Sustainable Farming: Ensuring Farm Resilience

Tap A $50 Billion Potential For $2/Acre

Tue, 12 May 2026 19:31:56 GMT

With a database of more than 1,100 programs, LandOption aims to guide farmers looking to stack federal, state, carbon, conservation, and recreational programs. Added up, CEO Eric Dinger estimates those agricultural and conservation programs are worth between $50-80 billion annually.

The Nebraska-based company is using AI to maximize income for farmers and landowners via its four-step process: Listen, Analyze, Navigate, Deliver. Navigating the programs, continuous updates, and list of eligibility requirements can be daunting.

While most programs require operational changes and multiple-year commiments, LandOption identifies which changes offer the highest financial return across multiple stacked incentives.

The opportunity to enroll the same acres in different programs—referred to as stacking—complicates things further. But using the strategy to enroll in multiple projects at one time is the greatest opportunity to maximize the dollars. Most common, federal programs can be simultaneously used alongside carbon programs.

“Currently, right now, no federal programs are making any carbon claims. So you can avoid additionality issues when it comes to these federal programs being used alongside and stacked with carbon programs,” says Ben Paige, director of operations and customer success at LandOption.

Upfront Cost to Avoid FOMO

For $2/acre, LandOption provides a “game plan” that identifies every available incentive for a specific parcel. On average, every parcel examined shows 70-75 available programs.

“Our database covers geographical eligibility, practice requirements, payment structures, contract terms, and hidden costs,” Paige says. “It helps you visualize being enrolled in multiple programs at once so you can choose the best path.”

The ‘Easy Button’

For a 10% commission—paid only when the program payment is received—LandOption manages the heavy lifting: application submission, deadline tracking, compliance monitoring, and payment verification.

Real-World Case Studies

Case 1: Southwest Minnesota Corn/Soybean Farmer (1,500 acres)

Background: No prior cover crop use, frustrated with complicated programs, tight margins
Results: 84 programs identified at ~$92/acre potential value
Enrolled: 7 stacked programs generating $210,000+ annually
Program layers: Carbon program + federal EQIP cost-share + local cost-share + habitat programs + tax programs + recreational hunting lease

Case 2: Southeast Nebraska Landowner (600 acres)

Background: Absentee landowner, family operates farm via cost-share agreement (60-40 split)
Results: 41 programs identified, enrolled in 4 programs
Annual payments: $21,000
Amplified engagement: Negotiated carbon program participation with tenant farmer through cost-share agreement for seed treatment application, with 60-40 split on carbon payments. Farmer had such a positive experience in the carbon program they enrolled an additional 1,400 acres.

Declutter the Carbon Opportunities

While carbon credit prices have struggled, “insetting” programs—driven by supply chain demands from companies like Cargill and Bunge—are more popular than ever.

“We break down the complexity to answer the core questions: What do I actually have to do, and which one pays the best?” Paige says. He notes that all agricultural carbon programs require landowner notification and consent when tenants enroll acres.

Bridging the Landowner and Operator Gap

Dinger notes operators focus on practice-based changes and operational cost-share (carbon, cover crops). Landowners show more interest in conservation easements, long-term programs, and succession planning, with conversations centered on asset valuation vs. income.

In addition to other adviser groups, Land Option works through Farmers National Company farm managers to leverage existing landowner relationships. The partnership enables efficient data sharing and integration with FNC’s reporting cycles.

Are Your Fields A Green Light? Use the Three-Factor System To Guide Planting Decisions

Fri, 08 May 2026 16:51:42 GMT

Farm Journal Field Agronomist Ken Ferrie is urging farmers to pay close attention to soil conditions and local weather forecasts as planting accelerates across the Midwest.

Ferrie and his team at Crop-Tech Consulting recommend using a “red-yellow-green light” system to guide planting decisions. The practice is based on three factors: soil moisture, seed chilling risks and the 10-day emergence forecast.

The information on the green-yellow-red color system for planting is pretty self-explanatory, says Ken Ferrie. Once you know the light color, you can see the meaning and the action he recommends taking.

(Crop-Tech Consulting)

Regional Forecast And Recommendation

Despite ongoing weather struggles from cold and rain in some parts of the country, planting progress continues across much of the upper Midwest.

For central Illinois, Ferrie says there is a green light for Monday, with some areas getting a yellow or red light for Tuesday. The U.S. National Weather Service says a weak cold front will bring the next chance for storms later on Tuesday, some of which could be severe. Temperatures will turn cooler for midweek.

Ferrie warns that the first 12 to 24 hours seed corn is in the ground are the most critical. During this window of time, the seed absorbs 30% of its weight in water. If that water is below 50 degrees Fahrenheit, the cells lose elasticity and tear. Chilled seed corn can easily result in a 10% stand loss.

“You can literally tell the difference between fields that were planted in the morning compared to in an afternoon that’s going into a cool night,” Ferrie says. “That is why you’ll see our lights change at noon some days, trying to get enough water absorbed before the soil temperature drops.”

You can get more information from Ferrie on the perils of seed corn chilling in this brief video:

Ferrie says if corn takes longer than 11 days to emerge, those kernels that were planted “spike down” will struggle to compete.

“The spike-down plants can be a week or two weeks behind the spike-up plants,” Ferrie explains. “At that point, they will be more than a collar behind and not produce a regular-sized ear.”

