Podcast Extra: Microbial Acceleration and Nutrient Release with Revenant Charge™

Hi, friends. Welcome back.

I've been looking forward to our conversation today for quite a while. Today I'm talking about Revenant Charge, which is a biostimulant product that we've been developing and testing with for some time. It's been technology that I've had on the shelf for a long time that we've only recently moved up the priority list for development. And I'm pretty excited about it. I'm pretty excited about the results that we have to show you today and some of the things that we have to talk about.

So the context, the context for Revenue Charge is that going back 15 years.

Ago, maybe even longer than that now, we.

I came to realize we had lots of challenges on fields that had.

Heavy residue where the residue wasn't decomposing rapidly enough.

And we had in a number of.

Different orchard and fruit systems and nut.

Systems, we wanted the leaves that dropped.

In the fall to be rapidly decomposed so that they wouldn't carry over disease until the following year.

And for that purpose we developed Rejuvenate. And Rejuvenate has been a very consistent, high performer, very heavy hitter.

Soil microbial biostimulant. It's been widely used. It's one of our most popular products. It's widely used in many different crop.

Types, high value fruit and nut and.

Vegetable crops, as well as broad acre crops and grain crops.

And we then combined Rejuvenate with our fall soil primer application. And it's been one of our most popular product applications or product combinations for, for the very simple and very good.

Reason that it performs, it just performs consistently.

It's not all that common to have a biological stimulant type product that shows visual responses in soils and in crops.

Immediately after application and for an extended period.

A week ago, two weeks ago, I.

Shared a clip on social media that really made my week with a grower that I just had a conversation with in California who.

In essence said that with a single application of rejuvenate in last fall, his soil is physically softer.

And he can feel it walking across the soil.

It's physically softer, it has better biological.

Activity and has more nutrient release.

And he has never gotten an equivalent.

Type of response from a cover crop in spite of doing multiple years of diverse species of COVID crops.

And so there have been many stories like that. Rejuvenate in the soil primer just performing consistently. The challenge, however, has been that the raw materials cost, the ingredients that go into making rejuvenate, have just continued to increase in price. And until eventually what is. It's still an awesome, outstanding product formulation.

But it's become prohibitively expensive.

And one of the things that rejuvenate.

And this, this soil primer combination is.

Really known for is in addition to all of the soil and plant responses, the visual responses are coming in part from increased nutrient release. I just had some someone else text me a short video clip.

Recently on the podcast I interviewed Jim Elizondo who is working on in ranching and producing exceptionally healthy forages.

And he just sent me a text.

Earlier this week when he was visiting a farm, actually I guess it was late end of last week, he was visiting a farm in California and they were growing some, they were renovating some pastures, growing some sorghum, Sudan grass.

And he sends me this awesome video clip.

He says here is the side without Rejuvenate and here's the side with Rejuvenate. And there are visual observable color differences and height differences. He's pulling up root systems, looking at the various root systems. There's this very distinct contrast.

But it's very important for us and a priority for us as a company. We're constantly evaluating and making sure that our products deliver high roi, that we deliver strong economic returns. And the pricing on Rejuvenate has just become more difficult as time goes by.

Particularly for broad acre crops.

So in, in that context we've, we've been looking at this technology. I've been very excited about the technology that is in Revenant. We've been able to, it's been sitting on the shelf for a while, but we've only really begun testing it and getting it ready to go to the marketplace in time to do some testing this spring. So we have done some interesting fieldwork that I want to share with you. It's quite robust, but it is geographically concentrated here in Northeast Ohio, close to where I live. And so it's important to remember, I'll give you the context for the trials of exactly what we did, the data that we collected, the results that we got back. But it's important to remember that we haven't yet tested in very arid environments.

Or over the winter months.

But we also, I do know enough about the modes of action and the mechanisms. There are different, there are multiple modes of action and effects that this product, different ways that this product is going to affect the microbiome. Our results in very challenging conditions. The results of Revenant charge in the field outperformed soil primer and I'm excited to show those to you. And I expect that pattern will continue.

In the different environments that it gets tested in.

So I'm going to share my screen and show you some of what we have been working on. All right, so the objective we know, particularly in broad acre crops, there's a lot of discussion about what how do the economics of crop production really make sense anymore? Can we afford to provide phosphorus and.

