The Rest of the Story…

Editorial by ALGL Agronomist Jamie Bultemeier

Time has faded the memories of Paul Harvey’s radio program, but there was tremendous wisdom within it. The key to his storytelling style was holding back one key fact or element of the story until the end of the program. Paul Harvey revealed the missing link at the very end of the program, making the story or message complete. We don’t always get that missing link in agriculture, and often the audience does not want to find it. They prefer the story as it is.

Each summer, I am fortunate enough to attend and participate in a variety of events as they pertain to soil and crop fertility. Over the past few years, I have found more “data” and fewer statistics and research fundamentals. This is not an article on statistics or research design. The greater concern is the misleading messages supported by this “data.”

I get it. Stats are boring, and taking time to explain the research study behind the data is a buzzkill to a fast-paced presentation. But sometimes we need to slow the pace and fully explain the results so that the “data” is not misleading.

One such example from this summer was a farmer presenting at a field day and sharing the impacts of soil conservation on their farm. One of their key messages was that through no-till, cover crops, and improved management, they had improved soil structure and increased organic matter. The farmer had a data table showing the farm’s average soil organic matter over more than a decade, and it was increasing. This same data table also displayed the averages of several other soil test parameters, and comments were made to illustrate the shifting of soil test nitrogen and phosphorus from inorganic forms to organic forms.

The producer then went on to their next key point, noting that this new farming style afforded them the ability to reduce nitrogen rates by 60% and eliminate phosphorus fertilizer applications. The fertilizer application rates had been decreased in small increments over the past 10–15 years while maintaining yield. The crowd of fellow farmers was buzzing with excitement about the idea of massive reductions in fertilizer application rates. This would be a significant reduction in production costs at a time of low commodity prices. The presenter attributed these fertilizer reductions to improvements in soil health.

The unasked question was, “How is this possible?”

 Their soil test phosphorus levels were several times higher than the levels requiring phosphorus fertilizer, and 6–8% Illinois soil did not require 250 units of N to produce an average corn yield to begin with. The farm had historically been over-fertilized, and proper soil testing had now resulted in appropriate fertilizer application rates.

Now you know the rest of the story.

But this story doesn’t end here…

The fertilizer reductions achieved had nothing to do with increased soil health. The nutrient reductions could have been achieved decades ago with sound nutrient management. Because of elevated soil fertility, there was little to no risk in making these cuts.

Most of the farmers in the room did not have the same high phosphorus levels and/or high organic matter levels, nor a critical understanding of soil fertility, yet they eagerly wanted to believe that increased soil health would allow them to make these same nutrient application reductions while maintaining, or even increasing yield.

It may. But what if it doesn’t?