Listen to Ferrie’s complete recommendations in his Boots In The Field podcast:

Soybean Farmers Detail ‘Sustainable Practices’ That Can Pay Off

Thu, 07 May 2026 21:14:51 GMT

Cover crops were nearly scratched off Laurie and Jim Isley’s list of practices on their Michigan farm a few years ago. The reason? Production costs were adding roughly $35 an acre to their budget, which was already stretched beyond thin.

“Things were really limited for us, so we looked at that practice really, really hard,” says Laurie, who farms with her husband near Palmyra, Mich. “We can absolutely be environmentally sustainable, but the bottom line is we’re not going to stay in business unless we are profitable.”

The use of cover crops is back on firmer economic ground now, she adds, thanks to cost-share programs such as Farmers for Soil Health (FSH), which help make soil health investments possible for income-strapped growers.

Making Cover Crops Cash-Flow

The biggest hurdle for cover crops has always been the upfront cost versus the delayed gratification of better soil structure. The Farmers for Soil Health initiative is currently bridging that gap for growers in 20 states. Isley says the program offers up to $35 per acre in cost-share, plus technical assistance.

For many farmers, the frustration with government or industry programs often lies in the “fine print.” Isley highlights two specific features of the FSH program that make it a more useful tool for many row-crop growers:

The “No Look Back” Policy: Unlike many programs that only reward “new” adopters, FSH is open to almost any grower. “You are eligible for this program whether you are planting cover crops for the very first time, or whether you’ve been planting them for 10, 15 or 20 years,” Isley says.
Short-Term Commitment: “It’s a one-year contract, but you can re-enroll in it year-after-year (with up to 2,000 acres per operation) through the length of time Farmers for Soil Health continues,” Isley notes.

Beyond the dollars, the program addresses the “how-to” hurdle. Each state has designated advisers to help with cover crop species selection, seeding methods (including the use of drones), and termination timing.

“It isn’t just, ‘Go forth and find cover crops,’” Isley says. “Sometimes you just need some expert help in order to get started on something. Even if you say, ‘I’m only going to do 100 acres this year,’ that’s still 100 acres you’re going to get that $35 an acre on to get started.”

High-Oleic Soybeans: A Revenue-Side Opportunity

While cost-shares help manage expenses, Matthew Chapman is looking at the other side of the ledger: revenue. For his east-central Indiana farm, high-oleic soybean contracts have been a game-changer.

“This project’s really been a home run for the whole soybean industry,” Chapman notes. He says that backed by checkoff investments and partnerships with industry giants like Bayer, Corteva, and Beck’s, the specialty beans have already delivered over $400 million in total returns to U.S. farmers.

Chapman started off growing high-oleic soybeans on 20% of his acreage and eventually scaled to 100%. The premiums — ranging in his area from $0.75 to $1.25 per bushel last year — were a huge boost to his bottom line. But he says they have some requirements that farmers need to consider.

“Oftentimes you’re going to need to store this crop, depending on how far away your purchaser is,” he notes. “Your weed program and your plan need to start in the fall. There’s just a lot to consider ahead of time.”

The market is also evolving. High-oleic oil is prized by restaurants for its long fry life and trans-fat-free profile, and new markets are emerging. Chapman notes that his 2026 crop is destined for dairy feed — the beans will be roasted, cracked and fed whole.

United Soybean Board (USB) projections suggest that by 2027, about half of the U.S. high-oleic soybean crop could be headed to the dairy sector. Industrial uses are also gaining traction in asphalt, bioplastics and fire-resistant hydraulic oil, especially in sensitive environments like mining or near waterways.

Navigating The Carbon And Fuel Frontier

While the federal process for carbon intensity (CI) modeling is still unfolding, farmers see opportunity in markets tied to carbon scores and renewable fuels.

USB is currently funding research to ensure farmers aren’t left behind as these markets mature. One surprising finding from Iowa State University: simply planting earlier can reduce nitrous oxide emissions, a major contributor to CI scores.

“That really costs us nothing to do,” Isley says. By documenting this “free” practice change, farmers can potentially lower their CI scores and increase the value of their grain in renewable fuel markets.

However, participation requires data. Chapman emphasizes that farmers need to be the masters of their own information.

“Whenever you’re selling the data off your farm, which is what this is, it starts with knowing what we have,” he says. “It’s hard to sell something unless you know what you’ve got when you start off.”

In southeast Kansas, farmer Charles Atkinson sees this playing out in the biodiesel and renewable diesel sectors. He believes that using the product on the farm is the best way to support the market.

“It’s a product that we’ve developed, that we’ve raised, and it should be No. 1 on our priority list to use it,” Atkinson says.

The “Plan A Through F” Mindset Is Needed

Beneath all the programs and markets, the three growers say long-term profitability still depends on flexibility: having enough tools and plans on the shelf to adjust to whatever the season and markets throw at them.

The need for flexibility shows up in day-to-day decision-making. Atkinson describes his operation, based near Great Bend, as one that constantly shifts among no-till, cover crops, chemistry options and even occasional tillage, depending on the year’s weather, pests and markets.

“It seems like we have plan A, B, C, D, E and F, and depending on what gets thrown at us and what Mother Nature gives us, we have to figure out what plan to run,” he says. “Last year, I had a beautiful plan together. It was all going to work. And I think we were down to plan D before we got finished up.”

Chapman takes a similar view. He says farmers like having “a lot of tools in the toolbox,” even ones they rarely use.