Potassium fertilizer this, this coming fall and into next spring for next year's crop? And what about nitrogen applications? How are we going to manage those differently?

And you know, I remember back, I'm sure there are many of you who.

Are listening, who have more experience, but.

I've been in this space now for 20 years. And that 20 year time period, we've been through three different cycles where fertilizer prices were extremely high. And there's this recurring conversation about just.

Limiting inputs and just mining the soil for a year or two.

And it seems in every occasion, every time that market cycle happens, all of a sudden you have dozens or maybe.

More accurately to say hundreds of products showing up on the marketplace that now.

All say that, oh, we, you can apply this microbial inoculant or you can apply this biosimilar and it's going to release all these nutrients from your soil profile. And as we know, all of those.

Your mileage is going to vary because you have different contexts, different soil types.

Different modes of action and mechanisms. So the challenge of these products that kind of come to the forefront in every one of these environments is that.

They are variable and they behave differently in different contexts in different ecosystems.

So I'm quite optimistic in this environment because we have the benefit now of having had a decade and a half.

Of experience with rejuvenate.

And a long time ago, 15 some years ago, I did have experience with.

The mechanisms and the modes of action that are captured inside revenant charge.

And let's talk about it. Let's talk about what we got going on. So what is revenant charge? It is essentially a microbial accelerant. It does not, it's not a microbial inoculant. It does contain some microbes, but they are incidental to the manufacturing process.

They are not. You know, there are contaminants everywhere. There's contaminants almost universally so similar to rejuvenate. Rejuvenate.

It doesn't contain any added inoculants, but.

There are some microbes that are incidental in the product. The same is true of revenant charge. It is a true liquid. So There are no particles suspended in has the viscosity and the appearance of maple syrup. Looks a little bit like maple syrup. And no, it doesn't have the price tag of maple syrup. I live in maple syrup country and it's pretty awesome springtime aroma that goes around.

So the objective, what we wanted to.

Accomplish is we wanted to accomplish a material that.

Would have an ROI as consistent and as reliable and as high.

As our biocoat gold and our foliar applications. Those are a couple of products and product applications that we know are just. They perform consistently, they perform very well. And Soil Primer has behaved like that historically.

But in the current economic conditions, with.

The increasing ingredient costs and lowering commodity prices, then that becomes increasingly challenging.

So Revenant Charge, and you know, it's interesting, I would like to get into more details about specific mechanisms and specific modes of action. Revenant Charge is currently registered in about a dozen states. There are another two or three dozen states that registrations are in process. And so we do have a label that is out there that is on the Advancing EcoAg website. But until as we go through that registration process, I have to be very cautious about going into too much detail on mechanisms and modes of actions, because at some point in the future, we expect it to be fully labeled as a biostimulant and then we will be using biostimulant type language. But at this point, we're being very cautious about describing the exact components and mechanisms and modes of action and what.

Is happening within the soil microbiome.

But all I can say is that it is very, it's multimodal, it's very multimode of action. There are multiple different modes of action.

And ways that it is influencing the soil microbiome.

And it here is one of the places we need to collect more data.

In more different contexts and environments. But from what we've observed so far, let's just say that the soil microbiome response is not a small response, it's a significant response. Let's get into some of the data on that. And what is really cool is that our data shows, this data that we've just collected so far in the 2025 growing season shows some very strong nutrient availability responses.

All right, so.

This slide is not showing up well for me, I hope it's showing up better for you.

But I want to give you some context of our data collection and our testing that we've been doing so far. This, the overall context. So these, these. There were three different farms, three different fields that we collected data on here in north, here in Northeast Ohio.

Quite.

Different soil types and soil histories. We'll get into those. But throughout this spring and early summer, from May through early August, we had.

Almost ideal soil moisture conditions, or in.

Several cases, actually it's more accurate to.

Say that we had surplus to ideal moisture conditions. We had several periods of. We had a period altogether of about a month, I think altogether about five weeks that we couldn't get into the field to plant cover crops or plant crops or do anything in the field really because it was too wet. And this is important to note because.

Our historical experience, we've now collected a lot of SAP analysis data, a lot.

Of soil analysis data.

And we know that historically if you take a microbial approach to plant nutrition as compared with a chemistry approach to plant nutrition, biology and a biological approach often wins and delivers the greatest comparable.

Response in drought stressed environments or in dry environments.

