Eye of the Stormby Roger Long

There’s a calmnessthat comes withconfidence.Confidence thatyou know whatyou are doing, andwhat you are doing is right. ForRoger Oplinger, it’s doing what isright economically, and what is rightwith nature. And in the case ofOplinger, proprietor of Spring CreekFarms, the calmness is pervasive.With all the enterprises Roger has,he still takes time to share histhoughts on equipment manage-ment, soils, no-till experiences, hisnew outfitting venture, and more.

With so many entities demandingRoger’s attention, the list alonewould drive most people intoexile—with three distinctly differentfarms totaling over 13,000 acres, anew guide service ‘Spring CreekOutdoors,’ cattle, a house in Jewellat the farm, and a house in Manhat-tan where his wife, Barbara, is thecoordinator for Ks Foundation forAg in the Classroom.

Roger Oplinger returned to hisJewell, KS home in 1971 after grad-uating from Kansas State University.He started with 12 gilts purchased“by mortgaging a ’66 Pontiac,” and amodest bit of farmland of around

December 2005 • Volume 4 • Number 3

FE

A

TURE FAR ME

R

RO

G

E R O P L I N GE

R

ContentsEye of the Storm .....................253

Sulfur: A Key Nutrient ...........257

Beck on Managing Carbon.....259

Cropland Owner’s Manual.....264

Long-Term No-Till ..................267

Another Look at Strip-Till ......268

Some Assembly Required .......269Dryland corn, a 500-acre “experiment” at Oplinger’s Jewell County farm.

Phot

o by

Bar

bara

Opl

inge

r.

400 acres. Approximately four yearslater, a couple of retiring farmers inthe area turned over their croplandto Roger, jumping him to around2,000 acres. Oplinger was off andrunning. Before long, the hogs weregone, displaced by his nicely prof-itable cropping enterprises: “We runROIs from 30 to 50% on SpringCreek Farms [excluding land invest-ment which comes in at 6 to 7%].”Numbers that are shocking—pleas-antly shocking—to their banker (andI’m guessing Roger isn’t too disap-pointed, either.)

Editors:Matt Hagny Andy HolzwarthRoger LongRandy SchwartzKeith Thompson

E-mail: editor.leading.edge@notill.org

Subscriptions & Advertising:Phone: 888.330.5142$25 per year (U.S.) subscription rate

No-Till on the Plains Inc. publishesLeading Edge three times per year.

No-Till on the Plains Inc.P.O. Box 379Wamego, KS 66547-0379888.330.5142Website: www.notill.org© Copyright 2005 No-Till on the Plains Inc.All rights reserved.

Partial funding for this publication is providedfrom the USDA-EQIP. The United StatesDepartment of Agriculture prohibits discrimina-tion in all its programs and activities on the basisof race, color, national origin, gender, religion,age, disability, sexual orientation, and marital orfamilial status (not all prohibited bases apply toall programs). Persons with disabilities whorequire alternative means of communication ofprogram information (Braille, large print, audio-tape, etc.) should contact the USDA’s TARGETCenter at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). Tofile a complaint, write the USDA, Director ofCivil Rights, Room 3226W Whitten Building,14th and Independence Ave., SW, Washington,D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice orTDD). USDA is an equal opportunity providerand employer.

Additional funding provided by U.S. EPA § 319grant, through the Kansas Dept. of Health &Environment.

Disclaimer: Mention of trade names does notimply endorsement or preference of any com-pany’s product by Leading Edge, and any omis-sion of trade names is unintentional.Recommendations are current at the time ofprinting. Farmer experiences may not work forall. Views expressed are not necessarily those ofthe Editors or Leading Edge.

——— V ———No-Till on the Plains Inc’s Mission: To assist agricultural producers inimplementing economically, agro-nomically, and environmentallysound crop production systems.Objective: To increase the adoptionof cropping systems that willenhance economic potential, soiland water quality, and quality of lifewhile reducing crop productionrisks.

In the face of what are oft-said to betrying times in production agricul-ture, calmness is an elusive quality, atrait seemingly unique to Oplinger.With fall harvest over, Roger hastime to catch his breath and con-template his progress. “I just love tobe able to go around and look ateverything this time of year. I go outand pull up plants, look at roots, andlook at how healthy the soil is.”Oplinger has had his Jewell farm inno-till for over 8 years and sees thedifference it has had on soil struc-ture. “Now, when I pull up an oldmilo plant, the roots go straightdown [don’t bend in unnaturalways]. They didn’t do that the firstcouple of years in no-till—they wentdown four inches and then had 90-degree angles.” Oplinger isreminded of his progress anytime hetakes over ground that has beentilled for many years—aggregation ispoor, water infiltration is hampered,roots contort unnaturally, and pro-duction is lower.

Now That’s Diversity

Calmness is not the only trait uniqueto this Jewell (north-central KS) andGreensburg (south-central KS) andBrewster (northwest KS) grower.Those three distinct locales, eachwith its own soils and climate, create

quite different production chal-lenges and opportunities. Jewell isall dryland—the largest farm withover 8,000 planted acres—and is thehome base and genesis of SpringCreek Farms. The Greensburg farmis north of that town, and all irri-gated on rolling sandhills that setatop good wells. It began with 12pivots leased in 1998, with a leaseacquisition in 2001of another 12 piv-ots of alfalfa that have since beenconverted to no-till corn and beans.The Brewster farm—irrigated likeGreensburg, yet with soils more likeJewell—is really like neither, due toits high elevation and other climatedifferences.

The business of agriculture isfraught with unknowns: When will itrain? Where will markets go? Whatwill input prices do? What will bethe next pest crisis? Oplinger takessuch problems in stride via prepara-tion for these unknowns. He hasfound that diversely and intensivelycropped no-till soils are among thebest preparations for the unknown.Oplinger cites the 50-bu/a miloyields at Jewell during drought yearswhen tilled fields in the neighbor-hood were yielding 20 to 30 bushelor not even harvestable. Oplinger’smantra: Protect the low side in badyears and maximize the upside in

good years. What does agood year look like? In2005, his worst milo (ashort-season hybrid) net-ted 115 bu/a, and mostof the full-season fieldswere in the 135-bushelrange. With a few yearsof no-till under his belt,Oplinger is ratcheting uphis own expectations.“We used to shoot for100-bushel milo—any-more, that’s going to betoo low.”

With some exceptions,Oplinger has settled intoa wheat >>wheat >>milo

254

Milo at the Jewell farm.

Phot

o by

Bar

bara

Opl

inge

r.

>>soybean rotation for the Jewellfarm. Oplinger notes the anxietythat some people have about plant-ing wheat into wheat stubble. Hesees it as one of the easiest plantingscenarios for them: “Our best wheatis always the second-year wheat,”but he warns, “You never want to gomore than two years of continuouswheat—you have to have a rotation.”Oplinger recounts further benefitsto no-till, “So many [producers] areplanting wheat early to ensure theyhave enough moisture to get astand—and then they have to dealwith Hessian fly. Due to the no-till,we have more moisture . . . thatallows us to plant later [generallyOct. 3d through the 10th], whichreduces fly problems.” For wheat,he puts out around 25 lbs of P2O5,25 lbs of N, 2 lbs Zn, and 1 lb S in-furrow with 7-inch spacing, and thentop-dresses additional N as neededin the spring with a residual herbi-cide. “I’m confident our no-tillwheat yields are comparable to con-ventionally tilled yields in the area.”

As Oplinger drives by one of his old“problem fields,” he recalls the pro-duction issues he had when he wastilling. “This field has bad alkalispots all over. It lays nice and thesoil looked good visually, but it wasthe worst-producing field we had.After we had it in no-till for severalyears, the production really pickedup and now it is one of the better-producing fields we have.” (Editors’Note: ‘Alkali’ areas can refer to avariety of salts accumulating on thesoil surface. Given the region, it islikely a salinity problem, not sodic-ity, and the white deposits Oplingersees on the surface are gypsum [cal-cium sulfate]. Either way, suchareas have poor soil structure, thus‘sealing off’ with low infiltrationrates. Continuous no-till allows for-mation of water-stable aggregates sothat percolating water can move thesalts away from the surface.

Generally,increased croppingintensity to extractmore soil water isalso necessary toprevent these soilsfrom becomingsaturated and thesalts at depth mov-ing back to thesurface.)

Always trying topush the enve-lope, Oplingerheard about theadvantages ofcover crops at a No-till on the PlainsWinter Conference and beganthinking about how to implementthe practice with his system. Moreyears than not, wheat stubble heldso much moisture at milo plantingtime that Oplinger wasfaced with

either planting into muck—or plant-ing later than he wanted. Knowingthe drying effect sunflowers had onsoils, Oplinger used the cover-cropconcept to plant sunflowers immedi-ately after ’04 wheat harvest toimprove milo planting conditionsthe following spring. Oplinger usedClearfield (imi-tolerant) sunflowersto mitigate the residual effects ofFinesse on this broadleaf crop.1 Heliked the concept of creating a bet-ter milo planting condition, butdecided he might as well keep hisoptions open to harvest a littlesomething from the flowers if condi-tions were favorable—sunfloweryield wasn’t the priority, but ratherthe better sorghum yields fromimproved planting conditions. Withaverage to slightly above-averagerainfall, his ’05 milo fields following

wheat/dc sunflowers had slightlybetter yields compared to wheatstubble alone. And, oh yeah, the“cover-crop” sunflowers haveyielded around 1,500 lbs/a (average’04 & ’05), with no herbicide andminimal fertilizer. Compare that tostubble-only fields, requiring 2 to 3herbicide applications through thesummer, and the economics make itlook even better.

