Go Boldlyby Matt Hagny

125

Hard-core definesAlan States. Thedrive, the urgency,the decisive style,the careful logicthat exude fromhis every action and utterance areinescapable. A man who gets thingsdone, and cares little whether youapprove.

Yet the self-assured personality,combined with exceptional disci-pline and cunning, has served Statesremarkably well during his some-what storied life. His road has had

its share of turns. Following an edu-cation in economics at K-State, heembarked on what he describes,tongue-in-cheek, as “an all-expense-paid, around-the-world leadershipcourse, courtesy of the U.S. govern-ment,” referring to his tour of dutywith the Army during the Vietnamconflict. He barely escaped with hislife. Returning home to Logan innorth-central Kansas in 1972: “All Iwanted to do was farm in my littlecorner of the county.” But hereturned with the resolve to dothings his own way.

December 2003 • Volume 2 • Number 3

Contents

Go Boldly ................................125

Tillage, Rotation & Weeds ......130

Durable Production Tools ......137

Water Infiltration....................140

High ’n’ Dry ............................142

While a solid no-tiller now, Stateshad impatiently waited two decades“for the tools to become available,”knowing all the while where heneeded to go. In ’77 he was dab-bling in no-till and was doing an“ecofallow”-type rotation of wheat>>milo >>summerfallow. Soon itbecame standard practice for him toplant the milo crop into the wheatstubble without any tillage. Thesorghum stalks were then v-bladedduring the fallow year, and field cul-tivated to prepare for wheat plant-ing. However, Alan saw no com-pelling reason to do this tillageduring the fallow year—he knewherbicides were effective, and was

FE

ATURE FAR M

ER

A

L A N S TA T E S

Back in 1985, States’ air drill was an attempt at a no-till seeder for wheat, built from Acradouble-disc openers on a Sunflower chisel frame and a Sunflower (John Shearer) air cartimported from Australia. Inadequacies of that unit in handling firm soils caused States todelay his desired conversion to permanent no-till by over a decade, diligently looking all thewhile for a practical yet reasonably precise no-till seeder. In ’97 when the Deere 1850 airdrills came out, he pounced.

Phot

o by

Ala

n St

ates

.

Editors:Matt Hagny Roger LongRod PetersRandy 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 2003 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.

machinery manufacturers to catchup.

States tested a 15-foot JD 750 boxdrill when they came out, but it“wouldn’t even cover our tractortracks,” and the double-drill hitchesat that time weren’t user-friendly atall. So he kept looking, and waiting.When the Deere 1850s came out in’96, he rented one, and by ’97 hadpurchased a 42-foot model. Oncethat was in place, States quicklyeliminated his tillage machinery.“The piece we were missing was thedrill.”

Bootstrapping

All the while, States had been care-fully building out his financialstrength from skillful farming anddisciplined spending. In ’84 he hap-pened into owning a bank in Palcowhen two of his friends needed helpexercising their option to purchasethe bank. The partnership failedduring the banking crisis of the ’80s,leaving States with a million dollarsin bank stock debt and a small bankin an even smaller town. “I had noequity in the position—just infiniteleverage.” After sizing things up, lit-erally, he opened a branch in a mallin Hays, eventually moving into the

current building in down-town Hays. His bank contin-ues to expand at a time whenothers are withering away.Lest anyone get confused,States reiterates: “Allthrough the ’80s, the farmsubsidized the bank, not theother way around. It stilldoes. The farm is what gen-erated the profits that let mego into other ventures.”

Active on a daily basis inmanaging the bank, Stateshas had to be creative yetagain in keeping his farmfunctional. As he becamemore deeply involved inbank expansion, Alansearched for and found tal-

126

okay with planting in untilled soil.The only missing piece was a seedercapable of going into those condi-tions for wheat. He even worked atdeveloping his own opener in theearly ’80s, garnering

one patent in the process. Statesrealized the impracticality of bring-ing it to market, and by ’84 had builthis own air seeder using Acra dou-ble-disc openers on a Sunflowerchisel frame. That proved inade-quate as well: “It just didn’t haveenough down-pressure to pene-trate,” and when he tried increasingthe spring pressure, the openersbecame maintenance nightmares.However, “it was a very good drillfor stubble mulch minimum-till con-ditions.” States continued using thatdrill (with tillage in his fallow) foranother 13 years, waiting for the

“All through the ’80s, thefarm subsidized the bank,not the other way around.

It still does. The farm iswhat generated the

profits that let me go into other ventures.”

States’ second-year (stacked) wheat in the fall of ’03.“I’m trying to transition into stacks—that way, onlyhalf my wheat is behind beans. The other half isplanted earlier into wheat stubble. Stacking lets ushandle more acres.”

Phot

o by

Mat

t H

agny

.

bank.” The equipment is spread asefficiently as the labor: “One tractor,one planter, one drill, one combine”to do all that. According to Jay, theyaren’t even stretched yet—Statesplans on expanding by another 1,000acres in ’04, without adding anyequipment.

How is all this possible? For onething, States is quick to let somejobs go. Custom harvesters are hiredwhen the crops warrant it. Also,almost all spraying is now hired out,although States does own a largepull-type sprayer. A good local appli-cation service run by Randy Kisermakes this workable.