But when you have high moisture conditions and your soil is saturated, then it becomes much more difficult for biology to supply nutrition to the plant in adequate amounts and often in saturated conditions, particularly early in a transition period where there isn't good, there isn't the ability for good nitrogen mobilization in those conditions. Often a more conventional chemistry based approach will win.

But that's actually opposite of what we had happen here, which is one of the reasons why I'm so excited.

So toward the latter part of this trial period in late July, early August, it did dry up on a couple of occasions.

We were able to get in to do some no till seeding on a couple of fields that were on these same farms of COVID crops.

These test plots, these were all small test plots, 10ft by 20ft, borders connected to each other. So there's. We tried to keep them close together.

To limit inherent soil variability as much as possible.

We did not plant. One of the fields had a planted.

Cover crop in the, in the test plots, we'll get to that. But.

And the other two, there was no.

Plant of vegetation, there was just weeds.

As cover and the combination of the soil moisture conditions. Overall there was kind of ideal conditions.

For microbial development because of the food sources that these soils had in them, plus the moisture conditions.

All of the untreated controls. So each of these plots we had a treated control which was our full soil primer and then an untreated control. The untreated controls all showed very high soil health scores, all in the 20.

Plus range on the Haney analysis. We'll get into that in a bit more when we talk about each of the individual fields.

Then from each test plot, we pulled soil samples on three different dates.

Starting two weeks after application.

And on each plot, we pull the duplicate sample at every moment, just try to reduce any possible variability in the.

Soil analysis and to have the most consistent and accurate results possible.

So when we started looking at all of this data, as you can imagine, we've got multiple replicates. And each of these fields, we have three different fields, we have a number of different treatments that we were testing, and we have three different sample collection dates. And you end up with this spreadsheet.

That has hundreds of rows of data on it and hundreds of columns.

And after a while, as we're trying.

To look at all this data, you kind of. We started to lose the forest for the trees. Like, there's just so much variability happening in different numbers and different ratios.

What is it that really matters? And I reached out to Rick Haney and asked him if he would be.

Willing to look at the data for us and to help us understand what was really happening, what was really going on.

So Rick was kind enough to do that. And it turns out that he has. He had already developed a soil assessment.

Matrix that measures 14 different parameters that.

They'Re using to evaluate the effectiveness of.

How a soil is improving over time.

So they already had this statistical analysis.

Framework that they had developed that we were simply able to plug our data into. Rick did this work for us.

And he. From that scoring matrix, he gave us back the scores of how well the.

Soil microbiome response, how the soil microbiome was responding to the various treatments. And when he was looking at the data, his. His first look at the data, his first response was it's extremely difficult for.

Any product to demonstrate a response in these conditions. And some of the context is. Let me back up a bit here. Some of the context that I missed describing is that two of these fields we had tilled in and incorporated a large amount of biomass right at the.

Beginning of the treatment. One was cover crop, one diverse species cover crop that included hairy vetch and cereal, rye and annual ryegrass and some other species. And the other field, another field was a pasture renovation that had a lot of biomass on it. And then the third field also had.

A cover crop incorporation and had been.

Immediately replanted into another cover crop.

So all of these fields, there were.

Varying levels of active organic matter, but.

They all had this cover crop incorporation. So there was lots of CO2 respiration, there was lots of microbial activity because.

Of this incorporated biomass.

So this was the context in which we were trying and comparing soil primer.

Versus the various application rates of revenant charge.

All right, so we used Haney analysis. Rick was kind enough to use his scoring matrix for us to do this analysis. And the scoring matrix, everything gets indexed against the untreated control. So essentially the untreated control is zero and all of the treatments get indexed against that. So the scoring 0 to 3 is a slight effect, 3 to 6 moderate effect, and above 6 is a very significant effect. And Rick made a comment that.

The.

Scoring focuses on the organic fractions and.

Ratios as the inorganic fertilizer additions can sometimes mask true biological improvements.

So this assessment, using the Haney analysis, we tried to get as close as we can to really understanding what is.

The microbiome response, how did the microbiome respond and how did it improve nutrient availability? All right, the zero line is the control.

And we wanted to. So it's. From my perspective, it is unwise or.

Inaccurate for us to always compare just a treated versus an untreated control. I wanted to include a treated control.

We know that the soil primer combination works.

