Welcome back, everybody. We'll get started. I'm sure people will continue to file in. With me today, we have Bert Frost, the EVP and Chief Commercial Officer of CF, and Martin Jarosick, VP Treasury and Investor Relations. Bert, you know, you're stalwart here at the conference, so I don't know that I have to, like, fully introduce you here. I feel like most people.
Well, thank you.
-are fairly aware of who you are. I didn't you know, you don't have any presentations or anything like that. Martin, if you want to kind of lead off and maybe provide just a quick overview of 2025, the year as it was, and we can kind of pick it up from there, if that makes sense.
Sure. 2025 was another strong year for CF. We had $2.9 billion of EBITDA, $1.8 billion of free cash flow, ran the assets at 97% utilization, and had really strong safety numbers. All told, a really solid year of execution for the team.
Yeah. Maybe we start, obviously, just nitrogen markets, easy enough. It's pretty important for you. Ammonia, right? On the call, you'd pointed some potential weakness given capacity expected. Obviously, startups are startups. You know, spreadsheet math is very easy to conceptualize a plant starting up, but in reality, often and always does take longer. As B of A, that's been one of our concerns, right? If we look at the globally traded ammonia market. How do you see this playing out in the short and the medium term as it relates to global ammonia? I wanna kind of hone in on the U.S. side, which you obviously have some very real structural advantages, and we can touch on that. First, it seems like most of these plants are gonna go international.
How do you see that kind of playing out here?
It is an interesting market, an interesting dynamic. I think what has happened over the years on the analyst side, there's been, "It's coming, it's coming, it's coming," and "Negative, negative." We've had a positive, positive market...
Yeah
... where we've exceeded expectations each year since 2021 in terms of an EBITDA performance or a free cash flow performance. The ammonia market today is structurally strong. You have globally traded ammonia. You have 200 million tons of ammonia demand per year. Only 15-17 million of that is globally seaborne traded. A lot of that's going to Europe to backfill idled capacity or product that's not coming from Russia, as well as just for phosphate production in Morocco or imports into the United States. You have two dynamics taking place. You have idled capacity or capacity in Europe that's not fully operating. You have gas supply issues in Trinidad that's taken the Nutrien plants and I think other plants that are constrained today.
You have a supply-limited market and the expectation that this new capacity in the United States, Gulf Coast, and Woodside will be coming on. We're three years now waiting for some of that capacity to come on, and demand continues to grow, and we continue to supply some of that with our new low-carbon product, as well as just participating in the market. Today is $600-$700 a ton for ammonia on the globally traded market, and our costs today at $3 gas is about $120-$130. It's very attractive for us today. You talk about why CF is differentiated in the ammonia market.
It's our capability to store, well, let's say, produce at a low cost, move that ton at a low cost through the pipeline and our barge system into our terminaling system that's in the heartland of the United States, and Canada as well, has the most fertile ground in the world, and with high-yielding corn, you have a ready demand base for the ammonia, much of the ammonia that we produce, as well as our industrial customers. How we see, yes, this capacity will come on eventually, but we have a very strong and stable market today.
Woodside and Gulf Coast Ammonia, two projects starting up basically along the U.S. Gulf. You know, if I had the ability to move it to the Corn Belt, I would, but not everybody does. When we think about your advantage with NuStar and that market, like, if ammonia globally comes under pressure, does that spread to you, like Corn Belt expand because you can't get the product there? Does it stay consistent or does it compress because, you know, they'll just buy... I know maybe ammonia is not easy to put on rail, but like, will the incentive be too strong to move it to the Corn Belt, that the product will find a way?
When you, when you look at how does Ammonia move today, you're right, it's the pipeline, but it's fully subscribed, ourselves, Koch, and others, because you have to have a destination to receive it. It's one point to produce it, you have to have the ability to receive it. We have that. But again, the pipeline's at capacity. But would that ton from Gulf Coast or Woodside make it to Iowa? Probably not, in the context of just that structure that's in place and how we optimize it. But it's also, will the differential between the Midwest and the world market, it's really a nitrogen calculation. You have a farmer producer has options of Urea, UAN, or Ammonia, and he or she is gonna choose those options based on economics.
It's a global economy, and it's a globally traded ton of Nitrogen, so you have to stay within range, and we do that on an economic basis. Again, we're a low-cost producer with low-cost gas and low-cost capabilities to move our tons.
