2023 Spring fertilizer outlook
University of Minnesota Nutrient Management Podcast Episode: “Spring fertilizer outlook”
April 2023
Written transcripts are generated using a combination of speech recognition software and human transcribers, and may contain errors. Please check the corresponding audio before referencing content in print.
(Music)
Jack Wilcox:
Welcome back to the University of Minnesota Extensions Nutrient Management Podcast. I'm your host, Jack Wilcox communications generalist here at the U of M extension. In this episode, we're talking about the spring fertilizer outlook. We have three panelists here with us today. Can you each give us a quick introduction?
Dan Kaiser:
This is Daniel Kaiser. I'm a nutrient management specialist and extension specialist at the University of Minnesota located out of the St. Paul Campus.
Brad Carlson:
Brad Carlson, extension educator, I work out of the regional office in Mankato, but work statewide as part of our water resources group, but I'm a soil scientist.
Jeff Vetsch:
Jeff Vetsch. I'm a researcher at the Southern Research and Outreach Center in Waseca, I do soil fertility research primarily in the southern half of the state.
Jack Wilcox:
Last year was an extremely dry year in many parts of Minnesota. Will that have repercussions on how fertilizer is managed this year?
Brad Carlson:
Well, if you take a look at the data from the soil moisture data out of the Lamberton Research Station, I know I always shared a graph from our state climatology office on that, and it showed a moisture deficit of nearly five inches of water. And so if we think about that, that's an awful lot of precipitation that's necessary before we reach field capacity. We often talk about the loss processes of nitrogen being water-based. And typically we don't carry nitrogen over from one year to the next, but when the soil's dry, actually there is that potential because we don't necessarily reach the point of saturation. And if you look at the historical data on nitrogen nitrate levels in the rivers in the Minnesota and the Mississippi River, you'll see that those numbers spike pretty much every year following a drought year. And so it does kind of give us some background info that indeed does happen.
And so kind of looking at it from a producer's perspective, if we've got a buildup of nitrate in the soil, whether that's just nitrogen nitrate that came from mineralized organic matter through natural sources that in a lot of years is lost but is not lost because it's been dry, or unused fertilizer for corn on corn, there is the possibility of taking a soil test and measuring for that. The last couple years, Minnesota Valley Testing Labs has been generous enough to share their testing information with us and for the people who submit the fall soil samples. And what we found this last year in the fall of 2022 was that nearly 80% of the samples that were submitted did have a credit. In fact, there was about a fourth of them that had nearly a full rate, 155 pounds nitrogen plus. It's worth noting that that's not a random sample.
That was folks submitting soil samples who suspected that they might have a credit. But that being said, if you're in a circumstance, particularly if you've got corn on corn where you might have unused fertilizer, or if you have a long-term manure history, a situation that's prone to mineralize a lot more nitrogen than what you normally would expect, there is a likelihood you're going to be able to find that. Now, the real caveat to all of that is, can we actually get a soil test taken this spring in a timely enough fashion to be able to make a management decision? And that's, I think, really where the question is. We know that we had a lot of snowfall. In fact, I think I saw something... I think Dennis Toddy or somebody put something out, that our drought is, by technical definition is over because of the amount of water received in the snowfall.
And we know that with the soils as dry as they were last fall, that there wasn't hardly any frost in the soil. And so as the snow has been melting here, we've not been seeing a lot of runoff. It does look like a lot of it's getting into the soil. I know where I live in Waseca County, my sump pump has been going off for a couple of weeks, and so definitely something's going on there. And so I guess the question is, what parts of the state are going to reach soil saturation? And if so, for how long is that going to have implications on nitrogen loss? It doesn't seem like there probably would be that significant, although we still have yet to see how much rainfall we get when it finally warms up. So that is a possibility, but the other aspect here of course is we're closing in on April now. And so, is it going to get dry enough to take a soil test?
And then when you get the results back, do you have enough time to make a management decision with that? And so I think we don't really know that yet. The one thing I guess I would remind producers is, particularly for your corn following soybeans, that's pretty forgiving as far as when you do a fertilizer application, if the soil conditions get to be right for planting, I'd worry about planting, and come back with the nitrogen application afterwards. We got a lot of capacity to put on urea over the top with a spin spreader after planting is done. That's not as big of an issue. And so from that aspect, if you haven't put your fertilizer on, you probably still are able to do a soil test if you're able to get that number and make an adjustment downward, particularly in the situations where you think it might be warranted.