“As the world’s always changing, we want to be proactive and we want to do stuff that we can voluntarily do on our farm,” he says. “Move towards that goal of leaving the farm better than you found it, and hope the day never comes that something’s your only option.”

Isley says programs such as Farmers for Soil Health, along with EQIP, CSP and state or watershed initiatives, help move more growers toward that toolbox mentality by reducing risk.

In her view, profitable sustainability isn’t about any single practice, but about using the right mix of programs, premiums and practices to fit each farm.

“I think we often are hesitant to look for help, because we want to be self-reliant,” she says. “But sometimes it really makes a difference if we look for technical assistance and for those resources that are out there and available to us.”

Isley, Chapman, and Atkinson shared their perspectives in a webinar, “How Sustainable Production and Economic Viability Can Coexist,” on Thursday. The program was hosted by Agri-Pulse in partnership with the United Soybean Board.

Oregon Farmers Navigate The Ups And Downs Of A Changing Ag Landscape

Wed, 06 May 2026 22:05:35 GMT

Helle and Bruce Ruddenklau make almost every agronomic move on their Willamette Valley, Oregon, farm with their balance sheet in mind. Crop rotations, contracts and niche markets are the core tools they use to maneuver through and survive today’s costly inputs and soft crop prices.

The couple farm about 1,100 acres near Amity, Ore. They own a third of the ground and rent the rest.

About half the acres are in commercial grass seed — perennial ryegrass and fescue for lawns, golf courses, sports fields and parks. The rest of their acreage cycles through wheat, an oilseed called Meadowfoam (highly sought after in cosmetics, skincare products, and specialty industrial applications), green beans, occasional sweet corn and peas, radish seed for export to Japan, clover seed and hazelnuts.

The crop diversity is critical. It helps even out the economic ups and downs of farming, and it also helps address a problem the couple didn’t even know they had initially in the 1990s: herbicide-resistant grass weeds, a challenge exacerbated by the fact they produce commercial grass seed.

“We had to come up with a different way of fighting some of these grassy weeds without chemistry, and that was through rotation. And no-till was the other big, big thing,” Helle recalls.

In the late 1990s, the couple invested in a no-till drill and redesigned their rotation.

“The (commercial) grass seeds stay in for two to four years, and when they come out, we have at least two years of other crops in those fields so we can get new chemical applications on, try to rotate and get on top of any grassy weeds that may have built up,” Helle tells Andrew McCrea during a recent episode of Farming The Countryside , available on Farm Journal TV.

Focused On Crop Diversity To Create Income

Crop rotation is a framework for stacking income streams. Every crop has to pull its weight against rising fertilizer and fuel costs.

“As with all farmers, our input costs are higher than what they have been. That’s been a huge challenge. Everybody here’s trying to find something that’s more profitable to grow,” she says, adding that she believes Midwest farmers have an even harder time generating ROI.

Grass seed has delivered strong margins at times, but COVID-era demand whipsawed the market. A surge in lawn and turf projects sent prices sharply higher in 2020. Seed companies then pushed acres. A couple of variable years later, and the industry became awash in seed.

“We’re still working through that oversupply from three years ago or so,” Helle says. “Our price has dropped in half, basically, from what it was.”

With prices cut and input costs elevated, some growers are rolling the dice and producing grass seed on speculation.

“You have the option to grow grass seed without a contract, and then you have it on the open market,” she says. “If there’s a market for it, you can sell it. If not, you just sit with [it] in the barn and wait.”

The Ruddenklaus work hard to avoid being in that position, growing most everything under contract.

“We have one field that we have an open market Kentucky 31 variety on. But other than that, everything we grow is under contract on both the grass seed, specialty crops, hazelnuts, vegetables, everything.”

Relationships Play An Important Role In Farming

That contract-first mindset shapes what they plant and who they do business with.

“A lot of it is relationships with different dealers… that we know they will treat us fairly, and they know that we will produce a quality product for them,” she says.

Those relationships open doors to new niche markets that fit within their existing rotation.

“A few years ago, a local economic development company came to us and said a local soy sauce manufacturer was looking to have some local production of hard red spring wheat,” she recalls. “Oregon traditionally grows soft white wheat, so it’s not something we had worked with in the past, but we decided to try it, and that’s become a very valuable little niche market for us that has worked out well.”

Through that same connection, the farm links with AgLaunch, a Tennessee-based network that brings farmers and ag tech startups together.

“The companies come in [and] want to get the support of the farmers, the advice, the on-farm trials,” she says. “In exchange, they have to give up some equity to the farmers’ network. So through that, we also are getting exposure to some new companies and potentially new opportunities. We are definitely always looking at things.”

Some experiments — like trying grain corn and soybeans — have not become permanent fixtures on the farm. But even those tests help the Ruddenklaus calibrate where their competitive edge really lies: in specialty crops backed by contracts and rotations that help them manage weeds and other risks at the same time.

“I think agriculture has an amazing, amazing story. Farmers are innovators, and that’s just part of what we have done through generations,” Helle says.

“I’m not pessimistic about where we’re at,” she adds. “I believe agriculture has a bright, bright future. We belong in society. We have an important role to play. It won’t look the same as it has in the past, but we’ll figure it out.”

Helle was the recipient of the Top Producer 2026 Woman in Agriculture award . The award was sponsored by ProFarmer.

Know someone you would like to nominate for the Top Producer Woman In Agriculture? Nominations are open! Recommend your candidate here .