As I think about this, right, fundamentally, you can't just, like, move ammonia into a urea loop, right? You have to have the on-site production of ammonia, so you have the CO to make the urea. On your earnings call, I should say, like, there was some comments around potential softening in ammonia, but urea remains fundamentally very strong. Quite honestly, the supply-demand dynamics for urea are pretty favorable. There's really not much new supply. How do we balance the view of maybe urea itself being fairly tight with a softer ammonia dynamic should it develop? Is there that fungibility that creates softness, or is it just not enough product on a end unit basis to do that?
This is why generally you upgrade to your max potential, because the value creation process of Urea, UAN, DEF or other products, Ammonium nitrate, are generally consistently above the value for Ammonia. You know, we produce 10 million tons of Ammonia, and then we upgrade about 5 million tons of Urea, about 7 million tons of UAN, and the remaining Ammonia ton is a lot of that moves again into the Midwest. We have the capabilities of Midwest export, and we have industrial contracts that are consistent, 360, 24/7 demand pulls. That's how we balance the system. We're always looking at how do we optimize, how do we profit, and how do we leverage those capabilities? Consistently, where you will find is we're upgrading them to the maximum capability and then moving the Ammonia.
Sure. DEF, talking about kind of upgrading a bit. It's been a growth market for you as it relates to incremental investment. When we talk to our trucking analyst, the conversation amongst most of the truckers is DEF consumption is expected to grow. I got a question from this from an investor yesterday, and I didn't have an answer for him, so I figured I would just ask you. We've also seen some commentary from farmers that given new policy around some of the Obama administration guidelines that are lapping, might mean farmers don't have to use DEF. Is that, I don't know, what's your expectation around just DEF sales and as it relates to a growth engine for the CF?
DEF is diesel exhaust fluid, and it's really a market that didn't exist 15 years ago. In 2010, when we acquired the Terra assets, DEF was one of the components that we purchased from the Courtright plant, where they were producing it was in its infancy. You have a couple of things in parallel happening. One of them is just the generation and of power units, of trucks. As new equipment comes online, initially, the dosing rate was a certain percentage. As we've matured in this market from the equipment suppliers, that dosing rate has increased. The projections for dosing rates as the new units coming online and now and in the future for emissions control will be double or triple what they were 15 years ago.
You just have a natural growth rate with that. Then it's as new equipment has come into new applications like, let's just use Deere or Caterpillar for different applications, that has also driven growth. What the Trump administration came out with recently on DEF for farming equipment is the frustration of a farmer if you're out in your field and your DEF runs out in your equipment, that can slow down the or the efficiency of the operating rate of that equipment while it's on the farm. They want to give a more of a flex period to resupply that farming equipment in the future.
Yeah.
It's not that you don't use it, because it's a very good DEF in the operation of the diesel engine allows for higher burning and more efficient burning. It's actually a very good product. If you drive down the highway and don't see emissions coming out of a truck, you can thank DEF.
Okay. All right.
We're excited. It's a growth market. We have invested, and we will continue to invest.
As I think about maybe before I pivot, like nitrogen demand in 2026, 2025 was a strong year for sales. Obviously, record corn crop in the U.S., we saw, you know, strong planted acreage in Brazil. We saw better, planted acreage in Ukraine. Do you think the market can grow in 2026 versus 2025? I guess perhaps an early winter will be helpful as it relates to stalled applications of ammonia moving into this year. What do you expect for growth for this year?
The beautiful thing about our business is people like to eat.
Yeah.
That drives consumption. As diets improve and as diets have improved globally, what you've seen in China over the last 20 years, what we've seen in India over the last 10 years, then what you've seen in acreage growth in Brazil, but what you've seen with governmental changes in Argentina, growth. The 98 million acres of corn that was planted in North America was a substantial change. We didn't expect that. We were projecting 93-95 million acres. 98 was, I think, the highest since 2012. We do see positive growth. One, because the stocks-to-use ratios are adequate but not high. You're having good demand for ethanol production and the export of the incremental ton of ethanol.
You have the the cattle herd at its lowest level in 75 years, so cattle on feed are gonna grow, or cattle on feed for longer periods of time, and the efficiency of cattle feeding does that, so you require more more carbohydrates in that feed ration. We do see positive dynamics, globally for, where especially where we produce, which is North America, but globally as well.
