 Before we dive into the video about the Jorgensen's eye-popping fertilizer savings, we had some feedback from viewers that said, well what about timing? Is there some sort of transition or did they get these savings instantly? Brian Jorgensen wrote back and gave us this perspective. I have learned that organic matter in your soil is very important when it comes to lowering applied nutrients. My benchmark is three percent. If soils are less than three percent organic matter, they will require more nutrients to feed the system. When we take over new acres it often takes over five years to really get the system cranked and that allows us to lower our applied nutrients. Of course no-till diverse rotations and cover crops will enhance the process of improved soil health and nutrient efficiency. Now let's carry on with the video. In this third video on the Jorgensen landing cattle case study, Nick provides us with another key analysis. I did actually an interesting analysis that we I don't know that we had ever done before but we looked up so fertilized recommendations that you get from University based off of let's just say 160 bushel corn yield. So we figured out what it would cost us to put down the necessary fast necessary nitrogen and then we looked at what we actually do which is astronomically less. So chemical cost or excuse me, nutrient cost on our recommended system, university recommendations, we'd spend about a hundred dollars on nutrient per acre. Would that include your nitrogen? That's that is applied nitrogen and applied phosphorus. Okay. And this is on the margin so I'm not going to count all that we would do anyway. Exactly. So that we're looking at those two differences only. A hundred dollars an acre. Under our current system we spend all about 50. So there again we're looking at about a $50 savings in our system. So we take those two together, the reduced operations and the reduced nutrient that we're applying. You know we're saving somewhere between 75 and nearly a hundred dollars an acre. So then it starts you start to get into the marginal cost of the crop that we're raising. So we reduced our inputs pretty obviously by pretty stark numbers. So then the question comes is alright have you seen yield drag? Well the answer is no we haven't. For the nutrient case that I just discussed, the crop of corn that we raised under those under our application conditions, we raised a hundred and sixty-eight bushel corn. So we actually outdid the goal that the nutrient recommendations would have given us applying less than half of what they told us to. So we haven't seen yield drag. So what we've really done is we are the least cost producer. And for us that's imperative because we raise corn for feed, we raise most of our crops for feed and it allows us to put a cheaper feed into the room of our animals. But really for any operator, it's pretty hard to argue that lower cost is not better. So that's you know that's that's the rough models that we've come up with. You can start talking more about the complexities and really the intangibles that exist that even make the system more attractive to us. But those are the hard costs that we have studied and analyzed. I know what you're thinking. There's no way as you can keep that up for more than a year, maybe two maybe three years tops, right? Check out the next video in this series. It may blow your mind. See you soon.