We know that it is effective. It delivers results consistently. We have millions of acres of experience with it.

So we wanted to compare revenant charge not just with an untreated control, but.

Also against the soil primer to evaluate its effectiveness.

We pulled samples weeks 2, 4 and.

10 after application just to see how.

Both how the long term, short term.

And the long term response looked.

All right, so here's field A with the scoring matrix. So zero line is down here, close to the bottom. And the context for field A is field day is actually here at my home. It has been in horse pasture for.

As long as anyone recently can remember, 30 plus years. It has very high organic matter. The soil, the various soil results all came back between 8% and 10% organic matter. So there's a lot of organic matter here, a lot of fertility. It's been a horse pasture on a relatively small horse pasture. So I want to say maybe four acres. And I'm in the process of renovating that to hopefully plant a family orchard into in the future. And so this was the context for this test.

Actually, it's worth noting that it has.

High organic matter, high fertility, but is very acidic and very low in calcium. Ph ranges were 5.5 to 5.7, if I recall correctly.

So because of the very high organic matter, the untreated control performed extremely well. In fact, the untreated control, if you looked at just some of the parameters, such as soil respiration and just the.

Raw soil organic matter number.

That untreated control performed extremely well, had.

A very high soil health score and.

Even in that type of environment. And this is also, this is a field that was saturated and we were.

Unable to do much of anything with it for about a four week period.

So in that type of environment we had. You can see the various treatments here.

Actually let me brighten up my screen a little bit. Hopefully that comes through for all of you.

The soil primer. So this is not rejuvenate alone. This is the combination of rejuvenate plus spectrum plus seashield that we have been.

Using for our primer combination.

You can see that as the red line here and it's slightly negative here at the beginning. But I think this is just an.

Artifact because of how well the untreated control was performing.

And you can see the trend line we have. And I think.

Well, I don't think I know because Rick told me he was very impressed with these responses in these types of soil conditions. He said it's very uncommon for any microbial inoculant or biostimulant to produce this type of a response in these types of conditions.

So we had two gallon application rate.

Of revenant exceeded the performance of primer in in this field.

In this treatment, 1 gallon also showed up very favorably.

Again, the benchmark line here is 0.

It peaked out at the second analysis point at slightly above 6 and then.

Was around a 5.7. They all ended up clustering here 10 weeks afterwards at about a 6, around a 6 response curve above the untreated control.

So I was very happy with the.

Results that we got from field A given those the very challenging moisture conditions and giving how strongly the untreated control performed.

Let's go to field B. So field B, let me make sure.

I have this straight.

Field B. What has been long term conventional corn and soybeans, anhydrous ammonia glyphosate. No cover crops, no tips, high clay content.

Soil.

Extremely compacted. The land came under new management in.

The spring of this is 25. In the spring of 24.

They attempted to no till a cover crop into it and it was stunted. It was about three or four weeks.

After planting and also turned very dry.

That cover crop never amounted to very much.

Didn't have any significant biomass because the soil was so compacted and so difficult that there just. There wasn't anything, there was no energy there. The COVID crop just stunted. I don't think this was a diverse multi Species cover crop mix and the tallest, the very best spots in this 20 acre field were maybe 12 to 16 inches tall and they should have been 4ft tall plus. So in the fall of 24, this field was tilled and replanted again into a diverse cover crop species mix from green cover seed that had been treated with biocoat cold and seed flare. And.

Then that it was a combination.

Of, of winter kill species, species that would overwinter the species that overwintered. The species that ended up being dominant the following spring. The spring of 25 were hairy vetch, rye, cereal rye and annual ryegrass and brassicas. I think there might have been some African cabbage or some kale in there. Collard perhaps some collards as well. So there was, there was this combination of different cover crop species.

That cover crop we had some, some.

Fairly heavy biomass there, I'd say seven to eight tons an acre biomass on a dry matter basis that was tilled.

Into the soil and the treatments were.

Applied like four days later.

So this again, there was a lot of biological activity happening as a result.

Of the COVID crop incorporation.

But it's also worth noting that this.

Soil.

You'Re familiar with the concept that soils can have kind of a baseline soil organic matter that they never tend.

To really go below, no matter how much they are degraded, because that soil organic matter is associated, it's mineral associated organic matter that it's associated with the clay particles and so forth. And it's very, very stable.