To maybe look at global trade flows a little bit, CBAM coming into effect, then theoretically, maybe paused, maybe not? What do you make of the flirtations out of Europe around CBAM? I mean, can they really pause CBAM, but not also put a pause to their own domestic carbon tax? Because, like, that would implicitly kind of ruin their domestic industry wholesale? How do you navigate that? I mean, it's maybe not as important because you're U.S.-based, but like, clearly, as a commercial person who's looking at trying to capture the best value you can for product, how do you navigate a market that's seemingly wishy-washy on, like, a pretty What has been a pretty vocal policy?
Back to it is a global market. As a global participant in that market, you have to pay attention to these various oscillations that happen, whether it's political or economic or structural, and this is an issue. CBAM implementing without knowing exactly what is going to be implemented and the cost has been very confusing for our European friends. We do supply product, whether both Ammonia and UAN to Europe, and we have some very good customer positions. We have not been shipping UAN since the start of 2026 because it's an unsure situation. What is the actual cost? How would that be paid, and who will absorb that? We're quite comfortable to move our tons domestically or other places. I think as this unfolds, will it change? Will it be canceled?
Will it be... According to our European customers and friends, it's, yes, it will be implemented. Yes, it's going to be confusing, and we have to get through 2026 to figure out that cost. The good thing about CF is we have low-carbon product available today, and we will be producing in a few years, even lower carbon, 95% decarbonized, which we will supply to the world and we think will be advantaged into Europe with that product.
Just pivoting on, onto that point with, you know, outside of Europe, you have seen, regulatory clarity in other parts of the world. Japan did move forward with the Contract for Difference for our partners.
Yeah.
so that, you know, they have, you know, their regulatory certainty for that project. You know, it's gonna evolve over time, but as Bert mentioned, we're in a great position. We're a low-cost producer, we have the product, and we've got all the options to send anywhere in the world that basically provides the best netback.
Yeah, I wanna touch a little bit on that next. I guess as I'd heard, you know, similarly, like, product moving to Europe now is frozen because of this general uncertainty. What does that ultimately mean as it relates to how European supply and demand plays out for this year? Is this just, "We'll figure it out, and they'll get the product that they need," or there's a-
I think the risk for this spring is that there could be a short, for that incremental ton.
Yeah
... was not brought in for a period of time. As we go to the back half of the year and the question marks around what is brought in, the timing around that, because generally we export June, July, August, September, October, November tons to Europe. I think we'll see. As inventory built by the European producers in anticipation of an unknown. I think that it would be a difficult position today to be a European operator.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, clearly, you know, Yara is dealing with some existential stuff in that regard. To touch back on Japan, to your point, happy to see that JERA and Mitsui were able to get the Contract for Difference because, and I think in that regard, candidly, you're partnered very strong positionally for that. We've also seen some comments, just given the CapEx inflation, a lot of, you know, given through this, these blue and green ammonia project budgets, Japan might be spread across, or I should say, the amount of money they wanted to commit might be spread across fewer tons over time. Do you see this as a risk? Does that impact Blue Point two or three, or...
I know this is supposed to be an iterative project over time, and do you expect that the commitment from your partners might change?
I think when we look at the growth of ammonia demand, of any color, of any type, we do see that steady growth in ammonia. It always gonna be a place for low-carbon ammonia. It will be the first product that people buy because of the low-carbon attributes. I think you are gonna see inflation in the, and you have seen inflation in the cost of to construct new capacity. For someone with a large installed base of world-class and low-cost assets, that's not necessarily a bad thing, and it's something that, you know, we'll continue to navigate as we look at, you know, potential further development on the Blue Point site.
It'll be based on the demand and the economics and as those two develop.
I think for us, we're really excited with the partners that.
Yeah
partner that we're with. Both JERA and Mitsui are solid and have the offtake. This is all going to new demand and that doesn't exist today. When you take the structure of 1.4 million tons, the 60% is going to Japan, that is not entering the globally traded market. We also have a backstop for our 40% in the U.K. We are the inbound calls and meetings regarding BluePoint future is positive. I agree with Martin, the 95% decarbonized product, you're not gonna see many of these green plants move forward.
Yeah.
Green being zero carbon, it's just too high cost, and it's a great idea until somebody has to pay for it. For us, at 95% decarbonized, we have a lot of opportunity and options in front of us.
Yeah, and the comments around the electrolyzer around the quarter, I think, speak to ultimately some of that. I agree. BluePoint, JERA and Mitsui are highly advantaged as it relates to the access for the Japanese market and kind of ultimately what is expected to be a pretty good sync for ammonia as we look at Cogeneration and firing there. 2030, kind of more of the framework for when BluePoint commissions, which I agree, should be a better market. As we look at this 15 million-17 million ton globally traded ammonia market, what do you think 2030 looks like?