EPA Opens Public Comment Period On Draft Fungicide Strategy

Mon, 04 May 2026 16:19:42 GMT

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is offering the U.S. public an opportunity to help shape the future of agricultural safety, unveiling a draft Fungicide Strategy designed to balance the needs of American farmers with the protection of the nation’s most vulnerable wildlife.

The proposal marks a significant step in the agency’s effort to meet its dual mandates under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). By creating a more efficient and transparent framework for pesticide registration, the EPA says it aims to “safeguard more than 1,000 federally endangered and threatened species” while ensuring growers maintain the tools necessary to protect the nation’s food supply.

A New Framework for Modern Farming

The draft strategy focuses on conventional agricultural fungicides across the lower 48 states — an area covering approximately 41 million treated acres annually. Rather than a one-size-fits-all mandate, the proposal introduces a three-step framework:

Identify Impacts: Assessing potential population-level effects on listed species.
Mitigation Planning: Pinpointing specific measures to reduce those risks.
Targeted Application: Determining exactly where these protections are most needed based on where endangered and threatened species live and how fungicides move through the environment.

The agency emphasizes that while this strategy guides future regulatory actions, it does not impose immediate requirements. Instead, the strategy serves as a roadmap for upcoming registration reviews, with the EPA promising public input on every specific action before it is finalized.

Balancing Innovation and Conservation

Saying that it recognizes farmers are the backbone of the U.S. economy, the EPA’s draft includes several updates to provide greater flexibility. Notably, the plan expands options for reducing spray drift buffer distances and introduces new mitigation tools, such as the use of “guar gum” as a spray adjuvant.

"[American farmers] need a diverse toolbox of innovative agricultural technologies to manage crop disease, prevent resistance, and produce the affordable, nutritious food that feeds our country,” the EPA says, in a press release. “The draft Fungicide Strategy is designed to ensure those innovative tools remain available and that they are used in ways that protect the environment and endangered species.

How to Get Involved

In a push for transparency, the EPA has opened a 60-day public comment period to gather feedback from scientists, conservationists, Tribal partners and the agricultural community.

Public Comment: Stakeholders can review the strategy and submit formal feedback via (Docket: EPA-HQ-OPP-2026-2973) through June 29, 2026.
Informational Webinar: The agency will host a public webinar on May 20, 2026, at 2 p.m. ET to walk through the proposal and answer questions. Register here .

The EPA expects to review all public input and finalize the Fungicide Strategy by November 2026.

Farmers Emphasize Demand, Not Payments, Is The ‘Bridge To Better Times' For Agriculture

Wed, 22 Apr 2026 22:25:36 GMT

Two Midwest farmers are pinning their hopes for the future on stronger demand for corn and soybeans — especially the latter — as they navigate tight margins, high input costs, and an uncertain price outlook.

Northern Illinois farmer Steve Pitstick and south-central Iowa farmer Dennis Bogaards say they have exhausted most cost-cutting options for this season. They believe future profitability now rests on whether demand for both crops — particularly from domestic soybean crush and fuel markets — expands enough to support higher prices.

One silver lining currently, Pitstick says, is his relatively strong position on fertilizer heading into the 2026 planting season.

“We will do pretty much the dry spread program we always do,” he says. “We cut the rates a little bit on the phosphates just because of price. We booked our 32% in September, something we traditionally do. We have all the nitrogen bought, so I feel good about 2026 from that aspect.”

While he believes additional fertilizer is available, he notes it will likely be priced at a premium.

“I believe I can get more if I need it. I may not like the price, but I can get more,” he told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory during the weekly Farmer Forum segment.

Little To No Expansion On The Horizon

As the season begins, both farmers emphasize that the coming years will have farmers focusing on survival and strategic adjustments rather than acreage expansion.

One adjustment Bogaards is making is front-loading some of his nitrogen needs this season while leaving a portion open in case prices break.

“We booked anhydrous early on for this year, back in early fall, and got an OK price,” Bogaards says. “I have a little bit of sidedress that we do. We book about half of that, and I sit open on the rest of it. I’ll wait and see where it goes.”

Bogaards remains committed to sidedressing as long as product is available and prices do not continue ratcheting up. “If I can get it, I’ll put it on, unless it is a crazy, crazy price,” he says.

Like many U.S. growers, both Bogaards and Pitstick say there is virtually no room left to cut fertilizer use without risking yields.

“There is no place to cut back. We are being as efficient as we can be,” Pitstick says.

Bogaards agrees, noting that nitrogen is not the place to skimp. “Maybe a year or so, you can cut back on the P and K a little bit, but you do not want to get caught in three or four years of that.”

He also remains reluctant to drop fungicides. “Fungicides really pay off,” he says. “In the past, we did not use them, but the last few years they really paid, and I would hate to not spray them.”

Uncertainty About The 2027 Crop Mix

While the 2026 crop is largely “business as usual,” both farmers told Flory that 2027 brings real uncertainty—especially regarding nitrogen supplies. Pitstick is concerned about how global demand could impact costs for U.S. producers.

“I am worried about the price of the nitrogen,” he says. “It may not be an issue in the United States from a supply standpoint, but the rest of the world… could export our product because of opportunity cost, and that drives the price up. It is a total wait and see.”

Flory underscored how global trade flows directly shape what American farmers pay, noting that some fertilizer shipments originally destined for the U.S. were recently rerouted.