And so for this soil type, because of its high clay content and its compactability, that number is somewhere in the.

Neighborhood of around 4%. Whereas for a sandy soil it might be a half a percent or three quarter percent.

So this, this soil appears to have high organic matter, but actually the 4%.

Organic matter is, that's kind of the baseline 4% is dead soil. And this soil was at 4% before the COVID crop incorporation.

And let me see, again, because of the incorporated cover crop, the untreated control performed very well. And this field we had.

See if I can keep all of this straight in my head. We didn't include all the data here because the data again was just very noisy and lots of variability.

But in field B, we got a.

Very nice phosphorus response.

We saw anywhere in the various treatments.

And plots and various times we saw anywhere from a 60 to an 80% increase in phosphorus availability. So there was this very strong phosphorus response that showed up an increased phosphorus supply in revenant charge, even outperforming the soil primer. And this is something that the soil primer has also been known for.

So in this, in this field and field B, we had what appears to be a drop off in response in revenant applications later. And when you dig into the data and you try to understand, we try to understand what exactly is going on here, what actually is happening. What appears to be happening based on looking at the various carbon pools and how carbon is moving around, what appears to be happening is that where revenant was applied, the soil organic matter was.

Or shouldn't say the soil organic matter.

The crop residue was more thoroughly decomposed and was incorporated into the soil mineral matrix as mineral associated organic matter and as bioactive organic materials, microbial necromass and so forth. And so the soil respiration number and had declined, but the other more reserved carbon pools had increased more than they did in the untreated control. So this untreated control actually still had more undecomposed plant residue in it. And because of how that shows up in this scoring matrix, it actually showed the untreated control being very strong.

And this last testing point here of 825.

And so I don't, I think this, I'm actually not concerned about this drop.

Here in supposed performance in the revenant applications later.

If we look at what's really happening.

Within the numbers, within the details of this score, it actually appears that the revenant treatments outperformed the primer and the untreated control by quite a bit. By speeding up this, this formation of microbial necromass and mineral associated organic matter and decomposing the plant residue.

We look at field D. We had. Field D is on the home farm that I grew up on. It's been in vegetable production for 25 years with COVID crops incorporated into it. So there's been this continuous. Field D is not one of the fields that had a history of pesticide.

Applications in the late 90s and early 2000s. It has always been farmed organically. It was one of the fields that we took over later.

And that field had a cover crop incorporated into it and another cover crop immediately replanted.

The new cover crop was about, this was a diverse mixture of oats and buckwheat and warm season summer annuals.

And that cover crop was about 2.

To 3 inches tall when this, when the test plot was established.

So again, untreated control performed very well. And in this field we had, if you look at the middle date, you see this draw this what appears to be a significant drop in the central.

Test date of 78 25.

And that is because remember that all.

Of these are indexed against the control.

And the control plot. In this treatment we had some anomalously.

High phosphorus readings that were 2 to 3x what other readings in the soil in the area were.

So we don't know exactly what happened.

And whether that was a sampling error or whether we just accidentally. Because this, this soil does get raw manure treatments. There was manure applied before along with.

The COVID crop incorporation with a horse drawn manure spreader.

So did the soil samples pull into.

A chunk, pull a chunk of manure or something like that? So this central date shows, has a.

Very poor showing because of the anomalously high phosphorus number.

But then if you look back again.

The follow up sample date at 8:25.

We again have 2 gallons of revenant.

Performing at a 6, slightly above a 6 relative to the control.

So we will continue to collect more data and on the farms that we work with that will be trying this.

Product, we want to collect a lot more data to evaluate the effectiveness overall.

But what we've seen in these fields so far, when it's, if you look at this, you say, okay, well.

These.

Various fields, if you look at primer here in field B, primer doesn't show up all that strongly.

It's below a three all the way through.

But because of the history that we have with primer, we know that primer.

Works and it works very, very well.

And we look at what is happening.

With Revenant and it appears to us to be outperforming the primer.

And because of the confidence that we have in primer, I'm comfortable transferring that confidence to revenant. And then lastly we just looked at the. Again this is inorganic, excuse me, this is organic phosphorus release, potassium release and nitrogen release.

So this is NPK release. There were also some very interesting numbers on calcium supply, but that's something for a future webinar that we want to go into.

But if you look at these applications, remember we have, we have a lot.

Of experience, a lot of confidence knowing.

