Tillage Timeout

Doug Adams, farmer from Humboldt

BY BETHANY BARATTA

Expanded usage of reduced and no-till systems in the state could generate annual savings between $220 million and $265 million, a recent Iowa Soybean Association (ISA)- commissioned study concluded.

Twenty Iowa farmers were chosen for the study during the 2018 crop year to take a closer look at production and profitability. Study participants were chosen based on their extensive interest in conservation practices. Combined, participants raised 27,535 acres of corn and soybeans and were geographically dispersed throughout the state.

ISA undertook the study with support from the Walton Family Foundation, the Environmental Defense Fund and Iowa-based Regional Strategic, Ltd.

Data collected by farmers and shared via interviews were aggregated and summarized in 2019. Researchers observed the crop rotations for each farmer to determine the economic and yield impacts of conservation practices. Those of particular interest were reduced- and no-till systems, nutrient management and cover crop use. Of the combined 27,535 acres included in the study, 67.8% were no-till, 20.8% were in a reduced-tillage system. The remaining 11.4% were conventionally tilled.

Detailed production records from some of the participants showed implementation of a reduced- or notill system saved between $10 to $88 per acre. One participant was able to demonstrate a two-thirds reduction in tractor hours and reduced fuel needs from 5 gallons per acre to 1 gallon per acre.

The estimated savings was higher among participants who provided extensive records, the study noted. According to a state-by-state breakdown of agricultural activity gathered from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 2017 Census, 5 million acres of cropland were intensively tilled in Iowa. If half of those acres — 2.5. million — were to switch to a minimum-or no-till system, Iowa farmers could recognize annual savings between $220 million and $265 million in fuel and equipment costs, according to the study.

— HEATH ELLISON, ISA AGRONOMIST

“Iowa famers could be saving money by reducing tillage,” says Heath Ellison, senior conservation agronomist for ISA and principle collaborator in the study’s implementation. “Given the current challenges in farmer profitability, it’s surprising that we aren’t seeing more farmers go to a reduced- or no-till system.”

Doug Adams, a participant in the study and a soybean and corn farmer in Humboldt County, says he’s benefited from reduced input costs since moving to no-till soybeans and partial strip-till and no-till in his corn acres nearly 20 years ago.

“Farmers are so used to tilling that they don’t question whether it’s making a return on the investment or not,” Adams says. “But this study — and my experience — shows that switching to no-till or a reduced-tillage system has real economic benefits.”

Ellison recognizes not every farmer may want to go all-in on no-till for a variety of reasons. Some farmers who have tried no-till may have experienced slower springtime soil warming or yield losses when compared to conventional tillage. Strip-tillage systems could be a happy medium between no-till and conventional tillage, he says.

With strip-tillage, the soil is tilled in rows of 6- to 10-inch strips in the fall or spring, leaving areas of crop residue in between the exposed rows. Because crop residue has been moved away from the rows, the soils dry faster in a strip-till system. Less residue in the tilled strips reduces potential planting concerns, ISA research shows.

In many cases, strip-till allows placement of nutrients around 6 inches below the strip of planted seeds. “Strip-till, a reduced-tillage practice, can provide many of the benefits that no-till provides,” Ellison says. “Any practice helping to build soil health builds crop resilience.”

Minimal disruption of the soil means opportunities for an increase in organic matter, water-holding capacity and nutrient-holding capacity. Minimal disturbance also allows the soil to buffer extreme rain or extreme heat, which reduces the potential for soil erosion and downstream flooding impacts, Ellison says.

As the results of the ISA study show, reducing tillage is also profitable.

“Any reduction in passes across the field improves profitability,” Ellison says.

Considerations, such as fuel and equipment costs, soil types, crop rotation and field history need to be included in management decisions to find which tillage system works best economically and environmentally for each farm.

For Adams, a sixth-generation farmer, reduced- and no-till systems work on his soybean and corn acres. “It’s a way to reduce equipment needs while saving time and money on fuel,” says Adams, who works full-time as a soil conservation technician at USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service. “Plus, I’m building soil health while also remaining productive and profitable.”

Contact Bethany Baratta at bbaratta@iasoybeans.com.