“Some boats are diverted from the U.S. to other countries,” Flory says. “If you want your share, you have to beat the next guy in line with the price.”

If nitrogen prices soar while corn prices stagnate, Pitstick says his rotation could shift. “That might change how we do things in 2027. We may have to go to more soybeans,” he says.

Bogaards also expects to alter his corn–soybean mix, given the potential demand from domestic crush and renewable fuels.

“In the past, we were probably 60% to 65% corn,” he says. “We have been backing off of that. I still do a little bit of corn-on-corn, but I might try to go to a 50–50 rotation.”

Flory believes this shift could help rebalance supplies and improve price prospects. “If we can pull some acres away from corn and get this thing rebalanced, maybe that is our bridge to a better time,” Flory says. “Our bridge to a better time is more demand across the board and crops competing for acres — not another payment.”

Bogaards says the shifting economics are already evident. “A couple of years ago, people said soybeans are a drag on our financial statements. It looks like almost the opposite right now.”

Even so, Bogaards is cautious about making long-term decisions based on short-term signals. “I can change acres right now, but by next fall, it might be the worst decision. I think you have to go with your rotation and stick with it.”

Pitstick links his long-term outlook to fuel sector growth, noting that both corn and soybeans increasingly function as energy crops.

“Some of the most profitable years of my career were when we had high fuel prices because we were also a fuel crop,” he says. “I have some optimism that these high fuel prices will cause some demand and increase our crop prices.”

For now, both farmers say their immediate job is to manage through 2026 while keeping their options open. With high costs for fertilizer, fuel, and machinery, they see expanded demand as the only realistic path forward.

“It is just survival at this point,” Bogaards says. “We just have to make sure we can survive and keep plugging through it.”

You can listen to the complete discussion between Bogaards, Pitstick and Flory on AgriTalk at the link below:

Why Traceability is Table Stakes in the Grain Business

Tue, 21 Apr 2026 14:48:45 GMT

With recently announced guidance from the Department of the Treasury, to support the documentation of agricultural production required to participate for Section 45Z tax credits, Bushel and Verity have integrated their on-farm data, sustainability modeling and compliance platform. Kimberly Bowron, president of Verity, and Jake Joraanstad, CEO of Bushel, explain what’s next for traceability in the grain business.

Lessons From The Field

Bowron says the pilot project at Gevo’s ethanol facility in Richardton, North Dakota, helps to illustrate the opportunities that are unfolding and how it will effect the entire supply chain. Its “farm-to-flight” program included 500,000 acres being loaded into the program with the farm-level attributes.
When it comes to farmer engagement in programs, she says it really boils down to three things:

Eliminate Duplicate Paperwork: Streamlining the administrative burden.
Data Sovereignty: Ensuring data is protected and ownership remains with the farmer.
Economic Clarity: Providing a clear, transparent financial upside.

“We’re learning that workflow is everything. And so if it feels like there’s extra admin work and uncertain payoff, participation sort of slows down. But if we can be clear about all of those things, then growers are very engaged,” she says. “I think another takeaway is just trust. Farmers really want to know exactly who’s seeing their data, so we like to be transparent about how that’s being used. And that transparency isn’t really optional for us. We want to be clear about the economic opportunity and the adoption.”

Bowron shares the supply sheds around the biofuels producer will be driven by the evolution of these programs, the value presented to the farmers, and how market-based opportunities continue to expand including carbon intensity, scope 3 emissions and more. But the common undercurrent empowering the conversation of what’s possible is transparency.

Joraanstad says traceability was once a long time ‘scary’ word in the grain business because of the difficulty in delivering the full origination of a kernel of corn through the supply chain.

“It just wasn’t practical,” he says. “But if you’re a biofuels plant in the future, if you can’t do this then you’re going to be losing to those who can.”

It’s the intersection of the real dollars of cents potential of tax deducations such as 45Z plus the technology advancing the digitization of records putting this new mandate on how to stay competitive and profitable.

“This has been a long time coming,” Joraanstad says. “But the truth is that all of the previous discussion around what data is required, there was a lot of voluntary effort, and let’s call it the first version of all of this effort.”

For the biofuels producers, Bowron says the digitization not only provides participation for the carbon credits or tax deductions but also the specialized markets.

“Verity’s real role is to take all that farm-level data, translate that into a field CI (Carbon Intensity), and then take that CI and attach it to a gallon in an ethanol plant,” Bowron says. So that you have a CI that attaches to that gallon. We also think about this in terms of different attributes, like practice attributes. ‘This gallon can go to Canada because it’s got all those attributes; this gallon can go to California.’”

While the 45Z guidance is helping proving an outline for the potential, it’s a whole new chapter. And one that is still being written. The final rule isn’t expected to be released before June.

“We’re still wanting some better final answers as we’re going through this,” Jooranstad says. “But now all of us can act with some confidence that that’s true and this is a requirement and it’s not just a hope and a dream.”

Both industry leaders says it’s important to note how 45Z works, especially that it’s the biofuel producer receiving the tax credit.

“This isn’t like an EQIP program. There’s no direct USDA payments that are happening. And for an ethanol plant, it’s actually a lot of work,” Bowron says. “They can’t sell the value of that tax credit for the headline price.”

The ‘hidden costs’ for ethanol plants include:

Discounted Value: Credits are often sold at 90-95% of face value.
Overhead: Costs include broker fees, legal counsel, and insurance wraps for audit protection.
Delayed Realization: Benefits are filed with taxes and often not realized until a year later.

