Information Provided By A Grant From the Howard G. Buffett Foundation
the
truth
about no-till
BY howard g. buffett
Information Provided By A Grant From the Howard G. Buffett Foundation
Why is it that some academic researchers dismiss
no-till as a best practice? I have several theories, but
I think the main issue is they do not understand
conservation agriculture in a non-academic context.
Few if any researchers have spent time farming
themselves, they have limited money for no-till or
strip-till research, their livelihoods do not depend on
farming and there is no “big money” behind it.
The old saying about follow the money is true.
Fertilizer, chemical, seed and equipment companies
are not aggressively supporting no-till because they do
not believe it is in their financial self-interest to do so.
This is exactly why farmers should pay attention.
Many researchers accept financing from companies
with an agenda, one that does not always align with
farmers. Government grants have been cut, and research
costs have increased, so researchers must find alternative
sources for funding. This funding can be about meeting
their academic needs, not always about meeting the
real-world needs of farmers. Of course this doesn’t apply
to all research or to all researchers, but it is time to stop
throwing stones at no-till as a best practice until those
doing the throwing provide real-world alternatives.
Business as usual will not cut it any longer. Do we as
farmers believe that more fertilizer, more chemicals
and reduced organic matter as a result of soil erosion
are the most sustainable solutions? Or that fights over
contamination of water sources from fertilizer runoff
and challenges between urban and agricultural water
rights will all go our way in the long-term?
When research and money support all alternatives
equally I will stop writing these columns. Until then,
let’s look at the myths that are perpetuated by the
naysayers of no-till as a best practice.
MYTHS
Myth 1: It takes five years for no-till to demonstrate
benefits.
It may take time to recognize the full benefits of
adopting no-till, including improved soil structure,
better water holding capacity, improved cation exchange
capacity and increased organic matter, but it isn’t like
your soil or your farm go on a five-year vacation.
Production from our farms in Illinois, Nebraska,
Arizona and South Africa show that fields that have
been conventionally tilled for years and switched
to no-till have no yield reduction the first year of
conversion, and we have less soil loss and much
lower operating expenses. Our no-till fields produce
yields equal or better than conventionally-tilled
fields and, more importantly, are more profitable
and withstand extreme weather better.
Myth 2:Tilling helps farmers get rid of weeds, so
no-till farmers use more herbicide.
I would laugh this particular myth off but it’s
amazing how many people believe this to be true.
Every pass through your field that turns over soil
germinates weeds. You do not need to be a master
gardener to understand why this occurs. When we
occasionally work our end rows (very occasionally),
more weeds germinate in the end rows than in our
undisturbed covered fields. If no-till required more
herbicide, then every chemical company would be
lining up to promote no-till. I don’t see any lines
forming.
Another best practice that is relevant to herbicides is
the use of cover crops. Cover crops reduce herbicide
use, help inhibit weeds, scavenge nutrients while
improving soil health and reducing potential
chemical and herbicide runoff. The benefit of that
begins year one.
Myth 3 : No-till is easier for startup farms.
Trading five pieces of conventional equipment for
two pieces of no-till equipment usually works to your
advantage. You use the exact same planter but you add
between two to four attachments depending on your
system. You get rid of your disc, field cultivator, plow,
chisel plow, disk ripper or whatever it is in your shed
that turns over soil. This as a myth because farmers
trade equipment on a regular basis and the math of
trading more for less is not difficult to understand
and applies to all farms, new or old.
One study demonstrates that no-till requires less
than half of the tractor hours of conventional
farming. You do not need to be a startup operation
to realize those gains.
www.harvestingthepotential.org
"At the end of the day there are
two things to consider: How
do we protect our greatest asset,
our soil; and how do we learn
to farm with a systems approach? "
This large roller crimper shown in Illinois is 60 feet wide to match the width of a 24-row planter. We are exploring how
this technology might be implemented in large-scale conservation farming systems in the U.S. and in small scale systems
in Africa, both with mechanization and with oxen.
At the end of the day there are two things to consider:
How do we protect our greatest asset, our soil; and
how do we learn to farm with a systems approach?
Perpetuating myths about no-till achieves neither.
MINDSET
We face a serious mindset challenge within our
farming ranks and from many different external actors
when it comes to adopting best practices like no-till
and cover crops. For example, in one state where we
farm, we struggled with limited success with cover
crops and couldn’t understand why the results were
so different from our experiences in fields that were
close by.
We consulted and shared information with our
chemical supplier/applicator, but eventually discovered
after several years that they continued to apply
chemicals that were not compatible with the cover
crops we were using. Unfortunately, we had to
figure out the problem for ourselves.
On one of our other farms, year after year when
our fields were sprayed, the company we contract
with would cut across our rows in their effort to
rush back to refill the sprayer, leaving serious ruts
that required tillage to correct. Other times they
would run floater tires that crushed our corn stalks,
destroying the uniformity of the field, an important
factor in no-till.
Information Provided By A Grant From the Howard G. Buffett Foundation
No-tilling soybeans into wheat stubble. A fellow farmer, Brian Watkins, created a computer farmer simulation
model comparing traditional farming and no-till. His model demonstrated that no-till provided the equivalent
of 9.8 bushels per acre more than a traditional system. In addition, no-till required approximately 22 percent
less labor.
At times they used machines with row crop tires and
sprayed diagonally across our rows, creating ruts
that lasted for years unless they were filled in with
tillage. They created havoc with our no-till system.
The challenge is that it is clear they do not have the
necessary experience with no-till or cover crops. This
creates a large hurdle for farmers trying to adapt to
more sustainable farming techniques.
our future
Attacks on farmers are likely to intensify. Organizations
that focus on competing agendas would rather see
farmers fail. And as drought or contaminated water
impacts more cities, agriculture is going to lose
ground unless we make it clear we are doing our part
to provide solutions. We have proven practices that
can address many of the concerns being debated about
agriculture today, but we need a different mindset.
We need a systems approach that incorporates best
practices like no-till, nutrient management, cover
crops and crop rotation.
Farmers in the United States didn’t become the world’s
greatest producers by accident. We can continue
to be global leaders, but we must demonstrate new
leadership.
Researchers have contributed significantly to our
success. But success in 2025 will not look like success
back in the 1950’s. Times have changed and we need
to keep changing with them. As David Mitchell put
it in the Illinois AgriNews, “This (no-till) is probably
the most sustainable method that can be done on a
large scale.” We can help define “sustainable” or we
will be forced to use someone else's definition.
THE
HOWARD
G.
BUFFETT
FO U N D AT ION
Howard G. Buffett is a farmer and Chairman and CEO of the
Howard G. Buffett Foundation. He has farmed for over thirtyfive years and the foundation has invested over $150 million in
research to improve agriculture and invested an additional $350
million in agriculture-related programs globally.
www.harvestingthepotential.org