Choosing a regeneratively focused agronomist and recognizing the superiority of biological products will help your farm thrive, both this year and for the long term
Farmers across the world have faced the tsunami of geopolitical and weather-related issues impacting their bottom line in 2025. If navigating the decisions resulting from these uncontrollable forces was not enough, we now enter 2026 with confusing messaging across the industry, which can be summed up by one question: “What system and products are best for the longevity of my farm?”
An even better question may be this: “What products and system changes give my farm the best chance to survive the storm?”
The industry is alive with buzzwords — regenerative, regenerative organic, organic, conventional, sustainable, greenwashing, and more. Every well-known and long-standing company has tried to capture some of the regenerative momentum and has marketed both new and existing products in that category. New companies entering the biological and mineral nutrition space seem to show up daily on social media and in web searches. Farmers with large social media followings interject their opinions and product selections as well, with some even charging for their information.
With this overload of products and information, where should the average farmer start in 2026? With growers looking to cut production costs in most cases, add-on products need to be vetted carefully.
As 2025 comes to a close, my days as an agronomist are spent visiting clients and discussing what has worked and what has not. The takeaway has been fairly consistent: most growers are looking to cut budgets in 2026 while maintaining yields, while others are looking to boost yields without increasing budgets. There is no one-size-fits-all answer to either of these goals, but there are a few basic concepts most growers can follow.
Choosing the Right Agronomist
This decision is one of the most personal, important and game-changing choices a farmer can make. The days of the independent agronomist in most areas have all but vanished. In my local four-county area, it is difficult to find a true independent agronomist.
When I began my career, I worked as a Field Sales Representative for a national retailer, and part of my job was scouting fields and making recommendations. It should come as no surprise that my recommendations — and those of my coworkers — were influenced by management’s directive to push products that produced the highest margins. Many growers online are now sounding alarms about this practice. A common example is selling herbicide at cost because the company will make its profit on manufacturer rebates and multiple required adjuvants in the tank.
In today’s regenerative space, you must find an agronomist who truly understands how to manage living systems. I’ve had success pairing a traditional field scout who conducts weekly field checks with my role in building a regenerative nutrient management plan. When decisions are backed by soil tests, field notes, and sap tests, the grower and consultant can have honest conversations and make informed decisions.
The Product Path to Regenerative
John Kempf’s goal is to have 80 percent of farms following regenerative practices by 2040. That may seem lofty, but in my experience many growers are already headed in that direction — sometimes without realizing it. They are often only a few adjustments away from operating largely within a regenerative framework, and many of those adjustments relate more to product selection than sweeping operational changes.
Regenerative purists will champion reduced tillage, cover crops and livestock integration, yet many operations simply cannot accommodate one or more of these changes. For example, no-till is not feasible in commercial vegetable production, and integration of livestock is prohibited in much of the industry due to food-safety regulations. While some factors are outside our control, we can choose the fertility management system we use.
The beauty of a modern regenerative system is that logistics do not need to shift dramatically from conventional approaches. Equipment modifications — such as switching from an orifice to a metering tube on the planter — may be needed, but timing and processes generally remain familiar. Most growers simply need to slow down and recognize that some products are alive and require more care in application.
Biological vs. Soluble Fertility
When I began my career in 2004, in-furrow applications were just gaining traction. I compare the adoption of in-furrow fertility to the market disruption we are experiencing today.
Biological starters are performing as well as — and in many cases, better than — soluble fertilizer systems. The first time I trialed a biological system, I was convinced it would fail. Early in the season, crops fed with traditional 10-34-0 were clearly outperforming the biological application, and our agronomy team was ready to call it a loss.
Fast forward to ear development and grain fill, and the comparison had reversed. Plant height was identical, the biological system was no longer behind, and the benefits of biological nutrition were becoming clear: greener plants later into the season, delayed black-layer formation, and lower incidence of disease. These results have been repeated across multiple seasons in Kansas. Now the question becomes: how do we push yields higher and improve profitability?
With soluble fertility, the plant essentially visits the fast-food buffet. Nutrients are abundant and instantly accessible, requiring little effort. When the supply ends, though, so does healthy growth.
Biological fertility operates differently. The plant communicates with the soil’s microbial community, triggering the microbes to locate and deliver the nutrients required. While this process is slower at first, it creates season-long access to nutrients and avoids shutting down plant-soil communication via excessive soluble inputs. A soluble-fed crop sprints; a biologically supported crop runs the marathon.
Invest in a Living System
When comparing systems early in the season, it is tempting to assume the soluble program will win due to faster growth. But what matters is performance at harvest. Biological programs consistently prove they can compete with soluble systems while often allowing lower total input costs. They not only support the current crop but contribute to long-term improvement of the soil system.
A farm that reaches this level of soil function becomes more efficient and profitable — even if yields do not increase. I often tell growers that if I do my job correctly and they stay committed to the long game, their purchases from me will gradually decrease.
Invest in a living system, and your soil will pay you back with interest.
