Pennsylvania Farmers’ No-Till and Best
Management Practices
A Project of the
Pennsylvania No-Till Alliance
Funding Provided by the
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
2
PA FARMERS’ USE OF NO-TILL AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
ABSTRACT
Cropland is traditionally fertilized and plowed to turn over soil and prepare a seedbed for
planting. Frequent spring rains cause storm water to flow across bare fields, which do not
yet have stabilizing plants to absorb the fertilizer. Excess nutrients and sediment from
fertilizers and freshly plowed fields run off into surrounding waterways; for a large number
of Pennsylvania farms, these residues eventually enter the Chesapeake Bay.
In 2006, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection - in partnership with
Penn State Cooperative Extension, USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, the
Capital Area RC&D Council, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Pennsylvania
Environmental Council - received a grant to oversee the conversion of 12,750 acres of
cropland to continuous no-till agriculture. This conversion will reduce the annual nitrogen
load to the Susquehanna River by over 99,000 pounds, and the annual phosphorous load
by over 17,000 pounds. However, little is known about what factors influence farmers’
decision-making regarding adoption of no-till farming systems.
The primary goal of this project is the improvement of education, services, and
programming to Pennsylvania farmers as related to the practice of no-till farming. A
secondary goal is to inform the PA Department of Agriculture of Best Management
Practices currently being used by PA crop producers. To meet these goals, the following
research questions were developed:
1. What percentage of Pennsylvania farmers is using no-till systems as part of their
management practices?
a. What factors have influenced farmers to use no-till systems?
b. What factors have influenced farmers to not use no-till systems?
c. What is the demographic profile of farmers in each group?
2. Which identified Best Management Practices are adopted by farmers using no-till
systems?
Representatives of the Pennsylvania No-Till Alliance (PaNTA) administered surveys to
crop producers attending Penn State 2014 Extension seminars and other venues. In
addition, interviews were conducted with 20 respondents. A total of 478 usable surveys
were collected. Based on data analysis, 433 of respondents (91%) currently use no-till or
reduced tillage in their operations with 390 (81%) of those indicating they use
comprehensive no-till practices. The average acreage farmed by all respondents is 411
acres; average acreage in no-till is 346 acres.
3
Primary factors influencing adopters of no-till planting systems are 1) reduced erosion, 2)
reduced labor costs, 3) improved soil structure, 4) reduced fuel costs, and 5) reduced soil
moisture loss. Conversely, those farmers who quit or never adopted no-till planting
indicated they were most influenced by issues with root depth, a reduced ability to add soil
amendments, slower warming of the soil, and use of herbicides.
Over one-half of respondents are 50 or more years old (236, 52%) and have a high school
education or less (248, 55%). Farmers in the 18-30 year age range were the least
represented at 54 (12%) as were those with post-graduate degrees (23, 5%).
Survey respondents use an average of 10.5 out of 18 Best Management Practices (BMPs);
those farming in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed area use an average of 11.5 BMPs.
Location in the Watershed is statistically significant (p<0.05) to the number of BMPs used
as is number of acres farmed.
Interview data revealed that farmers have sound knowledge of no-till and other
conservation practices and believe those are worthwhile economically and from a
conservation perspective; however, they do not connect their local conservation efforts
with more global needs, specifically conservation to benefit the Chesapeake Bay. They
also understand identified concerns with no-till and the costs of putting BMPs into place.
In spite of this knowledge and some of their concerns, interviewees will continue to use
no-till planting and BMPs.
Recommendations developed from the data analyses focus on better awareness (for
farmers) of relationships between local practices and Chesapeake Bay or other watershed
conservation, and better communication between agencies regarding practices of PA
farmers. Further research is needed to learn how farmers prioritize selected BMPs and how
their selections match with priorities established by conservation-related agencies.
4
E XECUTIVE SUMMARY – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
As of the most recent Census of Agriculture (2012) there are 59,309 farms in Pennsylvania
covering nearly eight million farms; the average farm is 130 acres. Data shows that while
there are now fewer farms than the 63,163 reported in the 2007 Census, the average farm
has grown by six acres. Overall acreage in Pennsylvania farms has decreased from
7,809,244 in 2007 to 7,704,444 in 2012, a decrease of 104,800 acres, about 1 percent
(USDA, 2012; USDA, 2007).
It is difficult to get a sense of how many farmers in PA are crop farmers given the diversity
of farming operations and the fact that the livestock industry is generally always
accompanied by some crop farming. We cannot, therefore, indicate the percentage of PA
crop farmers participating in this study. Also, given the non-random nature of the study,
we cannot generalize results to the entire population of PA crop farmers; however, we can
develop conclusions for the participant group as one segment of the PA farmer population.
This study determined the level of no-till and best management practices (BMPs) of 497
Pennsylvania crop farmers (478 usable surveys), all attending Cooperative Extension
seminars, crop producer meetings, and other events. All areas of the state are represented
in the data. We also developed a demographic profile of participants and analyzed
relationships that may exist between farm location and certain responses.
Conclusion #1: The vast majority of participating farmers use no-till farming
practices.
Conclusion #2: The majority of farmers who practice no-till farming do so for
both environmental and economic reasons; protecting and maintaining soil health is the
primary concern, overall, for them.
All the farmers we spoke to have a large, well-developed knowledge base of environmental
issues as well as basic soil science. Their focus, however, is on the protection of the local
environment. There is a definite disconnect between what they do and the more global
impacts of their practices.
Conclusion #3: Farmers clearly understand the drawbacks to no-till farming, but
believe the benefits far outweigh the associated costs. They remain committed to its use.
Conclusion #4: Farmers who were interviewed believe agriculture in Pennsylvania
is absorbing a great deal of the blame for issues in the Chesapeake Bay, and don’t feel their
efforts toward environmental protection are recognized.
5
In fact, many of the persons we spoke to feel pressured and, to quote one farmer,
“badgered,” to adopt certain conservation practices. They are not aware of what is being
done to reduce pollution from other industries in the Watershed.
Conclusion #5: The number of farmers in the study who identify as full-time
farmers is slightly higher than the U.S. average.
Conclusion #6: The age of PA farmers participating in this study closely parallels
that of the U.S. Individuals in the profession are getting older with fewer young people
opting to farm for a living.
Of those individuals participating in the study, the majority farm full-time (52%), which is
higher than the 45% reported nationally. Participants closely mirror the national average
age of farmers--Over one-half of respondents are over 50 years of age. Twenty-seven
percent are 60 years and older.
Conclusion #7: All respondents have adopted Best Management Practices; all also
use more than one. This shows a high level of involvement with conservation practices.
Over three-fourths of participants use five of the 18 BMPs; 13 BMPs are used by over 50%
of survey respondents. Individuals we interviewed are happy with their decisions to adopt
BMPs, yet do not feel their efforts are noticed or recognized at the state level and beyond.
They are also not aware, as with the no-till practices, of how their conservation efforts
reach beyond their local areas.
Conclusion #8: Farmers who adopt no-till planting practices are likely to use more
BMPs than farmers who do not use no-till. They understand the importance of conservation
measures, but acknowledge their decisions are financially motivated as well.
The relationship between adoption of no-till practices and number of BMPs used is
statistically significant as reported in the Results section; Next to soil conservation they
value increased crop yield as an important factor in their decision-making.
