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

-------