That when we apply primer we expect.

To see some very strong nutrient release responses.

And so this is, this is just simply averaged aggregated across all fields, average nutrient increase pounds per acre of NPK combined. We just, we, because the data, there's so much inherent variability from plot to plot, we just averaged it all together. And to give us a mean nutrient.

Value of the pounds of NPK response that was delivered.

And the, you can see the primer application here. Whoops. The primer application is this red line.

2 gallons of revenant is the yellow line, which performed the same or slightly.

Better than the primer.

And no, wait, I misspoke. The blue line is the primer here at the bottom. It's actually the poorest performer.

This red line says control.

Actually, I missed correcting this. I saw this earlier and we caught it in an earlier presentation for our team internally. But I miscorrected what is labeled here. Red as control is not in fact the untreated control. This is also all indexed against the control. What this actually is is the one gallon application rate of revenant. So we have two gallons of revenant. Whoops, I can't click on that.

We have 2 gallons of revenant at.

The yellow line, then 1 gallon of revenant in the red line and the soil primer. Oh my goodness, I got to stop doing that.

So this shows some very strong increases in nutrient availability. And this is in this very challenging.

Macroeconomic environment with expensive fertilizer prices. This is perhaps the one chart that I am most excited about.

This is the result. All the other charts that we looked at, where we were looking at microbial response, this is the result of a.

Strong microbial response is significant increases in nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium supply.

Now, it's important to note that this is the exact same type of response.

That we've seen historically with soil primer.

And our experience with soil primer indicates that the degree of phosphorus response and.

Increased phosphorus availability or increased potassium availability.

Is variable, as you would expect in different soil conditions. If you have soils that have higher phosphorus or potassium reserves, you can expect more of a response. If you have higher reserves of potassium but not a phosphorus, it's going to respond accordingly. So it would be inappropriate for us to develop numbers and say you can expect a revenant charge application to produce 40 pounds of additional phosphorus per acre.

Or 60 pounds of additional potassium per acre, or 120 units of nitrogen per acre.

That has happened can happen.

That has happened with soil primer.

That can. Those types of responses and those types of numbers are very real.

We have more data for that around.

The soil primer, but the response is variable and it's context dependent. You really need to know what is.

Going on with your soil.

So I want to just be very clear on that. These, these responses are actually very strong. And because your context is different, your.

Mileage is almost certainly going to vary from someone who has different soil conditions in a different ecosystem.

So I'm quite excited about this Data because this is a very strong signal.

And a very clear signal that we can produce very strong nutrient release responses with, with revenant.

Now again, the context here. We've tried this this spring here in Northeast Ohio in these, in the conditions that we've had, very high organic matter conditions, high moisture conditions. What I know about revenant charge mechanisms and modes of action is that it is the there is a cumulative response over time. So if you apply revenant charge on day zero and you plant wheat seed on day 10, you're going to get a bigger nutrient release crop for the wheat crops benefit than you will if.

You plant the wheat seed on day zero.

That difference is just going to be amplified. The earlier you can apply it relative to planting, the greater your nutrient release.

Response is going to be.

The greatest response of all is when you can put on an application in the fall, before dormancy, before the before, after harvest, before a field really goes to sleep, and have that for nutrient.

Response the following spring.

We haven't had the time yet to conduct that data and to conduct that evaluation to see what happens in fall versus spring because we've just been testing.

This product in the field since this spring.

But the experience that we have with soil primer is that you can expect, again there's context variation here, but you can commonly expect to see two to three times greater nutrient release from a fall application the following spring than you.

Can with a spring application.

In spite of that, I mean rejuvenate as a product alone has been very.

Popular for putting in furrow applications just because of the response that growers have come to expect from a rejuvenate application in the spring.

But the greatest roi, and if you, if you really want to think about this in terms of replacing fertilizer applications, the way that I would suggest approaching it is that we put on a revenant application this fall and we pull soil samples this fall treated and untreated.

Several replicates so that we can compare.

And then next spring as you approach planting, you pull soil samples again, treated.

And untreated, multiple replicates.

And that will give you a very clear indication of how significant the nutrient release from revenant has actually been and what your actual fertilizer application requirements are. How much potassium should you really think.

About applying on that crop or phosphorus on treated versus untreated.

And what we've experienced with the soil primer and the knowledge set that I'm very comfortable transferring to the revenant with.