Hear more from these industry voices in the latest Scoop Podcast.

The 20-Bushel Wake-Up Call One Farmer Is Using To Boost Soybean Yields

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 16:42:15 GMT

For years, Stephen Butz watched his corn yields climb while his soybeans stalled. The numbers didn’t lie: corn was steadily improving, while soybeans were “average at best,” he recalls, running hot and cold from year to year with no clear pattern.

“Our soybeans were just plateauing,” says Butz, who farms near Kankakee, Ill.

The turning point for Butz came several years ago on a 120-acre field split between two soybean varieties — 80 acres on the north side and 40 acres on the south. Everything matched: planting date, field conditions, management. The only difference was the variety planted.

At harvest, the 40-acre section of the field was 18 to 19 bushels per acre better.

A talk with Butz’s seedsman revealed the answer: the higher-yielding soybeans carried the Peking source of resistance to soybean cyst nematode (SCN). That single difference explained nearly 20-bushels-per-acre the farm had been losing to SCN for years.

“Honestly, it was just one of those deals where our seed guy had said, ‘Hey, this is a good number.’ So we’d planted the variety kind of naively,” Butz says. “But lo and behold, it was a huge benefit for us and showed us a problem we had on this farm and other farms, too.”

With the initial finding of SCN, Butz started soil testing to identify how significant the problem was across his farm. Surprisingly, soil tests revealed SCN populations ranging from the low hundreds to as high as 5,000 per sample.

“We’ve got a good amount of farms in that 3,000 to 5,000 count, which is an extremely high amount that I need to address,” says Butz, who samples fields ahead of planting.

Spring 2026: Going 100% Peking

After splitting acres for several years between non-GMO and Enlist soybeans, Butz made a decisive shift to the latter for 2026 as the non-GMO soybeans do not carry resistance to SCN.

“This spring, we are going with 100% Peking,” he says

For Butz, the move is less about chasing bonus bushels of soybeans and more about stopping the hidden losses SCN has been causing. He’s certain he’s left a lot of yield potential on the table in previous seasons.

“We’re not so much adding bushels (with the Peking) as we expect to relieve the stress that’s been taking bushels away,” he says.

Going all-Peking this season is only part of his management plan. The other piece is rotating more between corn and soybeans and, over time, between different SCN technologies, including Peking and PI 88788.

Butz’s cropping pattern follows a rough structure of thirds in any given year: about a third of his total acres in corn or soybeans and another third in continuous corn. That same structure drives his soil sampling schedule and will, in the future, he says, guide how he rotates SCN resistance traits across the landscape.

He also hopes to bring new technology into the mix, including the new SCN solution on the way from BASF Agricultural Solutions, called Nemasphere. It is the first-ever biotech trait designed specifically to address SCN.

Unlike traditional native resistance found in PI 88788 and Peking, Nemasphere is based on a transgenic trait — a Cry14 protein engineered directly into the soybean — explains Hugo Borsari, BASF vice president of business management for seeds in North America.

Beyond Yield: Logistics And Longevity

For Butz, the case for more soybeans, and especially better-protected soybeans, isn’t just agronomic. It’s logistical and financial.
Soybeans help spread out workload during planting and harvest, he explains, easing the strain of managing continuous corn acres. They also inject rotation into fields that might otherwise lean too heavily to continuous corn.

“Years of continuous corn in some spots is fine, but rotation is obviously better,” he said during a recent panel discussion hosted by BASF.

Like he found out by accident, Butz says he believes many other growers might be losing significant yield to SCN without realizing it.

“You might live in an area that you raise 75-bushel beans all the time, or 80-bushel beans, and that’s amazing. But what if the potential is 90 or 100 bushels?“ Butz asks. “There’s plenty of people out there that might be losing 10, 15 bushels off the top, and that adds up fast. You’re freaking losing $100 an acre pretty quick that would help a lot with your bottom line.”

Young Farmer Bets On ‘Lightning In A Tank’ To Tame His Fertilizer Bill

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 19:39:22 GMT

Farmer talk at the coffee shop often follows a predictable script: weather, grain prices and the eye-watering cost of inputs. But Carson Kahler, based in Martin County, Minn., is giving viewers of his 6th Gen Farmer videos on YouTube something more unique to discuss.

He’s decided to manufacture his own nitrogen.

“Starting my farming journey, I’m quickly realizing that there are certain things that I have to look at differently than a lot of other farmers do,” Kahler says. “One of those is the increased price in fertilizer and other inputs.”

While most corn and soybean growers are writing checks to their local co-op for all their nitrogen, Kahler is standing in his family’s machinery shed next to something he calls an “ugly conglomeration” of tanks and hoses. It’s a Green Lightning machine, a system that essentially tries to bottle a thunderstorm.

The Science Of The Spark

The technology behind the machine is an attempt to harness one of Mother Nature’s phenomenons. During a thunderstorm, a lightning strike generates enough heat and energy to break the incredibly strong triple bond that holds two nitrogen molecules together in the atmosphere. Once freed, the nitrogen atoms bond with oxygen and dissolve into falling raindrops. The result is a natural, nitrate-rich “fertigation” from the sky.

Kahler’s machine seeks to replicate this process in a controlled environment. By forcing compressed air, water, and electricity through a small chamber, it creates a miniature, continuous lightning storm. The output is water “high in nitrates” that can be stored and applied directly to the field.

