 This is the SugarBeat Report bringing you the latest information from MNDSU throughout the SugarBeat growing season. Today we're talking about nutrients. What are some of the options, especially with falling prices? Joining us is Daniel Kaiser, University of Minnesota Extension Soil Scientist. Daniel, market trends have fertilizer prices dropping. So what should producers be thinking about this spring for current fertilizer applications or for plans for the fall? Well, you know, it kind of depends on where they're at right now. If you've already got decisions made with fall applications, we're kind of missed the boat on things. It is good to see some of the prices going down, particularly for nitrogen. I don't think it affects SugarBeat as much because we don't use price ratios, particularly for nitrogen for managing the crop. But I think the big question for beet growers will be looking at residual nitrate trends. If you are looking at that, because that's been the biggest question in the last couple years, with the dry years, how much residual nitrate we're carrying over. Now I was just looking at some of the data from closer to the southern region and the northern region from NVTL and AGVICE. And the numbers have really been trending down. I was kind of surprised looking at some of the median values, particularly from NVTL. I would expect that a lot of the growers in the southern region, if they're following corn to have potentially higher residual nitrates, just because we tend to see that in the last few years, but that hasn't been the case. I still think for growers I would be paying attention to that. For what you have, for current guidelines, it hasn't really changed. So I'll be evaluating that moving forward, as I've been collecting more of the data from some of the past researchers working on SugarBeat in northern and southern Minnesota. But no major changes right now. I think the main thing for fall will be anybody that's been holding off on phosphate and potash applications. If the prices do tend to trend downward, I would just be rechecking some of your soil tests, especially if you've had some fields you've gone a little leaner than normal on, just to see where things are at. Because I would suspect we'll see things moderating around a .1 price ratio. It's kind of what we see a .1 price ratio in relation to the corn price for most of our nutrients. And if that's the case, I guess I would just be reevaluating the soil tests. If you get a chance maybe going into some fields, maybe a little earlier than normal. For Beat specifically, I don't think you're going to see any surprises in what's in the current production guide. That's kind of what we've been looking at focusing on. But I'll be evaluating that moving forward as I get more geared up with SugarBeat research. Outside of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, are there any other nutrients that we should look at this spring? Well, it's going to depend on what we see. Sulphur is always the one that tends to come up more often than not. Last year, you know, going up north around Crookston, when we got kind of some of the crops in late, I was seeing more sulfur deficiencies on corn. I wouldn't expect it with SugarBeat. And a lot of our data really doesn't show much of a benefit to sulfur for SugarBeat production. In many of those soils, and particularly with a crop that is a deep taproot, you've got a lot of sulfate probably deeper in the profile, which I wouldn't really expect much of an issue with that nutrient unless you've got some pretty sandy soils. The other thing that tends to come up more often than not is boron. We did hear some talk that's been a couple of years ago of some low boron tissue concentrations in some of the sandier soils. I'm still not recommending widespread applications of microbes. I mean, boron is one of them. If you do have very sandy soils with low organic matter, I mean, certainly you could see some lower tissue concentrations, but I don't know if that's a result of it being actually lower, just the dry weather, because we tend to see dry weather and low tissue concentrations come into play. And the other one is manganese. That one does come up as well. You know, looking at a lot of the stercospora treatment, some of them will contain manganese applications as a foliar. I just wouldn't really be too concerned about it. I think really looking at your basics, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium is really what you're going to want to look at because it's really where you're going to make the most of your money when it comes to either increases in tonnage, recoverable sugar, when we start looking at these other things, it just isn't a high enough chance of return on investment. Are biologicals something that growers should be considering to incorporate into their fertilizer programs? Biologicals are one of those interesting things that, you know, I'm getting a lot of questions on it, but there just isn't a lot of data on specific products. Just looking at a lot of these are geared towards corn. I mean, when we start talking about other crops, there's a lot of unknowns. The thing I can say about a lot of these products is inconsistency. Most of the data shows, if you look at independent research, no effect on any sort of yield parameters or quality parameters. I mean, I don't think they're going to hurt you. The issue is I don't think they're going to consistently help you. If you've got some extra money to kind of play around and look at doing some testing, I certainly think there's some value in that. But right now, I just wouldn't be relying on them for any major nutrient contributions on an annual basis. Thanks, Daniel. Our guest has been Daniel Kaiser, University of Minnesota Extension Soil Scientist. This has been the SugarBeat Report, bringing you the latest information from NDSU throughout the SugarBeat growing season.