United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes
National Program Office
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA-905/9-91-010,
GL-011-91
vvEPA
Cost Effective Corn and
Soybean Production
Without Tillage:
Fact or Fiction? (May 1988)
Printed on Recycled P,
-------
EPA-905/9-91-010
GL-011-91
COST EFFECTIVE CORN AND SOYBEAN
PRODUCTION WITHOUT TILLAGE:
FACT OR FICTION?
by
JERALD J. FLETCHER
STEPHEN B. LOVEJOY
for
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
PURDUE UNIVERSITY
WEST LAYAYETTE, INDIANA
GRANT NO. R005805
Ralph G. Christensen
Project Officer
Submitted to:
GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
230 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Great Lakes National
Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that
the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
PREFACE
Using farm level data developed in conjunction with the Lake Erie Conservation
Tillage Demonstration Project, the authors show that farmers can manage reduced tillage
systems to maintain yields and increase profits. While the specific results are not
applicable to all areas, the findings do show that farmers are able to manage emerging
tillage technologies effectively.
Funding for this research was provided, in part, by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under grant number R005805 and the Indiana Agricultural Experiment
Station.
ill
-------
Brief Resumes
Jerald J. Fletcher is an Assistant Professor of Agricultural
Economics at Purdue University. He received his B.S. degree from the
University of Wyoming and his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from the University
of California, Davis. Currently he is doing research and teaching in
production and resource economics. He is a member of the American
Agricultural Economics Association and a number of other professional
organizations of interest to agricultural scientists.
Stephen B. Lovejoy, Associate Professor, has been in the Department of
Agricultural Economics at Purdue University since 1980. He received his
Ph.D. from Utah State University in 1980. He is a member of the
agricultural honorary Gamma Sigma Delta, the scientific research
honorary Sigma Xi, the American Agricultural Economics Association, the
Soil Conservation Society of America, and the Rural Sociological
Society. Dr. Lovejoy has written extensively on agricultural and
natural resource issues.
Address:
Department of Agricultural Economics
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 47907
(317)494-4258
IV
-------
COST EFFECTIVE CORN AND SOYBEAN PRODUCTION WITHOUT TILLAGE:
FACT OR FICTION?
The 1980's may become known as a critical turning point for
American agriculture. Farmers face an increasingly complex set of
factors which effect their production decisions. Many observers have
reported upo'n the disastrous consequences of the high interest rates,
declining export markets and falling land prices. All of these have
precipitated a major financial crisis in agriculture which encompasses
the producer as well as input suppliers, credit institutions and those
in the marketing chain. The American public has been inundated with
information on the crisis from major news programs, movies and benefit
concerts.
While the movies portraying the farm financial crisis are fading
into the background of the American consciousness, those of us in
agriculture know that for many of America's farmers, the crisis
continues. For many farmers, recent commodity prices reflected by $1.60
corn are not sufficient to cover all costs, often not even enough to
cover variable inputs. As advisors to farmers and managers of farmland,
we must consider alternative ways for them to stay in business. We can
help them find ways to maximize their profits, or in many cases,
minimize their losses until a longer term solution to the farm problem
can be found. At this time in the history of American agriculture,
cutting costs may be the best advice we can offer .
In the past 50 years of American agriculture, we, the agricultural
professionals, have assisted farmers by stressing new methods for
increasing yields or cultivating larger tracts of land to spread
-------
Production without Tillage 2
overhead costs and achieve economies of scale. For some farmers, such
technical advice is still relevant as they struggle with operations that
are too small or continue to utilize seed varieties that are not well
suited to their situations. However, for many of our clientele, it is
not feasible to increase their size and they are already making use of
the best available information on hybrid selection and other fine tuning
actions to maximize output. Any moves that can achieve cost reductions
while maintaining revenues seem more relevant. Many have begun using
this approach in their fertilization program with increasing attention
to maximum economic rather than physical yield. Another area of
increasing scrutiny is cutting costs by changing tillage operations. In
the Corn Belt, the vast majority of producers no longer use a moldboard
plow on all their land. This change in tillage practices has been at
least partially in response to rising fuel costs and labor constraints.