States’ rotations continued to evolvewith the rest of his farm. Corn hadcompletely replaced milo for him by’94, making his rotation wheat>>corn >>fallow. In the last fiveyears, soybeans replaced his fallow.Lately, “We’ve been transitioninginto a stacked rotation, aiming forwheat >>wheat >>corn >>corn>>bean >>bean. But we were losingtoo much on the stacked corn, forwhatever reason. So we’re now look-

ing at milo for thatsecond feed-graincrop.” With theseries of recent dryyears, States hasbegun to re-evalu-ate the corn vs.milo further, andplans on doingmore milo untilthey are once againworking with goodsubsoil moisture.

In ’03, Alan alsohad a significantacreage of oats,inserted into therotation after soy-beans and ahead ofwheat. Althoughhe had nice grain& hay yields fromthe oats (“As theyear turned out,

ent in Jay Hofaker to maintain andoperate Alan’s seeding and harvest-ing equipment. Alan pays him a“respectable” hourly wage, medicalbenefits and a share of the profit,since not only is Hofaker responsi-ble for keeping everything runningsmoothly, but also hiring any addi-tional support needed during busytimes. States pays the bills. “Jaymakes sure everything gets done—Jay doesn’t need any supervision . . . . In the past, I’ve come up here[from Hays] for 6 weeks at a time[to do the seeding or harvesting].”Although States’ days spent on thefarm are few and infrequent lately,he’s as intensive on managing it asever—the budgets, crop rotations,insurance, and marketing are allplanned and executed with militaryprecision.

Hofaker also runs a very sizeablealfalfa hay operation, and 2,000acres of cropland of his own, rentingAlan’s machinery for planting andharvesting. And so States’ farm cur-rently crops more than 6,000 acreswithout any full-time employees—“Jay has his farm, and I have the

one of my most profitable crops”),Alan says he doesn’t know if he’ll dooats again. The reasoning lies prima-rily in his adoption of stacking hisother crops. “Soybeans come off solate, it’s always a struggle to get frombeans to wheat . . . . As the farmgrew, having all the wheat behindbeans was a problem. I’m trying totransition to stacks—that way, onlyhalf my wheat is

behind beans. The other half isplanted earlier into wheat stubble . . . . Stacking lets us handle moreacres [without adding labor orequipment].”

Rough Sailing

Drought continues to sting the area,yet States makes allowance for thisand soldiers on. He notes that wehave no way of knowing if thedrought is nearly over or might con-tinue for another 25 years. Eitherway, he says, somebody will be therefarming the land, although the localinfrastructure may disappear soon.“The last good corn crop was in ’99,averaging 110 [bu/a], even with hail.Up to that point, 2000 was the worstwe’d ever had—a complete wipeout.2001 was on track to repeat 2000;then August rains made a big soy-bean crop and saved us. In ’02, welost everything—worst year in 124years [of recorded history for thecounty]. Good rains in the spring of’03 made us think it had changed,

127

Alan explains his methods. It’s all very straightforward: plan rigor-ously, execute vigorously. Let luck find you, but don’t count on it.

Phot

o by

Mat

t H

agny

.

States refuses to rent hisstalks for grazing for nom-inal amounts. “Stubble isnot waste. I’m not lettingit go for 6 or 7 dollars anacre, not when I’m tryingto build residue levels.”

Similarly, haying andsilage have been curtailed.

but they shut off the first week ofJune. Much of the area hasn’t hadanything for 10 or 12 weeks [since].”Nearly all his corn, milo, and soy-beans completely failed, again.Driving through the county in earlyOctober ’03, most milo fields areutterly headless—as nice and tidy asif the combine had just finished,except that no harvest had occurred.

States says his farm squeaked out asmall profit in ’02, from “drought aidand insurance, and economy ofscale.” He hopes to break-even in’03, with a modest wheat crop[Logan was drier than other areas ofthe state, even in the spring], andsome crop insurance revenue on thesummer crops. Still, the unflappableStates finds reason for optimismabout his no-till practices: “We’renot blowing,” referring to theremarkable stability of his soil undercover.

When quizzed about his stayingpower in the face of drought ofunknown duration, States mentions,“I don’t need to upgrade equip-ment—I could easily hold off adecade.” He deflects speculation asto any self-imposed limits on whatNature might take from him beforehe would fold; the man must haveaccumulated some reserves in thegood years, as well as nerves of steel.He even speaks of the need to main-tain his agronomy: “I’m about aslean as can be on inputs. You’ve gotto plant the right seeds, do the fer-tilizer right, and maintain the herbi-cides . . . . I won’t change my crop

mix or the way we do things . . . . Iwould never go back to summerfal-low.”

Doing things right for States meansputting down 90 lbs. of 11-52-0 as apop-up on wheat, followed bybroadcasting N in the wintertime.His corn & milo often get their Nb’cast during the winter as well—“I’m not convinced we have theoptimal method for fertilizing. Lotsof things on our farm are driven bysimplicity.” The corn and milo go inwith a 30-inch Case-IH Cycloplanter, equipped to deliver pop-upfertilizer in the row. Soybeans areput in with the 1850 on 15-inchrows.

Asked about concerns for the future,States quickly replies, “I am con-cerned about what is going to hap-pen with Roundup Ready wheat. Ihave to have a rotation of crops, anda rotation of herbicides—I can’thave a monoculture of chemistries.”

Like many no-tillers, States is gain-ing appreciation for the value ofresidue. He notes that in the ’02drought, he baled lots of corn,“which was a mistake” for variousreasons but particularly for loss ofsoil cover. Despite his strong prefer-ence for cash in hand, Statesdecided to forgo taking silage or hayin ’03, with the exception of a smallcorn acreage that was ensiled andthen seeded to wheat. Similarly,States refuses to rent his stalks forgrazing for nominal amounts.“Stubble is not waste. I’m not letting

it go for 6 or 7 dollars an acre, notwhen I’m trying to build residue lev-els.” Alan remarks that even his low-disturbance drill openers chop upand decimate residue more thanhe’d like. That attitude towards hissoil cover stems not only from hisknowledge of moisture-storageeffects, but also the elimination ofsoil erosion, which was whittlingaway at his land invest-ment. “Terraces

are a waste of money. With this styleof farming, we simply don’t needthem anymore.”

Local & Global Efficiencies

Those who know States well alsorecognize the role he’s played incrafting each of the U.S. Farm Billssince the mid-’80s. He never set outto be politically active—that was fur-thest from his mind in the ’70s. Likemany of his projects, he simply didwhat needed to be done under thecircumstances. (Known for his bru-tal honesty and curt style, it’s a tadsurprising States moved so wellwithin the political arena.) Hisinvolvement in the local FarmBureau in the ’70s eventually led toadvisory activities for Senator Dolein the mid-’80s. And the invitationto take part in a feasibility study fora sunflower crushing plant led to his

128

Soybean harvest ’03: Another bust in a series of dry years for rolling Phillips Co., KS.

Phot

o by

Mat

t H

agny

.

“The way we’re farming iscertainly not labor inten-

sive, and not capital inten-sive. All the equipment

added together, at currentvalues, only comes to

$70/a. Divided out over auseful life of 12 years—only about $6 an acre a

year for machinery.”Expanded acreage for ’04make the numbers look

even better.

representing U.S. Canola at ag pol-icy discussions, and later as a direc-tor of the Nat’l Sunflower Assoc. Inthe mid- and late-’80s, States oftenspent 30 to 60 days a year inWashington, D.C. fulfilling thoseroles. States assisted in getting the0/92 provisions for minor oilseedswritten into the ’90 Farm Bill, andlater the 15% “normal flex” acres,which were essentially pilot pro-grams for the full-blown flexibilityunder the ’96 “Freedom to Farm”legislation. States has dropped backto an informal advisory role since’94, when he moved the bank toHays and needed to focus on busi-ness. But rest assured, he continuesto be the voice of reason as eachround of ag policy is crafted. And heknows all too well the distortingeffects of unwise legislation: “Thisarea once grew a significant amountof oats, barley, flax, and so on. Thelimited monoculture [of wheat] ofthe last few decades was a result ofthe [earlier] Farm Bills.”

Alan sees each round of hardship inan industry forcing more adoption ofeconomies of scale and efficiency-enhancing technology. “Consolida-tion of agriculture in this countryisn’t much different from what hashappened to auto manufacturersover the last century.” States knowsthat subsidies and protectionism areultimately unsustainable. “Lookingseveral generations out—for a farm

to be viable, it mustbe competitive on aworld scale.”

Some will observethat States often saysone thing and isdoing somethingelse a few yearslater—reflecting ahealthy reassessmentof a situation, a revi-sion of the battleplan. Yet his com-mitment to no-tillruns deep. “The way

we’re farming is certainly not laborintensive, and not capital intensive.All the equipment added together,at current values, only comes to$70/a. Divided out over a useful lifeof 12 years, that comes to only about$6 an acre a year for machinery.”

Every aspect of his operation isscrutinized for possible efficiencygains, for revenueopportunities, forrisk. An example ishis GPS-basedguidance systemeliminating over-laps and saving acouple percent oninputs. “This fallwe seeded 2,000acres of wheat andwere within 500lbs. on seed [ofprojected needs].”Experimentationand innovation arethe norm. “We’vetried somethingnew every year—adifferent crop, anew rotation, what-ever . . . . You for-get that I wastrained as an ArmyRanger —tryingnew things like no-till is really no bigdeal. It’s nothing incomparison to, say,

trying to sneak onto an enemy beachin a rubber raft.” Undoubtedly, see-ing a fellow soldier shot and killedjust inches away from you foreverchanges your perspective.

That can-do attitude pervadesStates’ life. One gets the sense thatall his business endeavors are just agame to him—“Everything I do is ahobby in the sense that it’s fun.”Indeed, he relishes the challenges.Think farming is ruthlessly competi-tive? Try banking. Yet Alan hasfound ways to eek prosperity fromboth industries, having multipliedhis equity many times during hiscareer. “If there’s one mistake I’vemade, it was in not dreaming bigenough . . . . Everyone has at leastone chance to become a millionaireduring their lifetime. It’s just thatwhen your ship finally comes in, youmight need to build a lighthouse anddredge the harbor.”

129

States’ corn in ’02, another disaster—driest in 124 years ofrecorded history in that county. “Look how close we got [toraising a crop]—the corn in tilled fields burned up weeks ago.”

Phot

o by

Mat

t H

agny

.

The following is from a paper slated for publishing inWeed Technology journal, printed and edited here withpermission of the author.

Crop residue retention has changed rotational practicesin the central Great Plains. Winter wheat >>summerfal-low has been the prevalent rotation since the 1930s.However, maintaining crop residues on the soil surfaceimproves precipitation storage in the soil such that pro-ducers can grow more crops in succession before fallowis needed.1 Producers now grow corn (Zea mays), sun-flower (Helianthus annuus), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor),or proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) in rotation withwinter wheat and fallow.

The benefits of crop residues are closely related to theirquantity on the soil surface. One studyon the GreatPlains found thatprecipitation stor-age during fallowincreased 1 cm(0.4 inch) forevery 1,000 kg/ha(892 lbs/a) of win-ter wheatresidues,2 while another study reported that corn grainyield increased 5 to 8% for each additional 1,000 kg/haof winter wheat residues.3 Because crop residues oftenimprove crop performance, some producers seek to max-imize residue quantity on the soil surface.

When winter wheat producers and scientists first recog-nized the value of residue preservation in the 1950s, theydeveloped tillage implements such as the sweep plow orrod weeder, which led to the “stubble mulch” system.With stubble mulch, weeds are controlled during fallowwith a sweep plow, which consists of V-shaped bladesthat sever plant roots at a tillage depth of 5 to 8 cm (2 to3 inches). Each operation buries only 10% of crop

residues because oflow soil inversion, con-trasting with tillage bya tandem disk or mold-board plow that buries60 to 100% of cropresidues. Crop residuemanagement is furtherimproved with no-tillsystems, where herbi-cides replace tillage forweed control duringfallow. Some producersin the region now relycompletely on no-tillsystems for crop pro-duction.

Producers, however,are concerned about herbicide-resistant weeds in thecentral Great Plains. When “eco-fallow” was first devel-oped, producers relied on atrazine to control weeds dur-ing fallow. Now, biotypes of kochia (Kochia scoparia),green foxtail (Setaria viridis), redroot pigweed(Amaranthus retroflexus) and barnyardgrass(Echinochloa crusgalli) are resistant to atrazine.4

Glyphosate also is used for weed control during fallowbecause of favorable economics and cropping flexibility.However, weed population shifts have led to a greaterprevalence of species that require higher rates for con-trol. For example, horseweed (or marestail, Conyzacanadensis), toothed spurge (Euphorbia dentata), tum-ble windmillgrass (Chloris verticillata), and wild buck-wheat (Polygonum convolvulus) are increasing in someproducer fields. These species require substantiallyhigher rates of glyphosate for control.5

Because of resistant weeds and species shifts, input costsfor weed control during non-crop periods are escalating,

130

Tillage, Rotations, and Weed Populationsby Randy Anderson

Randy Anderson is a USDA-ARS scientist at Brookings, SD,formerly at Akron, CO.S C I E N C E

Prickly lettuce & marestail are twospecies difficult to control withglyphosate.

Phot

o by

Dou

g Pa

len.

1 G.A. Peterson, A.J. Schlegel, D.L. Tanaka & O.R. Jones, 1996, Precipitation use efficiency as affected by cropping and tillage systems, J. Prod. Agric. 9:180-186.

2 B.W. Greb, 1983, Water conservation: Central Great Plains, in Dryland Agriculture, ed. H.E. Dregne & W. O. Willis, American Society of Agronomy.3 G.A. Wicks, D.A. Crutchfield & O.C. Burnside, 1994, Influence of wheat (Triticum aestivum) straw mulch and metolachlor on corn (Zea mays) growth and

yield, Weed Sci. 42: 141-147.4 J.S. Holt & H.M. LeBaron, 1990, Significance and distribution of herbicide resistance, Weed Technol. 4: 141-149. 5 Gail Wicks, personal communication.

After 18 years, the weedcommunity differed

between the two tillagesystems, with density of allspecies being less in no-till.

as herbicide alternatives to glyphosate or atrazine aremore expensive. For economic reasons and resistancemanagement, some no-till producers are reconsideringtillage as an alternative weed control option, and theywant to know the impact of occasional tillage on weedpopulations. Tillage affects weed dynamics because bur-ial of weed seeds in soil influences seed germination andsurvival in the seed bank.6 For example, one operationwith the sweep plow increased seedling emergence ofdowny brome (Bromus tectorum) and jointed goatgrass(Aegilops cylindrica) two-fold compared with a no-tillsystem during the first year after tillage.7 Increasedseedling emergence reflects the sweep plow’s placementof weed seeds into more favorable sites for germination.

To help producers assess the value of tillage in managingherbicide resistance, we reviewed recent research in thecentral Great Plains that quantified weed dynamics andcrop response to systems involving tillage compared withno-till. We also discuss possible alternatives to tillage indevising cropping systems that minimize selection pres-sure for resistant weeds.

Weed Density: Rotations Key

With the region’s prevalent winter wheat >>fallow rota-tion, producers have struggled to control winter annualgrasses, especially downy brome.8 Over a series ofdecades, Charles Fenster (agronomist with U.Neb. atScottsbluff) and Gail Wicks (weed scientist with U.Neb.Extension at N. Platte) explored various managementsystems in winter wheat >>fallow for downy brome con-trol.9 They compared a range of tillage systems, includingstubble mulch and no-till, and found that downy bromecontinued to infest winter wheat regardless of manage-ment during fallow. They noted that environmental con-ditions, such as timing of precipitation after winter wheatplanting, influenced downy brome density as much astillage system.

A team led by Jim Moyer, a weed scientist with Agri-Food Canada (Lethbridge), in an extensive review ofvarious tillage systems in winter wheat, found similarresults in that downy brome was prominent in both “con-servation” and conventional tillage.10 (“Conservationtillage” was defined on the basis of crop residue quanti-ties on the soil surface, and included both reduced-till

and no-till systems.) They also reported that other weedspecies have been shown to increase in both systems,and they suggested that this trend might reflect short-interval rotations comprised of only one or two crops.The authors hypothesized that weed densities maydecrease in conservation tillage if rotations were com-prised of several crops and sequenced across a longerduration.

The results of another research team in the central GreatPlains support this hypothesis.11 This team examinedlong-term dynamics of the winter annual grasses, jointedgoatgrass and feral rye (Secale cereale), in winter wheatas affected by tillage and rotation. These species wereprominent in winter wheat >>fallow with both sweepplow tillage and no-till after 8 years. If warm-seasoncrops such as sunflower or proso millet were added tothe rotation, jointed goatgrass and feral rye were almosteliminated. Their density in rotations that included awarm-season crop was reduced by a factor of over 100compared to the winter wheat >>fallow rotation. The 2-yr interval between winter wheat crops reduced weeddensity because of greater loss of viable seeds in the seedbank.

Gail Wicks further examined the impact of a 2-yr intervalon weeds in a winter wheat >>sorghum >>fallow rota-tion in western Nebraska, assessing both cool- and

131

The need for keeping those unwanted species at bay: Here, apatch of pigweed seedlings stunted the corn. The weeds weresprayed out at spike, and again a few weeks before this photo—when pressure is severe, that’s not enough. The corn crop is fineelsewhere in the field.

Phot

o by

Mat

t H

agny

.

6 R.J. Froud-Williams, R.J. Chancellor & D.H. Drennan, 1984, The effects of seed burial and soil disturbance on emergence and survival of arable weeds inrelation to minimal cultivation, J. Appl. Ecol. 21: 629-641. H.A. Roberts, 1981, Seed banks in soils, Adv. Appl. Biol. 6: 1-55.

7 R.L. Anderson, 1998, Seedling emergence of winter annual grasses as affected by limited tillage and crop canopy, Weed Technol. 12: 262-267.8 G.A. Wicks & D.E. Smika, 1990, Central Great Plains, in Systems of Weed Control in Wheat in North America, ed. W.W. Donald, Weed Science Society of

America.9 C.R Fenster, C.E. Domingo & O.C. Burnside, 1969, Weed control and plant residue maintenance with various tillage treatments in a winter wheat-fallow

rotation, Agron. J. 61: 256-259. C.R. Fenster & G.A. Wicks, 1982, Fallow systems for winter wheat in western Nebraska, Agron. J. 74: 9-13. 10 J.R. Moyer, E.S. Roman, C.W. Lindwall & R.E. Blackshaw, 1994, Weed management in conservation tillage systems for wheat production in North and

South America, Crop Protection 13: 243-259.11 O. Daugovish, D.J. Lyon & D.D. Baltensperger, 1999, Cropping systems to control winter annual grasses in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum), Weed

Technol. 13: 120-126.

warm-season weed species. This study compared no-tillwith a tilled system of sweep plow operations as neededfor weed control during non-crop periods; weeds werecontrolled in-crop with herbicides.12 The weed commu-nity consisted of downy brome, barnyardgrass, green fox-tail, kochia, redroot pigweed, Russian thistle (Salsolaiberica), stinkgrass (Eragrostis cilianensis), and witch-grass (Panicum capillare). After 18 years, the weed com-munity differed between the twotillage systems,with density of allspecies being lessin no-till. Forexample, downybrome density wasreduced by a factor of five in no-till compared with thesweep plow system. Similar trends occurred with otherspecies, with densities in no-till reduced by factors ofthree to five.

Expanded Rotational Studies

With improved moisture conditions in no-till systems,producers are seeking to minimize fallow by includingmore warm-season crops in the rotation. Therefore, inthe early 1990s, several cropping systems studies werestarted in the central Great Plains to evaluate rotationscomprised of winter wheat, various warm-season crops,and fallow. Eight to eleven years after initiation of thestudies, we assessed weed community changes for stud-ies located at Pierre, SD, Wall, SD, and Akron,Colorado.13 At all sites, crop and weed management tac-tics were similar to practices used by producers in theregion. The weed community at these sites was similar tothe rotation study in Nebraska, except barnyardgrass wasnot present.