Conclusion #9: Farmers operating within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed have
adopted more BMPs, overall, than those not living in the Watershed. While this
relationship is statistically significant, interviews with participants do not support that their
efforts are aimed at Chesapeake Bay environmental protection.
Conclusion #10: Pennsylvania farmers are knowledgeable about and committed
to no-till and Best Management Practices. They credit a wide-range of sources for
information about those practices, and take advantage of ongoing opportunities to learn.
6
RECOMMENDATIONS
We have identified several recommendations based on both the survey and interview data,
which we hope will benefit both the farming communities and those individuals whose
efforts focus on environmental protection. Some topics addressed in the conclusions will
require further research to clarify and explain and those are included in this section.
Recommendation #1: In order to increase its membership, the PA No-Till
Alliance should target individuals attending various seminars and conferences across the
state. Recruitment materials should include information that speaks to areas of concerns
(about use of no-till) identified by respondents. Many of these concerns can be addressed
through improved communications between organizations and agencies involved in
conservation efforts.
Recommendation #1a: One concern expressed by almost all interviewees
is that they feel blamed for environmental problems. If data are available regarding what
other national, regional, state, and local agencies (e.g. Penn-DOT and salt usage) do for
environmental protection, that information should be published and made available to
farmers.
Recommendation #2: Creating awareness of how local conservation efforts
impact larger watershed areas is needed, as well as why those efforts are important. This
should be a shared activity of the PA Department of Agriculture, representatives of the
various watershed areas in Pennsylvania, and farmer organizations including the PA NoTill Alliance.
Recommendation #2a: Information needs to be provided to the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation and other Bay conservations agencies and organizations about
the efforts being undertaken by Pennsylvania farmers.
Recommendation #3: Further research is warranted to investigate no-till and BMP
usage in watersheds of Pennsylvania other than the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Recommendation #4: This study has given us a sense that the priorities for
protecting the environment on a global scale are not necessarily in sync with those of
individual farmers. Further research should be conducted to identify priorities of regional
and state agencies and organizations, and individual farmers to determine areas of
disconnect, shared priorities, and ways to increase cooperation.
7
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
PA Farmers’ Use of No-Till and Best Management Practices .......................................... 2
Abstract ....................................................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary – Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................... 4
Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 4
Recommendations ................................................................................................... 6
PA Farmers’ Use of No-Till and Best Management Practices ........................................ 10
Historical and Background Information ..................................................................... 10
Protecting the Chesapeake Bay Watershed ............................................................. 10
Methods and Procedures ............................................................................................ 11
Research Questions................................................................................................ 11
Project Objectives .................................................................................................. 11
Population and Sample .......................................................................................... 12
Phase 1 .................................................................................................................. 12
Phase 2 .................................................................................................................. 13
Results....................................................................................................................... 14
Research Question 1: What percentage of Pennsylvania farmers use no-till systems
as part of their management practices? ................................................................... 14
Chart 1: Current Status of No-Till Usage .............................................................. 14
Interview Data Analysis ......................................................................................... 15
Research Question 1a: What factors have influenced farmers to use no-till systems?
....................................................................................................................... 16
Interview Data Analysis ......................................................................................... 16
Table 1: Influences on No-Till Decision ............................................................... 17
....................................................................................................................... 17
Are Benefits of No-Till and BMPs Worth the Costs? ............................................. 17
Benefits to Individual Farmers from Use of No-Till and BMPs .............................. 18
Research Question 1b: What factors have influenced farmers to not use no-till
systems? ................................................................................................................ 19
Table 2: Influences on Non-Adopters of No-Till Planting ..................................... 20
8
Interview Data Analysis ......................................................................................... 20
Research Question 1c: What is the Demographic Profile of Individuals in Each Group
(Adopters and Non-Adopters)? .............................................................................. 22
Employment Status of Farming .............................................................................. 22
Chart 2: Status of Farming .................................................................................... 23
County of Residence .............................................................................................. 23
Chart 3: Regions of Residence .............................................................................. 23
Age of Participants ................................................................................................ 24
Chart 4: Age Ranges of Participants ...................................................................... 24
Highest Level of Formal Education........................................................................ 24
Chart 5: Highest Levels of Formal Education ........................................................ 25
Additional Important Demographic Information .................................................... 25
Location within Chesapeake Bay Watershed .......................................................... 25
Number of Acres Farmed ....................................................................................... 25
Chart 6: Bay County Acreage in No-Till Planting ................................................. 26
Participant Use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) ............................................. 26
Research Question 2: Which identified Best Management Practices are adopted by
farmers using no-till systems? ................................................................................ 26
Table 3: Survey Respondents’ Use of Best Management Practices ........................ 27
Number of BMPs Used by PA Agriculture Region ................................................ 27
Chart 7: Number of BMPs by PA Agricultural Region ........................................... 28
Adoption of No-Till Planting and Use of BMPs ..................................................... 28
Table 4: Regression Summary Output ................................................................... 28
Table 5: Analysis of Variance Results ................................................................... 29
Location within Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Use of BMPs ............................. 29
Table 6: Regression Summary Output ................................................................... 29
Table 7: Analysis of Variance Results ................................................................... 29
Interview Data Analysis ......................................................................................... 30
Summary ............................................................................................................... 30
Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 32
Use of No-Till Farming Practices........................................................................... 33
9
Age and Farming Status of Participating PA Crop Farmers .................................... 33
Use of Best Management Practices by Participants ................................................ 34
Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 34
References ................................................................................................................. 36
Appendix 1: PA Counties by Region.................................................................... 38
Appendix 2: PA Counties in Chesapeake Bay Watershed ...................................... 39
Pennsylvania No-Till Alliance
www.panotill.org
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
www.agriculture.state.pa.us
10
PA FARMERS’ USE OF NO-TILL AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Pennsylvania No-Till Alliance
Prepared by:
Dr. Carol A. Hardbarger
Dr. Nancy J. Walker
HISTORICAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Cropland is traditionally fertilized and plowed to turn over the soil and prepare a good
seedbed for planting. Strong, frequent spring rains cause storm water to flow across bare
crop fields, which do not yet have soil-stabilizing plants to absorb the fertilizer. Excess
nutrients and sediment from fertilizers and freshly plowed fields run off into surrounding
waterways; for a large number of Pennsylvania farms, these residues eventually enter the
Chesapeake Bay (Chesapeake Bay, 2007).
No-tillage or conservation tillage is an alternative to traditional plowing and cultivation. It
is defined as a system of planting or seeding crops into soil that has not been tilled. The
process involves opening a slot in the soil only of the width and depth needed to properly
cover the seed. No additional soil tillage is done (Phillips and Young, 1973).
According to Derpsch, Friedrich, and Kassam (2010), no-tillage technology is being
applied globally on over 247 million acres under the most diverse climate and soil
conditions. In the United States, nearly 40% of crop acreage in the United States was under
some form of conservation tillage in 1994 compared with only 3% in 1984. In addition,
about 18% of the most highly erodible acres were entered in the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP), where producers were paid not to cultivate those areas (Schnittker 1997
as cited by WWF).