Seeing Things Differently

If anxiety is the product of theunknown, then tranquility must bethe result of the known. Oplingerfocuses on production and recog-nizes the value of business manage-ment. His “partner” Todd Zenger,Wamego, KS handles all purchasingand marketing. Zenger marketsgrain through hedges and forwardcontracts, is his own crop insuranceagent, and purchases inputs withvarious contracting tools and in vol-ume. Few know their numbers likeZenger and Oplinger, who states,“Our goal is to be the least-cost bulkproducer of grain commodities.”They are masters of reducing costson a per-bushel basis, but not neces-sarily spending less money. “My firstcombine cost around $35,000. Itcost me about $.07 per bushel toown that machine. The last combine

255

“We run ROIs from 30 to 50% on

Spring Creek Farms.”

Oplinger’s “cover-crop” sunflowers, which (so far) are quite thecash crop themselves.

Phot

o by

Bar

bara

Opl

inge

r.

1 The Finesse label states that a bioassay be conducted to determine the rotational restriction to flowers. Imi-tolerant sunflower hybrids are less susceptibleto SU carryover than those without this trait.

I traded off was around $250,000 tobuy; it cost me about $.04 perbushel to own that machine. We ranright at 1,000,000 bushels throughthat machine before trading it off.”

As Oplinger strolls around his farm-stead, circulation fans from on-farmstorage spur him to talk a littlelouder, “Everything’s full of miloright now!” He goes on to point outthat they use their bins to increaseharvesting efficiency, with less timewaiting in lines at the elevator, andfewer miles to go—thus, fewertrucks needed. No-till—which letthem diversify crops, therebyspreading harvesting times—hasallowed them to turn their binsthree times in ’05. “We filled themfull of wheat, emptied that out andput the sunflowers in them, truckedall the flowers ourselves, and nowthey’re full again.”

Where Oplinger has the resources,he maximizes efficiency, and oncethose are maxed-out, he brings inadditional help as needed. The laborconsists of Cory Zenger, manager ofthe Greensburg farm (and a brotherto Todd); Robbie Smith, the Jewellfarm manager; Curt Doxson, theBrewster farm manager; plus Rogerand Todd. They bring in seasonalhelp (Oplinger’s son, Luke, is heavilyinvolved when not attending classesat KSU) during crunch times such asharvesting or sometimes springplanting. Again, costs are held to a

minimum at every juncture.For instance, they normallyhave approximately half oftheir wheat at Jewell customplanted because of a laborand equipment crunch atthat time of year. “We have aneighbor that does a nicejob for us. He has the time,the right fertilizer attach-ments [mid-row banders],and really has a little betterseeder than we do.”Spreading equipment costsover more acres was a goalthat gave birth to the idea ofseparate farms. Since theyare so far apart, harvesting isdone at different times,which allows them to usethe same two combines onalmost all of their acres; athird machine is generallyrented to fill in as needed. TheJewell and Brewster farms also sharethe same Patriot sprayer, while theJewell and Greensburg farms sharethe same two planters.

Savvy Irrigating

While no-till crop production has asmall minority of dryland acres inKansas, albeit growing, no-till undercenter pivots doesn’t even show onthe radar. However, Spring Creeknow farms 24 pivots that have beencontinuous no-till for the last 3 years.Oplinger is currently getting into a

corn >>corn >>soy-bean rotation withcover-crop ryeplanted for wintergrazing on most piv-ots. For a producerwho has spent hislife on silt loam soilsin north-centralKansas, the sand ofsouth-centralKansas was a hugechange. “Thosearen’t soils downthere—it’s a beach!”Maybe . . . but with

some fertilizer, timely water, andkeen no-till management, it growspretty good corn—240 bu/a in ’04.

“When we first started farming downthere [Greensburg], we tried mini-mum- or reduced-

till because that’s what everybodysaid had to be done. That was a mis-take for us,” says Roger. As he andfarm manager Cory Zenger got morecomfortable with the soils, theyswitched to full no-till. “We werehaving trouble managing and plant-ing into the residue—we tried chop-ping the stalks but then everythingjust blew.” Being a hawk onexpenses, Roger didn’t like the rip-ping, cultivating, and dammer/dikingthat many area growers were doing.“I finally decided that we just

256

Phot

o by

Rog

er L

ong.

Oplinger examines a sunflower taproot. Roger isexcited about the changes he sees with the no-tillmanagement system: “The new techniques willallow us to turn over better farms than we tookthem on as.”

On the irrigation: “I finallydecided that we just

needed to go full no-tilland figure out how to

make it work.” With over240 bu/a corn and 75 bu/abeans, apparently he did.

Oplinger’s soybeans at Jewell, with the farmstead and bin sites inthe background.

Phot

o by

Bar

bara

Opl

inge

r.

needed to go full no-till and figureout how to make it work. . . . [Atfirst] we were trying to plant overthe old rows to take advantage ofresidual phos from previous starterbands, but the old root balls thatwere many times kicked out of therow made getting good seed-to-soilcontact difficult.” They are now split-ting the old rows and using grazingto reduce the residue that comesfrom 240-plus-bushel corn. It’s hardto argue with success: Outstandingcorn yields, soybean averages from75 to 80 bu/a, plus the opportunityto harvest pounds of beef throughthe winter—they all add up to excel-lent returns. Rye is drilled directlyafter corn harvest to supplementtheir grazing program. The only ryethat is harvested is done by four-legged animals—come spring,glyphosate, pre-emerge herbicide,and planting are all that’s needed.(For those wondering about allelopa-thy, Oplinger says the corn actuallyplants nicer and grows better wherethe rye was, even if sprayed out justahead of corn planting. However, hedoes state that the rye is “grubbeddown” by grazing, so perhaps thisreduces the allelopathy sufficiently.)

Always trying to push the boundary,Roger has considered the 20-inch-row idea but admits that maintain-ing his 2x0 fertilizer placement withcoulters on the planter would berather difficult and “fertilizer place-ment is more important than widthof row.” Just how do they supply allthe necessary N for those irrigatedcorn yields? At Greensburg, theyapply 30 – 40 units in the planters’2x0, broadcast another 80 units atplanting, and fertigate the restthrough the pivots. Efficiency isgenerally quite good, right at 1pound applied N per bushel of corn.

Lobbing Snowballs

Their new outfitting service arose outof the abundant wildlife that flour-ishes on Spring Creek’s no-till fields

257

Sulfur: A Key Nutrient

Sulfur deficiencies are not uncom-mon in long-term no-till fields,especially for those who neglectthis nutrient. In the Great Plainsregion, identifiable symptoms arenot uncommon in young corn ormilo plants, and indeed many stud-ies find 5 – 20 bu/a responses toapplied sulfur for those crops.

We don’t think of soybeans orwheat as being very responsive tosulfur, but we might be missingsomething. In north-centralKansas, 2005 conditions inducedsevere sulfur deficiencies in a fewno-till wheat fields.Generally, thesewere fields of wheatfollowing high-yielding ’04 soy-beans, and little orno sulfur fertilizershad been appliedfor many years.

While some sulfuris naturally suppliedin rainfall, it oftenis not sufficient tokeep pace with cropremoval. Well-man- Sulfur-deficient wheat in long-term no-till.

aged no-till systems also may beincreasing soil organic matter, ofwhich sulfur is a component.Accumulation of soil organic mat-ter requires about one part sulfurfor every 10 parts of nitrogen, andmany grain crops have similarnutritional needs.

Generally, 10 – 20 lbs/a/yr ofapplied sulfur will stave off defi-ciencies and create healthier crops.Sulfur fertilizers can easily beincluded with dry or liquid surfaceapplications, or in 3x0 starterbands. Do not apply thiosulfate inthe seed furrow.

entity has momentum, it takes morethan a few minor bumps to bring itto a halt. And once momentum iscreated, it doesn’t take much energyto keep it going on that trajectory.Like a snowball headed downhill,Oplinger isn’t concerned about get-ting things rolling, he simply looksfor ways to add to the already grow-ing sphere, ways to add to analready robust bottom line.

Editors’ Note: Oplinger has declinedinterviews by various publicationsfor a decade. We’re honored hechose to break his silence in ourpublication.

at Jewell. Wildlife biologist MonteKuxhausen assists them with guidingand game management for their con-trolled hunts. The farmhouse pro-vides a comfortable hunting lodge,and the thousands of acres of no-tillcreate a plentitude of hunting. “No-till fields provide great habitat forgame birds. We just saw an opportu-nity to capture additional revenuefrom the no-till. It’s our first year sowe’ll see how things work out.”