What I've seen so far in my understanding of the modes of action is.

You should very comfortably be able to.

Expect to see phosphorus and potassium reductions in the neighborhood of 60 to 70%. It's very common for us. Again, I'm speaking with very broad brushstrokes here.

And there's local context dependency and nitrogen applications. This data and this data set revenant.

Actually revenant charge showed up extremely strongly for nitrogen release.

And we need to, we need to.

Pull more data and collect more experience.

But what I found interesting about revenant charge versus the soil primer, this is something I'll be paying a lot of attention to, is the direction of nitrification or denitrification. So I'm constantly thinking about how do we develop and enhance a soil's disease.

Suppressiveness so that it suppresses root diseases?

Because disease suppressiveness is also associated with increased mineral availability, it is associated with redox, changes in redox to a soil.

That is more reduced and less oxidized.

And the way that shows up in the nitrogen pool as measured on the Haney analysis is we're measuring ammonium and nitrate and total organic nitrogen. And so we can see how those, how nitrogen is moving around between those various pools. Now, obviously some nitrogen is going to.

Be mineralized, but the question from the organic nitrogen pool, but the question is, is the majority of that in the form of ammonium or in the majority in the form of nitrate?

And again, this is six months of data, so I'm offering that caveat.

There's a lot more data to be.

Collected, but the data that we have so far shows us that revenant charge is moving nitrogen more in the direction of ammonium than of nitrate. In other words, to a more reduced environment instead of an oxidized environment, to more disease suppressive environment instead of a disease enhancing environment, which is going to.

Lead to increased nutrient availability.

So I'm quite excited about that very preliminary data that we have and I'm looking forward to seeing. I'm confident, based on the experience that we've had so far, I'm confident that.

Many growers will be using revenant charge this fall.

And I'm very interested in seeing the data that gets collected and how this.

Response, what the response looks like in the field this fall and next spring.

So I'm going to switch gears to see what questions have come through.

Looks like we've had an extensive conversation here.

There's a question here from Clint Jessen. Hi, Clint. Good to see you. Are the products organic approved? They're in the process. They are NOP compliant. So it's we haven't gone through the OMRI process with Revenant Charge, but we're.

In the process of submitting them through WSDA and through CDFA and they are NOP compliant. If you want to ask your certifier to review them, they will qualify for that. Oh, I see someone from our team and Phil has already responded, so thank you for that.

Question from John, how long until Revenant.

Is available in California? Well that's really a question for the California regulators now, isn't it John? But yeah, I'll be in touch with you. Let's see what we can figure out. It has already been submitted. I'm not sure exactly what the timeline and process is. Some of these products tend to move fairly quickly and others not so much. See that the team has responded on where it is available. It is not available yet anywhere outside of the United States. I expect it will be available in Mexico fairly quickly because the registration process moves fairly rapidly there. Not so much in Canada. Follow up question from Clint Biocoat Gold from AEA made a significant difference in wheat winter wheat germination this year. That's awesome Clint. It's Biocoat Gold is just, it's like that's the gold standard that we try to match from an ROI perspective. It's inexpensive to apply on a per acre basis and it just delivers results consistently. And I'll be excited if you have the capacity to apply it. Take some different application approaches, but trying it with Seed Flare this coming year I think will be even better.

Question from Rico, how is Humicarb different from Revenant Charge?

They're not even, they're not even remotely the same. They don't, I don't, I think I can accurately say they don't share a single ingredient. So Revenant Charge is not a humic substance based material. I think I can say this from a regulatory perspective appropriately. Revenant Charge is a microbial metabolite and fermentation enzyme production based material. So we are specifically focusing on producing enzymes that really accelerate the soil microbiome in a very concentrated form. And yes, these application rates that I described are all per acre application rates. All right. I think.

Revenant Charge is going to be on.

The AE website here in just a little bit.

And there's a question I see. Hi Josh, I see a question from Josh Thurman. Would you think it could be so.

Pathogenic in terms of it just bounced around on me environment that its efficacy could be mitigated. So I'm seeing your earlier question here, Josh. You spoke of 4% being dead soil. So in our particular context that 4% is dead soil. You can have sandier soils that have 3/4% organic matter, that have more biologically organic matter, biologically active organic matter than ours do.

So it's not, it's not just what.