The success of this conservation production system is based on two key elements: 1)
continuous, permanent application such as would occur with a permanent pasture and 2)
crop rotation and cover crops to promote biological diversification (Sturny et al., 2007, as
cited in http://www.rolf-derpsch.com/notill.htm). Non-tillage of the soil in combination
with a permanent cover of crop residue leads to erosion control, sequestration of
atmospheric carbon in the soil, enhanced biological activity in the soil, better conservation
of water, and higher economic returns through time (ARS, 2012; CITC, 2011; Derpsch et
al, 2010). Even under extreme soil and climate conditions, no-till systems meet the
requirements of a sustainable agricultural production.
PROTECTING THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
Approximately one-quarter of the land use in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is agriculture,
with roughly 17 percent of that devoted to crop production. This crop production
11
contributes significantly to amounts of nutrients and sediment to the Bay and its tributaries.
No-till farming is considered such a critical part of Bay restoration that several no-till
programs have recently received Chesapeake Bay Targeted Watershed Grants, funded by
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
In 2006, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection - in partnership with
Penn State Cooperative Extension, USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, the
Capital Area RC&D Council, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Pennsylvania
Environmental Council - received a grant to oversee the conversion of 12,750 acres of
cropland to continuous no-till agriculture. This conversion will reduce the annual nitrogen
load to the Susquehanna River by over 99,000 pounds, and the annual phosphorous load
by over 17,000 pounds (Chesapeake Bay, 2007). However, little is known about what
factors influence farmers’ decision-making regarding adoption of no-till farming systems.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The Pennsylvania No-Till Alliance (PaNTA) believes in using no-till systems to improve
soil health and water quality, productivity, and profitability for future generations. As an
organization, the PaNTA offers free consultation and assistance to farmers through its
Farmer-to-Farmer outreach project, conducts educational field days at various locations
throughout the state, and supports Cooperative Extension-sponsored seminars, to name just
a few activities.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In an effort to continue to provide excellent service to its members and others in
Pennsylvania, and to provide the PA Department of Agriculture with data on use of BMPs
by crop farmers, PaNTA conducted a project to answer the following research questions:
1. What percentage of Pennsylvania farmers is using no-till systems as part of their
management practices?
a. What factors have influenced farmers to use no-till systems?
b. What factors have influenced farmers to not use no-till systems?
c. What is the demographic profile of farmers in each group?
2. Which identified Best Management Practices are adopted by farmers using no-till
systems?
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Project objectives were developed to enable the project team to answer the identified
research questions. The project was divided into two phases and spanned two fiscal years
as identified by the funder, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
12
Phase 1 focused on survey and interview development, field testing, and data collection.
Phase 2 focused on data analysis and reporting.
POPULATION AND SAMPLE
The population for the study was Pennsylvania crop farmers; the sample can be
characterized as purposive and homogeneous. All participants were attendees at one or
more crop producer seminars or meetings or the Pennsylvania State University’s 2014 Ag
Progress Days.
PHASE 1
Objective 1 of Phase 1 was to develop, produce, and administer a 2-3 page survey and
cover letter for the purposes of determining levels of no-till planting practice use, factors
related to adoption/non-adoption of no-till farming systems by Pennsylvania farmers, and
specific best management practices used by each group. Demographic information for
each participant was collected to aid in the data analysis and interpretation.
The survey instrument was developed by Dr. Carol Hardbarger and reviewed by the project
team, an agronomy specialist, and PA Department of Agriculture personnel. The
purposeful survey sample consisted of approximately 525 participants attending crop
producer and/or related meetings and seminars during the period January 1 through
September, 2014. Digital soil thermometers were provided to each individual who
completed the survey as an incentive. Select members of PaNTA received training on
survey administration protocol prior to the onset of actual administration.
The following sections were included in the survey with the use of checklist, fill-in-theblank, and multiple choice question as formats:









List of Best Management Practices for selection
Current and past use of no-till planting practices
Number of acres farmed and in no-till, if applicable
Factors influencing decision to practice no-till planting and rankings
Factors influencing decision to not practice no-till planting and rankings
Farming status (full, part-time, etc.)
County (to determine PA Agriculture Region)
Age range
Highest level of formal education
Objective 2 of Phase 1 was to conduct face-to-face or phone interviews with up to 25 survey
responders. Interviewees were selected by a random draw process from the pool of
respondents that had provided contact information. Dr. Nancy Walker was the lead
investigator on this portion of the study.
13
Twenty-one individuals were interviewed using a semi-structured protocol based on
information derived from preliminary survey data analysis. Interviews occurred during the
period August 1 through December 31, 2014. Follow-up interviews occurred in January
2015 to capture additional data.
The items forming the interview protocol included the following:
1. Five major reasons for using no-till agriculture and BMPs have been identified in
the literature. Rank the following reasons in order of importance to you.
_____ a.
_____ b.
_____ c.
_____ d.
_____ e.
Keeping local streams and other waterways free from contamination
Desire to protect groundwater from contamination
Concern with Chesapeake Bay Watershed conservation
Soil conservation
Maximizing crop yield
2. How/where have you learned about no-till agriculture and BMPs?
3. How frequently do you attend Penn State or other training/meetings to update your
information about no-till practices?
4. Do you believe the costs of no-till BMPs are worthwhile when considering the
conservation benefits? Why?
5. What are the major benefits to you and your farming operation of no-till agriculture
and BMPs?
6. What are the drawbacks or problems to you and your farming operation of no-till
practices agriculture and BMPs?
7. Have you ever considered stopping no-till practices? Why or why not?
PHASE 2
Objective 1 of Phase 2 was to conduct quantitative data analysis on valid completed
surveys. Primary outcomes provide profiles of adopters and non-adopters of no-till
farming systems. Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions were used to develop a
list of factors influencing adoption or non-adoption of no-till farming systems, a
compilation of best management practices, and demographic profiles of respondents.
Linear regression determined relationships between various demographic and other factors
and the 1) use of no-till practices and 2) selection of Best Management Practices.
Objective 2 of Phase 2 was to conduct qualitative data analysis of the interview data from
the face-to-face and phone interviews conducted in Project 1. Accepted standards for
14
qualitative data sorting, coding, and interpretation were used including triangulation and
theme development.
Combined results of the survey and interview data analyses paint a picture of no-till
farming and farmers’ use of Best Management Practices in the Commonwealth. This
information will be used to develop new and enhanced programming by the PaNTA.
RESULTS
Results are presented below and organized by research question.
RESEARCH QUESTION 1: WHAT PERCENTAGE OF PENNSYLVANIA FARMERS USE NOTILL SYSTEMS AS PART OF THEIR MANAGEMENT PRACTICES?
Participants were asked to indicate whether they currently use no-till planting, currently
use reduced tillage for their planting, or currently use both no-till and reduced tillage. A
total of 433 respondents currently use no-till practices (91%). An additional 14 participants
have used no-till in the past, but were not currently doing so at the time of the survey.
Thirty-one respondents (6%) do not currently and have never practiced no-till farming.
Results are presented in Chart 1 below.
CHART 1: CURRENT S TATUS OF NO-TILL USAGE
Current Status of No-Till Usage (N=478)
300
280
# Participants
250
200
150
110
100
43
50
14
31
0
No Till
Reduced Till
Both
Former User
No Use
No-Till Usage
Participants farm at total of 197,988 acres including those who do not use no-till planting.