Dan Kaiser:
Yeah. And we'll kind of see what the spring brings, because I don't know, do we have any idea from any of the stations where we're at in terms of saturation? Because I think that'll be one of the major questions, at least with leaching potential, if we do start getting some rainfall, if we're at a point in near saturation once all the snow goes, what that overall risk is going to be like in terms of leaching losses. So kind of time will tell with that. As far as the pre-plant nitrate tests, one of the things that I've been looking at is what data that we have out there right now kind of showing what kind of confidence we have in that test. Because with a lot of these nitrate tests, one of the issues that we have is that a lot of them are what we call more qualitative tests.
So they'll tell us kind of a breakpoint at which we have enough or we're too low, but the calibration side to tell you how much to apply beyond that is kind of where these things fall apart. And with the pre-plant test, one of the things we're looking at right now is what information we have in there, because we are right now, recommending credits just based on how our nitrogen, our recommendations are built that growers can use based on those tests. And I have seen some circumstances where we have seen, as Brad was talking, some of this data that's come back from these labs being really sufficiently high, and some of our data does show that looking at some sites where we get really high numbers, that we've seen no nitrogen response at those particular locations.
So what it really boils down to, I think now for us, since we are seeing these issues pop back again with these higher carried over residual nitrates where there were a few years where they're really low, we had more questions actually about adding more end just because of the value coming back lower, what confidence do we have in this data and in what we can use. So that's the thing really looking to me right now, where these dry conditions coming in is, especially nitrate because P and K really aren't going to be as much of an issue, I don't think.
There might be some lower potassium values just because of the residue recycling being poor. I don't think that's going to be an issue though this year if you're taking samples, and a lot of those are taking fall anyways.
So I think it's a good time now for us on the research side to start looking at these things, because with the scrutiny there is right now in ag, particularly with nitrates in the water, we need to know what options we have, when we get to years like this, that we can go in and look at giving growers some potential options maybe for cutting back in some areas that may be carrying some significant residual nitrate.
Jeff Vetsch:
We have the National Observer Network, and at the Research and Outreach Centers, also NOAA, National Weather Service weather stations, and we monitor the spring amount of precept that's in the snow pack. And here at Waseca we've had anywhere from two inches back in late December, or I'm sorry in late January, to as much as three and a half. But I would think statewide, we're kind of in that two inch to four and a half inch amounts of precip in the snow pack. Now, obviously we've lost a lot of snow pack, and a lot of that is gone and our numbers are much lower today. How much of that gets in the soil, the experts don't always agree, but it can be very little or it can be a significant amount. As Brad said, we don't have a lot of frost this year, but there's always enough to prevent infiltration.
And you see runoff. And I see lots of surface water ponding in some places, and I see a lot of drain ditches that are full. There's probably some tiles that are flowing because they've got surface tile inlets, but I don't think there's a lot of tile flow through the profile yet in most fields. So it's really going to come down to the next week or two to see how much of this water from this snowpack made it into the soil and how much of it did run off I think in these areas that, like Brad said, had five six inch deficits in their profile, unless we see a lot of rain in the end of it March, which really isn't in the forecast, or in early April, some of these fields will probably still have a deficit, and how that reacts to nitrogen is maybe it'll move some of that nitrate down a little bit in the profile, but not out of the profile.
Dan Kaiser:
And it's cold enough right now too that denitrification shouldn't be an issue. So that's one of the things to consider that. Even if we are saturated, that won't be as much of an issue. But yeah, we'll look and see what happens because I'm kind of hoping we've got a little bit better spring than we had last year, that we're not compressing everything into the back end of May for some of these areas to get the crops in the ground. But that's been the challenge with this residual nitrate, is we're seeing more of those higher numbers, is really what do those mean?
And it's one of the things that I'm really afraid of, if we start seeing some higher flow coming out, what we're going to see in some of the numbers coming out of the Minnesota River for the nitrate values because I have a feeling they'll be a little bit higher if we're carrying over more residual nitrate. So that's kind of the thing that...it'd be nice to have something out there at least taking some of the nitrate up if there is some residual, but we know that that really isn't going to happen until we start getting into June and July when that corn crop is growing, it'll start sucking most of that nitrate out of the profile that's there.
