Reducing Synthetic Fertilizer: Lessons from a Saskatchewan Grain Farm
- May 15
- 10 min read
Summary
A Saskatchewan grain and cattle producer is using a foliar melted-urea program, cleaner spray water, and integrated livestock to cut synthetic fertilizer inputs by 40–50% over five years — while matching neighbour yields. Lance credits a combination of a smaller upfront fertilizer base, in-crop foliar passes, spray-water treatment, and livestock integration for helping reduce purchased fertilizer while maintaining productivity on his farm. Read more below.
Watch the webinar
This article is built from a SaskSoil webinar with Lance Walker, a Saskatchewan grain and cattle producer who is steadily reducing his farm’s reliance on synthetic inputs. The full recording is embedded below — listen for Lance’s discussion of melted-urea rates, the role of spray-water quality, and how he is integrating his cattle and grain operations.
Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/lMxvCCvVlt4Â
This article reflects one producer’s on-farm experience and should not be interpreted as a universal fertility recommendation. Fertility decisions should be made field by field with appropriate soil testing and agronomic support.
What does “reducing synthetic fertilizer” actually mean on a Saskatchewan grain farm?
Reducing synthetic fertilizer on a Saskatchewan grain farm means lowering the total pounds of nitrogen, phosphate, potash, and sulphur applied per acre while keeping yield, profitability, and soil function intact. It is a systems decision, not a single product swap — and it usually involves stacking small efficiency gains across timing, placement, water quality, and biology.
For Lance Walker, that has meant cutting inputs roughly in half over five years on the grain side of his farm — not by removing fertilizer outright, but by trimming the upfront base, adding well-timed foliar passes, and fixing the water that carries the fertilizer to the plant.
It is also a long-term mindset. Lance frames it as moving toward the next era of agronomy:
“Petrochemicals were not a part of agriculture 100 years ago, and 100 years from now I doubt they’ll be a part of it. So it’s a tool right now, but it’s not the be-all, end-all. We’re just learning as we go.”
How much can a grain farm cut fertilizer without losing yield?
A Saskatchewan grain farm can cut synthetic fertilizer inputs in the range of 40–50% without losing yield when the reduction is paired with foliar in-crop applications, improved spray-water quality, and stronger soil biology. That number is the five-year result on Lance Walker’s farm, and it reflects a broader Prairie focus on improving input-use efficiency and return on investment, rather than simply maximizing fertilizer rates.
“We’ve lowered our inputs on the grain farm by 40 to 50% in the last five years. We’re still maintaining yield. We’re using less than half as much fertilizer as our neighbour and achieving the same yields — and still have crops that consistently stand up and can be harvested easily.
— Lance Walker, Saskatchewan producer, SaskSoil webinar (April 29, 2026)
What changes when inputs drop and yield holds:
Net margin per acre rises. With high grain prices and high fertilizer prices, every avoided pound of urea or DAP flows to the bottom line.
Risk profile shifts. A smaller upfront base means lower exposure to a price spike or a dry year that strands the input in dry soil.
Soil function gets a chance to recover. Lower fertilizer loading at seeding may reduce seedling stress in some situations and can be part of a broader soil-health strategy.
What is a foliar-melted urea program, and how is it applied?
A foliar melted urea program is the practice of applying dissolved urea — sometimes called melted, liquid, or dissolved urea — directly to the leaves of a growing crop in two or three in-crop passes, instead of placing all of the season’s nitrogen in the ground at seeding. Foliar urea can be absorbed through leaf tissue and may help supplement nitrogen during periods of peak crop demand.
“For the last two years our base rate has been around 30 to 50 pounds of nitrogen up front, 20 pounds of phosphate — and that’s really it for macros. Then we have in-crop applications of melted urea, 10 to 20 pounds per acre each pass.”
— Lance Walker, SaskSoil webinar
Lance Walker’s current fertility program (per acre)
Application | Product | Rate (per acre) |
Upfront at seeding | Nitrogen (urea-based) | 30–50 lb N |
Upfront at seeding | Phosphate | 20 lb Pâ‚‚Oâ‚… |
In-crop foliar pass #1 | Melted urea + carbon source | 10–20 lb N |
In-crop foliar pass #2 | Melted urea + carbon source | 10–20 lb N |
In-crop foliar pass #3 (as needed) | Melted urea + carbon (± micros) | 10–20 lb N |
Spray water volume (per pass) | RO-treated water | 10 gal (was 20 gal) |
*Rates are crop- and field-specific and should not be taken as a recommendation without an agronomist consult. | ||
Timing notes:
Lance shifted his foliar pass timing away from the heat of the day after the first few seasons of night spraying. “The first few years we sprayed it all at night,” he said. “Last year we basically said, well, let’s just not do it in the heat of the day if it’s 23 to 30 degrees. Middle of the day. And that was kind of the only limitation we put on it.”