A total of 166,423 acres was reported as currently under no-till planting.
15
INTERVIEW DATA ANALYSIS
Interviewees were asked how or where they learned about no-till farming and Best
Management Practices. The majority of the farmers shared that they initially learned about
no-till from their fathers or other relatives who practiced no-till, and from neighboring notillers:
Our initial source of information on no-till came from a neighbor, friend and 'father
of no-till' in our area. We were exposed to his on-farm experimentation as far back
as the late 1960s. His first attempt resulted in a very poor stand, due to the lack of
firming wheels on his planter. His farm manager planted 24 acres for us in 1976.
That and an above-average yield was enough to sell us on the technology, and I
purchased a 2-year-old planter the next spring. We planted our own corn and have
custom planted up to 400 acres a year for the past 16 years.
I learn more about what actually works from my neighbors and the old guys who
have been farming for a while than what I learn in meetings.
I worked with the soil conservation service and learned about no-till from farmers
in the county. It didn't take long for a few folks to adopt it and then it really took
off with other farmers. It really works in shale soils and at one time, in the 1980s,
70% of the corn in Perry County was no-till. It is probably more now.
Farmers also proudly talked about learning through experimentation . . . “learning by
doing.”
I learned about no-till from self-trial and error and the school of hard knocks. We
started in 1969 by building our first two planters and I designed my own row-sweep.
There was nothing [equipment] available and I read all the time. I learned that you
can never learn it all. We woke the equipment companies up.
I started out with a corn planter and learned through trial-and-error and
experimentation.
All of the interviewed farmers stated they attend formal meetings and trainings: local
events sponsored by PaNTA, Penn State Cooperative Extension, local agricultural supply
businesses, industry representatives and seed dealers, NRSC and Soil and Water
Conservation District meetings; and state and national events. Specifically mentioned were
Crop Days, Corn Days, and spray and pesticide meetings where farmers earn “Pesticide
Points.” Accumulation of “Pesticide Points” so farmers can be certified and subsequently
issued pesticide spray licenses is a major reason for attending meetings. One farmer deeply
involved with no-till shared that he regularly attends the National No-Till Conference.
Interviewees also appear to be voracious readers. The Farm Journal was often mentioned
as well as assorted trade journals, pamphlets and information bulletins. One farmer shared
16
that her dad has been a no-tiller for years and she has been reading his agricultural
magazines since she was a child. Even so, one farmer cautioned that “not everything you
read in a journal or magazine will work on a farm.” It is apparent from the quantity and
quality of the comments, that farmers put more trust in what they learn from other farmers
than what they hear at meetings or read in magazines.
In addition, two of the farmers interviewed are technologically savvy when it comes to
surfing the internet for information to improve their operations:
I use on-line resources such as U-Tube clips from conferences and information
provided by universities. Burley County, North Carolina, has a really good website.
Duane Beck and Chris Johnson are also good on-line resources.
When asked how frequently they attend Penn State or other trainings and meetings to
update their information about no-till practices and BMPs, farmers responded that they
attend 2-5 meetings per year with most of those meetings happening in the winter and early
spring. Summer and fall meetings are difficult because of planting and harvesting. One
self-identified “old-guy” with a sense of humor said that he is “kinda (sic) a block-head
when it comes to listening to people at meetings” so only attends them when he has no
other choice.
RESEARCH QUESTION 1A: WHAT FACTORS HAVE INFLUENCED FARMERS TO USE NOTILL SYSTEMS ?
Participants were provided a list of 11 factors identified in the literature as benefits of using
no-till planting systems. Reduced soil erosion was identified by the largest number of
farmers (395, 91%), followed closely by reduced labor costs and improved soil structure
(346, 80%; 379, 71% respectively). Table 1 presents results of the data analysis.
INTERVIEW DATA ANALYSIS
The first item in the interview protocol asked participants to rank five major reasons for
using no-till and BMP practices. Farmers’ rankings reflect the quantitative data. The
number one reason for adoption was soil conservation. Farmers clearly understand that
preserving the integrity of the soil is directly related to their current and future livelihoods.
One farmer shared:
Topsoil is very hard to replace so it's important to keep it in place for me and future
farmers. Without healthy topsoil, crops can't be grown economically. Any
[agricultural] practice must have positive economic and ecological benefits for it
to be sustainable.
17
T ABLE 1: INFLUENCES ON NO-TILL D ECISION
Influences on No-Till Decision
Reduced soil erosion
Reduced labor costs
Improved soil structure
Cost of diesel fuel
Reduced soil moisture loss
Reduced soil compaction
Need less equipment
Reduced runoff
Better habitat for soil organisms
Increased water filtration
High yield and higher profits
Farmers (%) (n=433)
395 (91%)
346 (80%)
340 (79%)
327 (76%)
327 (76%)
310 (72%)
291 (67%)
289 (67%)
267 (62%)
248 (57%)
200 (46%)
Maximizing crop yield came in a close second. Many of the
interview participants discussed the relationship between soil
and increased crop yield--not only is this (increased yield) a
result of healthier soils, but there is increased acreage planted
because of no-till techniques. One farmer explained that notillers 1) operate on a larger scale, 2) make more money, 3) do
a better job and 4) get “bigger bang for their buck.” According
to another farmer:
No-till reduces the time I need to prepare the land for
planting so I can afford to cultivate more acres. Reduced labor means more acres
cultivated.
Keeping local streams and other waterways free from contamination and desire to protect
groundwater from contamination were ranked three and four. Many of the farmers
interviewed had some difficulty ranking these two reasons because of how closely they are
related.
ARE BENEFITS OF NO-TILL AND BMPS WORTH THE COSTS ?
Farmers were also asked whether they felt the benefits of using no-till farming practices
and BMPs are worth the costs. When responding to this question they considered the
following factors: time to prepare land, maintenance and labor, cost of fuel and other
inputs, and start-up costs. The vast majority of farmers interviewed feel that the economic
investment in no-till and adopted BMPs is well-worth the conservation and ecological
benefits. In fact, many have been pleasantly surprised that no-till decreased their overall
costs. Farmers had no problems sharing their feelings about no-till’s costs and
conservation benefits:
18
Absolutely worth it. Any time you can reduce fuel consumption, trips over the
field, time consumption and [soil] compaction, and still maintain or increase [crop]
yields, you have to consider no-till.
The cost of no-till is worthwhile because we are seeing the results and we feel that
our soil is healthy.
It costs more per acre to use conventional farming methods. Also, the benefits [of
no-till] to the soil are tremendous. No-till improves the micro-elements and organic
structure of the soil. It has been interesting to see how the soil profile has changed
over the last 12 years. The soil is alive! There is something growing in it all the
time.
Of course no-till is worthwhile. No-tillers can operate on a larger scale, make more
money, and do a better job. We get a bigger bang for our inputs.
It has a big impact on soil erosion, but farmers still need to construct waterways
and practice strip farming. The initial start-up costs can be a lot but farmers realized
that they had to get bigger if they wanted to compete . . . and no-till allows that.