Physics teaches that momentumderives from an object’s mass multi-plied by its velocity. Maybe the con-fidence Oplinger exhibits is derivedfrom the momentum his farmingoperation has gathered. Once an

Phot

o by

Mat

t H

agny

.

HIGH NET PROFIT...WITH NO TILLAGE

Nitrogen Costs Are Coming Down.

Advertisement

The following is reprinted from AAPRESID’s 2005Congress (a large influential no-till conference) inRosario, Argentina.

If I were to ask a class of university agronomy students,“What chemical element is taken up in the largest quan-tity by plants?,” the response given by most of themwould be: “Nitrogen.” That same answer would probablyalso be given by most scientists and farmers. In realitythe answer is carbon. Carbon, oxygen, and hydrogenconstitute the vast majority of the atoms (and the mass)contained in plant dry matter. Carbon is the chemicalelement taken up in the largest quantity by plants.

Some of the leading books on plant nutrition (by Mengeland Kirkby; Tisdale and Nelson; or Stanley Barber) men-tion carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen only briefly as beingessential elements. The Tisdale and Nelson book goes onto state that little or nothing can be done by man todirectly impact the supply of carbon dioxide to a plant.Cook and Veseth make a similar statement in their WheatHealth Management publication. I believe they arewrong. I further believe that the lack of attention to car-bon as a plant nutrient will be viewed as a major short-coming of the practice of agronomy in the 20th century.

Carbon chemistry is the basis of life as we know it. Thesearch for life on other planets begins with a search forwater and carbon-containing com-pounds. Carbonhas some veryunique chemicalproperties. In itslowest energy levelit has the electrondistribution of 1s2,2s2, 2p2. Thiswould lead us tobelieve that itwould form themost stable com-pounds when ithas a valence of+2. In fact, carbonforms its most sta-ble compoundswhen it has avalence of +4 (or -4). The reason forthis lies in the promotion of one of the paired 2s-level

electrons to the empty 2p orbital (there are twohalf-filled p orbitals and one that is empty). This isfollowed by the formation of 4 hybrid sp3 orbitalswhen bonding occurs. These hybrid orbitals arethe basis for the tetrahedral shape that gives dia-mond its hardness. This property allows carbon toform rings and long chains with carbon bonded tocarbon as the skeleton. Carbon forms more com-pounds than any other element except hydrogen.The fact that an entire field of chemistry (organicchemistry) is devoted exclusively to compounds ofcarbon is a testament to the importance this ele-ment holds for science.

Carbon in Soils

Most agronomists and farmers recognize that soilshigh in organic matter differ in their characteris-tics relative to others that have lower levels oforganic matter. (That is the reason many of thegrandfathers of the farmers in both the United

259

The introduction ofEuropean-style tillage-basedfarming over large expanses

of formerly undisturbedlands during the late 1800sand early 1900s is a prime

example of wholesale mining of stored nutrients.The “homesteaders” weresearching for the stored

nitrogen and other nutri-ents and were willing to

waste organic carbon in the process.

Managing Carbon: Do You C What I C?by Dwayne Beck

Phot

o by

Bria

n Li

ndle

y.

Dwayne Beck is manager ofDakota Lakes Research Farm at Pierre, SD.S C I E N C E

‘Old land’ (long history of cropping with tillage) just never produced like‘new land.’ Why was that? Scientists told us it was soil organic matter supplying nutrients and storing water, so why didn’t irrigation water and fertilizers fully restore the productivity? What was the mystery ingredient?

Phot

o by

Mat

t H

agny

.

States and in Argentina left their European homes.)Most farmers for centuries had utilized manure as fertil-izer. It was valued for adding nutrients like nitrogen andphosphorus and for making the soil easier to till andcapable of holding more water. Soil scientists even devel-oped methods of classifying soils that were heavily influ-enced by the amount of organic matterpresent. The sys-tem still in use inCanada classessoils based oncolor (brown,black, dark brown,grey). These colorsare caused by dif-fering amounts oforganic matter.Scientists such as Hans Jenny spent a lifetime studyingthe climatic factors that led to soils in different areasdeveloping different organic matter contents.

Scientists did determine that tillage-based farming sys-tems reduced organic matter levels of soils and madethem less productive over time. Crops that produce lowlevels of residue (cotton, soybean, etc.) speeded the rateof organic matter loss as compared to crops with higherresidue levels (more carbon). Raising perennial grasspastures and alfalfa on a piece of land increased organicmatter levels relative to when it was used exclusively fortillage-based annual cropping.

The introduction of European-style tillage-based farmingover large expanses of formerly undisturbed lands inNorth and South America, Australia, and EasternEurope during the late 1800s and early 1900s is a prime

example of wholesale mining of storednutrients. The “homesteaders” were search-ing for the stored nitrogen and other nutri-ents and were willing to waste organic car-bon in the process. It is not uncommon fororganic matter levels in the Pampas and theGreat Plains or Prairies to have beenreduced to less than one-half the amountpresent before settlement by Europeans. (Ifthis reduction was from 4% to 2% organicmatter, the amount of carbon dioxidereleased would be equivalent to burning100 tons/acre of coal). Obviously, the soilwas out of balance relative to what it hadbeen in its native condition.

Atmospheric Carbon

Even though everyone was aware of organicmatter and realized it was valuable, no one paid muchattention to the carbon part of the carbon cycle. Thatattitude changed when scientists noticed the concentra-tion (‘partial pressure’)1 of carbon dioxide in the atmos-phere was increasing relative to historic levels. A massiveamount of effort has been expended trying to quantifythe amount of change that has occurred and to predictthe potential impact. Reasons for this change have beenattributed to use of fossil fuels, deforestation, naturalcauses, etc. Some of it might also be due to the impactof tillage on the organic matter in the soil. (Editors: Beckis being sarcastic and playful here. The evidence over-whelmingly leads to the conclusion that loss of organicmatter due to tillage and other land-use changes hasbeen a major contributor to risingatmospheric car-bon dioxide [CO2]levels in the lasttwo centuries,quite possibly thesingle largest emis-sions source fromhuman activitiesfrom the early1800s to the mid-1900s. Burning offossil fuels proba-bly didn’t becomethe dominantanthropogenic source until around 1970.) There werenow incentives and funds available that encouraged sci-entists to look at all parts of the carbon cycle.

Scientists like Don Reicosky (USDA-ARS) began tostudy the carbon system in the soil. He found that there

260

Many greenhouse operatorsenhance the carbon dioxideconcentration of their air to

reduce water vapor lossfrom plants.

Beck giving a tour of some rotations being studied under long-term no-till at DakotaLakes Research Farm. Thinking about things from unusual perspectives is signatureBeck style. Oh, and he does have a Bachelor's in Chemistry and a PhD in Agronomy.

Phot

o by

Bria

n Li

ndle

y.

1 Editors: Partial pressure is the pressure exerted by a component in a mixture of gasses.

Plants grown in higher car-bon dioxide environmentsare better able to obtainadequate carbon underwater stress conditionswhen stomatal closure

occurs for substantial peri-ods of time during the day.

was a large “flush” or release of carbon dioxide in the 3to 4 days immediately following a tillage operation. Onland that remained untilled and had been in grass forseveral years (after many years of farming), less carbonwas released during the season and the release happenedlater in the year when the weather warmed. Reicosky’sresearch is mostly concerned with how and why carbonenters and exits the soil. It does not focus on what hap-pens to it after it leaves the soil. But we are intenselyinterested because our crop needs to find carbon. Themore carbon it can find the better.

Let us look at theimmobilizationside of the carboncycle. Much ofwhat we knowabout the differ-ences that carbondioxide partialpressures have onplant growthcomes from stud-ies dealing withthe “greenhouseeffect” (trappingsolar radiationeither with physi-cal barriers such asplastic or glass, orwith atmospheric gasses). These data suggest that plantshave higher water-use efficiencies when grown underelevated carbon dioxide levels. The phenomenon isattributed to the fact that these plants do not have toopen their stomata as widely to obtain thecarbon dioxide they need. Consequently,less water vapor ‘leaks’ out. Many green-house operators actually enhance the car-bon dioxide partial pressure in the green-house atmosphere to reduce water vaporloss from plants. Reducing transpirationcuts down on water condensation on theceiling and walls. Plants grown in highercarbon dioxide environments are also betterable to obtain adequate carbon under waterstress conditions when stomatal closureoccurs for substantial periods of time dur-ing the day. The reason for this is thegreater concentration of carbon dioxide inthe air that enters the plant when the stom-ata are open. These impacts should be mostpronounced on C3 plants as compared tothose with the C4 pathway. The C3 pathwayis not as efficient as the C4.