Is there a ramp there that's kind of consistent, or is this going to be something that is maybe more of a back-end weighted demand profile as some of these other markets and ammonia ships or whatever, come to market as demand?
I think, Matt, we can all agree it's gonna be awesome. All kidding aside, but I do think what we have been surprised with when we laid out some of the initial plans for how we viewed the market and shared them with the analyst side and the investor side, was in 2020, 2021, we initially began our journey on the low-carbon future, was projecting what was gonna happen in the market and the tightness at the end of the decade based on build-out, based on demand, based on changes in the dynamics around low-carbon. The surprising thing today is how tight the market is today.
Yeah.
I think from the analyst side, from your side, it's been something negative is going to happen. It's going to happen, it's going to happen, it just doesn't happen. It's going to be China this year. That's going to be bad. China's not exporting to the capability that they were, I don't think they're going to be. It's this tightness of geopolitical upsets, whether last year was the Iranian-Israeli conflict or lack of gas for Egypt, the continued conflict in Russia and Ukraine, lack of gas in certain places like Trinidad, that is driving more structural places that used to have gas or used to operate aren't as much, we're in this a very high cost of new investment that is limiting.
Of the 120 projects that were announced, a handful are going to get built, but they needed to be built just for future growth and demand, and again, of limits of where supply is today. We are in a positive market, and we see that tightening coming earlier than we had expected, and then at the end of the decade, probably tighter than even we had projected several years ago.
As you kind of hit on this a few separate times, just CapEx inflation, right? Your I don't know, neighbor, but across the river, right, at Donaldsonville, we're hearing about that. It's tangible. The CapEx budget gets revised up. Their plant is highly specific, but it's kind of the reality of doing business on the Gulf Coast and building plants in the U.S. How do you manage CapEx inflation and the risks around that? When you look at what should be ultimately, is devised to be a pretty large complex, how do you go about limiting the risks around that?
For us, it started with doing extensive FEED studies to get more detailed engineering and more detailed estimates about what the cost would be. Then, second, we went with a modular construction design for the ammonia plant, which is basically a turnkey. The ammonia unit, which is probably half of the cost, is being constructed by Technip Energies and shipped over in modules.
Mm-hmm.
That is a fixed price contract. That element of it has been capped, and that does a couple of things. It reduces the amount of exposure to cost plus labor in the United States. It also separates the development of the site from the construction of the ammonia plant. We don't have instead of them being in a sequence, they're in parallel. We don't have to pay as much overtime and spend the money to accelerate the development of the infrastructure of the site, to then stick build the plant piece by piece on-site, because the plant won't actually show up until 2028. It gives us a lot more time to prepare the site to receive the plant.
We'll continue to look at those other components and do fixed price contracts for tanks and other components that are on the development of the BluePoint site itself.
I think one of the differences is this is what we do.
Yeah.
This will be the third plant we have built in the last 10 years, and we built and we're operating those plants, the other two, at 110% of capacity. We're good at the design-.
Yep.
We're good at working with our partners, we're good at estimating, like Martin said, planning, and this is the core of what CF is about. We are very confident in our ability to bring it in at budget.
Switching to Trinidad. I got a little bit of a flavor for this, 'cause I was talking to Ken about this this morning. New government in Venezuela, maybe that matters, maybe it doesn't. If you were to think about the potential for gas moving from Venezuela to Trinidad, and Ken's comment was like, "It's always in just in three years, you know? We've been waiting for it for a while." As you assess that region, does that change your longer term views around the profitability of that production base, or is that too early to say? How do you gauge?
We've been active in Trinidad for 15 years.
Yeah.
I was on the board, probably 10 years ago, of PPL, and it was, "In two to three years, we're gonna have gas.
Yeah.
We're now 10 years later, and we don't have gas. I think all of us on the island that are operating, us, Koch, Yara, Proman, are facing difficulties and questions about what is the future, what can we count on? What level of investment should we have or maintain for those assets? Our asset at PPL has been a good asset over the years. We value it, we obviously need gas and need commitments from the government and from the NGC... or not NGC. We'll see how that unfolds. I think Ken is, you know, was at the forefront of some of these decisions, we're gonna have to have those discussions as well.
Yeah, I mean, his comment was that, in particular, they are pushing for higher gas prices. You know, I'm sympathetic to the fact that Trinidad has its own, you know, needs as a country, but given the cost basis and the operation consistency of that region, it's hard to warrant gas price increases, right? That's the stand that he's making. Do you face kind of similar pressures in that market?