This final quote addresses an interesting point. Though all the interviewees are enthusiastic
supporters of no-till, that enthusiasm is tempered for the majority of them by some of their
experiences with conventional tillage practices. Only a small percent of the interviewees
can be classified as 100% no-till practitioners, and those are mainly large-scale farmers or
individuals new to farming. All others are, to varying degrees, using minimum-till. One
dairy farmer shared:
There are some guys that we refer to as “no-till cultists.” On our farm we use
minimum-till. It depends on soil types and location of the fields . . . what yields
best for the physical conditions and soil we have.
Finally, it is interesting to note that when considering cost and the environment, no one
mentioned the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Farmers are almost completely focused on
issues that impact them directly. Though they may not be “thinking globally,” they are
“acting locally.”
BENEFITS TO INDIVIDUAL FARMERS FROM USE OF NO-TILL AND BMPS
Farmers recognize the many benefits of no-till and look forward to any new technology
being developed. One summed it up quite nicely: “No-tilling saves time, saves nutrients,
saves top-soil, and saves money.” Comments from other farmers support his assertion:
No-till is definitely worthwhile. Using no-till in an agricultural systems approach
can raise production and lower overall costs.
19
Building soil and conserving what topsoil we have, confidence in pushing for yields
while protecting our waterways, and neighboring properties from erosion by
managing rainwater and run-off on our property are all major benefits.
I'm happy with what we are doing. No-till is cheaper and reduces time. I can do
everything with one sprayer and a planter. I farm 1,500 acres and only 100 acres
of it are not no-till. If it saves time and money, I am interested.
I don’t have near the erosion and water run-off from storms. No-till gives me more
control. It’s the only way we can farm now because we don’t have the time or
money to farm the way we used to.
I have less ruts to fix.
No-till limits the time needed to prepare the land so farmers can afford to cultivate
more acres . . . reduced labor means more acres cultivated, and you know what that
means!
The positive impact of no-till goes deeper than the obvious economic, ecological and
environmental benefits. There is also a social benefit. Because of less time needed to
prepare the land, farmers can have an additional off-farm job. One farmer who benefits
from the labor and time-saving aspect of no-till stated:
I am a small farmer. I can rent a drill for $10.00 an acre from the county and plant
my fields in a day or so. Then I can hold a second job to keep my farm going.
One farmer also noted that no-till has allowed livestock farmers to become crops farmers.
Who knows how many family farms may be saved simply because farmers can diversify
their operation or supplement their income through a second job?
Finally, no-till also lessens the physical burden on disabled farmers or farmers with other
health problems. One farmer shared:
No-till allows us to farm the fields we have with less labor and hired help. This is
good because I am disabled and my health is not good. It allows me to keep
farming.
RESEARCH QUESTION 1B: WHAT FACTORS HAVE INFLUENCED FARMERS TO NOT USE
NO - TILL SYSTEMS?
Individuals indicating they have never used no-till planting or had used it in the past and
quit were directed to a list of 10 items and asked to identify which factors influenced their
decisions. The list was developed following a thorough literature review.
20
Results are presented below in Table 2; Since less than one-third of the individuals stating
they had quit using or never used no-till planting responded to this section of the survey
(13 out of 45), any interpretations of the information in Table 2 should be made cautiously
and these data will not be considered for the conclusions section of this report. However,
the Interview Data Analysis that follows Table 2 provides insights into common drawbacks
to no-till farming cited by those farmers who use the system.
T ABLE 2: INFLUENCES ON NON-ADOPTERS OF NO-T ILL P LANTING
Influences on Non-Adopters of No-Till Planting
Root depth restricted limiting nutrient intake
Reduced ability to add soil amendments (lime, manure, etc.)
Slow to warm and dry in spring
Increased herbicide use
Infestation by perennial weeds
Pest control problems
Increased risk of plant diseases
Longer germination time
Leaching of soluble nutrients
Reduced crop yield
# Farmers (%) (n=13)
13 (100%)
12 (92%)
10 (77%)
10 (77%)
8 (62%)
6 (46%)
5 (38%)
4 (31%)
3 (23%)
2 (15%)
INTERVIEW DATA ANALYSIS
Even though all the farmers interviewed were advocates and users of no-till and BMPs,
they were able to identify valid drawbacks, problems, and concerns related to no-till and
their farming operations. Many of these concerns revolved around a variety of themes:
weather, soil condition, overall field condition, weed and pest control, manure and fertilizer
application, equipment, and attitudes of no-till and no-till practitioners. Pest and weed
control was, by far, the biggest concern of the farmers:
There are two drawbacks: 1) restrictions on chemicals for example spraying along
streams and creeks . . . you have to be very conscious of what you do; and 2) soil
does not recover as quickly after it is compacted.
You have to stay on top of the weeds. That means a more intensive spray program.
You also have to 'burn-down' and make sure everything is cleaned up. The weather
can also cause problems.
Disease and weeds are a problem with the wheat crop . . . bugs and disease live in
the crop residue. Slugs in the soybeans and corn are some of my biggest problems.
21
One farmer, though, felt that “the chemical thing has sort of worked itself out with
development of more environmentally friendly pesticides and herbicides.” Manure
application and incorporation was discussed in detail by several of the farmers interviewed:
I think manure incorporation has to be one factor we haven't fully solved yet. In
the 70's and 80's, we used a chisel plow to incorporate liquid manure to prevent
run-off and preserve nitrogen on corn ground. Surface application isn't the best
solution but it's the best we can do at the moment. Secondly, covering small seeds
such as alfalfa means more time setting the no-till drill to handle different amounts
of trash. But the benefits still outweigh the drawbacks.
Nitrogen management and incorporating manure can be a problem. I can only
spread manure at certain times during the year.
As previously mentioned by one farmer, soil compaction is a major drawback to no-till.
Others shared his concern:
There are times when I have to use minimum-till because of soil compaction and
weather conditions.
Every once in a while, I have to rotate fields and use a chisel plow and a disk to
loosen up the ground.
Attitude on the part of no-tillers as well as their farming and non-farming neighbors can
also be a problem. A relatively new farmer shared:
For me there are no drawbacks to using no-till. I am new at grain farming and
farming and have always used no-till. The biggest challenge I have is convincing
my farming neighbors that I am not crazy.
Others pointed out that:
You can only farm for the fun of it for so long. You need to look at what's left after
the bills are paid; and sometimes you have to sacrifice your belief systems to pay
those bills.
No-tillers need patience. They should buy a fishing pole in the spring because of
the uncertain weather. A cool spring will lock in moisture and keep the soil cool
so we often have to start planting later in the spring. We can't rush it.
If something is a drawback, you don't do it.
Back when we were starting no-till we had some concerns. During years four and
five we had some yield drags because of poor penetration. Our neighbor told us to
“don't look back . . . . . look forward.” We listened to him, looked forward, and
will never go back to conventional agriculture.
22
There is one drawback that plagues almost all farmers:
Machinery is expensive, the technology keeps changing . . . . And hog manure on
fields ticks people off!
Finally, when considering the challenges of no-till, one woman was quite philosophic:
No-till is only one tool in my toolbox and like any tool, you use the one that does
the job. No-till is an option. Good or bad, it is part of what we do as farmers.
RESEARCH QUESTION 1C: WHAT IS THE DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF INDIVIDUALS IN
E ACH GROUP (ADOPTERS AND NON-ADOPTERS)?