Plundering the Stockpile

The best way to understand how something should workis to examine it in a natural system or several natural sys-tems. If we look at carbon cycling in the Pampas or thePrairies, the system was in equilibrium. The sameamount of carbon entered and left the soil each year (onaverage). Carbon dioxide was formed during the decayof dead plant residue, soil organic matter, and dead ani-mals, and as living organisms breathed. Warm-bloodedanimals are breathing throughout the year, but themicrobes that mediate most of the decay process operatebest when the temperatures are neither too hot nor toocold. They also like the proper moisture. That meansthat the “flush” of carbon dioxide associated with micro-bial activity occurs after soils warm in the spring andincreases when moisture is adequate. This is coincidentwith the time of peak vegetative growth of most speciesnative to these regions. This is most likely an evolution-ary adaptation because most other fertilizer elements areassociated with (bound within) the organic material thatis decomposing. If it did not decompose, there would beless nitrogen, sulfur, zinc, etc. for the next generation touse. If organic material decomposed before the period ofmaximum plant growth, there would be a high probabil-ity that many nutrients would be lost from the system(perhaps permanently). Neither the microbes nor theplants planned this. The individual organisms involvedwere simply exploiting opportunities presented forgrowth and reproduction, and over long periods of timethe groups of organisms became ‘tuned’ to use oneanother’s waste products in a cycle with little leakage.Most interesting to this discussion is the fact that carbondioxide emission coincides almost exactly with the maxi-

261

In native prairie, carbondioxide emission by soil

microbes coincides almostexactly with maximumdemand by plants. It is

easy to visualize the densecanopy of a tall-grass

prairie serving as a trap forpreventing carbon dioxide

from leaving an area until itcan be used by the plants

forming the canopy.

Phot

o by

Mat

t H

agny

.

A remnant of the Pampas of Argentina. While the lack of grazing has certainlytaken its toll on this parcel, one can still visualize the dense canopy recapturingsome of the carbon dioxide escaping from the soil.

mum demand for carbon dioxide by plants. It is easy tovisualize the dense canopy of a tall-grass prairie servingas a trap for preventing carbon dioxide from leaving anarea until it can be used by the plants forming thecanopy.

The rainforest operates in much the same manner otherthan it does not have its reserves of nutrients stored assoil organic matter. It does not ‘need’ this because thenutrients (and carbon) are stored in living material thatis cycled quickly. In the prairie, most of the biologicalactivity occurs in the soil or near the soil sur-face. In the rain forest, most of thebiology is abovethe soil. Soil scien-tists have tradi-tionally thought ofrainforest soils asbeing ‘poor.’ Theyare poor if youlook only at thesoil. The rainforestecosystem consist-ing of the soil plusthe plants and ani-mals is not poor.

When farming firstcame to these areas, there was little understanding ofplant nutrition. In the rainforest it was advantageous tocut down the vegetation and burn it (slash-and-burnagriculture). This released the nutrients being stored inthe vegetation so they could be used (mined) by thefarmer’s crop. The use of fire, along with making all ofthe nutrients available at once and at a time well beforethe crop would use them, led to loss of most of the nutri-ents. There were enough remaining to raise small cropsof annual plants for a few years. Soil degradation did notseem important since there were many hectares of forestand very few people, so more land could be found.

The process was similar for the Pampas and Prairies. Inthese ecosystems, many of the nutrients were ‘locked up’in the soil organic matter. Burning the aboveground veg-etation did not have the same effect. Tillage, on theother hand, was tremendously efficient at ‘burning’ thestored organic matter and releasing nutrients for use bythe crop. The benefits and problems are almost identicalto the slash-and-burn system of the rainforest. The nutri-ents became available for use by annual crops but theywere available too early and therefore prone to loss. Itjust looked less destructive because there was no visiblefire. There was burning going on just the same. The landdegraded after some years of doing this. Productivitydeclined. Nutrients leached or leaked from the systeminto water sources. But it didn’t matter; there were lots

of grasslands and very few people. Once a parcel wasdegraded, the farmer simply moved to another one.

What Are We Missing?

At first blush, most practicing farmers probably thinkthis has little to do with their operations today. In areaswhere the supply of new land became limited, farmingpractices evolved to include strategies designed to helpslow the rate of productivity loss. Mineral fertilizers haveallowed raising the soil or plant content of many ele-ments to levels equal to or greater than in the native sys-tem, although they continue leaking from the system.Even with this technology, the productivity of land with along history of farming is not as good as ‘new’ land. Themost striking characteristic of old land is that the level ofcarbon in the system remains well below that in thenative system.

Most scientists believe that soils with more organic car-bon in the system are more productive because ofimproved soil properties such as enhanced water-holdingcapacity, better structure, and more cation-exchangecapacity. These benefits undoubtedly play a major role.

262

Everyone worries about N, P, K, S, etc.—are we missing the chanceto fertilize our crops with carbon? Carbon dioxide escaping fromthe soil must go past the plant leaves to get to the atmosphere.With no-till, CO2 fluxes are at least somewhat synchronous withthe crop uptake. In Beck’s words, if you don’t have immobilization(by microbes plus plants) matching up to mineralization, you have‘leakage’ of nutrients from the system. The leakage is called leach-ing or denitrification as it pertains to nitrogen. For carbon, we callit soil organic matter loss.

Phot

o by

Bria

n Li

ndle

y.

Tillage of prairie soils bysettlers was tremendouslyefficient at ‘burning’ the

stored organic matter andreleasing nutrients. The

nutrients became availablefor use by annual crops, but

were available too earlyand therefore prone to loss.

Still, almost no one has considered that there might bedirect impacts on carbon dioxide partial pressures in thecrop canopy as well. In tilled systems, where most car-bon dioxide cycling is going to occur soon after thetillage operation, the farmer has lost the ability to man-age his carbon to better suit the plant’sneeds. That maynot be true for no-till farmers whosecarbon will cyclelater in the season,similar to what itdoes under naturalconditions.

For agriculture,the good newsabout the recentemphasis onunderstandingglobal warmingand the carboncycle includes results like the following passage from anannual report submitted by Jerry Hatfield and othersdoing work at Ames, Iowa under no-till conditions:

Single Most Significant Accomplishmentduring FY 2002: Carbon dioxide and watervapor exchanges measured within a corn canopyduring the summer of 2001 revealed that distri-butions with height varied throughout the day.Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the lowercanopy increased to levels near 900 ppm duringthe night and then rapidly decreased as solarradiation began to penetrate into the canopyduring the early morning. Mid-afternoon con-centrations were less than 300 ppm indicatingthat carbon dioxide values may be limiting cropgrowth. Examination of the patterns of carbondioxide and water vapor suggested that the soilmay be a significant source of carbon dioxidewhen the canopies completely cover the soil sur-face. Combining the gas measurements with thebiomass estimates of carbon stored in the canopyand the patterns in the above canopy measure-ments indicates that the soil release of carbondioxide during the growing season may con-tribute up to 40% of the carbon stored in thecorn crop.

(Editors: Beck is providing this example as evidence thatCO2 levels can differ between the crop canopy and out-side the canopy in the ambient atmosphere, which todayis around 340 ppm. The elevated CO2 in-canopy duringthe night will be partly from plant respiration, andpartly from soil emissions.)

Can We Manage Carbon?

(Beck’s caveat: The following two paragraphs are conjec-ture, based on observation and circumstantial evidence.Some of this has not been proven using recognizedmethods.)

It is conceivable that carbon cycling could be manipu-lated through rotation choice, residue management tech-niques, nitrogen application methods, etc., with the goalof raising carbon dioxide partial pressures in the cropcanopy at the time when the crop needs more carbon.This may sound silly until you consider that it is possible(probable) that carbon-cycling effects are partiallyresponsible for the fact that soils with high organic mat-ter content normally produce higher yields than thosewith less organic matter. Similarly, fields that haverecently been converted from perennial cropsor from sod into crop productionmight producesuperior yields forthe same reason.Almost every sea-soned no-tillfarmer has hadinstances where acrop yielded muchbetter than wouldbe expected basedsolely on thewater-savingaspects of no-till.Something elsehad made a contri-bution.

Perhaps no-till andcrop rotations arenot ends butrather the bestmeans or tools wehave available to manage the carbon cycle in our crop-ping systems. Maybe this [AAPRESID] conferenceshould not have as its title direct seeding but carbonmanaging. If carbon cycling is to be controlled, low-dis-turbance no-till now becomes the only option in terms oftillage choice. The focus then turns to optimizing thatsystem.

I am a farmer. I take sunlight, water, and carbondioxide and turn them into products I can sell.

263

Almost no one has consid-ered that soil organic mat-ter levels might be directlyimpacting carbon dioxideconcentrations in the cropcanopy. In tilled systems,

where most carbon dioxidecycling occurs soon after

tillage, the farmer has lostthe ability to manage his

carbon to better suit plantneeds. That may not betrue for no-till farmers

whose carbon will cyclelater in the season.

Even with fertilizer technology, the productivityof land with a long history

of farming is not as good as‘new’ land. The most strik-

ing characteristic of old landis that the level of carbon in the system remains well

below that in the nativesystem.

