Share with:

In 2025, every agronomic decision is under pressure — climate variability, resistant pathogens, and increasing input costs push farmers to rethink their strategies. We made a critical change in our disease management program by switching our fungicide protocol, and it delivered an unexpected but measurable result: a 22% increase in net profit per acre.

This blog covers every step of the decision-making and implementation process, from the issues we encountered with our prior fungicide regimen to the actual outcomes of moving to a more efficient substitute.

Why We Re-evaluated Our Fungicide Program

We observed declining returns on our fungicide investment for three seasons in a row. Even with the best water and nourishment, yields plateaued. There was an increase in disease pressure, particularly from frogeye leaf spot in soybeans and grey and tar spots in corn. Assuming that single-site fungicides were sufficient, we relied on them; nevertheless, field-level statistics revealed otherwise.

Primary triggers for change:

• Mid-season disease breakthrough despite timely sprays
• Increasing signs of fungicide resistance, confirmed through third-party diagnostics

We realized that continuing with the same active ingredient year after year wasn’t sustainable, both biologically and economically.

Evaluating Profit per Acre: What Changed?

The shift began by looking not at gross yield, but net profitability per acre. Our previous program relied heavily on a strobilurin-only fungicide, which offered moderate disease suppression but failed under high-pressure conditions.

After consulting with a local agronomist and reviewing university extension trials, we tested a multi-site fungicide with both curative and preventative properties. We observed improvements across multiple variables:

• Lower disease incidence in leaf sampling reports
• Increased stay-green period in corn
• More consistent yield response across variable soils

Across three farms, our new fungicide stack increased corn yield by 6.8 bushels/acre and soybean yield by 3.4 bu/acre on average. After accounting for product and application, the market return exceeded $42, resulting in a 22% increase in net profit, despite input costs rising by only $7 per acre.

Choosing the Right Alternative: Why Formulation Matters

We realized that formulation — not just active ingredient — determines field performance. Our initial fungicide used a single active mode of action. While cheap, it didn’t provide adequate residual or combat the fungal variants we faced. We needed a product with:

• Broad-spectrum control covering multiple pathogens
• A mix of protectant and translaminar properties
• Built-in resistance management via multiple modes of action

After evaluating options, we chose a triple-active solution supported by peer-reviewed field data. The decision aligned with recommendations from institutions such as Iowa State University’s Plant Pathology division.

When reviewing efficacy trials and the longevity of active ingredients, we decided to purchase Tricolor Fungicide, which offered extended protection under humid conditions and was compatible with our existing tank mix regimen.

Field Trials and Validation Results

We didn’t dive right in. In contrast to our regular programme, we set aside 80 acres to test the new fungicide. The hybrid genetics, irrigation levels, and soil composition of the two fields were comparable. According to scouting reports, R3 in corn and pod-fill in soybeans reduced the infection rate in the treated area by 35%.

The conservation of chlorophyll was one crucial success factor. Two weeks after treatment, NDVI imaging revealed greener canopies, which were directly associated with yield stability. There was much less disease pressure from Phyllachora maydis and Cercospora.

Trial highlights:

• Soybean field treated with triple-active had 83% disease-free leaf samples at pod-fill
• Corn showed 16% higher kernel weight due to the extended grain fill period 

Economic Breakdown: Inputs vs. Output

Cost plays a central role in every input decision. The new fungicide cost us $14 more per gallon, and the application required slightly more water volume. However, the yield benefits outweighed the increased input costs. Here’s the math:

In total, across 1,000 acres, our switch generated a net profit increase of over $21,000 with the same labor and application schedule.

Resistance Management: Avoiding the Repeat Cycle

We realised that managing resistance is not merely a regulatory requirement but also an economic need. In the past, we frequently applied solo-site items throughout the same window of time, year after year. As a result, germs have a known target to adapt against.

The new programme incorporates the use of pre-mix products with three active components and rotating FRAC groups. This reduces the likelihood of resistance development and extends the useful life of each compound.

To time sprays more closely to the real risk of infection, we now also use disease modeling algorithms to forecast the optimal application windows.

“You don’t beat resistance by being reactive. You prevent it by making unpredictability your best defense.” 

– Dr. Carla Hemming, Plant Health Strategist, 2024

 

Application Practices That Made the Difference

Beyond switching fungicide chemistry, we optimized our application methods. Droplet size, nozzle type, and carrier volume played a bigger role than expected. Here’s what we adjusted:

• Increased water volume from 10 to 15 GPA
• Switched to dual-fan nozzles for canopy penetration
• Applied during early morning when leaf cuticles were most receptive

To inhibit foliar diseases like grey leaf spot, this increased product coverage, decreased drift, and guaranteed deeper reach into the lower canopy.

Return on Environmental Resilience

Unexpectedly, the new fungicide program gave us environmental benefits. Leaf-level photosynthesis remained more active due to lower pathogen load. This allowed plants to buffer against late-season drought better.

We observed:

• 8.4% more root biomass in treated corn plots
• Reduced senescence under 28-day rain gap in July

This adaptability resulted in a more consistent production under erratic weather fluctuations, supporting the ecological and financial arguments for more prudent fungicide application.

Tools such as the University of Nebraska’s Ag Decision Aid help producers concerned about sustainability predict return on investment by taking environmental variables into account.

Can These Results Be Repeated Elsewhere?

Although the fungal profile varies in our area of the Upper Midwest, the general rules apply. Assessing their approach can help any farm dealing with rising disease loads, resistant strains, and patchy performance from legacy fungicides.

While results vary by crop and geography, three principles apply broadly:

• Know your disease pressure through scouting and historical data
• Choose products with multiple active ingredients and broad-spectrum control
• Focus on ROI, not just yield per acre

By measuring net profitability rather than just cost, producers can unlock better returns while preserving crop health and maintaining ecosystem balance.

FAQs

1. Is it worth switching fungicides mid-season?
   If disease pressure spikes and your current product fails, a switch may salvage part of your crop. However, timing is critical — curative sprays have a narrow window.
2. Can you rotate fungicides without changing products?
   Only if your product contains different FRAC groups. Rotation requires a change in mode of action, not just brand name.
3. Do multi-site fungicides require more water or slower travel speeds?
   Not necessarily. However, improved coverage through increased carrier volume enhances efficacy, especially in dense canopies.
4. Are there situations where single-site fungicides are still useful?
   Yes, under low-pressure or early-season applications, but they should always be part of a rotation, not a routine.
5. What’s the best timing window for fungicide application in corn?
   VT to R1 (tasseling to silking) offers the most return in yield protection, especially when targeting foliar pathogens.

The Path Forward: Strategic Adaptation Over Habit

The transition wasn’t simple. It required us to learn new product labels, reevaluate procedures we had been using for years, and keep track of more variables. However, the outcome was not only resilience, profitability, and long-term crop health, but also increased output.

Our experience provides a straightforward response to any farmer wondering if switching fungicide strategies is worthwhile: monitor your return on investment, experiment with data, and approach disease management as a system rather than a single spray.

Comments (0 Comments)