Brad Carlson:
So I guess just a reminder to everybody, that test is only testing nitrate. And so I know if for instance, if you're thinking about maybe putting out a half rate of fertilizer, and then coming back and supplementing with sidedress, or if you're just simply wanting to try and predict what's out there, if you had a long-term manure history, I should say, if you had a recent manure application, it is not necessarily going to find that. Because for instance, if you put on some urea, it's going to be very difficult to know exactly what form the nitrogen is in. If you put on manure last fall and you want to figure out what's out there, it's not going to test that either.
And so I know I threw out this concept about maybe you could get planting done and then worry about your nitrogen. You certainly can do that, but be careful if you end up doing some kind of a fertilizer application, and then take a soil test interpretation of those numbers could be very difficult. That moves into the territory that we would call a pre-sidedress nitrate test instead of a pre-plant test. And that's been very hard for us to interpret. I know, Dan, you've been looking at that a little bit lately.
Dan Kaiser:
And we're looking at that more in comparison with the pre-plant, just to see. As Brad said, if you look at fertilizer applications, since the majority of the fertilizer was applying or going straight to ammonium, that yes, technically it could pick it up, but there's really no way to quantify that in terms of what that means for the amount of N, I mean it's always based on nitrate if you look at the majority of these tests, even that pre-sidedress nitrate test. So that's one of the things to kind of consider. If you do put some on, it's best to let that convert so that pre-sidedress or maybe that PSNT, that one foot sample might be a better option if you've got some fertilizer already applied. We're looking at it now. One of the questions we have with the pre-plant nitrate test, it's always been more recommended as a fall test in the western part of Minnesota.
Now, there is some option that we have in our recommendations for south central, southeastern Minnesota more as a spring test. And I've looked at the fall, spring comparison because we do know they do change. The thing about the comparisons that we have with the limited data we have is that about half the time, it was higher in the spring, and half the time, it was lower in the spring. So there isn't any consistency in terms of that pre-plant nitrate test, if it's going to be higher or lower. And the sites where I said where it worked really well is a site that it tested. It was about 23 part per million, which we'd give a credit of close to 180 pounds of N, and that site had no response in nitrogen. And it was high in the fall. It was high in the spring.
So it's one of the things I'm looking at right now, particularly for south central and southeast, is whether or not the option might be to look at flagging some of those spots in the fields that might be extremely high that you may want to take another look at. Because I think certainly, if you have that option, prioritizing planning and coming back with a sidedress application. If there's a lot of residual nitrate there, we know the plant isn't going to take a whole lot up until starting maybe mid-June or so that it doesn't need a whole lot out there. So following up a pre-plant with a pre-sidedress might be a viable option if you can do at least a pre-plant before the initial fertilize is applied, or just to get... The screening of the areas, maybe some field areas that you might have higher residual nitrates.
So we're working on the pre-sidedress right now. It's, again, one of those tests where if you're 25, 26 part per million or above, you probably have enough nitrogen to get you through the season. If you're below that, then, again, it's a question of how much to apply. But we wish we had some better options out there. Some of the aerial imaging really to me hasn't been consistent enough where I would want to use it at all my acres, because most of the time, you have to apply such a low rate, and you have to sense later where you get to kind of that danger point of applying the nitrogen season two late where it might not get into the plant. So like I said, nitrogen's been a tough one to crack, because it seemingly should be simple, but with the mobile nature of that nitrate in the profile, some of these tests just haven't been completely bulletproof in terms of figuring out what a grower should be doing based on some of the numbers they're getting back from the lab.
Jack Wilcox:
If we are looking at a late spring, what considerations should growers be making regarding fertilizer?
Jeff Vetsch:
I think it comes down to keying on prioritizing what field operations they think are the most important. And that's going to be a little different for each grower, obviously based on their labor availability, their equipment availability, and the amount of acres that they farm. If you're in southern central or southeastern Minnesota and you're going to put on spring nitrogen, and if you're going to do it or if the retailer's going to do it. If the retailer's going to do it, it doesn't really matter what source, whenever you get around to work in those fields and planting them. If it's a pre-plant application of urea, obviously you don't want to leave that lay on the soil surface too long.