Dwayne Beck has posed the ques-tion, if you could know only onething from your soil test, what wouldit be? The answer should be organicmatter (OM). While farmers, gar-deners, and ranchers are vaguelyaware of the value of organic matter,little effort is put into preserving or

increasing it. Here are some guide-lines for those who want to travel thepath of actually improving the land.

When land is converted from nativevegetation (e.g., grassland) to crop-land with tillage, the loss of soil OMis substantial, often 30% or more inthe first 20 years in temperateregions (the loss is larger in tropicalareas). On the central U.S. Plains,

soils tilled for 80 – 100 years com-monly have lost 70% of the originalOM content.1 Simple comparisonswill underestimate the loss, becausenearly all grasslands today areimpoverished due to their manage-ment (unnatural grazing patterns,hayed every year, no haying/grazing

at all, etc.). Soil OMmeasurements fromnative tall-grass pasturesin north-central KSsometimes have readings of 5.0 – 6.0%.Yet historical accountsof SmithCounty, KSdescribe grassin the drawsbeing as tall asa man’s headon horseback—a far cry fromwhat we findtoday in thisregion.2

Clearly, ourgrasslands have lost vigorand carbon due to misman-agement, mostly inadver-tent. So, using the bench-mark of the originalpre-settler sod condition,we find that land conditionunder tillage actuallydeclined even more thanwe previously thought.

Going the other direction is moredifficult. Most studies show thatreducing tillage is ineffective atincreasing OM unless tillage isreduced to zero.3 Don Reicosky,USDA-ARS (Morris, MN), hasshown that carbon loss in a 24-hourperiod is very closely related tocross-sectional area of soil loosenedby whatever soil-engaging tool isunder discussion (see Figure 1).4 Infact, the correlation is almost per-fect, with R2 = 0.97. The trend heldfor 2 trials later that season with

264

An Owner’s Manual for CroplandOrganic Matter Changes & Fertilizer Efficiencies in Long-Term No-Till

by Matt Hagny

1 This assumes the original prairie in north-central KS at 6.0% OM, and cropland with an 80- or 100-yr tillage history at a typical value of 1.8% today. Andersonstates a 60% loss of OM from tillage in eastern Colorado in the March 2005 Leading Edge (citing R.A. Bowman, J.D. Reeder & L.W. Lober, 1990, Changes insoil properties after 3, 20, and 60 years of cultivation, Soil Sci. 150: 851-857). Data from the Morrow Plots in Illinois and from the Argentine Pampas show sim-ilar magnitude of losses.

2 Kent Stones’ great-great-grandfather’s diary. Granted, neither the people nor the horses were tall in the 1800s, at least not by today’s standards. Still, we mustbe talking 7+ feet of height for the grasses of the 1800s versus ~ 5 feet today, at the most. The processes of degradation of grasslands (and the remedies) arestudied by rangeland management gurus such as Kirk Gadzia, Allan Savory, and many others.

3 Or extremely close to zero. J.S. Kern & M.G. Johnson, 1993, Conservation Tillage Impacts on National Soil and Atmospheric Carbon Levels, Soil Sci. Soc. Am.J. 57: 200-210. T.O. West & W.M. Post, 2002, Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration Rates by Tillage and Crop Rotation: A Global Data Analysis, Soil Sci. Soc. Am.J. 66: 1930-1946.

4 D.C. Reicosky, 2005, PowerPoint presentation at the Agro-Soyuz NT-CA Conf. (Maiskoye, Ukraine, 17-20 Aug. 2005) (data from the 3 June 1997 study at SwanLake, MN, reported elsewhere).

500 1000 1500 20000

50

100

150

Figure 1. Cumulative carbon dioxide losses in 24hours following tillage. Carbon losses are directlyrelated to cross-section of soil disturbed. Study con-ducted by Don Reicosky at Swan Lake, MN in 1997.The cross-sectional area disturbed was calculatedfrom measurements after carefully excavating theloosened soil from each of the treatments. Cross-sectional area multiplied by distance traveled wouldbe volume of soil disturbed. Source: Reicosky, 2005.

Carb

on

Dio

xid

e L

oss

es

(g C

O2

per

m2)

Cross-sectional Area Loosened Soil (cm2)

Changes in soil OM are closely associated with amount ofbiomass supplied to the soil—the amount of carbon cap-tured by the plants and fed to the microbes . . . slowly. This process is derailed by soil disturbance (tillage).

Phot

o by

Gar

y M

asku

s.

Matt Hagny is a consultingagronomist for no-till sys-tems, based in Wichita, KS.S C I E N C E

R2=0.9698

slightly drier soils (see Figure 2).5

Some farmers brag about havinggiven up the plow in favor of chiselsand disks (“reduced,” or “conserva-tion tillage”), although we can seefrom CO2 losses that these methodsare only slightly less abusive. LostCO2 can mean only one thing—lostorganic matter.

Another study, conducted in Iowa,used tillage (or non-tillage) treat-ments on the same subplots for 3years prior to measuring CO2 fluxesduring 20 days following the tillagepasses in autumn of Year 3 (seeTable 1).6 Again, the carbon losseswere closely associated with the vol-ume of soil disturbed.

Neither of these studies capturesthe full magnitude of CO2 loss, sincea large amount of CO2 in pore space

escapes within the first few secondsafter tillage7—before the measure-ment instruments used in thosestudies were placed onto the tilledareas.8 Also, the loss continues formany months beyond the periodsmeasured in these studies.9

Reversing the Decline

Increasing OM with long-term no-tillis dependent on cropping intensityand amount of residues remaining onthe field each year. While roots con-tribute 2 to 3 times more to OM thandoes the aboveground portion,10 theaboveground material is highlyimportant because it protects the soilsurface from raindrop impact, weath-ering, and erosion. Roots may be thedirect cause of most of the improvedaggregation and higher OM, but the

residues on the surface are critical topreserving these gains.

One comprehensive analysis of 67studies from around the worldreveals that soil OM increases verylittle in the first 5 years of no-till onany given tract of land, followed bylarge increases in Years 5 – 10.11

Beyond Year 10, annual increaseswere not great unless rotationalcomplexity increased. Contrast thiswith Juca Sá’s research showing con-tinued increases (roughly linear) outto Year 22 of no-till implementa-tion.12 However, Sá’s results arefrom a tropical location that perhaps

265

5 D.C. Reicosky, 2001, Effect of Conservation Tillage on Soil Organic Carbon Dynamics: Field Experiments in the U.S. Corn Belt, in Sustaining the Global Farm(peer-reviewed papers from ISCO:10 conf., West Lafayette IN, 24-28 May 1999), ed. D.E. Stott, et al., International Soil Conservation Organization, withUSDA-ARS. The field wasn’t cropped during the year of the studies. Weeds were killed using contact herbicides ~ 2 weeks prior to each test.

6 M.M. Al-Kaisi & X. Yin, 2005, Tillage and Crop Residue Effects on Soil Carbon and Carbon Dioxide Emission in Corn-Soybean Rotations, J. Environ. Qual.34: 437-445.

7 Merle Vigil, personal communication Mar. & Nov. 2005. The air in the soil pore space is at least 30 - 40 times higher than in the air just above the soil surface.8 Reicosky’s 1997 measurements of ambient CO2 downwind during the tillage passes show large spikes within 2 minutes following the tillage event, which taper

off significantly at later intervals. Reicosky, 2001.9 The Al-Kaisi study measured significant differences persisting between the treatments 12 - 20 days after tillage. No rainfall had occurred, which would likely

spur further decomposition and CO2 losses.10 Reicosky, 2005 (data published in A.R. Wilts, D.C. Reicosky, R.R. Allmaras & C.E. Clapp, 2004, Long-term corn residue effects: Harvest alternatives, soil car-

bon turnover, and root-derived carbon, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68: 1342-1351). Other research has shown that surface residues can become part of soil organicmatter due to water percolation. Infiltrating water passing through residues often carries over 100 ppm of dissolved organic matter. So 24 inches of precipita-tion infiltrating the soil could carry 650 lbs/a of organic matter into the soil. W.C. Moldenhauer, W.D. Kemper & B.A. Stewart, 1994, Long-Term Effects ofTillage and Crop Residue Management, in Crop Residue Management To Reduce Erosion and Improve Soil Quality (Northern Great Plains), ed. W.C.Moldenhauer & A.L. Black, USDA-ARS.

11 West & Post, 2002.12 J.C. de M. Sá, C.C. Cerri, W.A. Dick, R. Lal, S.P. Venske Filho, M.C. Piccolo & B.E. Feigl, 2001, Organic Matter Dynamics and Carbon Sequestration Rates

for a Tillage Chronosequence in a Brazilian Oxisol, Soil Sci. Am. J. 65: 1486-1499.

100

80

60

40

20

0Plow Ripper Mole Knife Fertilizer

KnifeRow

CleanerNo-Till:

Whl TrafficOnly

g C

O2

per

m2

5 Hour CO2 Emission from Soil

Figure 2. Carbon losses from various soil-engagingimplements. Study conducted in Minnesota in ’97.The CO2 lost in the first few minutes was in soil porespace, but the large losses hours and days later areentirely from loss of soil OM. If you are trying to buildsoil OM, soil disturbance must be kept extremely low.Source: Reicosky, 2001.

