acre field that was broken down into ≈1 acre grids. • There were soil samples taken at roughly 6 inch and 12 inch depths. • Based on those soil samples, the recommendation for Lime was about a half ton per acre. The lime would’ve been shoveled onto the field by hand (Franzen & Mulla, 2015). • The areas that didn’t need lime based off of the soil tests saved both labor and money. All of this was a huge advancement in agriculture at the time. But it is hard to believe that we are still using grids (especially larger than the ones used in 1929) in the year 2026. We have learned so much about soil since then, but our soil mapping, testing, and sampling techniques haven’t always kept up with the pace of learning. So What? Everything in agriculture is variable. Fields aren’t always square, soil is dynamic, and weather throws a wrinkle into everything. This makes measuring anything difficult. What we do measure isn’t always black and white. However, we try to treat something as dynamic as the relationship between plants and soils as static. This is what grid sampling and industry standard soil tests do. Grids treat the field as if it works in 2.5 acre (or more) squares. And coupled with standard chemical tests, we shoot for ppm values within those perfect squares. Seems simple right? But soil is not simple. We might know 0.1% about it, actually. Yet we do know that it is alive and that it cycles. Grids and chemical extractions alone do not really account for that. Consider this justification for 2.5 acre grids: “Although most researchers that have sampled whole fields at small spatial scale (less than 0.4 ha (≈1 acre) sampling density) have found that 0.4 ha is a minimum density to sample if nutrient variability is in a range where variable-rate fertilizer application would make a positive difference to the farmer, most grid soil sampling today is conducted in a 1 sample ha grid (2.5 acre grid). The reason that this is acceptable in the central Corn Belt of the United States today is that most fields and areas within those fields have P and K levels in the high range. Although there is considerable variability of P and K levels within the field, most of the field, regardless of soil test level, will result in the same P and K fertilizer recommendation. Therefore, a less dense grid is acceptable, because failure to represent the P and K nutrient level still results in the proper recommendation as provided by university soil fertility experts (Bullock, 2002; Wittry and Mallarino, 2004).” This is from A History of Precision Agriculture (Franzen & Mulla, 2015). That quote works for a system that is static and that has perfect edges. The reason why the 1 acre or less grids were preferred is because they picked up variability that the 2.5+ acre grids could not. Often times, you don’t have the same elevation, water flow accumulation, or topography within that 2.5 acre grid. This leads to differences in soil structure, carbon, biology, and nutrition within that one grid (reference the picture attached that overlays 2.5 acre grids over Baseline Rx zones). And while the quote above references P and K levels to justify 2.5 acre grids, is that enough? This considers chemical P (Bray, Mehlich, Olsen) and chemical K (AA) and that’s it. This is especially concerning if that P and K will have recommendations to spread in the fall which allows for tie-ups of these nutrients. What about Nitrogen, Calcium, or Carbon?

Most of the N your crop uses never came from the bag. We’ve been trained to think “I applied it, so the plant used it.” The isotope work (15N) says otherwise. A lot of systems show plants pull roughly 55 to 60% of their nitrogen from the soil organic pool, not that season’s fertilizer. And crop recovery of applied N is often only around 40%. Here’s the part most people miss. Microbes grab that applied N first. Kuzyakov’s 2013 meta-analysis (41 labeling studies) showed soil microbes take most of the added N in the short term. When you hear “microbes have higher affinity at low concentrations,” all that means is they have a lower Km. They can lock N up when it’s still scarce. Plants need higher concentrations to compete. That’s why microbes win those first hours. Then it’s not “gone.” It’s stored in microbial biomass and necromass. As microbes turn over, it mineralizes back to plant-available N. One grassland 15N tracer study showed about 45% got locked up in 24 hours. That’s a big deal because it can cut leaching and volatilization losses. Second-order effect. Higher carbon soils tend to recover more fertilizer and lose less. Global average recovery is about 48%, but good management can push it toward 78%. Microbes are a temporary bank. Dead soil loses N. Living soil holds it, then pays it back. When you think about N Stabilizers - I bet most don’t think about activating the microbes.