The survey asked respondents for some demographic information to aid in developing a
profile for various sub-groups and to aid in additional data analysis. Specific demographic
items requested were




Employment status of farming
County of residence
Age
Highest level of formal education
Given the small number of non-adopters among survey respondents, a decision was made
to develop a demographic profile of all survey respondents rather than by separate profiles
of adopters vs. non-adopters.
E MPLOYMENT S TATUS OF FARMING
Respondents were asked to indicate whether they farm full-time (not retired), are retired
and farming, farm and also have an off-farm job, or characterize their farm employment in
some other way. The majority of respondents (241, 52%) indicated they are engaged in
full-time farming. An additional 63 (14%) indicated they are retired and farming. Onethird of respondents farm and also have an off-farm job (154, 33%). Examples of other as
provided by respondents were working as a farm laborer and working as a contract farmer.
Data are presented in Chart 2.
23
CHART 2: S TATUS OF FARMING
Farming Status
1%
Full-Time
33%
Retired Farmer
52%
Part-Time
Other
14%
COUNTY OF RESIDENCE
For ease of analysis participants were grouped by which Pennsylvania agriculture region
in which they live (Appendix 1). Over one-half of all participants responding to this item
came from Regions 5 and 6 (242/462, 52%). An additional 27% came from Regions 2 and
4 (n=124), the remaining 21% from Regions 1, 3, and 7 (Chart 3).
# Participants by PA Agriculture Region
(n=462)
CHART 3: R EGIONS
OF RESIDENCE
38
7
129
Region
6
113
5
61
4
28
3
63
2
30
1
0
20
40
60
80
# Participants
100
120
140
24
AGE OF PARTICIPANTS
Participants were asked to provide the age group to which they belong: 18-30, 31-40, 4150, 51-60, and 60+. The majority of participants (52%) were over 50, with 114 (25%) in
the 51-60 age range and 122 (27%) in the 60+ group. The smallest group represented was
18-30 years of age with 54 participants (12%) (Chart 4).
CHART 4: AGE RANGES OF PARTICIPANTS
Age Ranges of Participants (n=457)
54, 12%
122, 27%
92, 20%
18-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
114, 25%
75, 16%
60+
HIGHEST LEVEL OF FORMAL EDUCATION
Six levels of formal education were identified on the survey:






Less than high school
High school
Some college
Associate’s degree
Bachelor’s degree
Post-graduate degree
The largest group of participants have a high school education (199, 44%) followed by
those with a Bachelor’s Degree (110, 24%). Chart 5 provides the analysis results for
education groups.
25
CHART 5: HIGHEST LEVELS OF FORMAL EDUCATION
Highest Levels of Formal Education
(n=457)
23
Level Completed
Post-Graduate Degree
110
Bachelor's Degree
35
Associate's Degree
41
Some College
199
High School
49
Less than High School
0
50
100
150
# Participants
200
250
ADDITIONAL IMPORTANT DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
LOCATION WITHIN CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
Given the emphasis on conservation issues as identified in the original proposal for funding
coupled with the fact that such a large percentage of respondents are actively engaged in
using no-till planting and Best Management Practices, we calculated how many
respondents live and farm in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed area. In addition, data
analysis revealed that the majority of respondents lived in Pennsylvania Agriculture
Regions contained within the Watershed.
Using a map provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (Appendix 1) we recoded counties as either in or not in the Watershed. Some Pennsylvania counties are not
totally within the Watershed, but those were included as we did not have data for
participants’ exact location within their respective counties. Approximately 373 survey
participants farm within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (Approximation due to non-exact
location information noted above.). This represents 78% of survey respondents. Of these
individuals, 351 use no-till planting (94%).
NUMBER OF ACRES FARMED
Survey respondents living in one of Pennsylvania’s Chesapeake Bay Watershed counties
farm a total of 154,061 acres with an average farm size of 414 acres. There is a total of
130,066 acres in no-till planting; the average farm size in no-till planting is 365 acres (Chart
6).
26
CHART 6: BAY COUNTY ACREAGE IN NO-TILL P LANTING
ACREAGE IN NO-TILL - BAY COUNTY
PARTICIPANTS
Total Acres
Average Acres
414
365
130,066
TOTA ACRES IN NO-TILL
154,061
TOTAL ACRES IN
WATERSHED
As with other items reporting total and average size acreage, these figures are somewhat
skewed by several large farms. A decision was made to include those, consistently, in all
data analyses.
PARTICIPANT USE OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS)
RESEARCH QUESTION 2: WHICH IDENTIFIED BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ARE
ADOPTED BY FARMERS USING NO - TILL SYSTEMS?
The PA Department of Agriculture requested that the survey also collect information
related to participants’ use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). A thorough review of
the literature identified 18 BMPs which were added to the survey in a checklist.
Data analyses revealed that participants are actively engaged in using BMPs, with an
overall average of 10 used by all respondents. Table 3 presents the outcomes of these
analyses.
27
T ABLE 3: SURVEY RESPONDENTS’ USE OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Best Management Practice
Crop rotation
Regular soil testing
Apply nutrients uniformly
Apply nutrients only at required levels
Keep accurate records
Plant cover crops
No fertilizer on frozen or snow-covered ground
Have a conservation or grazing plan
Calibrate equipment regularly
Have a nutrient management plan
Manage storm water runoff
Soil organic matter kept at recommended levels
Manage runoff in livestock areas
Filter strip/vegetation used to remove pollutants
and sediments
Have erosion and sediment control plan
Avoid fertilizer on bedrock and shallow soil areas
Use stream bank fencing with riparian buffers
Assess groundwater and surface water
contamination potentials
# Farmers
Percent of Total
(n=444)
415
398
359
349
337
329
306
290
287
249
247
240
233
94%
90%
81%
79%
76%
74%
69%
65%
65%
56%
56%
54%
52%
215
208
163
154
48%
47%
37%
35%
137
31%
NUMBER OF BMPS USED BY PA AGRICULTURE R EGION
All respondents use an average of between 9 and 12 BMPs (overall average is 10).
Respondents farming in Region 7 use the most BMPs at 12, while farmers in both Regions
2 and 6 use 11. The fewest BMPs are used by respondents in Region 3 (9) (Chart 7).
28
CHART 7: NUMBER OF BMPS BY PA AGRICULTURAL REGION
BMPs by PA Agricultural Region
14
11.13
# BMPs Used
12
10
9.57
10.26
10.14
4
5
11.29
11.68
6
7
8.89
8
6
4
2
0
1
2
3
Region
(See Regions Map, Appendix 1)
ADOPTION OF NO-TILL P LANTING AND USE OF BMPS
We created dummy variables to classify individuals as either adopters or non-adopters of
no-till planting practices for a linear regression analysis. The number of BMPs used was
the independent variable.
Individuals who have adopted no-till planting use more BMPs, on average, than those who
are non-adopters of no-till. No-till farmers use an average of 11 BMPs while the nonadopters use only an average of 8. The relationship between adoption of no-till planting
and number of BMPs used is significant (p<0.05), but has a relatively low R 2 value – only
4 percent of the variance in number of BMPs used is explained by adoption (or nonadoption) of no-till planting (Tables 4 and 5).