Does adding a carbon source to foliar urea reduce leaf burn?
Some producers include humic-, fulvic-, or sugar-based products alongside foliar urea in hopes of improving compatibility, reducing crop stress, or supporting nutrient efficiency. Results vary by product and environment, and research is still evolving. Lance saw a reduction in leaf burn when adding a carbon source:
“Urea works well, and adding a carbon source works even better. As we upped the rates of urea, we expected to see burn, especially with the herbicides too — but just nothing. That carbon source made all the difference.”
— Lance Walker, SaskSoil webinar
For more on the role of soil biology and carbon in nutrient cycling, see SaskSoil’s resources on the Johnson-Su bioreactor and the vital role of soil organic matter.
How does spray water quality change fertilizer and herbicide efficiency?
Spray water quality changes fertilizer and herbicide efficiency by altering the chemistry of every droplet that leaves the boom. Hard water — water high in calcium, magnesium, iron, or bicarbonates — ties up glyphosate and other herbicides, weakens nutrient uptake, and can reduce herbicide performance and consistency, especially with products like glyphosate. Lance says improving water quality helped his farm reduce herbicide use while maintaining performance.
“The first part of that spray water system is just cleaning up the water — essentially, it’s hard to explain, but it’s an RO system, maybe on steroids. It cleans up the water; it makes a better base to add to your herbicides and makes them a lot more effective.”
— Lance Walker, SaskSoil webinar
What the clean-water-first approach has unlocked on Lance’s farm:
Spray volume dropped from 20 gal/ac to 10 gal/ac. Every in-crop pass — herbicide and foliar fertilizer — now goes out at 10 gal/ac on the same solution.
Herbicide rates fell significantly. “We have reduced our herbicide usage significantly by cleaning up the water,” Lance said. “That was a huge thing right there.”
Higher fertilizer rates without burn. Paired with a carbon source, in-crop urea rates of 10–20 lb/ac per pass run clean.
Where does integrated cattle and grain fit in a reduced-input system?
Integrated cattle and grain farming fits a reduced-input system because livestock recycle nutrients, build organic matter, and produce the compost and compost extracts that feed soil biology — closing loops that synthetic-only operations have to fill with purchased product. On a mixed Saskatchewan farm, integration also opens irrigation, rotational grazing, and bale-grazing tools that a stand-alone grain operation cannot use.
Lance is leaning into this integration heavily. The farm is in the middle of an irrigation expansion -10 centre pivots fed by the North Saskatchewan River - that will support rotational grazing on land that previously dried up in June and July. “We now have water and power out on all those fields, so rotational grazing out there is becoming a lot better option,” Lance said. “Being able to manage and fine-tune that a lot more, and looking to the future, really trying to work towards self-sufficiency.”
Practical paths integration opens on the input side:
Apply compost or compost extracts from the cattle side as in-crop biology on grain land.
Bring cattle onto crop residue or cover crops for late-fall and winter grazing.
Use bale grazing to deliver concentrated, slow-release nutrients to lower-fertility zones.
Seed forage species ahead of a grazing event so livestock press the seed into the soil. This is a low-cost establishment method Lance has used on saline, low-productivity ground.
What mistakes should producers avoid when cutting fertilizer inputs?
Common pitfalls show up when farms try to reduce synthetic fertilizer without a system in place:
Cutting the upfront base too aggressively in year one. Lance built down to 30–50 lb N over multiple seasons, not in a single cut.
Skipping the spray-water question. No amount of fertilizer or herbicide rate optimization will outrun bad water chemistry.
Treating foliar passes as a replacement, not a layer. Foliar urea is most efficient as an in-crop top-up, not as the only nitrogen source.
Foregoing the carbon source. Some producers report greater crop safety when carbon-based products are included, though results vary.
Pushing more passes instead of fewer at the right time. Lance found fewer, better-timed passes more practical than multiple low-rate applications once labour and equipment costs were considered.
Ignoring the integrated-livestock or compost pathway. Even on grain-only operations, biology-friendly amendments accelerate the transition.
Producer perspective
“It is a game changer because when we started this whole process, we were putting about half as much down and then trying and needing to do two or three or four applications, which we just found unreasonable. The cost outweighs the benefit when you’re just running the sprayer up and down the field.”
— Lance Walker on the move to higher per-pass rates with cleaner water
Lance frames input reduction as a profit and resilience play first, not an ideological one. “We don’t want to give up yield. We don’t want to give up profitability,” he said. The aim is efficiency: less product to buy, less product to handle, less product to leave in the soil between seasons.