20 Day CO2 Emissionfrom Soil

Method kg CO2 per hectare

Plow 511

Chisel 416

Deep Rip 402

Strip-till 378

No-Till 300

Table 1. Treatments in place for 3 yearsbefore these measurements weretaken following tillage in fall of ’01.Study conducted in Iowa. Differentmeasurement instruments and dura-tions resulted in absolute and relativevalues different from Reicosky’s.However, all studies of carbon lossesfrom soil are unambiguous: theamount of CO2 flux is directly relatedto volume of soil disturbed. Source: Al-Kaisi & Yin, 2005.

■ June 3■ July 16■ Sept 24

tilized plots are much slower to gainOM regardless of rotation.Generally, growing high-residuecrops (such as grasses) frequently inrelation to broadleaf crops causesOM to increase more rapidly,although this is overly simplistic. To alarge extent it is merely the amountof carbon captured by the plants peryear (averaged over the rotation) andfed to the microbes . . . slowly.15

Most studies conclude that thegreatest accumulation of OM occursin the surface 6 inches, and up to85% in the surface 3 inches.16 Thisin particular demonstrates the futil-ity of attempting to increaseOM if significant soil distur-bance occurs anywhere in therotation, since it will exposethe portion of the soil withmost of the OM to atmos-pheric oxygen. Drills withshanks (knife/hoe/sweepopeners), v-blading fallowoccasionally, coulter carts,aggressive strip-till, or anyother disturbance of signifi-cant soil volume will causesufficient carbon loss thatOM accumulation will beseverely curtailed. This isespecially true for warmer cli-mates in which OM degrada-tion occurs year-round.

Stable aggregates and waterinfiltration also show contin-ued improvement in long-term no-till (see Figure 3).17

These changes are related.Soil OM is the ‘glue’ thatbinds soil particles togetherand imparts structure.

266

13 C.A. Campbell, H.H. Janzen, K. Paustian, E.G. Gregorich, L. Sherrod, B.C. Liang & R.P. Zentner, 2005, Carbon Storage in Soils of the North American GreatPlains, Agron. J. 97: 349-363. L.A. Sherrod, G.A. Peterson, D.G. Westfall & L.R. Ahuja, 2003, Cropping Intensity Enhances Soil Organic Carbon and Nitrogenin a No-Till Agroecosystem, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 67: 1533-1543.

14 Campbell et al., 2005.15 An example will suffice: A 100-bu/a sorghum crop might produce 6,000 lbs/a of stalks & leaves. A 30-bu/a soybean crop might produce only 1,800 lbs/a of

residue. These aboveground residues would each contain roughly similar percentages of carbon (40 to 45% of dry matter). Belowground, the disparity wouldpersist between remnants of annual grass crops versus annual broadleaf crops, although the quantities of each will be highly dependent on climate, varieties,plant health, etc. The microbes that create stable soil OM rely on the complex carbon compounds from plant remnants for energy. The ‘feeding’ of microbesmust not involve tillage. Researchers in Oregon found that adding manure at 10 tons/a/yr for nearly 60 years, but plowed into the soil, only increased soil OMfrom 1.9% to 2.1%. Moldenhauer, 1994 (citing Rasmussen et al., 1989).

16 West & Post, 2002. 17 G.P. Lafond, 2005, No-Till: What have we learned on the Canadian Prairies, in Proceedings: NT-CA Conference (Maiskoye, Ukraine, 17-20 Aug. 2005), Agro-

Soyuz Corp (data collected by Charles Maule at the Indian Head site); G.P. Lafond, 2005, PowerPoint presentation at this conference.

was quite degraded initially (due torapid decomposition and intenseweathering, tropical soils lose OMquite easily when human activityadversely affects the ecosystem), andSá’s experiment was on land wherethe no-till management schememade extensive use of cover crops.

This makes sense: more vegetationgrowth translates to greaterincreases in OM.

Many studies from temperateregions also draw the connectionbetween amount of plant biomasssupplied to the land and soil OMlevels. For instance, decreasing thefrequency of fallow in semi-aridregions (fallow once in 3 – 5 yrs,instead of every 2 yrs) improves OMunder no-till.13 Continuous croppingis better yet, accumulating OMabout 5 times faster than rotationswith fallow.14 Not surprisingly, unfer-

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Tilled 5 yr

No-till

10 yr

No-till

13 yr

No-till

Infi

ltra

tio

n R

ate

(m

m/h

r)

Spring Wheat, 2002

Treatment N Rate Yield Protein Net(kg/ha) (bu/a) (%) ($/a)

20+ yr No-Till 0 42.6 13.3 55.02

30 44.8 13.7 61.86

60 49.1 14.0 76.62

90 51.5 14.2 83.51

120 49.8 14.4 72.94

1 yr No-Till 0 26.2 10.9 -26.76

30 32.9 11.0 -9.30

60 40.2 11.6 12.39

90 47.9 12.3 39.39

120 47.7 13.1 42.82

Table 2. In canola stubble. Part of a longer studybeing conducted by Guy Lafond, a scientist withAgri-Food Canada at Indian Head, Sask. The ’03to ’05 data are similar, Lafond says, although notyet published. (Lafond, personal communication.)Note that the optimum N rate in the short-termno-till was only half as profitable as the optimumrate in the long-term no-till. Economic returnsincluded protein premiums, and used the then-prevailing prices in Canada, such as $0.27/unit forN. Source: Lafond, 2005.

Figure 3. Effects of length of no-till onwater infiltration (81 mm applied in 1 hr).Source: Lafond, 2005.

These soil improvements, along withthe fact that soil OM can hold up to20 times its weight in water, cer-tainly aid the ability to grow crops.Better crops produce more residueto continue the soil-improvingprocesses. Randy Anderson’s ‘Spiralof Regeneration’ is real.

More Efficient Fertilization

While crop yields often trend higherwith long-term no-till, especially ifgood rotations are used, the effi-ciency of fertilization also

267

improves.18 In other words, it takesfewer units of applied N fertilizer tomake a unit of grain for harvest.This might be surprising, sincesomething must feed the OM accu-mulation.19 However, losses fromthe system (erosion, denitrification,runoff, leaching, etc.) apparentlycan be decreased sufficiently inwell-managed long-term no-till suchthat N requirements can be less(see Tables 2 & 4). This efficiency ishighly dependent on crop sequence,crop species, method & timing of Napplication, etc. Improved rootexploration of the soil, mycorrhizalactivity, and free-living N-fixing bac-teria could also account for some ofthe enhanced N-efficiency.

The efficiency of other nutrientssupplied as fertilizer (or manure) isalso improved in long-term no-till.This is primarily due to eliminationof a large component of loss fromthe system—soil erosion. However,

nutrients such as phos-phorus will need to besupplied to feed theorganic matterincrease, as well as toreplace what isremoved as grain.

With no-till and abun-dant mulch coveringthe soil surface, wefind—in stark contrastto nearly all of agricul-tural history—amethod of growingcrops that can accu-rately be called sustain-able. With this betterunderstanding of natu-ral systems, farmersadopting continuousno-till can improve effi-ciency and can state(with veracity) that theyleft the land betterthan they found it.

Soil Characteristics After 20 YearsN appl./year % Organic Matterlbs/a No-tillage Tillage

0 4.10 2.40

75 4.93 2.53

150 4.28 2.45

300 5.40 2.73

Corn Yields in Year 20N appl. bu/albs/a No-till, 20 yrs. Tillage, 20 yrs.

0 125 83

75 136 110

150 144 126

Tables 3 & 4. Long-term study in Kentucky, using con-tinuous corn with vetch as a cover crop. The soilimprovements are reflected in corn yields in Year 20 ofthe same experiment. Note that this was conducted inthe ’70s and ’80s—long before the advent of manymodern tools for no-till planting, and yet the yieldsunder no-till easily trump the tilled plots. Soil qualityoverrides many other things. Source: Derpsch, 2005,citing Thomas, 1990.

18 R. Derpsch & K. Moriya, 2005, Implications of soil preparation as compared to no-tillage on sustainability of agricultural production, in Proceedings: NT-CAConference (Maiskoye, Ukraine, 17-20 Aug. 2005), Agro-Soyuz Corp (citing G. Thomas, 1990: Labranza Cero: resultados en EEUU y Observaciones en cam-pos Argentinos, in Proceedings: AAPRESID Congress (Rosario, Argentina, 31 January 1990). Lafond, 2005.

19 Note that a 1% increase in soil OM (e.g., from 2.0% to 3.0%) to a 6-inch depth (18,000 lbs/a OM) requires assimilation of ~1,000 lbs/a of N, 100 lbs/a of sulfur,100 lbs/a of P, and so on.

The following is excerpted from a paper presented at the10th ISCO Conference (May 1999), West Lafayette IN,and also available at www.rolf-derpsch.com/notill.Derpsch has been working with no-till in South Americafor four decades, and can be credited with some of thetremendous success and large-scale adoption in Paraguay,Brazil, and Argentina. More recently, he has undertakenmajor consulting efforts in Africa, Eurasia, and Australia.