Most have found that a chisel plow decreases costs without affecting
yield. In recent years there has been increased attention toward other
tillage techniques that may reduce costs even further. Advocates of no-
till and ridge till have recently begun suggesting that these techniques
provide a means of achieving economic as well as conservation goals.
Many farm management professionals have dismissed these suggestions
as more rhetoric from the conservationists and have suggested that
increased costs of herbicides to control weeds more than offset fuel and
machinery savings and that the increased managerial skills will more
than offset the labor savings. The information provided by many land
grant universities has been contradictory and often not fully believed
because the techniques have been suggested as soil conservation
techniques while most farmers are more concerned with the survival of
-------
Production without Tillage 3
their farm operation than with saving soil for future generations. In
addition, much of the research has been conducted on experimental plots
which some farmers have felt do not translate well to actual field
conditions.
In view of these problems with research results and the continuing
need to assist farmers in their efforts to survive, we have undertaken
an investigation of the effects of different tillage systems on net
returns in actual field conditions in the Lake Erie Basin. The data
were developed as part of the Lake Erie Conservation Tillage
Demonstration Project, a program that sought to encourage farmers in the
Lake Erie Basin to utilize no-till and ridge till by subsidizing matched
plot experiments on their farms (National Association of Conservation
Districts, 1985 and 1986). Participating farmers were asked to select
two adjacent plots on their farm and plant the same crop on the two
plots; one using their conventional tillage system (moldboard, chisel,
disk, etc.) and the other utilizing a no-till or ridge till system.
Data on each plot were collected by local professionals. In
addition, during the fourth year of the project, an independent survey
was made of a sample of the farmers in the program for more detailed
information on their machinery compliments, attitudes toward alternative
tillage systems, financial conditions, and so on. The survey results
were combined with plot information reported by farmers on yield,
herbicide and other pesticide use, fertilizer use, planting rate, other
variables related to production during 1985 as well in order to analyze
the economic viability of the no-till and ridge till systems in the Lake
Erie Basin. The large number of observations reported on direct
comparisons of the no-till and conventional systems add reliability to
-------
Production without Tillage 4
the results. Due to the small number of ridge till plots, the ridge
till findings should be used with caution.
The economic analysis of tillage systems concentrates on the
factors that may vary significantly by tillage and planting activities;
yield and various aspects of production costs. Farmers know that
machinery costs can be expected to decrease under reduced tillage
systems since (1) less tillage equipment is required, (2) power
requirements are lowered, and (3) the number of passes over the field
decreases. The decrease in tillage implement costs are offset somewhat
by higher planter costs and, at least for the ridge till system, higher
cultivation costs. The primary direct production costs that may be
expected to vary include: herbicides and other pesticides, fertilizers,
fuel and lubricants, machinery repair, and labor requirements.
This analysis is based on the 1985 tillage demonstration plot data
and a survey of a sample of project participants conducted during
February and March, 1985 by the Department of Agricultural Economics,
Purdue University. For many of the participants, this was their fourth
year in the project so they had had time to learn to manage alternative
tillage systems and make independent decisions concerning the viability
of the no-till and ridge till systems for their particular conditions.
Revenues and costs are first considered separately and then combined to
consider the effects of changes in net returns related to tillage system
choice that accrue to land, labor, and other non-varying inputs.
Yields Obtained by Project Participants
Probably the first question a farmer considers when looking at a
new or different technology is, "How will the use of affect the
yields I can expect on my farm?" After using no-till and ridge till
-------
Production without Tillage 5
production practices in this demonstration project, it appears that, on
average, project participants are not only able to maintain yields, but
increase them by slight but significant amounts for the most common crop
rotations. As shown in table 1, corn yields for no-till were from two
to five bushel per acre higher depending on the previous crop. For corn
after soybeans, the increase was about 2.5 bushel per acre and highly
statistically significant in the data reported by project participants.
For beans following corn, the increase was in the neighborhood of a
bushel per acre. While beans following beans or other crops had
slightly lower yields, such rotation choices are relatively uncommon.
Yields were also maintained or improved for both corn and soybeans in
rotation using the ridge till system, but the smaller sample size
decreases the confidence in the results.
Input Use by Project Participants
When comparing fertilizer use by tillage system and crop rotation,
there were no significant differences noted in phosphorus and potash
application rates among tillage systems for any given crop rotation.