T ABLE 4: REGRESSION SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
0.196733
Multiple R
0.038704
R Square
Adjusted R 0.036614
Square
0.24212
Standard
Error
462
Observations
29
T ABLE 5: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS
df
Regression
Residual
Total
SS
MS
F
Significance
F
1 1.08572 1.08572 18.52061
2.05E-05
460 26.96623 0.058622
461 28.05195
A review of the literature reveals that even small effect size can be useful for interpretations
depending on purpose of analysis or field (Analysis Factor, 2015; Minitab, 2015) and
particularly for analyses dealing with human behaviors. We can assume that many factors
contribute to the individuals’ choice of BMP use, but can state, more importantly, there is
a small, but reliable relationship between adoption of no-till planting practices and using
more BMPs than persons classified as non-adopters.
LOCATION WITHIN CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED AND USE OF BMPS
Individuals living within a Chesapeake Bay Watershed county use an average of 11 BMPs
compared to an average of 10 BMPs used by individuals not living within the Watershed.
To determine if this was significant, dummy variables for residence were created and used
in a linear regression analysis. The results were significant (p<0.05), but with a low R2
value – only 2 percent of the variability in the number of BMPs used is accounted for by
residence (Tables 6 and 7).
T ABLE 6: REGRESSION SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
0.142526
Multiple R
0.020314
R Square
Adjusted R 0.017901
Square
3.606033
Standard
Error
408
Observations
T ABLE 7: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS
df
Regression
Residual
Total
SS
MS
F
Significance
F
1 109.4684 109.4684 8.418396
0.003917
406 5279.411 13.00348
407 5388.88
30
As with the regression analysis results for residence and number of BMPs used, we are not
concerned about validity of the model due to the small R2 value. There is a small, but very
reliable relationship between the two variables.
INTERVIEW DATA ANALYSIS
Nearly all of the interviewed farmers live and farm in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
When ranking reasons for adopting no-till practices and BMPs, they ranked issues related
to streams, waterways, and the Bay as 1 through 5 (with 5 being the least important) in
regards to their decisions.
In my mind, all of these reason are kind of related. If we take care of our own
farms, the pollutants won't get to the Bay.
This quote refers directly to the lowest ranked reason, farmers’ concerns with Chesapeake
Bay Watershed conservation. This reason for adopting no-till BMPs was extremely
controversial and sparked energetic and at times angry comments. Over 60% of the
respondents had something to say about the Bay, and most of those comments expressed
frustration and anger about the emphasis on farmers’ contributions to the ecological and
economic crisis facing the Chesapeake. Direct quotes from the farmers are quite revealing:
I write nutrient management plans for farmers. We are so sick of hearing about the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed; just sick and tired of hearing how farmers are polluting
the Bay. Others are equally if not more responsible, and farmers do more than they
are given credit for. Farmers are fed up with government regulations. In fact, I
think they are more informed than the government. Farmers need to accumulate
credits or Pesticide Points so they can legally apply pesticides. Everybody has to
be licensed, no exceptions.
Farmers aren't the only folks at fault here. If the farmer takes the time to put manure
on a field, he'll make sure it stays there. The guys with the Chesapeake Bay need to
look at other sources of pollution.
SUMMARY
In summary, this report provided a snapshot of no-till farming and/or Best Management
practices adopted by nearly 500 Pennsylvania crop farmers. All participants are concerned
with their local environments; protection of their topsoil is the #1 reason they have adopted
conservation practices and they do understand how what they do impacts local streams and
waterways. Disconnect appears when the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is added to the
discussion.
31
The farmers we interviewed are, for the most part, committed to no-till farming,
recognizing not only how it protects their local environment, but also its economic benefits.
Many expressed concerns about what they listed as “drawbacks” with no-till farming;
however, no one indicated those issues would cause them to stop.
We think a fitting summary to this study needs to include the interview data in response to
the question, “Have you ever considered stopping no-till practices? Why or why not?”
“I could never go back to the tillage practices used thirty years ago! No-till has cut down
on labor so I actually have time to take a little break. No-till is the way of farming.” This
opinion was expressed by the majority of those interviewed. Interestingly, large-scale
farmers and folks new to farming were more likely to be no-till purists while medium to
small-scale farmers and the 'old guys' tended to be more flexible in their farming approach.
In the words of the farmers:
I've never considered stopping no-till. I am totally on-board with it. I do custom
work and 90% is no-till.
I have never considered and never will stop no-tilling. I've sold most of my tillage
equipment and as long as I am farming, I'll be no-tilling!
I've always used no-till. I am sold on the practice and don't ever see us using
conventional tillage techniques.
I have been a no-tiller for 20 years and don't intend to stop.
Though professed no-tillers, some farmers were somewhat cautious when answering this
question:
No-till is a wonderful thing but it is not the answer to everything. No-till helps
maintain the soil, no piece of ground is the same, and every farmer's situation is
different. For example, I feel that some fields need to be turned every once in a
while.
No-till has allowed farmers to plant specialty crops on a large amount of acreage
which has its pros and cons. Since the introduction of no-till, a soybean/corn
monoculture has been promoted, which is not conducive to wildlife and honey bees.
Until something better comes along, I will continue to use no-till.
Other farmers shared that they used both no-till practices as well as conventional methods
when needed:
We are minimum-tillers. No-till is an option, a tool.
32
I use minimum-till and plan to continue that approach. I like that because it is
flexible. Sometimes, because of the conditions, you just have to use a plow.
Only one farmer openly admitted that he had seriously considered stopping no-till “because
some crops like snap beans aren't good for no-till.” And last but not least, a farmer with a
good sense of humor shared, “If I did stop no-till, I would receive a lot of grief and pressure
from other farmers and government officials.” There is something to be said for peer
pressure.
As with any completed research project, conducting the data analysis has left us with some
questions. When appropriate to the scope of this study, these have been incorporated into
our Recommendations, but we feel one is worth listing here:

As acreage devoted to no-till systems is increased we assume there will be a
corresponding increase in the amount of herbicides and pesticides used. What
impacts are there on the bee population and crop pollination?
o What research is being done on this topic, if any, and what measures are
being taken to eliminate any compounding effects?
The evidence in this study shows that Pennsylvania farmers care about what they do and
have a commitment to continued learning. They are independent, but cooperative;
consistent, yet flexible. Certainly, at the very least, they can be considered stewards of the
environment.
CONCLUSIONS
As of the most recent Census of Agriculture (2012) there are 59,309 farms in Pennsylvania
covering nearly eight million farms; the average farm is 130 acres. Data shows that while
there are now fewer farms than the 63,163 reported in the 2007 Census, the average farm
has grown by six acres. Overall acreage in Pennsylvania
farms has decreased from 7,809,244 in 2007 to 7,704,444
in 2012, a decrease of 104,800 acres, about 1 percent
(USDA, 2012; USDA, 2007).
It is difficult to get a sense of how many farmers in PA are
crop farmers given the diversity of farming operations and
the fact that the livestock industry is generally always
accompanied by some crop farming. We cannot, therefore,
indicate the percentage of PA crop farmers participating in
this study. Also, given the non-random nature of the study,
we cannot generalize results to the entire population of PA crop farmers; however, we can
develop conclusions for the participant group as one segment of the PA farmer population
and believe that they are most likely applicable to the larger group.
