Forge Advising, Inc.

05/28/2026

Forge Advising is looking for a summer intern.

If you're studying agronomy or crop science and want hands-on field work, we have a spot.

You'll be supporting our agronomist directly on fertility trials and soil sampling across an active corn and soybean operation. This is boots-in-the-field work, not a desk job.

DM me or send a note to [email protected].

03/19/2026

I’ll be honest, there was some skepticism at first.

But after seeing the results firsthand and comparing notes across Midwest trials, the data speaks for itself.

Grateful for the opportunity to sit down with Redox and share what we’re seeing in the field.

03/08/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1GKHxTezZM/

02/23/2026

02/22/2026

The Farmer’s Job Description Changed.
Most Never Applied for the New One.

We still talk (and think) about farming like it’s 1960.
But the job isn’t the same.

1960s: Operator
Hard work mattered most.
Mechanical skill. Long days. Efficiency not required.
If you had a problem, you could usually out work it.

1980s: Debt Manager
Interest rates spiked. Land values collapsed.
Suddenly the balance sheet could kill you.
Most didn’t change, they just survived.

1990s–2000s: Scale Driver
Bigger equipment. More acres. Higher fixed costs.
Efficiency became mandatory.
You were managing millions in rolling capital before you realized it.

2010s–Today: Capital Allocator
Global commodities. Complex crop insurance.
Input financing. Lender engagement.
Hedging strategies.
You’re not just driving a tractor, expensive as that is.
You’re positioning capital inside a volatile global system.

Plainly, most farmers never wanted this job.
They didn’t sign up to be financial engineers.
They weren’t trained to think in terms of D to A ratio,
or capital structure
or risk exposure.

They just wanted to grow crops and run equipment.

Now they’re expected to manage an enterprise that resembles a mid-sized corporation

And that's nothing like a 1960s family farm.

Unfortunately, you either evolve into the new role as the market demands,
Or the market forces the adjustment.

The longer we pretend the job hasn’t changed,
The longer farms play checkers while others play chess.

You can guess how that ends.

-Marc Severson

02/16/2026

https://youtu.be/iFnJDkzuTp0?si=7oyxGWUadcDZoVbv

Low commodity prices continue to pressure farm profitability and reshape the structure of modern agriculture. As consolidation accelerates across the industr...

02/14/2026

I have a challenge for every farmer.

When you build your crop plan this year, set aside 2–3 hours and do one thing:

Build it around ROI.

Not yield.

Not bragging rights.

Not “what we’ve always done.”

Just ROI exclusively.

Then every time you catch yourself drifting toward max yield, pull it back.

Because the goal isn’t bushels.
The goal is return on investment.

(Spoiler alert, those are not the same thing)

Try it, see how uncomfortable it feels.

This is what the cure to high prices looks like.

Let me know what you learn.

02/12/2026

https://youtu.be/KJrzGUa38V4?si=7PBra0MfRJShsZMX

This week Aimee Burke, Business Development Midwest had a great conversation with Mark from Forge about our Redox + Forge collaboration and what he’s seeing ...

02/10/2026

The Unofficial Sales Script for Humic Products:

1. Ask what humic the grower is currently using.

2. Explain why it isn’t very good. If necessary, reference chemistry words like PH, oxygen, etc. Most people will tune out.

3. Declare yours superior. If pressed on why, remind them there aren’t universally agreed-upon standards.

4. Get product in the door.

It’s not unique to humics, that’s just sales. But humics amplify the problem because there’s no clean, standardized way to compare products, and the claims range from “minor soil conditioner” to “complete fertility replacement.”

We’ve followed this space for years. One thing is clear:

There’s very little consensus.

There’s a lot of conviction.

And growers are left to sort through it while writing real checks on real acres.

Honestly, We're not sure what the “right” humic strategy is across every soil type and crop system. We don’t think anyone is.

But we’d like to be.

We're trying to learn what actually holds up economically, agronomically, and consistently and get closer to a position where the conversation is less about belief and more about results.

We’re not there yet. But if you are working on it, we'd love to hear from you.

02/08/2026

Every ag magazine loves to scold farmers for "short-sightedly cutting fertilizer when margins get tight."

Most farmers treat their operation like factory work. Same fertilizer rates year after year. But production should adjust to input prices, crop prices, and weather patterns.

When the spread between crop prices and input costs widens, increase nutrient applications. When it narrows, reduce them. If you don’t need to reduce, you were almost certainly not applying enough at the higher spread.

But really, farmers don't really know their break-even on each input. They don't know the precise yield response curve for N, P, K, S. I'm not sure anyone does.

So here's a rough rule if you accept you don't know the math:
Figure out what percentage of revenue you spend on fertilizer and keep it constant. You're still variable-rating based on soil tests just scaling your entire program to maintain that revenue percentage as prices shift.

This isn't optimal in any sense. It's admitting you don't know the answer. But it tries to maintain correlation between inputs and outputs, and it's a hell of a lot better than running fixed rates for years then panic-cutting everything when margins collapse.

What’s your percentage?