For nitrogen applications on corn, the data were not sufficiently
precise to account for differences in nitrogen source and time/method of
application to recognize differences due to tillage system choice.
Also, at least from a fertility viewpoint, it appears that both the
conservation plot and the matched conventional plot were treated the
same in most cases. Since research results show that differences in
nitrogen application requirements are more affected by yield goal,
nitrogen source, and time/method of application than tillage system
choice, the nitrogen costs reported in the budgets are based on current
Purdue University findings (Van Beek, Fletcher, and Mengel).
-------
Production without Tillage 6
Herbicide use is expected to increase with decreased tillage, and
the data support this hypothesis. The question is, how much? Based on
the matched plot results as well as the results from all plots included
in the demonstration area, the actual increased herbicide use,
particularly for no-till corn production, is lower than previous studies
might suggest (Doster, et. al., Klemme). Average no-till pesticide
costs (herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides) increased by about
$5.00 per acre for corn planted in corn residue, $3.00 for corn in bean
residue, and $9.00 for corn in other crop residue. Increases
experienced in soybean production were slightly higher, ranging from
$7.50 for second year beans to $10.50 for beans in corn residue.
Smaller herbicide use increases were reported for the ridge till system,
about $2.00 per acre per year for a corn-soybean rotation (table 1).
Changes in seed costs and drying costs have also been attributed to
changing tillage systems by past studies, but there is no indication of
differences in seed drop by tillage system reported in the plot results,
and no data were obtained on drying costs. An individual farmer may
wish to anticipate such potential cost changes for his situation,
however.
Machinery costs are expected to decrease as tillage decreases. To
find out what farmers can expect in this area over the life of a
machinery set, information on machinery complements was obtained from a
sample of the project participants, and representative machinery
complements constructed for conventional tillage systems. These sets
for 750 acre farms were found to exhibit essentially the same cost
characteristics as the representative farm sets used by Cooperative
Extension Tillage Specialists at Purdue University (Doster, et. al.).
-------
Production without Tillage 7
Based on the same timeliness characteristics, machinery sets for no-till
and ridge till representative farms were constructed and the anticipated
overhead costs, repair and maintenance costs, and fuel costs were
compared to conventional costs. Using this analysis, the no-till system
can be expected to cut total machinery related expenses, including fuel
and repair, by about $14 to $16 per acre per year over the life of a
machinery set while the ridge till system would decrease the same costs
by $10 to $12 per acre per year. Savings in per acre machinery costs
are expected to be slightly greater for larger farms of 1000 acres and
up while the savings will be less for smaller farms of less than 500
acres.
Labor costs are also expected to decrease, but the actual value of
the labor saved to a given farm is highly dependent on farm structure,
^•"
fixed labor availability during tillage, planting, and cultivating
periods, and personal preferences of individual operators. The no-till
and ridge till systems do affect labor timing requirements differently.
Both eliminate the need of fall and spring preplant tillage operations,
but the ridge system imposes additional cultivation requirements for
weed control and to form ridges during the late spring and early summer.
Although these cost savings may be significant in many instances (e.g.,
where hired labor is utilized), the actual value can only be determined
by the individual farmer given his situation. Therefore, the cost
estimates reported do not take these savings into account; rather all
labor is included in other factors for which net returns are calculated.
Although this assumption does not handle the labor input problem
explicitly, it makes the analysis applicable to a wider number of
farming situations.
-------
Production without Tillage 8
In summary, fertilizer and seed costs are not necessarily
significantly affected by tillage system choice while pesticide costs
tend to increase with reduced tillage. Machinery costs including
overhead, fuel, repair, and maintenance and labor requirements also
decrease with reduced tillage, but the value of the labor saved varies
significantly among farmers. Other costs may also be affected by
tillage choice, but less is Jcnown about the level of such changes. For
instance, depending on maturity rate, drying costs may be affected if
the crop matures at a later date.
The Bottom Line: Do Conservation Tillage Systems Pay?
Many conservationists have suggested that conservation tillage is
just as profitable as conventional tillage systems. Also, many
university test plots have shown similar yields and net returns from
conservation tillage. However, many farmers have been skeptical of the
ability of these results to be replicated in real farming situations.
The data provided by farmers participating in the demonstration project
suggest that yields can be maintained and profits increased by adopting
conservation tillage.