For Kahler, the initial investment this past year was a calculated risk. Between the machine itself, the reverse osmosis unit to ensure water purity, the tanks, and the plumbing, he has approximately $10,000 in the system. His current unit is the smallest version available, rated to produce about 6,000 gallons of nitrate water annually. According to the manufacturer, that volume is equivalent to roughly 18,000 pounds of nitrogen.

However, as a young farmer who values data over marketing, Kahler isn’t taking those numbers at face value. “I took a sample out of one of my storage tanks and sent it over to the lab, and sure enough, it has nitrate in it,” he confirms. But knowing it’s there and knowing how the crop will react to it are two very different things.

Navigating Farmer Skepticism

Online, the reputation of Green Lightning is mixed. On forums like AgTalk, some farmers swear by it, while others say it’s a scam.

Much of the early failure associated with the technology stemmed from growers trying to use the nitrate water as a 1:1 replacement for traditional synthetic nitrogen. Research from Precision Planting’s PTI (Precision Technology Institute) Farm in Pontiac, Ill., backed up these concerns.

Precision Planting researchers have conducted a variety of tests on the Green Lightning technology at its Precision Technology Institute Farm based near Pontiac, Ill. More Info

(PTI/Carson Kahler)

Kahler points to data showing that in 2024, using the product as a total nitrogen replacement resulted in a nearly 45-bushel-per-acre yield hit, with similar disappointing results in 2025.

“When it first came out, a lot of people were thinking of it as a nitrogen replacer,” Kahler says. “But based on my research, that’s not the case.”

A Three-Pronged Strategy

Rather than asking the machine to do the impossible, Kahler has developed a strategy where the green lightning water acts as a supporting player — a utility player in his nitrogen lineup. He has identified three key areas where the product might provide a good ROI.

1. In-Furrow Advantage: Kahler modified his 12-row planter with two small tanks and a simple electric pump to apply the product in-furrow. One of the primary benefits of the nitrate water is its lack of salt.

“You don’t need to worry about burning the seed, burning the crops, creating a salt stress,” he says. “Also, if I have a leak or a spill or something, it’s not going to corrode my planter.”

He plans to run about 5 gallons per acre in-furrow, potentially pairing it with biologicals like Novonesis Torque IF. Based on PTI trials that showed a 3.5- to 5-bushel bump, Kahler is optimistic about the synergy.

2. Sidedress Blend The second pillar of his plan involves blending the product with UAN (28% or 32%) during sidedress. While the product performs poorly on its own, studies have suggested that when mixed with traditional nitrogen, it can enhance uptake. Kahler is planning a 70/30 ratio of UAN to green lightning.

Beck’s Hybrids 2025 research shows Green Lighting can replace a significant percentage of UAN:

Trial Insights: Beck’s PFR data shows that using Green Lightning as a starter (2x2x2) followed by a UAN sidedress was highly effective, yielding 207.6 Bu./A. However, when Green Lightning was used to replace the entire sidedress pass (UAN 2x2x2 followed by Green Lightning at V3), yields dropped significantly to 186.1 Bu./A.
Best Use Case: It is currently best utilized as a supplemental nitrogen source or to replace 25% to 55% of synthetic nitrogen. It excels as a “spoon-feeding” tool through foliar applications rather than a single bulk replacement for high-rate soil applications.

3. Water Conditioner: Perhaps the most overlooked benefit of the Green Lightning system, Kahler notes, is the water quality itself. Because the process starts with reverse osmosis water and ends with a product that has a pH of roughly 2.7, it could serve as an ideal carrier for fungicides.

“If you go and use a water that has a pH of 9, for example, the half-life of that fungicide… can go down to 2 minutes,” he explains.

By using the highly acidic, pure nitrate water as a carrier, he hopes to maximize the effectiveness of his chemical passes. “The water… is very pure, so it’s going to be able to be absorbed into the plant leaf a lot better than if you just took some well water and threw some AMS in it,” he estimates.

Dollars And Cents Have To Add Up

For Kahler, the math has to work. With electricity and water costs estimated at roughly 4 cents per gallon — or about 20 cents an acre — the operating costs are negligible compared to traditional starters that can run $20 to $30 per acre.

He is also being disciplined about his “nitrogen bill.” He doesn’t credit the green lightning for his total nitrogen needs in his primary calculations, treating it instead as a bonus or a conditioner. This conservative approach prevents him from under-applying traditional nitrogen and risking significant yield loss.

Despite the hurdles, Kahler remains a realist with an optimistic streak.

“If you add up all the small bushel increases from planting to fungicide, I think that there is a lot of potential efficacy for this product,” he says.

As the season progresses, Kahler will be watching his check strips and his storage tanks. He even has a safety valve in his contract that allows him to return the machine mid-summer if the results aren’t there. But for now, the 6th Gen Farmer is betting on the lightning.

“I’m pretty excited,” he says. “Sure hope it does good.”

Watch Kahler’s video on Green Lightning here:

‘If You’re Still Farming, You’ve Already Done Most of It’

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 14:26:35 GMT

On Chad Ingels’ northeast Iowa farm, every pass across the field is under the microscope as he fights to keep tight margins from slipping into the red.

“Oh, it’s tough,” Ingels said during an AgriTalk Farmer Forum discussion on Wednesday. “I think we’re going to have to really look at in-season passes that we planned to do. Maybe we’ll have to cut back one or two of those.”