Frequently Asked Questions:
Is reducing fertilizer profitable in today’s market?
Potentially, but results vary by farm. Some producers report profitability gains when modest fertilizer reductions are paired with improved nitrogen timing, spray-water quality, or in-crop nutrient management. However, economics depend on crop prices, fertilizer costs, moisture conditions, and whether yield and quality are maintained. On one Prairie farm using this approach, the investment reportedly paid back within two to three years.
Learn more:
Canola Council of Canada - Canola nitrogen management & economicsÂ
Government of Saskatchewan - Saskatchewan soil fertility resourcesÂ
Does cutting upfront nitrogen risk losing yield in dry years?
It can, which is why most producers still maintain a base fertility program. In dry conditions, some nitrogen placed at seeding may be less available if soil moisture is limited. Supporters of split or in-crop nitrogen approaches argue later applications can better align with crop demand and rainfall timing. However, early-season nitrogen remains important for crop establishment and yield potential, so adjustments should be tested carefully and managed field by field.
Learn more:
Canola Council of Canada - Canola nitrogen management & economicsÂ
Government of Saskatchewan - Saskatchewan soil fertility resourcesÂ
What is melted urea and is it different from liquid urea?
“Melted urea” generally refers to granular urea dissolved in water on-farm to create a sprayable nitrogen solution. It differs from commercial liquid nitrogen products such as UAN (28-0-0 or 32-0-0), which are manufactured liquid fertilizers.
Learn more: Fertilizer Canada – Urea Fertilizer OverviewÂ
Can foliar urea fully replace ground-applied nitrogen?
No. Foliar urea is most effective as an in-season supplement to improve nitrogen timing or efficiency, not as a full replacement for soil-applied nitrogen in Prairie grain systems. Most cereal and oilseed crops on the Prairies still need a placed nitrogen base for early-season demand.
Learn more:
Why does herbicide work better with cleaner spray water?
Hard water cations such as calcium, magnesium, iron, and bicarbonates can bind to glyphosate and other herbicides, reducing uptake and efficacy. Cleaner spray water or proper water conditioning helps ensure more herbicide remains available to the weed and can improve the consistency of control.
Learn more:
Does the carbon source matter for the foliar urea, or is any product fine?
The carbon source may matter, but results can vary by product and environment. Some producers use humic- or fulvic-acid products alongside foliar urea to improve compatibility or nutrient efficiency, though research is still evolving. Strip trials are a good way to evaluate fit on your farm.
Learn more:
Is this approach a fit for a grain-only operation, or do I need cattle?
Cattle accelerate the transition by supplying compost and grazing nutrients, but a grain-only operation can still adopt the foliar urea program, the spray-water cleanup, and the rotation and cover-crop tools. The integrated-livestock pieces are an additional lever, not a prerequisite.
Learn more:
Where do I start if I want to try this on my farm?
Start with one field, one season, and one variable. The lowest-risk first move is usually a spray-water test followed by a strip trial of in-crop foliar urea with a carbon source against the existing program. Build the data before scaling.
About Lance Walker
Lance Walker, and his wife Lindsey Walker, are 4th generation farmers making their 4 kids the 5th generation. Lance is the CEO of Walker Farms operating 10,000 acres of grain and 2,000 head cattle on a farm located outside of Borden, Saskatchewan. Starting his career in a drought he has focused for years on risk management through diversity and brought on many other profit centres inside the operation. He is an entrepreneur who loves to farm. What really drives him is growth through people, innovation, and stewardship. What he dreads is lethargy, stagnancy, and the status quo. He is excited by the free-flow exchange of ideas within groups of improvement-minded individuals. He has found the farm, with its endless challenges and opportunities, to be an ideal place to struggle and fight for what is worthwhile.Lance was elected as SaskSoil’s President in February, 2026 and has served on the board of directors for 4 years.
Next steps for producers exploring input reduction:
Watch the full SaskSoil webinar with Lance Walker.
Learn how to soil sample correctly in Saskatchewan — a strong sample is the foundation of any rate reduction.
Check out the free producer resources and courses in the FaRM Learning Hub.
Register for the next soil health event to hear more on-farm input-reduction case studies.
Sources and Additional Resources
Government of Saskatchewan – Soils, Fertility and Nutrients
Fertilizer Canada – 4R Nutrient Stewardship Management Plan for Saskatchewan
North Peace Applied Research Association – Foliar Nitrogen Applications with Fulvic Acid
Sprayers101 – Hard Water, Glyphosate and Water Conditioning
Canadian Agronomist – Water Quality Can Affect Herbicide Performance
Top Crop Manager – Water Quality and Herbicide Performance
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada – Living Laboratories Initiative
Government of Saskatchewan – Cover Crops and Soil Health Resources
Comments