As Brad mentioned earlier, if it's a corn after soybean field and you feel that I don't want to wait any longer, I want to go ahead and plant that field, maybe it's to mid-May, but I haven't got my retailer there yet to apply, there's no reason that you can't go ahead and plant those fields without a spring end application. As far as P and K goes, I think generally most of that's been applied. The other major factor for most of these growers is manure. And you get these later springs, especially if it's wet in the spring, which obviously we had a dry fall, but we had a lot of snow, we had some rain. What's the rest of the next month going to bring us? Is it going to be wet? Sounds like that's going to continue based on short-term trends. That manure, spring manure application can be a challenge, and that's something that has to be done because you've got pits that are full. You can't leave it for later, and you really have no options, or very few limited options for putting it on after planting.
So what I see happen often is we set aside some acres, and those are the last ones we're going to put manure on. And maybe we go back and plant our other acres first and do everything else before we get to those acres that the manure's going to go on. And during that time, maybe we try to get that manure on and plant those acres last. Whether that's the best solution and whether those fields are going to perform well, and it all depends upon the time that it takes and how late it is to plant. One thing that Tom, my office mate, says is that the last few years, or actually several years, some of this mid to later planet corn is still done very well. And I think the panic that we used to have that we can't get all our corn in by the first week of May, I don't see that as big of a yield, potential penalty as it once was. So that's something to consider too.
Dan Kaiser:
Yeah, that's one thing I noticed last year, Jeff, too. Even with some of our late planted beans, how well they did, I was kind of surprised. We had some fields that went in around Memorial Day, and they still did very well. So with fertilizer application, we'll see. I have really no read on how much went down last fall. Normally, the last... You look at I think not maybe the Fall of '21, we saw a lot of particularly nitrogen go down because there's a lot of concern about supply and availability going into Spring. We look at now I just pulled up some of the DTN numbers, and this was only through March 3rd, we're recording the end of March, seeing some significant downward trends in a lot of the fertilizer markets too, to see kind of...
So it'd be interesting to see some growers kind of pull the trigger on putting some fertilizer down that may have been holding off on that. It'll mainly affect the P and K, I think more than anything because I think your nitrogen decisions have probably been pretty well made. One of the questions we do get from time to time is on in-furrow starter. Particularly that always comes from earlier plannings, but also later plannings whether or not there's a significant advantage from delayed plannings to try to get the crop out of the ground quicker. And we really don't see that as much. We had some studies that's been probably I think 10 years ago, but I think it's still pretty applicable if you look at it. We were looking at different relative maturities at three different planning days, looking at late April, remember around that May 10 timeframe, and then late May, closer to Memorial day, and really didn't see any advantage from earlier late plannings from that starter application.
And really starter, when it comes down to it, it's a lot of cosmetic growth anyway. Unless you're maybe in the western part of the state, or south central dealing with high pH issues, that most time if you've got enough broadcast on, that in-furrow probably not going to have give you an advantage either. So I'm sure that will come up a little bit with some growers if we do get compressed here a little bit for Spring about not wanting to deal with some of these things like starter, but we'll see. And it's interesting looking at these fertilizer prices drop. They're still going to remain strong with the commodity prices where they're at. That's just kind of the way it is. The marketing, a lot of these products tends to maintain around a certain price ratio to the commodity prices, but seeing them come down at least a little bit is kind of nice, particularly looking at potash and map and dap maybe not coming down quite as much, but potash being one of those.
So we'll see what happens. Like I said, we're kind of on that early stage. We'll see what happens here in April when some of the new reports come out to see where things are at and see how that affects some of the grower's decisions.
Jeff Vetsch:
Yeah, Dan. I think the one thing that is trending downward, which is a good trend, and it may continue, is the nitrogen price. And when you look at the future prices and the trading of natural gas, it's kind of at its lowest market level that it's been in a couple years. So that probably isn't going to impact this year's fertilizer prices, but it hopefully will impact next year's fertilizer prices if that continues throughout the rest of the spring and summer. I would think the manufacturing might start to crank up again if the prices stay at those levels.
Brad Carlson:
The one wildcard in a lot of this was just simply how dry it really was last fall and how much wear and tear there was on application equipment. I know there's parts of the state where application rigs were brought back out of the field just because they were breaking shanks and knives so badly. And I think then obviously, the retailers were looking at wanting to move that application to the spring, and now that it's looking like it's going to be a little late of a spring. I guess we just don't really know how that's going to play out as far as whether they're going to still want to stick with that anhydrous or if they're willing to just sit on that. Unfortunately if they're sitting on a lot of product and the prices are falling, they're going to end up losing money on it. So I'm not quite sure about that.