This study determined the level of no-till and best management practices (BMPs) of 497
Pennsylvania crop farmers (478 usable surveys), all attending Cooperative Extension
33
seminars, crop producer meetings, and other events. All areas of the state are represented
in the data. We also developed a demographic profile of participants and analyzed
relationships that may exist between farm location and certain responses.
USE OF NO-T ILL FARMING PRACTICES
Conclusion #1: The vast majority of participating farmers use no-till farming
practices.
Conclusion #2: The majority of farmers who practice no-till farming do so for
both environmental and economic reasons; protecting and maintaining soil health is the
primary concern, overall, for them.
All the farmers we spoke to have a large, well-developed knowledge base of environmental
issues as well as basic soil science. Their focus, however, is on the protection of the local
environment. There is a definite disconnect between what they do and the more global
impacts of their practices.
Conclusion #3: Farmers clearly understand the drawbacks to no-till farming, but
believe the benefits far outweigh the associated costs. They remain committed to its use.
Conclusion #4: Farmers who were interviewed believe agriculture in Pennsylvania
is absorbing a great deal of the blame for issues in the Chesapeake Bay, and don’t feel their
efforts toward environmental protection are recognized.
In fact, many of the persons we spoke to feel pressured and, to quote one farmer,
“badgered,” to adopt certain conservation practices. One stated that he is sick and tired of
“hearing about the Chesapeake Bay. They are not aware of what is being done to reduce
pollution from other industries in the Watershed.
AGE AND FARMING STATUS OF PARTICIPATING PA CROP FARMERS
Conclusion #5: The number of farmers in the study who identify as full-time
farmers is slightly higher than the U.S. average.
Conclusion #6: The age of PA farmers participating in this study closely parallels
that of the U.S. Individuals in the profession are getting older with fewer young people
opting to farm for a living.
Of those individuals participating in the study, the majority farm full-time (52%), which is
higher than the 45% reported nationally. Participants closely mirror the national average
age of farmers--Over one-half of respondents are over 50 years of age. Twenty-seven
percent are 60 years and older.
34
USE OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES BY PARTICIPANTS
Conclusion #7: All respondents have adopted Best Management Practices; all also
use more than one. This shows a high level of involvement with conservation practices.
Over three-fourths of participants use five of the 18 BMPs; 13 BMPs are used by over 50%
of survey respondents. Individuals we interviewed are happy with their decisions to adopt
BMPs, yet do not feel their efforts are noticed or recognized at the state level and beyond.
They are also not aware, as with the no-till practices, of how their conservation efforts
reach beyond their local areas.
Conclusion #8: Farmers who adopt no-till planting practices are likely to use more
BMPs than farmers who do not use no-till. They understand the importance of conservation
measures, but acknowledge their decisions are financially motivated as well.
The relationship between adoption of no-till practices and number of BMPs used is
statistically significant as reported in the Results section; Next to soil conservation they
value increased crop yield as an important factor in their decision-making.
Conclusion #9: Farmers operating within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed have
adopted more BMPs, overall, than those not living in the Watershed. While this
relationship is statistically significant, interviews with participants do not support that their
efforts are aimed at Chesapeake Bay environmental protection.
Conclusion #10: Pennsylvania farmers are knowledgeable about and committed
to no-till and Best Management Practices. They credit a wide-range of sources for
information about those practices, and take advantage of ongoing opportunities to learn.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We have identified several recommendations based on both the survey and interview data,
which we hope will benefit both the farming communities and those individuals whose
efforts focus on environmental protection. Some topics addressed in the conclusions will
require further research to clarify and explain and those are included in this section.
Recommendation #1: In order to increase its membership, the PA No-Till
Alliance should target individuals attending various seminars and conferences across the
state. Recruitment materials should include information that speaks to areas of concerns
(about use of no-till) identified by respondents. Many of these concerns can be addressed
through improved communications between organizations and agencies involved in
conservation efforts.
Recommendation #1a: One concern expressed by almost all interviewees
is that they feel blamed for environmental problems. If data are available regarding
what other national, regional, state, and local agencies (e.g. Penn-DOT and salt
35
usage) do for environmental protection, that information should be published and
made available to farmers.
Recommendation #2: Creating awareness of how local conservation efforts
impact larger watershed areas is needed, as well as why those efforts are important. This
should be a shared activity of the PA Department of Agriculture, representatives of the
various watershed areas in Pennsylvania, and farmer organizations including the PA NoTill Alliance.
Recommendation #2a: Information needs to be provided to the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation and other Bay conservations agencies and
organizations about the efforts being undertaken by Pennsylvania farmers.
Recommendation #3: Further research is warranted to investigate no-till and BMP
usage in watersheds of Pennsylvania other than the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Recommendation #4: This study has given us a sense that the priorities for
protecting the environment on a global scale are not necessarily in sync with those of
individual farmers. Further research should be conducted to identify priorities of regional
and state agencies and organizations, and individual farmers to determine areas of
disconnect, shared priorities, and ways to increase cooperation.
36
REFERENCES
The Analysis Factor (2015). http://www.theanalysisfactor.com/small-r-squared/
ARS, Agricultural Research Service, UD Department of Agriculture (2012).
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2010/100511.htm
Chesapeake Bay (2007).
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/blog/post/turning_over_to_no_till
CTIC, Conservation Technology Information Center) (2011). Conservation Technology
Information Center
homepage http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/media/pdf/TillageDefinitions.pdf
Derpsch, R. http://www.rolf-derpsch.com/notill.htm
Derpsch, R., Friedrich, T., Kassam, A. und Li, H.W., (2010). Current status of adoption
of no-till farming in the world and some of its main benefits. Int. J. Agric. & Biol. Eng.
Vol. 3. Nº 1.
Duiker, S. and Myres, J.C., 2006. Steps towards a successful transition to no-till. College
of Agricultural Science, Agricultural Research and Cooperative Extension, Penn State
University, 36 S.
The Minitab Blog (2015). How good does a regression analysis fit?
http://www.blog.minitab.com/blog.
PA Department of Environmental Protection (2012). Erosion and sediment pollution
control manual. Technical Guidance Number 363-2134-008,
Phillips, S. and Young, H. (1973). No tillage farming. Reiman Associates, Milwaukee,
WI.
Sturny, W.G., Chervet, A., Maurer-Troxler, C., Ramseier, L., Muller, M., Schafflutzel,
R., Richner, W., Streit, B., Weisskopf, P., and Zihlmann, U. (2007). Direktsaat und pflug
im systemvergleich: eine synthese. AGRARForschung (Jetzt “Agrarforschung
Schweiz:)” 14(8): 350-357.
2012 Census of Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture,
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/.
2007 Census of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture,
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/
37
References, continued
WWF, World Wildlife Foundation. Agriculture and Environment: Soybeans. Better
Management Practices: No Till/Conservation Tillage.
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/soy/better_management_practice
s/no_till
38
APPENDIX 1: PA COUNTIES BY REGION
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (www.agriculture.state.pa.us)
39
APPENDIX 2: PA COUNTIES IN C HESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED