No-Till's Unanswered Questions

Last week, I took a crash course in no-till farming at the No-Till on the Plains winter conference in Salina, Kan. I came loaded with questions, but I left with even more.

Over the years, a few no-till practices have slowly worked their way into our farm in western Kansas, with big payoffs. Our milo crops are now in full no-till. While our wheat is still in a reduced tillage system, we'll likely continue replacing the number of tillage operations with spraying for the sake of expediency and time management.

However, like many other farmers in our semi-arid region of the plains, the idea of going to full-blown continuous no-till is quite a leap – especially after having seen how some of the no-till wheat crops have performed during this year's drought when compared to tilled fields.

The concept of no-till makes perfect sense: Build residue over time to store moisture throughout the year for the growing season, and use cover crops to increase organic matter, nutrients, and microorganisms to build the soil structure. 

That sounds like a logical plan that benefits both farmer and environment. But after having seen multiple farmers in our area go completely no-till for 4-5 years and then switch back to reduced till in exasperation, I'm left wondering, "How long do we have to wait to see the real benefits of continuous no-till?" Five years is a long wait, especially if you risk your crop and income each year during the learning curve. 

Quantifying benefits of cover crops also seems elusive. More than a few of the conference presenters admitted that quantifying the cost-benefits of using cover crops to build nitrogen remains a mystery. I'm not at all against finding cheaper, more effective sources of nitrogen. But without hard data, cover crops still do not seem a viable alternative to our traditional source of nitrogen, anhydrous ammonia.

Extreme Crop Rotations

The topic that really struck me was crop rotations. Here on the High Plains, wheat-sorghum-fallow is the most reliable rotation according to K-State research.

But under no-till, it's argued that out here in the western plains, we can achieve four crops in three years instead of just two crops – all with only 17 inches of annual precipitation. I imagine that's like cramming 50 people into a Volkswagen Bug. While it might be fun to watch others do, actually making it work is going to be hazardous to your bank account.

One extension agent who presented on how no-till allows for a more aggressive rotation admitted that a few more crop failures are to be expected, particularly in places like western Kansas and eastern Colorado. Others at the conference made similar arguments in support of more intense rotations despite the higher risk, saying that if a crop fails, then you write it off and simply count it as a cover crop.

Crop failures, though, are precisely what I thought we were trying to avoid. You lose not only your investment in that crop, but plenty of sleep as well. Plus, it's a path that leads straight into the wilderness of inconsistency.

While I'm a big proponent of innovation and trying new things to improve efficiency or add value, consistency is the foundation of success. Continuous no-till, cover crops and aggressive crop rotations on the High Plains, though, promise the opposite.