But then we've got the whole area of the state and the southeast corner where we don't do fall application anyway, and so that's going to pretty much be business as usual. I guess really, in the end, you're just going to need to have some conversations with your retailer about how they're going to handle this. If you thought you were going to get fall nitrogen on and didn't this looking like for the spring? Are they going to hold you to that anhydrous commitment and you're just going to have to sit around and wait for that to get on, or are they willing to move off of that and move into some other things? There's probably going to be some regional differences in that.
Jack Wilcox:
Is there any new research on fertilizer products like biologicals or inhibitors that Minnesota growers should be aware of?
Dan Kaiser:
So this is going to be one of the things that's going to come up again this spring are these biologicals, just because of the marketing being pretty strong on a lot of these products. And I didn't look at anything last year. Most of the research we had was... Funding was cut. But if you're looking at a lot of comparison trials, particularly just looking at your standard rate minus maybe a certain amount with a biological, these last couple years have been years that you're less likely going to see any difference in those yield. And I think a lot of that has to do with some of that residual nitrate carryover. It doesn't prove that the products work. It's one of the things that I've been really focusing with a lot of the people I've been talking to on this. If you're doing some of these comparisons, if you're cutting your rate back and putting a product on, don't just compare it to your standard rate, make sure you have that cut rate without the product just so you know that the product actually works.
Because looking at the product, since a lot of them now are priced based on the price of nitrogen, and you see they might be just a certain percentage of what the current market price is, what they're going for, it's still a pretty significant cost. So looking at it, looking at a lot of our data, I have not seen anything in any of these products that shows that they're a clear winner right now. And in the lab, the mode of action, what they're supposed to do, and they probably do work, but once you get things to the field, all bets are off. And looking at all the data we've had with many of these, dating back even 10 years or so, we've been looking at some of these fertilizer enhancers, there just isn't anything clearly out there that we'd be recommending because I would be recommending if it does work.
So that's one of the things. I think there's still some caution there, depending on where your nitrogen rates are at. If you're kind of close to that optimal N rate for a given field cutting back, could see some significant issues. But if we are carrying residual nitrate, I think that can kind of buffer some of that issue. It doesn't necessarily mean that the products work, but I think we're going to kind of see more and more of that right now within the next few years, what's going to happen with some of these markets, because there's been a lot of testing out there. Talked to a lot of consultants over the winter that have been doing testing, and if they're not seeing a whole lot in terms of benefit, I think you're going to start to see some of this farmer interest, maybe wain a little bit from some of the fervor that there was early on, but there's certainly a lot of products out there.
So that's the main thing I have. In terms of inhibitors right now, Jeff I know has done more work on that, but really going into spring, it's not probably anything I'd be as concerned about. Unless we start getting into maybe some later applications, you may want to consider some product with NBPT in it. That's essentially the generic of what's in Agrotain if you're doing any surface applications of urea. Particularly as we go later into June, if it starts to get warmer, we get more humidity around in the air, that's where I'd be more concerned about it. But in terms of new products out there, there's not really anything new that I know coming into this year.
Jeff Vetsch:
Yeah. Dan, when it comes to nitrification inhibitors and spring application, we rarely see net or any return on investment to those very consistently. So with spring applications, probably not going down that nitrification inhibitor path very far. But yeah, the urease inhibitors are important. If you're going to start putting this urea on the surface. If you get in a situation where you plant some fields and then broadcast fertilizer on top, then that that's probably something that you do need and will give you a return on investment.
Dan Kaiser:
So Jeff, do you see any actual clear benefit from any of these urease inhibitors with UAN? I know you've done some work. I've normally kind of told most growers, if they're banding, it's probably less of an impact, but some of your data may have shown maybe some little bit of an impact, but I've just never really been high on those. It's mainly been with dry urea where I've kind of made my focus for growers for recommendations.