Based on the 1985 data gathered from the Lake Erie Project, farmers
have been able to adapt the no-till and ridge till system to area
conditions to maintain or increase yields. At the same time, farmers
have experienced increased pesticide costs and lower fuel costs for
tillage operations. To compare these differences, budgets were
developed for representative farms in the study area. A set of such
budgets are given in table 2 for farms using six row equipment assuming
a representative soil type for the area.
-------
Production without Tillage 9
Comparisons are limited to those systems where the data are
adequate to have reasonable levels of confidence in the results. The
top part of table 2 compares the conventional system to no-till and
ridge till systems. The increased pesticide costs are much more than
out weighed by the yield increases and/or machinery cost decreases.
Corn production using the no-till system shows increased returns of $14
to $18 per acre per year depending on the previous crop and an increase
of about $9 for soybeans following corn. The ridge till system shows
higher increases for soybeans ($24/acre) after corn but a lower increase
for corn after beans ($ll/acre) than displayed by the no-till estimates.
The analysis above assumes that the primary nitrogen source is
anhydrous ammonia regardless of the tillage system. If other nitrogen
fertilizer programs are followed, both the price per unit of actual
nitrogen and the amount required may change. For example, many no-till
and ridge till farmers apply their herbicides using nitrogen solutions
as the carrier. Although nitrogen needs are expected to be about the
same regardless of tillage system, the amount of nitrogen necessary to
apply to have the same amount of nitrogen available to the plant may
increase significantly if the nitrogen fertilizer is broadcast on a
surface covered with heavy residue. For example, if the primary
nitrogen application is made as a 28% liquid broadcast before planting,
perhaps as a herbicide carrier, an additional 60 pounds of N per acre
«
($13 @ $.22/lb) may be required to meet the nitrogen needs for second
year corn using no-till (Van Beek, Fletcher, and Mengel). Such a
situation is explored in the section of table 2 on alternative input
assumptions. There are other possibilities for nitrogen management that
can combine applying part of the nitrogen as a herbicide carrier while
-------
Production without Tillage 10
using a more efficient method such as banding or injecting for the
remainder. The primary message for nitrogen management in conservation
tillage is that efficiency can be maintained but not without careful
evaluation of production practices and fertilization alternatives.
In addition, the analysis used the average per acre cost of
pesticides as reported by project participants, but individual costs
varied significantly. The variation among farmers within each tillage
category due to differences in pesticide choice, weed pressure, and
management techniques appears greater than the variation due to tillage
practices. This suggests that, for an individual farmer, the level of
pesticide costs will be largely determined by factors other than tillage
choice. A farmer can expect, however, to have some increased costs with
reduced tillage. To consider these effects, the bottom section of
table 2 uses costs representative of the high one-third of reported
rates as indicative of high pesticide use and the low one-third as low
pesticide use. Note that the increased difference in pesticide costs
under high use situations between tillage systems are not as great as
the average rate increase for any particular system. Similar
relationships are indicated for low pesticide use. The net effect is
that while pesticide costs varied by farmer, the differences between
tillage systems were relatively consistent for all application levels.
All of the alternative assumptions considered affect only the
•
magnitude of the difference in net returns, not the direction of the
difference between conservation and conventional tillage systems. For
each crop and rotation considered in this analysis, conservation tillage
is found to be significantly more profitable for corn and soybean
-------
Production without Tillage 11
production in the Lake Erie Basin than the conventional systems that
have traditionally been used.
Summary
While the demonstration project was designed to show producers the
environmental benefits of using conservation tillage, it appears that a
major accomplishment will be the demonstration that conservation tillage
is economically profitable. While too much can be made of the economic
differences between agricultural practices, it seems clear that if a
practice does not provide an economic incentive, the probability of
adoption and use is greatly diminished. At the same time, economic
advantage does not necessarily lead immediately to increased usage.
Economic considerations seem to be a necessary but not sufficient
condition for use of a new technology.
Among proj ect participants, however, we expect increased use of
conservation tillage if the results of this economic analysis prove
accurate. As part of the Purdue survey, participants were asked,
"Would funds ... be available to you to finance the
machinery purchase necessary for you to change from
convention tillage to conservation tillage?"