Ingels, who splits his time between the farm and the Iowa Statehouse in Des Moines, says he can’t afford to simply slash expenses without weighing the risk to corn and soybean performance.

“You don’t want to impact yield,” he says. “You really want to take a look at what your return on investment is going to be on those passes.”

Across the Midwest, farmers like Ingels and Wisconsin grower and United Soybean Board director Tony Mellenthin are grappling with what they both describe as an “input price problem.” Corn and soybean prices have improved modestly from their lows, but fertilizer, pesticides and other inputs remain stubbornly high.

“I don’t think we necessarily have a corn or soybean price problem,” Mellenthin told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory. “We really have an input price problem, and until that can kind of get that addressed and fixed, that’s what I’m more concerned about than the price of corn and beans.”

Squeezing More From Every Dollar

On Ingels’ operation, the immediate response to high input costs is a sharper pencil and a more disciplined marketing plan.

In the field, that means reassessing every in-season trip across the crop. He’s eyeballing fertilizer or crop protection passes that might have been routine in good years, but now must clear a stricter bar: Will they pay?

On the balance sheet, Ingels says the focus turns to risk management and pricing discipline.

“Then it’s going to get to the marketing side,” he says. “We need to really do a better job of marketing corn and beans and — if we get a price run up — protect that run up so we can take advantage of it.”

The livestock side of the farm, he adds, is helping stabilize the operation, though it’s no windfall.

“The hog side is better than the crop side, but it’s not anywhere near like the beef side has been,” Ingels explains.

His hogs are sold into a specialty market through Niman Ranch, which ties its base price to grain and input costs.

“They’re setting a good base for us based on the corn and bean prices and our input costs,” Ingels says. “As we look out in the futures, the commercial price last year got higher than our base price, and so they adjusted our contract to say, ‘Hey, you’re going to get the better of the base price or the increased commercial price if the commercial price is higher.’”

That kind of contract flexibility, Ingels suggests, is one way the broader ag industry can help farmers weather volatile cost structures.

‘Not A Whole Lot Left To Do’

In western Wisconsin, Mellenthin says most of the fat has already been trimmed from farm budgets.

“If you’re still farming today, you’ve already done most of it, so there’s not a whole lot left to do,” he says. “There’s a little bit of tweaking to do, but I wouldn’t say there’s really any cuts to do.”

Instead of dramatic reductions, Mellenthin is stretching out capital decisions and switching to lower-cost inputs. That includes extending machinery trade cycles to delay big-ticket purchases and substituting generic fungicides for name-brand products when performance is comparable.

On the fertility side for corn, Mellenthin’s farm has been managing its nitrogen use through smaller, more targeted applications.

“We’ve been doing that for over a decade now,” he says. “There’s some of our ground that gets four passes of nitrogen.”

Recently, he’s begun to lean into alternative nitrogen sources to reduce dependence on high-priced synthetics. He points to biological products as one example.

“We have started utilizing some Pivot Bio,” he notes. “We haven’t seen a yield reduction, while at the same time reducing synthetic nitrogen, but we haven’t seen a yield gain, either. So I think we’re able to maintain there. And this year, that was the cheapest form of nitrogen a guy could buy.”

Policy and Industry: What Farmers Want Next

While individually they work to control what they can, both Ingels and Mellenthin are looking upstream — to input suppliers, processors and policymakers — to tackle what they can’t fix alone.

Regarding policy, Ingels points to the impact of global conflict and trade policy on fertilizer costs.

“There’s still some concerns out there with the war and how that’s impacted fertilizer prices going forward,” he notes. He adds that the greatest worry may lie beyond the current season to 2027, as farmers consider the next round of purchases.

During the discussion, Flory referenced efforts by the National Corn Growers Association and other ag organizations to push the administration to remove countervailing duties on phosphate imports from Morocco — one example of how farm groups are trying to pull down input prices through policy changes.

Ingels says those kinds of structural issues in fertilizer pricing could ultimately have more impact on future acreage decisions than anything farmers can do on their own fields this spring.

Demand, Renewable Fuels and Market Signals

Both farmers also stressed the importance of growing demand for the crops they produce, to help offset stubbornly high costs.

From his seat in the Iowa House, Ingels is backing measures aimed at strengthening markets for corn and soybeans, including renewable fuels. He references the Iowa Farm Act, saying it would increase the cap on the renewable fuels infrastructure fund grants to retailers from $100,000 to $150,000, and also help finance upgrades so more stations can offer E15 and higher ethanol blends.

“Retailers are taking advantage of that,” Ingels says “A few years ago, we had an E15 bill that went through… It certainly incentivized that all retailers handle E15 over time. And so this fund is being utilized all the time, and we’re trying to get to those last bit of retailers that maybe their costs are higher.”

At the federal level, though, Ingels is frustrated with delays on year-round E15 approval.

“This is the most frustrating thing I think the federal government has done to us,” he says. “They just keep kicking this down the road. We need to get it done.”

For soybean growers, Mellenthin is looking for similarly clear, long-term signals on low-carbon fuels.

In Wisconsin, he notes, lawmakers and the governor have already taken a supportive step by promoting “soy-based firefighting foam” to replace PFAS-based products. Nationally, Mellenthin wants to see the same kind of certainty for biomass-based diesel and other soy-driven fuels.

“We’ll take the good news when we can get it,” Mellenthin says of recent positive developments for biomass-based diesel. “Hopefully that could give a little certainty so infrastructure and investments can maintain being used.”