In all three studies, weed density was reduced in longerrotations based on 2-yr phases of crops with similargrowth periods, as compared with rotations of shorterduration. For example, at Pierre, various rotations werecomprised of cool-season crops such as winter wheat anddry pea (Pisum sativum), and warm-season crops such ascorn, soybean, and chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Plantingof warm-season crops usually occurred in early May,whereas dry pea was planted in late March or earlyApril. Averaged across all phases of the rotation, weeddensity in a 2-year rotation of winter wheat >>fallow (W-F) was 31 plants/m2, with downy brome being the main

weed species(see graph).With a winterwheat >>chick-pea rotation (W-CP), weed com-munity densityincreased to 60plants/m2 andincluded sum-mer annualweeds such asgreen foxtail,stinkgrass,witchgrass, andredroot pigweed,as well as downybrome. In winterwheat >>corn>>chickpea (W-C-CP), downybrome wasrarely observed,but density ofsummer annualweeds was 25plants/m2. A 4-yrrotation comprised of two cool-season crops, dry pea andwinter wheat, followed by two warm-season crops, cornand soybean (W-C-SB-Pea), reduced weed communitydensity to only 5 plants/m2. Weed density in the 4-yr rota-tion was reduced by a factor of 12 compared with W-CP,and reduced by a factor of five compared with W-C-CP.

Similar results occurred at the other sites: weed densitywas lowest in 4-yr rotations with long intervals betweencrop species. Winter wheat >>proso millet, or winterwheat >>corn >>proso millet had weed densities sev-eral-fold higher than rotations such as spring wheat>>winter wheat >>corn >>sunflower at Wall, and winterwheat >>corn >>proso millet >>fallow at Akron.

Depleting the Seed Bank

Arranging cool- or warm-season crops into multi-yearcycles helps weed management because it favors the nat-ural loss of viable seeds in soil. Survival of weed seeds insoil follows a typical trend, with rapid loss of viable seedsin the first 2 years after shedding.14 With green foxtail

132

W-F W-CP W-C-CP W-C-SB-Pea

Rotation

Wee

d d

ensi

ty (

pla

nts

/m2 ) 60

45

30

15

0

b

c

b

a

Weed density in four rotations of a crop-ping systems study, Pierre, South Dakota.The study was initiated in 1990; weedcommunity was assessed after the finalweed management tactic occurred in eachcrop in 2000 and 2001. Means representweed density averaged across all cropswithin each rotation across both years;bars with the same letter are not signifi-cantly different based on Fisher’s LSD test(0.05). Abbreviations: W = winter wheat;CP = chickpea; C = corn; F = fallow; SB =soybean; and Pea = dry pea. (Adaptedfrom Anderson, 2003.)

12 G.A. Wicks, D.E. Smika & G.W. Hergert, 1988, Long-term effects of no-tillage in a winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)-sorghum (Sorghum bicolor)-fallowrotation, Weed Sci. 36: 384-393.

13 R.L. Anderson, 2002, Designing rotations to favor natural benefits, in Proceedings: 2002 No-Till on the Plains Winter Conference (Salina KS, 21-22 Jan.2002), No-Till on the Plains Inc. R.L. Anderson, 2003, An ecological approach to strengthen weed management in the semiarid Great Plains, Advances inAgronomy 80: 33-62.

14 G.H. Egley & R.D. Williams, 1990, Decline of weed seeds and seedling emergence over five years as affected by soil disturbance, Weed Sci. 38: 504-510.Roberts, 1981.

These studies suggest thattillage favors weeds.

and downy brome, less than 10% of seeds are viableafter 2 years on the surface.15 In the 4-yr rotation, controlstrategies in the 2-yr phase of cool-season crops preventsseed production of warm-season weeds, whereas seedproduction of cool-season weeds is prevented during the2 years of warm-season crops. Thus, if weed seeds arenot added to the seed bank, the natural loss of viableweed seeds during the 2-yr span can reduce potentialseedling density infuture years morethan 90%.

However, we weresurprised thatimpact of rotationdesign on weeddensity differedgreatly among thethree sites. Weeddensities between4-yr and 2-yr rota-tions differed onlythree-fold at Walland six-fold atAkron, contrastingwith the 12-fold

difference at Pierre. This contrast in weed density doesnot reflect differences in weed community composition,as the prominent weeds at all sites were downy brome,green foxtail, kochia, redroot pigweed, Russian thistle,stinkgrass, and witchgrass.

A key difference among the studies was tillage fre-quency. At Wall, tillage with the sweep plow incorpo-rated herbicides and fertilizer as well as controlledweeds during fallow, with one to three tillageoperations occurring each year; atAkron, tillageoccurred onceduring the rotationcycle. The study atPierre was no-tillin all years.Differencesamong rotations atthe three sites sug-gest that tillage decreases the impact of rotation on weedpopulations. A second trend with these studies also sug-gests that tillage favors weeds. Weed community densitywas assessed in nine rotations at both Wall and Pierre;averaged across all rotations, weed density was six-foldgreater at Wall.16

Tillage usually stimulates a flush of seedlings by placingsome weed seeds in more favorable sites in the soil forgermination.17 However, burial of weed seeds by tillagealso prolongs their survival over time because soil pro-tects dormant seeds from environmental extremes.18 Forexample, green foxtail seed survival after 2 years wasgreater than 50% when seeds were buried 10 cm (4inches) in soil, contrasting with less than 10% of seedssurviving when they remained on the soil surface.19 Evenwhen green foxtail seeds were buried only 1 cm (0.4inch) or 5 cm (2 inches) in soil, survival was still two-foldgreater after 2 years compared with seeds remaining onthe soil surface. This trend also occurs with otherspecies. One study found that wild oat (Avena fatua)seed survival over winter was five times greater whenseeds were buried 5 cm deep compared with seeds lyingon the soil surface.20 Other scientists found similarresults with summer annual weeds.21

An understanding of weed seed survival helps explainother findings. Initial research on the interaction of

133

Tillage with the sweepplow lessened the benefi-

cial effect of the 2-yr breakby prolonging weed seedsurvival in the seed bank.

15 Anderson, 2003.16 Anderson, 2003.17 Roberts, 1981.18 G.H. Egley, 1986, Stimulation of weed seed germination in soil, in Reviews of Weed Science 2: 67-89, Weed Science Society of America. Froud-Williams

et al., 1984.19 J.D. Banting, E.S. Molberg & J.P. Gephardt, 1973, Seasonal emergence and persistence of green foxtail. Can. J. of Plant Sci. 53: 369-376. A.G. Thomas,

J.D. Banting & G. Bowes, 1986, Longevity of green foxtail seeds in a Canadian prairie soil, Can. J. of Plant Sci. 66: 189-192.20 G.R. Sagar & A.M. Mortimer, 1976, An approach to the study of the population dynamics of plants with special reference to weeds, Adv. Appl. Biol. 1: 1-47.21 Egley & Williams, 1990.

Magnitude of differencein weed density between

Study site Frequency of tillage 4-yr vs. 2-yr rotations

Wall One to three times/year 3-fold

Akron Once/rotation cycle 6-fold

Pierre No tillage 12-fold

Impact of rotations and tillage on differences in weed density. The4-year rotations had fewer weeds than 2-yr rotations at all sites,although the magnitude of the difference varied. Cropping sys-tems studies show that rotations can be designed to reduce weedcommunity density by 30 to 90 percent or more; tillage lessensthis rotational effect by burying weed seeds and prolonging theirsurvival in soil. The studies at Akron, CO and Pierre, SD werestarted in 1990; the study at Wall, SD was initiated in 1994. Weedcommunity density was assessed in the 8th year of the studies atAkron and Wall, and in the 11th year of the study at Pierre.Rotations compared were winter wheat >>corn >>sunflower>>spring wheat vs. winter wheat >>proso millet at Wall, winterwheat >>corn >>proso millet >>fallow vs. winter wheat >>prosomillet at Akron, and winter wheat >>corn >>soybean >>dry peavs. winter wheat >>chickpea at Pierre. (Adapted from Anderson2002, 2003.)

Viable seeds (%)

One Year Two Years

Time in seed bank

Dep

th (

cm)

0

1

3

5

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Impact of seed depth in soil on longevity ofgreen foxtail. Study conducted in the semi-arid prairies of Canada. (Adapted fromBanting et al., 1973; Thomas et al., 1986).

weeds and tillage reported that weed densities, especiallyannual grasses, usually were greater in no-till systems.22

However, other studies found that this trend does notalways occur.23 The Jim Moyer team cited numerousexamples where a certain weed species responded differ-ently to tillage from one study to the next.24

To better predict weed population changes within atillage system, Charles Mohler (weed scientist atCornell) developed a mathematical model based on pub-lished data.25 For seedling emergence within a no-till sys-tem, a much higher percentage will emerge in Year 1after seed shed, compared to Year 2 or Year 3. In con-trast, emergence after tillage is more balanced amongyears (the tapering off of emergence is not as great inYears 2 and 3). Consequently, weed seedling emergencein no-till would be substantially less during later yearscompared to tilled systems because the surface seed poolin no-till is depleted by emergence and mortality.However, this trend occurs only if weed seed entry tothe surface seed bank is prevented during this period.

The density trends observed with the rotation studies inthe central Great Plains agree with the model’s predic-tion for no-till. Seed production of cool-season weeds isprevented during the 2-year span of warm-season crops,thus eliminating seed entry to the seed bank duringthose years. Similarly, seed production by warm-seasonweeds is avoided during the cool-season crop phase. The

2-yr break favors the natural decline of weed seed den-sity in the seed bank. However, with the weed commu-nity at these sites, tillage with the sweep plow lessenedthe beneficial effect of the 2-yr span by prolonging weedsurvival in the seed bank.

Residue Suppression of Weeds

A benefit of crop residues on the soil surface is thatweed establishment is reduced.26 Crop residues suppressweed establishment in a variety of ways, such as alteringenvironmental conditions related to germination, physi-cally impeding seedling growth, or inhibiting germina-tion and growth by allelopathy.27 Compared to a bare soilsurface, 1,700 kg/ha of residue reduced weed density17%, whereas 6,800 kg/ha of residue reduced weed den-sity more than 80% (see graph).

In a study28 at Akron, CO evaluating cultural practicesfor control of winter annual grasses in winter wheat, wenoted that quantity of winter wheat residues remainingafter harvest varied among cultural systems. Winterwheat grown with standard practices left approximately4,000 to 4,500 kg/ha of crop residues on the soil surfaceafter harvest. In contrast, winter wheat produced 6,000to 6,500 kg/ha of crop residues with acompetition-enhancing systemcomprised of ahigher seedingrate, taller cultivar,and N fertilizerbanded with theseed.