Jeff Vetsch:
Yeah, that's a good question, Dan. So we've had some studies where we've looked at higher rates of UAN applied, kind of like a full N rate or full sidedress rate, not a smaller amount. And in those circumstances, occasionally the urease inhibitors would provide a benefit. But if growers are putting a little bit of UAN as a carrier for pre-emerge herbicides, or if they're side dressing a smaller amount in a surface band or with Y drops, the urease inhibitor benefit there I just think is fairly negligible when you're talking about a lower rate to begin with. But also when you're talking about products that are applied, or the urease products being a certain amount per ton, you're not going to spend that much either if your nitrogen rate is lower. So there's kind of pros and cons there, but I would generally agree that if you're worried about your volatilization with UAN, it's probably not as big of an issue as it is with urea.
I think one of the things you need to be thinking about with UAN is broadcasting it across the surface and just getting immobilization concerns, especially if you've got high residue environments and you're putting it in a broadcast application. That's where I've seen it perform poorly more often than not.
Brad Carlson:
So I guess I'd like to go back a little bit about the biologicals because there's something related to that stuff from some of our past experience dealing with precision agriculture technology that I think is really relevant, and that is to critically think about what you're trying to accomplish with these products. And so for instance, when we looked at some of the precision ag stuff, the verbal rate nitrogen for instance, what we discovered is in a lot of cases, we were already maximizing yield. And so really the only profit that was to be had was by reducing inputs. And so if you look at the way a lot of these biologicals are advertised, it's actually very similar. They're talking about reducing your fertilizer inputs. So I think farmers have to realize these products probably aren't going to increase their yields. They're meant to perform some other function, whether that be potentially breaking down residue or it's just, in some ways, replacing your fertilizer inputs.
So you do have to kind of realize that the profit on a per acre basis is just going to be related to those reduced inputs. It's not going to be because of bushels in the grain bin in the fall. And so it does potentially limit what you're going to get from these products. And so I think philosophically, producers, if they want to make an investment in these products, if they decide that they work or that they want to try them, have to also be realizing that that's about the only way they're going to actually make money off of these things, is somehow it's going to impact their total crop budgets, but probably not yields. The other angle on this also, coming from some of my work with precision ag, one of the newsletters that I get, an email newsletter discussed some of the nitrogen advisory tools that were very popular five, six years ago.
A lot of these products have left the market, and the person that writes this newsletter or wrote an editorial ballot suggesting that and the level of farmer adoption wasn't enough, the profit wasn't enough, and therefore, while some of these products we kind of felt they actually kind of worked. Because in a lot of cases, they were telling a supply less in. And when we were evaluating and we were not seeing a yield difference, and so it seemed like maybe they're making accurate recommendations, yet the tools disappeared anyway. And the person that wrote this newsletter suggested that there was a kind of shelf life or turnaround time on investment on this stuff where if you get to seven to 10 years after these things have been developed and they're still not turning a profit, that some of just the basics in the financial world on this kind of stuff is that they're just going to cut bait and run away.
And so I tend to wonder where we're at with the biological stuff because of the investment in it and how long they've been looking at these things. And so I don't know the answer. If the industry's got the staying power to stick with it until they get these things figured out to where they work and they're reliable, or if we're going to get a few more years down the road and they're just going to say, "Never took off, we're done," and walk away from them. But I do know that... I won't throw anybody under the bus, but I did talk to somebody in industry who said that they had some messages from corporate that some of their investments had better start returning or they were just going to pull the plug on some of this stuff. And so I guess we do need to look with a bit of a weary eye on some of these products, whether they actually are doing what they say, or whether somebody's saying, "Well, we do have a product, let's just see if we can sell some of it and get some of our money back."
Jack Wilcox:
Are there any last words from the group?
Brad Carlson:
Oh, I guess I'll just wrap up by saying... Something I've been reminding Farmers of lately is that we're available to answer questions. We've all got different roles, I would say, that probably... Jeff probably has the least amount of time to be sitting by his phone answering farmer calls. But from my perspective, with the stuff I do, I have a lot of time to be able to do that because my schedule's fairly flexible. So don't feel like you're out there in the vacuum. If there's things you want to bounce off of us, we're willing to take those calls or emails. If we can't answer them, we'll try and be honest about that. And if you just want our two cents, I'm always willing to do that too.
Jack Wilcox:
Alright, that about does it for this episode of the Nutrient Management Podcast. We'd like to thank the Agricultural Fertilizer Research and Education Council, or AFREC, for supporting the podcast. Thanks for listening.
(Music)