A mental change of farmers, technicians, extensionists,and researchers away from soil-degrading tillage opera-tions towards sustainable production systems like no-tillage was necessary . . . . As long as the head stays con-ventional it will be difficult to implement successfulno-tillage in practical farming. Through time we havelearned that if the farmer does not make a radical changein his head and mind, he will never bring the technology

Long-Term No-Till in South Americaby Rolf Derpsch

to work adequately. We found that this is not only true forfarmers but for technicians, extensionists, and scientists aswell. No-tillage is so different from conventional tillageand puts everything upside down, that anybody whowants to have success with the technology has to forgetmost everything he learned about conventional-tillage sys-tems and be prepared to learn all the new aspects of thisnew production system. We believe that a farmer first hasto change his mind before changing his planter . . . .

Concepts about liming and fertilization have changed alot in Latin America after shifting to the no-tillage system.Experience shows us that we have to forget everything wehave learned in the University about fertilization and lim-ing and get acquainted with the new concepts in fertilitymanagement in this system . . . .

268

earthworms and insects, etc., loosen the soil. Good soilcover is also essential to maintain higher moisture contenton the soil surface and this will result in better penetrationof cutting elements of the seeding equipment.

Soil compaction in permanent no-tillage is an issue that isdiscussed over and over again . . . . Three no-till pioneerfarmers from Brazil were interviewed in 1997 to expresstheir views on this problem. The interviewed farmers wereNonô Pereira (22 years of permanent no-tillage), FrankDikstra (22 years of continuous no-tillage), and HerbertBartz (26 years of continuous no-tillage), totaling 70 yearsof experience. Their soils vary from about 80% sand toabout 80% clay. The farmers were unanimous in statingthat they do not perceive compaction as a problem in per-manent no-tillage (Revista Plantio Direto, 1999). They alsostated that there is no need to till the soil every so oftenafter no-tillage has been established [emphasis added].Finally they said that the best way to avoid compaction inthe no-tillage system is to produce maximum amounts ofsoil cover, [and to] use green manure cover crops and croprotations, so that roots and biological activity as well as

As Derpsch has repeatedly emphasized, many of the benefits ofno-till derive from keeping the soil covered with residue.

Phot

o by

Dou

g Pa

len.

The data on carbon losses and soil degradation certainly under-mine the notion that a little tillage is okay. Yet, with all therecent hoopla in the U.S. over strip-till, zone-till, “verticaltillage,” and similar crazes, one might wonder. Certainly theSouth Americans don’t spend any time or energy worrying aboutsuch stuff. Attendees at recent AAPRESID Congresses find ittightly focused on low-disturbance no-till, and how to do it bet-ter—and AAPRESID is sufficiently large and democratic that itcan be seen as a measure of the pulse of Argentine agriculture.The number of hectares under low-disturbance continuous no-till in Argentina is enormous (60% of cropland), with a signifi-cant amount entering its second and third decade under no-till.The variability in climate and soils under successful no-till thereis tremendous. Maybe the economics are different in S.America. Maybe we in the U.S. know something they don’t . . . .

Leading Edge has twice before (March ’04 & March ’03)reported on strip-till experiments that used row cleaners andpop-up fertilizer for the no-till plots. Here’s another look (seesidebar). Nope, still no yield advantage to strip-till. And if wefigure the cost of the strip-till pass versus the cost of equippingthe planter with row cleaners and pop-up fertilizer, the econom-ics strongly favor no-till. (If you are assuming savings of 10cents/unit of N for NH3 versus other fertilizer sources, youshould remember that at-planting & in-crop N applications arefrom 10 to 30% more efficient than fall applications—as Beckwould say, there’s too much opportunity for ‘leakage’ of N withfall applications.) With the additional weed control costs associ-ated with strip-till, it looks worse yet. Some regions will havefurther issues with time constraints for getting the strip-till donein the fall. And if soil organic matter has any value at all, strip-till definitely makes no sense. Why strip-till and similar schemeshave so much popularity defies explanation, unless a big seg-ment of the population secretly has a tillage fetish.

Another Look at Strip-Till’04 Corn Yield bu/a

No-Till 160.1

Fall strip-till 163.4

LSD (P=0.05) not significant

Location: SDSU Agronomy Farm, Brookings, SD.Previous crop: soybean. Soil test: 14 ppm Olsen P.Long-term no-till. Part of a larger demonstration withvarious fertilizer treatments.

Liquid fertilizer of 5-16-5 (N-P2O5-K2O) applied in theseed furrow at planting for no-till, and applied ~ 7inches below the surface with the strip-till rig in the fall.

All other fertilizers broadcast. Planter with row cleaners.

Conducted by SDSU (A. Bly, R. Gelderman, J. Gerwing).5 replications, randomized.

’04 Corn Yield bu/aSoybean WheatStubble Stubble

Fall strip-till with P2O5

fertilizer placement 208 N/A*

Fall strip-till, no P2O5 in fall 204 214

No-till 205 208

LSD(.05) ns ns

*Data not available due to misapplication of P fertilizer.

Location: SDSU research farm near Beresford, SD. Soiltest: 10 ppm Olsen P. Long-term no-till.

All treatments had 46 lbs. P2O5 applied in the seed fur-row at planting, except the fall strip-till with fert. place-ment which had 46 lbs. P2O5 applied with the strip-tillrig ~ 7 inches below the surface.

N fertilizer was broadcast on all plots. Planter with rowcleaners.

Conducted by SDSU (A. Bly, R. Gelderman, J. Gerwing& B. Berg). 4 replications, randomized.

The instructions arein a foreign language,with a corner miss-ing, no pictures, andyou’re not even sure allthe necessary parts are inthe box. That’s much how Brian Bernsfelt about no-till during the late ’80s andmost of the ’90s. Yet he had seen the moisture savingsfrom the outset, and knew the water could be translatedto yield and profit. He persisted, and now the new con-traption is doing what it should.

On a regular basis, the Berns tribe reinvents their opera-tion, located some 25 miles southwest of Hastings, NE.As Brian’s dad “retired”—sort of—and Brian’s brother,Keith, returned to the farm (after a 10-year stint ofteaching high-school vo-ag morphed into a computertechnology career), they found opportunities in extensivecustom seeding with their no-till drill. Plus, they’ve putup 5 center pivots in the last 4 years, having had only asmidge of furrow irrigation before that. The changingworkforce and economic opportunities forced them torepeatedly tailor their rotations and agronomic practicesto fit those needs.

Brian started farming in ’88—just in time for a baddrought. That experience quickly taught him the value ofmoisture, and his reaction was to try preserving a field ofwheat stubble to plant to corn in ’89—the “ecofallow”

program developed in western KS and NE. That no-tillcorn in ’89 was a success for Brian and his dad, andquickly led them to experiment with no-till seeding ofwheat into corn and milo stalks. They rented a 15-footDeere 750 drill from SCS (NRCS) for a couple years,eventually buying it when the rental program was dis-continued.

Corn in itself was a bit of a change for the Bernses, whodid mostly wheat >>milo >>summerfallow, or wheat>>milo >>milo >>fallow back in their tillage days. Brianexplains, “Before 1990, very little dry-land corn wasgrown in thisarea.” Embarkingon the no-tilladventure hadBrian in search ofinformation, send-ing him toLessiter’s National No-till Conf. in ’92. “You’d go to aconference and hear all these ideas, and then try to fig-ure out if any of it would work for us.”

Still, the pieces weren’t exactly falling into place, andBrian continued to do some tillage in the fallow year ofthe rotation, as well as on the flood irrigation (to easerebuilding the furrows each year). By ’95 he was gettingfairly close to continuous no-till on the land he farmed,even though his dad was a little slower to totally convert

his land. Even after Keith returned to the farmin ’98, they occasionally “disked fields going tosecond-year wheat, and silly stuff like that,”remarks Keith sarcastically—reflecting the dra-matic change in their thinking. By 2000, theywere 100% no-till, and the tillage equipmentgot sold during their dad’s retirement sale in’01. Keith notes the helpful change in attitude:“It’s amazing. When the tillage equipment isn’tthere, you don’t even consider it. Before it wasalways tempting to use it, even if you knew allyou were doing was a temporary fix.”

Dryland Practices

“Corn into wheat stubble is our #1 money-maker,” notes Brian, “A combination of‘Freedom to Farm’ [’96 Farm Bill] and no-tillhas allowed us to go heavier into corn.” And

269

Some Assembly Requiredby Matt Hagny

On surface-applied side-dressing under pivots:

“Streaming isn’t a risk at all.”

FE

ATURE FAR M

ER

K

E I T H B E R N

S

Bernses’ irrigated corn in soybean stubble. The mulch covering the soilimproves irrigation efficiency substantially.

Phot

o by

Bria

n Be

rns.