Is the number, it's what is the number in what soil context.

So it will be interesting to see how revenant charge performs in soils that.

Are very microbially compromised and in very arid environments.

All of our experience with soil primer is that it performs better in dry.

Environments than in wet environments.

And I expect the same pattern to.

Hold true for revenant charge. But we have to still establish that with experience.

But what I understand about its mechanisms.

And modes of action, I absolutely expect that to be the case.

And then the.

What was the other question? Could it be so pathetic, would the soil be so pathogenic that its efficacy that revenant charges efficacy would be mitigated?

All of the data that we've collected and what I've seen so far is that revenant charge, and because of the enzymes that it contains, because of the way that it's profiled, is specifically going to amplify the microbes that have a.

Disease suppressive effect rather than a disease enhancing effect, which I already mentioned in the context of nitrification. Hi tia, good to see you here. Excited to use it in apples and cherries. Maybe next fall. Possibly.

Depends on the registration process.

It's already been submitted. It's unlikely that'll be ready this fall in Washington, but possibly so. And see a question here from Chris. I second Frank's question about drier climates, but in the 300 questions that have been submitted to me, I am missing Frank's original question, but I did, did speak a little bit to the dryer, to the drier climate already.

Now what is, what is interesting is that being an enzyme based product, if an enzyme based product is sensitive to heat, so the, if we apply it, if it gets applied, I don't think there's no detriment. I expect to see very strong responses from dry soil, but I would be concerned about applying it. We don't yet have experience, we still.

Need to find out.

But I would be concerned about applying it on dry hot soil and just.

Leaving it on the soil surface. It would need to have rain to be incorporated or to be applied once the soil cools off a little bit. I would want soils, even soil surface temperatures, to be less than 100 degrees before we apply it for the greatest response. Here's Frank just updated his question. Sounds like it performs well in, in wet environments. What about an arid environment? Thanks Frank. It's a great question.

What all of our experience with Primer.

Is that it performs better in arid environments than it does in wet environments. So I actually think in, in the.

Context the trials that we ran, I.

Think the fact that there was incorporated cover crops in all the fields and there was a lot of crop residue to digest.

One, it made that an ideal environment for microbial proliferation.

But two, it made it harder, significantly harder for any product to show a response.

But then the fact that it was.

Such a wet and saturated environment for a continuous period also made it more difficult for a product to show a response. Oh, and the AEA team are just maestros behind the scene. They're absolutely awesome. They've actually created a Revenant charge page on the website and just linked it here in the chat. So all of you should be able to access that.

So follow up question from Frank.

Would it be better applied in furrow in a dry environment? It's important to protect it from heat.

So it's important to protect it from heat. And there is a.

This is getting into a conversation about biophysics and how biophysics are relevant.

We know, excuse me, enzymes are crystalline proteins. There is a. Don't have experience with this on revenant particularly, but on other products there is an effect that happens. You can still have an effect from inferrow applications, but on a number of biostimulant applications we observe a greater effect from a broadcast application than we do.

From in furrow applications, particularly if rows are widely spaced.

If you're planting wheat on 7 inch.

Rows, the effect is probably going to be minimal. There's probably going to be minimal difference if you're planting corn on 30 inch rows. There can be substantial differences between in furrow application and a soil broadcast application.

So I think that wraps up most of the questions. I want to say thank you to.

The team at AEA and for Phil in particular to John Elon, to whoever is behind the scenes here responding to questions in the chat and thank you also to our team at AEA who've done a lot of work in, in getting this product ready and bringing it to the marketplace. We've pushed very hard to have this ready for this fall because I think it's obviously it's very necessary in the current macroeconomic conditions. It's necessary for us to be able to bring a lot of value to the growers that we're working with and make sure that we are all together in a very strong economic position this fall and into this coming year.

So thank you all for all the work that you're doing.

Thanks for all the amazing crops that you grow. We really enjoy working with you.

Please reach out to our team if.

You have any follow up questions.

And when you do use Revenant Charge.

I expect many people will use it this fall. I would ask you to collect data from it similar to what we've done here.

Use Haney Analysis, do treated and untreated.

This fall and again next spring. And let's identify exactly what the improvements are and quantify them so that we have reliable data to make decisions on all of our operations going forward.

So thank you everyone. Have an awesome day. Happy growing.

Happy Harvest.