We spend billions on fertilizer, yet debate supporting biology to help crops actually access it. Research shows phosphorus use efficiency is often below 25% in the year of application, with massive legacy P buildup instead. Root exudates and microbes solubilize bound nutrients that ppm-chasing alone leaves locked up — while adding salts and degrading structure/gas exchange. As general statement the Industry is broken, we complain about it but keep doing the same thing over and over again.

More than just a field. A field with a story. A field with purpose. In March it was a crazy idea, a prescription map, and a planter. Now the Route 66 logo is growing row by row in Miami, OK — honoring 100 years of the Mother Road. Read more>> fourstateshomepage.com/news/local/ai-… #Route66 #BWFusion #LeadersInTheField

*tissue sample comes back and your biology program is actually working* Our agronomists:

When the weather opens up, Dusty Skaggs doesn't just send advice. He shows up and does the spraying himself for a grower who's become a close friend. That's the BW Fusion difference. Because when you truly have someone's best interests at heart, trust gets built in the field. 🌱 AmiNo and Relax with herbicide. Job done. #LeadersInTheField #CropNutrition

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

Some absolutely gorgeous corn. Dryland Kansas. Lord I’m not asking for much but just enough moisture through the growing season to be able to see what this corn can do! 🔥

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

Soil sample from a native grass pasture in north central OK that, in my 40 years on earth, has not been fertilized. You’re not mining your soil of nutrients, you’re mining your soil of biological life by over fertilizing. @CorrectionAg @bw_fusion

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

Universities have proven growers get 20–40 cents back on every fertility dollar spent. Over-application isn't the answer. It makes the system worse. Jason Schley broke down the fix at Commodity Classic 2026. 30 minutes. Worth every one of them. youtu.be/SEpe15Hbe2w

Stress in my opinion impacts nutrient uptake > then ppm levels do. I’ll take it a step further, you can pour the fertilizer on and if your plants don’t have extra energy to drive the exudation it won’t matter, as the plant still can’t eat efficiently. I personally believe plant nutrition & stress management are tied together and need to be when creating a fertilizer plan/budget.

Most fields don’t suffer from a true nutrient shortage, they suffer from a nutrient access problem. Decades of fertilizer application have built large nutrient reserves in the soil, but without energy, those nutrients stay locked up. That energy starts with plant-created sugar, which is the currency of the plant. Through photosynthesis, plants produce sugar and spend it through their roots to power nutrient uptake and biological activity. In the soil, that energy shows up as WEOC (water-extractable organic carbon) — the currency of the soil that feeds microbes and drives nutrient exchange. This message isn’t about eliminating fertilizer or ignoring crop removal. It’s about a systems approach that improves how nutrients cycle and move. When sugar production increases and WEOC is present, biology becomes active, enzymes function, and stored nutrients begin to flow into plant-available forms. That’s how fertilizer efficiency improves over time. Growers don’t simply decide to use less fertilizer, they EARN the right by building a system where nutrients are unlocked, not wasted, and every input works harder.

Get ahead of the 2026 growing season and join us on the road for an agronomy event you won't want to miss! 📍 January 26th: Noblesville, IN 📍 February 3rd: Sioux Falls, SD 📍 February 5th: Manhattan, KS Get insights from agronomists, microbiologists, and farmers who are doing more with fewer inputs and seeing the payoff in a bigger ROI. Register today! bit.ly/3YF3D2g

Episode 14 from CropCast 🤯 podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cro…

Josh Messer @JoshMesser_Ag

9 months ago

Seems like someone else has been talking about this for quite some time…@MasonClaude5 ?? We know it. This guy knows it. But hey keep throwing money away at lime chasing that “perfect pH Check out Travis Shaddox's video! #TikTok tiktok.com/t/ZThFcYoJE/

1 1 5 1K 3

Fertilizer is guaranteed to work, season long availability is not 1/4 in rainfall will solubilize 150 lbs MAP+KCl at the wrong time if the crop isn’t growing Only 20-50% of fertilizer gets in the plant, the rest is tied up If you’re not managing mineralization you’re guessing

Probability matters more than potential Farming is all about predictive outcomes. You need to increase your odds of a yield response to fertilizer Fertilizer has a large opportunity to help and hurt profit Hold your fertilizer to a higher standard and improve profit potential.