Eighty per cent said, "Yes." Those that indicated the funds were
available were then asked,
"If ... you were convinced that conservation tillage
was at least as profitable as conventional tillage,
would you use those funds available to you to make
the switch in tillage systems?"
Again, eighty per cent said yes. Based on these results, about two
thirds of the project participants can be' expected to use conservation
-------
Production without Tillage 12
tillage when and if they are convinced that the economic incentives are
there. If this happens, it seems likely that the Lake Erie Conservation
Tillage Project will be considered a success from an environmental
perspective. In addition, it appears that, at least in this instance,
environmental concerns and farm management objectives can be
accomplished simultaneously. Farming without tillage helps the
environment by reducing sediment and phosphorus loading in surface
runoff and helps the farmer by increasing their returns per acre. The
bottom line is improved for both farmers and those concerned with
environmental quality.
-------
Production without Tillage 13
References
1, Doster, H.D., D.R. Griffith, J.V. Mannering, and S.D. Parsons.
"Economic Returns from Alternative Corn and Soybeans Tillage Systems
in Indiana." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 38(6),
November-December, 1983, pp. 504-508.
2. Klemme, Richard M. "An Economic Analysis of Reduced Tillage Systems
in Corn and Soybean Production." Journal of the American Society of
Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers. 47(2), October 1983, pp. 37-44.
3. National Association of Conservation Districts. 1986. Final
Report: Lake Erie Conservation Tillage Demonstration Projects.
Conservation Tillage Information Center, Fort Wayne, IN.
4. National Association of Conservation Districts. 1985. Lake Erie
Conservation Tillage Demonstration Projects: Evaluating Management
of Pesticides. Fertilizer. Residue to Improve Water Quality.
Conservation Tillage Information Center, Fort Wayne, IN.
5. Van Beek, William J., Jerald J. Fletcher, and David B. Mengel,
"Expert Systems: Nitrogen Application Decision Model," in PACC '86
Purdue Agricultural Computing Conference -- Conference Proceedings.
School of Agriculture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN,
December 3-4, 1986, pp. 69-88.
-------
Production without Tillage
14
Table 1. Differences in Yields, Herbicide Costs, and Total Pesticide
Costs between Conservation Tillage Plots (No-Till and Ridge
Till) and Matching Conventional (All Other Systems)
TILLAGE
SYSTEM
NO -TILL
NO-TILL
NO -TILL
NO -TILL
NO -TILL
CROP
CORN
CORN
CORN
BEANS
BEANS
NO -TILL BEANS
RIDGE
TILL
RIDGE
TILL
*
NOTE:
CORN
BEANS
Average
PREVIOUS
CROP
CORN
BEANS
OTHER
CORN
BEANS
OTHER
BEANS
CORN
YIELD*
DIFFERENCE
(bu/ac)
.2.21
(1-24)
2.53
(2.95)
5.02
(2.54)
1.04
(1-79)
-1.29
(-1.03)
-3.89
(-2.31)
1.05
(0.25)
3.50
(1.73)
HERBICIDE
COST
DIFFERENCE
($/ac)
3.99
(3.61)
2.78
(6.33)
7.46
(5.56)
10.52
(8.43)
7.47
(3.86)
8.93
(1.84)
1.76
(1-77)
1.81
(1.15)
TOTAL
PESTICIDE
COST
DIFFERENCE
($/ac)
5.09
(4.13)
3.02
(6.63)
8.76
(5.83)
10.52
(8.43)
7.47
(3.86)
8.93
(1.84)
1.76
(1.77)
1.81
(1-15)
SAMPLE
SIZE
59
221
82
104
36
10
16
14
values reported; t values in parenthesis.
All statistics are
calculated:
(conservation
tillage plo
t value
matched conventional plot value)
Positive numbers indicate the value'for the conservation plot
exceeded that of the matched conventional plot.