FE

ATURE FAR M

ER

B

R I A N B E R N

S

broadcast a load of dry P to build levels in certain fields).The remainder of the N fertilizer is streamed on in earlyspring. Occasionally they stack the wheat if they considertheir residue levels to be low in a field, although heavyfirst-year wheat stubble usually gets planted to corn,since that’s their most lucrative crop.

The Rainmakers

The Berns brothers are just getting started on develop-ing rotations for their pivots, but are doing corn >>soy-beans currently, or corn >>corn >>soybeans, and tryingout some wheat. This is a major departure from the irri-gation practices in this part of Nebraska, most of whichhas been in continuous corn for decades (this is slowlychanging). In 2005, Keith & Brian had half a circle ofwheat planted behind soybeans to see how that worked.The field averaged over 80 bu/a, which included the dry-land corners, so the pivot itself made around 85. They’retrying to figure a way to make a little extra profit in thewheat year, and were contemplating double-crop sunflowers—until they realizedtheir wheat herbi-cide precludedthat option. Theyput in double-cropcorn instead, onthe 4th of July,which made 65bu/a (it ran out of time when a killing frost hit in lateSeptember). They have also considered doing a forage.

Up till ’04, the Bernses ran a knife applicator in thespring to put down either NH3 or liquid N & P to meetthe fertility demands of irrigated corn. Brian wasn’t satis-fied: “I never liked running through with the knife and

messing up the seedbed.” Instead, for the last2 seasons they’ve applied some N at plantingfollowed by side-dressing. For irrigated corn,they put down around 90 units of N as liquidvia the fertilizer openers on their 12-rowWhite planter. Another 80 – 90 units of N arestreamed with drop nozzles when the corn isknee to waist high—and immediatelywatered-in, so “streaming isn’t a risk at all.”Five gallons of 10-34-0 still goes in the seedfurrow, with additional P often included in the3x0.

The planter itself is a bit of a work-in-progress, with the Bernses having tinkeredwith nearly every aspect to discover whatmight perform best. Currently it has Yetterrow cleaners, heavy down-pressure springs,Keetons, and a motley assortment of closingwheel styles. Brian is noticeably frustrated at

270

“That’s why we no-till—tobring the soil back to how

it was originally.”

corn has been undoubtedly successful for them, with a10-year average (dryland) of nearly 120 bu/a. As of ’05,corn has totally displaced milo in their rotation, and theyeven do stacked corn on dryland.

However, dryland soybeans have been a struggle for theBernses, since insurance coverage is so poor and thelengthy drought decimated yields. However, they ‘hit’ in2005 with dryland soybeans averaging 45 to 50 bu/a. Tothe extent possible they go corn >>corn >>soy >>wheat,but since they’re still gun-shy of soys,some wheat getsplanted directlyinto corn stalks.Keith notes,“Wheat into beansis a much bettersystem thanbehind corn.”Brian lays out the roadmap, “We plan on increasingwheat and beans in ’06 and future years—trying for amore balanced rotation, an agronomic rotation.”

Bernses’ dryland corn is planted at 23,000 to 24,000seeds/a, and never under 22,000. Brian says stands gen-erally run 20,000 to 21,000. Most is Cruiser-treated (lowrate), or has a synthetic pyrethroid applied with the pop-up. Generally, all the fertilizer (110 units of N) for theirdryland corn is applied at-planting with low-disturbance3x0 openers, plus 5 gal/a of 10-34-0 pop-up through theKeetons (Bernses’ planter is plumbed with 2 completelyseparate liquid systems fed through piston pumps andRedBall manifolds).

Wheat is seeded at 90 to 120 lbs/a on 7.5-inch spacing,and gets 8 or 9 gallons of 10-34-0 as a pop-up (in somecases the Bernses use only 5 gallons for pop-up, but

“Some think irrigationdoesn’t go with no-till. We think differently.”

Achieving vigorous stands of irrigated corn in heavy residue (2d-yr corn here) isno problem for the Bernses.

Phot

o by

Bria

n Be

rns.

backgrounding, along with Keith’s website-developmentbusiness, ensures that every hour matters. And they doenjoy time set aside for themselves and their families.

The Berns boys are adding 600 acres of dryland in ’06, sothat has them further scrutinizing their efficiency and pri-orities. Likely, they will be cutting back on cattle numbersor outsourcing some of those activities, in order to capital-ize on proficiencies in cropping. In a related move, theywill probably sell their haying equipment and rely moreon winter forages under the pivots for cattle grazing.

Brian & Keith are still the iconoclasts of their region.Keith notes the reluctance of most of the locals toaccept permanent no-till, whether they’re active farmersor landlords who once farmed themselves: “It’s tough forthese guys to admit that the farming methods they usedtheir whole lives was damaging the land—that tillagewasn’t benefiting the crops or the soil. There’s a lot ofpride at stake. . . . But they have to realize that they didn’thave all the tools [to no-till] a couple decades ago.Glyphosate at $15/gallon versus $80 makes a huge dif-ference in the degree of economic advantage to no-till.”Brian explains some of it is just trading of expenses—“you spend money on seeding equipment instead oftillage equipment”—but overall they’re quite pleasedwith the economic advantages of no-till.

trying to makeit functionproperly in allconditions,although lifedid get easierwhen theyeliminated fur-row irrigationand went100% no-till.Yet theirexperimenta-tion and atten-tion to detailare rewardedwith nicestands andsome highlyrespectablecorn yields inboth dryland and irrigated.

Despite below-normal precip from 2000 to ’04, theBernses’ irrigation has been quite efficient due to no-till.They frequently top 200-bu/a corn with less than 10inches of water applied. “We don’t have excess water . . . .We’re right on the edge of [the aquifer]. These are only600-gallon-per-minute wells.” Keith muses: “Some peo-ple around here think irrigation doesn’t go with no-till.We think differently.”

The Bernses continue to dream up ways of using thewater from the wells, and the abundance of residue pro-duced. They’ve always had some cattle, and are toyingwith the idea of seeding rye or forage turnips under thepivots and grazing this vegetation along with the cornstalks. Keith remarks, “I think there’s some real opportu-nity to utilize some of that.”

Parting Thoughts

The brothers Berns see evidence they’re on the righttrack. Brian explains, “I started no-till because of mois-ture savings. Now, time savings and fuel savings areshowing up. But the Number One thing with no-till isstill the yield advantage.” With farm diesel recently over$3/gallon, that part needs no explanation. The time sav-ings are put to use on the Berns farm in many ways,since they do all their own spraying and harvesting, plusa big push with custom seeding (they covered 2,500acres with their 20-foot JD 1560 drill in the fall of ’05alone). Keith says, “Custom work teaches us to farmmore efficiently”—a comment echoed by Brian: “Gettingthe equipment over more acres is a big issue [for prof-itability].” This, plus minding a cow/calf herd and some

271

Bernses’ irrigated wheat, fall ’04. Ph

oto

by M

att

Hag

ny.

P.O. Box 379Wamego, KS 66547-0379

Non Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDPermit No. 69

Salina, KS

Don’t miss an issue! Renew before date in upper right-hand corner of address info.Your subscription consists of issues in March, September and December.

Keith further notes howfar we’ve come in ourunderstanding of no-tillmethods, as well asbeginning to grasp whatis happening with soils:“Every year that we no-till confirms what wethought we knew [goinginto the practice]. Long-term no-till is always thebest-yielding. It’s goodto have confirmationthat we’re going in theright direction.” Brianexpounds on that mes-sage: “It seems like ouryields vary mostlyaccording to organic matter. . . . The field that yields thebest was sod 6 years ago. This year [2005] in the drawsin that field, the yield monitor showed spikes over 200bu/acre [field average over 150 bu/a] with only 110 lbsof N fertilizer. . . . That’s why we no-till—to bring thesoil back to how it was originally.” That respect for soilconditions led them to try bringing a sod field directlyinto no-till cropping in 2005, with reasonable success.

The Bernses take a strong interest in perennial improve-ment of all their talents and endeavors, and if that meansdeveloping something from scratch—well, so be it. Keithhas a bit of an idea of what it is to be self-taught, havingacquired most of his computer skills the slow way in thelate ’80s—by trial and error, since “there weren’t anyclasses.” And Brian got educated on no-till in the ’80s and’90s with substantial tuition to the School of HardKnocks. But the plucky duo seems to be making theircropping system run just fine without much help fromthose cryptic instructions.

2006 ConferenceNo-Till on the Plains’ 2006 WinterConference, ‘Myths vs. Reality’ on30 – 31 January in Salina, KS, assembles a powerful set of speakers for its 10th Anniversary, now the largest no-tillevent in North America. Don’t miss Alan States, Dirceu Gassen, Don Reicosky, Ray Ward, and many more! Proceedingsmaterials are only guaranteed for those registered by January 10th.For more info, see www.notill.orgor call 888-330-5142.

And, new for ‘06: Check out our high-level AIM Symposium set for Feb. 1st. (separate registration required).

Keith seeding wheat in dryland soybean stubble. Brian says, “Long-term no-till is always the best-yielding.”

Phot

o by

Mat

t H

agny

.