We are under discussion with that group of what the future supply and contract obligations are, we're in the middle of it.
Okay. I appreciate that. Gas cost, right? Martin, I'll put you on this one. It's like $3.20 in MMBtu in the fourth quarter. Very good. You know, lower than Nutrien, even because then they have ACO, right? How were you able to do this? As we look at 1Q, you know, I think we were surprised a bit to hear about the $5.00-$5.50 kind of range for the first quarter. There's always volatility in gas markets. That's just the nature of your business. You know, how is hedging playing here? 'Cause it's not something that we typically think of for CF outside of basis, regional basis, but how is the ebb and flow?
How did you get so good in the fourth quarter, and then what happened in 1Q, and is there any bleed out into 2Q in that regard?
I think, you know, when you think about how we hedge gas, we do like to take care of the basis so that we switch it from smaller hubs down to Henry Hub, where it's easier to manage the risk. We do tend to lock in prices for gas that we're gonna consume across the winter, and we do that in various ways over the years. You know, sometimes it's well in advance of winter, and sometimes it's much closer to the actual month of consumption. You know, that process yielded a really nice result in the fourth quarter. We were able to take advantage of the opportunities to hedge effectively, see the settlements settle higher than that.
What you've seen so far in January and February, you're seeing higher NYMEX settlements. We had a winter storm that basically hit on top of a NYMEX settlement, those settlements are gonna be higher, we will, you know, do well. I'm sure we'll do well against those benchmarks. You know, over time, you know, our objective with hedging is to minimize the negative shocks of these events. You know, we tend to be somewhere around or in between what you've gotten with cash daily pricing and/or what you've gotten if you'd locked it in with the NYMEX settlement.
Martin and I sit on the gas committee. I have to give a shout-out to the team, with Marty Melki's the guy who runs our gas group. We're students of the, we view those, the product markets and the gas and the operations, they're all separate decision-making that come together as a whole. We look at gas independently. We don't necessarily, if we're forward sold, have to lock in the gas, and we do play a lot of the cash market during the year when that has been advantageous for us. In terms of your reference to Q1 2026, this volatility is the word. We had $70 gas at the Port Neal site and $90 gas on the daily at Courtright in Canada.
It has been incredibly volatile, and I think the team has done a very good job of understanding that, covering what Martin talked about, and being in the position that's good for CF.
Okay. I do want to open it up to anybody in the audience. If you have any questions, feel free to raise your hand and jump in. I did wanna ask a little bit on the policy side, and maybe this is, I don't know, maybe it is, maybe it isn't outside your wheelhouse, Bert, but if we were to think about the Trump administration, right, they've been keenly focused on farmer profitability, farmer sentiment, farmer affordability. Nitrogen is maybe in the middle of potash and phosphate from an affordability perspective, right? It's not the primary pain point, but prices are high. What do you get from the administration on that? Like, are they actively in discussions with CF around capacity or tariffs or rebates? Is there any kind of discussion there? Is there any push?
I mean, I know you weren't necessarily listed between, you know, your two U.S. or North American peers as it relates to price collusion, right? It seems like the microscope is on Nutrien companies and price. Does that resonate to CF at all?
A couple of things that you referenced resonates with me personally, as well as professionally in the company. We're a global market.
Yes.
We're the largest producer of nitrogen in the world, and we're less than 5% of capacity. It's produced in Russia, it's produced in the Middle East, it's produced in China, it's produced in India, it's produced in the United States or North America, and all of those places most of those have the capability to export. Tons are moving all around, and they're priced at different for different products at different times. But the price in India today is basically the price in NOLA. If India goes up, NOLA goes up because we have to call that import ton. We're an import-dependent market, and so we have to incentivize those tons to move. It's.
But in terms of fertilizer, you need N, P, and K, plus some S now in most growing cultures. The, you know, the fertilizer market is integrated in many different ways. I think the point of your question is, and the where the government is going, is the farmer. We do think about the farmer and how can we help them to have the product in position to be a low-cost producer, which we are, a low-cost mover and supplier, partnering with our retail friends, the co-ops and the public retail suppliers to the farmer, because we don't sell to the farmer directly. That whole chain has to work together to be efficient, to be low cost, and to make sure the product is in place at the time it's needed.
It is a globally priced product.
Yeah. No, I, I know. I know.
I know you do, but I-
Yeah
sometimes.
Sometimes I wonder about the administration.