-------
Production without Tillage
15
Table 2. Break Down of Revenues and Costs Expected to Vary by Tillage
System and Rotation Choice
CONTINUOUS CORK
COKV
ROTATION CORN
CONV RIDGE NO-TILL
ROTATION SOYBEANS
CONV RIDGE NO-TILL
REVENUE
Yield (bu/ae) [1]
Gross Revenue (S/ac) [2]
EXPENSES
Operating Costs
NH3 (# actual N) [3]
Nitrogen cost (6 S.14/#)
P205 and K20 [11
Pesticide Cost [1]
Machinery fuel and repair [4]
Seed [1]
Interest charge 15}
Subtotal:
Machinery Overhead Costs
Tillage machinery cost [4]
Other machinery cost [4]
TOTAL ALLOCATED EXPENSES
NET RETURNS (to Land, Labor,
and All Other Inputs)
125.00
275.00
150.00
21.00
20.00
29.00
23.12
20.00
6.79
119.91
14.65
12.37
127
279
154
21
20
34
15
20
6
118
6
12
.00
.40
.00
. 56
.00
.00
.81
.00
.68
.05
.90
.37
135.
297.
143.
20 .
22.
21.
23.
20.
6.
112.
14.
12
00
00
00
. 02
.00
00
.12
.00
.37
.51
.65
.37
136.00
299.20
144 . 00
on 1 R
20 . ID
22.00
23.00
17.73
20.00
6.17
109.06
8.87
12.37
138.
303.
1 1 1
147 .
on
20 .
22.
24.
15.
20.
6.
108.
6.
12.
00
60
00
f n
DO
00
00
81
00
14
53
90
37
44
220
7
26
23
10
3
70
14
12
.00
.00
.00
.00
.12
.00
.97
.09
.65
.37
47.00
235.00
7.00
28.00
17.73
10.00
3.76
66.49
8.87
12.37
45.00
225.00
7.00
37.00
15.81
10.00
4.19
74.00
6.90
12.37
146.93 137.32
128.07 142.08
139.53 130.30 127.80
157.47 168.90 175.80
97.11 87.73 93.27
122.89 147.27 131.73
ALTERNATIVE INPUT ASSUMPTIONS
N Source — 281 Liquid Broadcast Spring Freplant
1S.BLVC VIP BU UUOJL CT / 1 ** J
N Cost ($.22/#)
High Pesticide Use
Pesticide Cost [1]
Adjusted Net Returns
Low Pesticide Use
Pesticide Cost (1)
Adjusted Net Returns
41.00 43.00 29.00 N/A 33.00 32.00 N/A 47.00
115.35 132.54 148.99 166.26 116.53 121.13
17.00 25.00 14.00 K/A 15.00 18.00 N/A 26.00
140.79 151.62 164.89 185.34 131.37 143.39
N/A - Insufficient data for estimate.
[13 Based on 1985 plot level data reported by participants in the Lake Erie Conservation Tillage
Demonstration Project.
[2] Based on representative corn (6 $2.20/bu) and soybean (655.00/bu) prices at harvest.
[3] Based on Purdue University recommendations for nitrogen requirements depending on yield, form
of nitrogen, application method, and time of application.
[4] Based on results of survey conducted by Purdue University of a sample of Tillage Demonstration
Project Participants in 1985.
[5] Based on 6 months interest on listed operating expenses at 12Z.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-905/9-91-010
2.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Cost Effective Corn and Soy Bean Production Without Tillage: Fact or
Fiction?
7. AUTHORfS)
Jerald J. Fletcher
Stephen B. Lovejoy
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZE
Department of Agricultural
Purdue University
West LaFayette, Indiana 4
[TON NAME AND ADDRESS
Economics
7907
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illiois 60604
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
May 1988
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
CODE
REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
A42B2A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Grant No. R005805
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final-1985
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
GLNPO
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Ralph G. Christensen, USEPA Project Officer
John C. Lowrey, Technical Assistant
16. ABSTRACT
Using farm level data developed in conjunction with the Lake Erie Conservation Tillage Demonstration Project, the authors show that farmers can manage reduced
tillage systems to maintain yields and increase profits. While the specific results are not applicable to all areas, the findings do show that farmers are able to manage
emerging tillage technologies effectively.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTIONS b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Tillage Ridge Till
Costs Lake Erie
Corn Yields
Soy Bean Machinery
Soil Conservation Tillage
No-Till
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
None
Document available to the public through the National 20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Technical Information Service,
NTIS, Springfield, VA 22161 None
,v
c. COSATI Fkid Group
21. NO. OF PAGES
22
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 1-91) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
------- |