It gets separated as, you know, or an isolated issue, like in Iowa, it's this. Pretty much you can do the freight. The price in Iowa equates back to the Middle East.
Is there any push for logistical improvements then domestically? Like, do you see talk or within a policy perspective about pushing for new pipelines or relaxing some of the restrictions that impact our ability to source barges, you know?
The work that's being done, we're a multi-mode company: rail, truck, barge, pipe, vessel. We're moving product in any one of those five modes at any different time. What the Corps of Engineers does in terms of the lock work on the Mississippi, on the Arkansas, on the Illinois, very important. We need to keep that barge cost and what the ADMs of the world do with moving grains and oilseeds down, we're moving fertilizer right back up. The pipeline, the Sunoco pipeline is now 40 or 50 years old, if not more.
Yeah.
Proper maintenance of that, the only existing ammonia pipeline, is very important. It's very difficult to move ammonia by rail, so we almost don't do much of that. The rail systems are very important in this. This, whether the UP hooks up with the NS or work with the BN, that is a key component. The low-cost delivery of the product is. It's not just the production site, it's an integrated chain that we do focus on.
If I think about rail, you know, like chlorine, right? Nobody wants to move chlorine.
Any of the TIH-
Partly because it's.
Any of the TIH, ethylene oxide, chlorine, ammonia.
That was my point on ammonia. Is there some government restrictions around it, or is it really just it's hazardous and corrosive, and you just don't want to move it by rail, and so there's, like, an implicit pushback from the rail companies themselves?
It's priced out more than. They still move it's just priced out. We do have some very good relationships with our rail partners and need to continue to work on that, as well as regulatory support to make the efficient moving of Ammonia possible.
Okay. I'm happy to... Well, Sal, I don't know. We have one question up front. Sal, you want to raise your hand? Otherwise, you know... Get that hand up, Sal. Come on.
Thank you. Since we're talking about logistics, and Matt brought up the whole U.S. Gulf tones going to the Corn Belt, can you give us a little bit more clarity? Essentially, if there is a plant on the U.S. Gulf Coast, what stops them from, you know, let's say, chartering a barge that has the ability to be in the shallow waters of the U.S. Gulf and then going up the river? Is the cost prohibitive? Do they need to have access to tanks in the Midwest that they don't? What essentially stops them from doing that?
Yes and yes. One, it's when you're over in Houston, to barge all the way to the mouth of the river, where we already are, is a cost. Two, is your destination point. Where are you going to offload that barge, where most of the producers have the tanks? You need to build a tank or partner with those who do, and those tanks are limited. I do believe some tons could, in the theoretical, move up into the river system. It just has to be coordinated with the receiving points and the barge companies as well.
I have one more, I'm sure Steve has asked you this question every time he sees you know, I gotta carry the torch a little bit now. I mean, as we think about microbes and Nitrogen delivery to the corn plant, everybody's well, not everybody, but there's a lot of companies working on it, right? We'll have a biologics panel right after you with Corteva, Mosaic, and Pivot, and all three of them are working on nutrient bioavailability. How do you address this longer term, domestically, internationally, as an opportunity, as a company who has, you know, made a lot of money with synthetic Nitrogen?
Anything that's good for the American farmer, the world farmer, is good for the system. Yes, we follow it. Yes, I've been following for decades.
Yeah.
This is another one of those promises that is going to come in the future, it's just the future is always in the future. When that comes, we have met with many of those companies and have exchanges of ideas. A plant is like a child, and you feed your child daily, and then when they reach puberty, consumption increases. A corn crop is just like that. It has different growth spurts-
Yeah
... and it needs a concentrated form of specific nitrogen in order to reach maturity and to have a full head, or ear of corn. That's where the value sits, is in that one ear. Every plant produces one ear of corn, maybe two, but the second one is a dwarf. If you're a farmer, you want to use what works and what has consistently worked. For decades, nitrogen has worked very well in that growth cycle. That's why we've gotten better at our Precision agriculture, multiple applications of nitrogen, so we've gone from yielding, when I was a young person, 130 bushels an acre to today, 180 bushels. That's the average, but you have some farms that are at 300 bushels of acre. That hasn't come with microbes.
Maybe that's has supported it a little bit, the fundamentals of our business is, we produce a product that is demanded, consumed, and applied in appropriate ways, and we're getting better at that, our future is bright for nitrogen.
Yeah. Okay. All right, well, I'll end it there. Bert, thank you so much, Martin, as well. Appreciate you, coming out and participating.