Because tillagemay stimulateweed emergence,29

we wondered ifthe extra cropresidues producedwith theenhanced-compe-tition system inwinter wheatcould minimize

134

22 R.J. Froud-Williams, D.H. Drennan & R.J. Chancellor, 1983, Influence of cultivation regime on weed floras of arable cropping systems, J. Appl. Ecol. 20:187-197. F. Pollard & G.W. Cussans, 1981, The influence of tillage on the weed flora in a succession of winter cereal crops on a sandy loam soil, WeedRes. 21: 185-190.

23 D.A. Derksen, G.P. Lafond, A.G. Thomas, H.A. Loeppky & C.J. Swanton, 1993, Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: tillage systems,Weed Sci. 41: 409-417.

24 Moyer et al., 1994.25 C.L. Mohler, 1993, A model of the effects of tillage on emergence of weed seedlings, Ecol. Applic. 3: 53-73.26 D.A. Crutchfield, G.A. Wicks & O.C. Burnside, 1986, Effect of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) straw mulch level on weed control, Weed Sci. 34: 110-

114.27 Crutchfield et al., 1986. Wicks et al., 1994.28 R.L. Anderson, 1997, Cultural systems can reduce reproductive potential of winter annual grasses, Weed Technol. 11: 608-613.29 Roberts, 1981.

Low soil disturbance, long rotations, and competitive crops areimportant for getting a grip on weeds. This photo was taken morethan 30 days after wheat harvest, but no herbicides had beenapplied since harvest. Further, no herbicides were applied in-crop.This was second-year wheat in a long rotation—an excellent stand& good fertilizer management helped. Notably, other fields in thearea with thinner wheat or shorter rotations had plenty of weeds.

Phot

o by

Mat

t H

agny

.

Green foxtail seed survivalafter 2 years was greater

than 50% when seedswere buried 10 cm (4

inches) in soil, contrastingwith less than 10% surviv-

ing when remaining onthe soil surface. Even

when buried only 1 cm(0.4 inch), survival was still

two-fold greater after 2years. This trend also

occurs with other species.

tillage-induced weed emergence. To test this hypothesis,we compared two winter wheat production systems(higher residue levels versus standard practices) forimpact on weed density in corn, sunflower, or proso mil-let planted the following year.30 We also compared tillageand no-till during the time span after wheat harvest andbefore planting the warm-season crops in both produc-tion systems of winter wheat. Tillage plots were tilledtwice with the sweep plow in the fall after winter wheatharvest, followed by one tillage operation in the spring.In no-till, herbicides controlled weeds during the periodbetween winter wheat harvest and planting. The weedcommunity was comprised primarily of green foxtail,kochia, redroot pigweed, Russian thistle, and witchgrass.

As expected, the high-residue system reduced weedemergence 35 to 50% among the three warm-seasoncrops compared with the normal-residue-level system inno-till. However, our hypothesis that extra crop residueswould mask the effect of tillage on weed emergence wasproven false. For example, weed density in corn declinedfrom 108 seedlings/m2 in the normal residue level withtillage to 76 seedlings/m2 in no-till (see graph). Density

declined further to62 seedlings/m2 inthe high-residuetreatment with no-till. However, tillagein the high-residuesystem increasedweed density from 62to 102 seedlings/m2,thus eliminating thecrop residue effecton emergence.Similar resultsoccurred with sun-flower and proso mil-let. Burial of residuesand weed seeds bytillage apparentlyaltered the weedseed/soil interactionsuch that weed emer-

gence was increased regardless of residue quantity onthe soil surface.

Because weed seed loss is high when seeds are left onthe soil surface over winter,31 we hypothesized that delay-ing the initial tillage with the sweep plow until the nextspring may minimize the differences in weed densitybetween tillage systems. Therefore, we compared weed

density in proso millet between no-till and sweep plowtillage, with the initial tillage occurring 4 weeks beforeplanting proso millet in early June.32 Our goal was tofavor the natural loss of weed seeds during winter beforetilling. The previous crop was winter wheat grown toproduce high quantities of crop residues, and the weedcommunity was primarily redroot pigweed and tumblepigweed (Amaranthus albus).

Even with delay oftillage until spring,however, pigweeddensity still was six-fold greater aftertillage comparedwith no-till. Thegreater loss ofweed seeds overwinter did notcompensate forincreased seedlingemergence due totillage. The densityof pigweeds in thetilled systemreduced proso mil-let grain yield 17%,but weed interfer-ence did not affectgrain yield in no-till. A further con-sequence of tillagewas that the pig-

weed plants infesting proso millet produced 48,300seeds/m2, more than nine-fold greater than pigweed seedproduction in the no-till system.

Less Yield after Tillage

Another consequence of tillage is that crops yield lesswhen tillage with the sweep plow occurs in the periodbefore planting. Compared with no-till, yield loss intilled systems for warm-season crops ranged from 29%for corn to 13% with sunflower. Sorghum and proso mil-let also yielded less after tillage. With winter wheat,where four to six operations with the sweep plowoccurred during the fallow period, yield was reducedmore than 30% compared with no-till.

One reason why crops yield less after tillage is less favor-able moisture conditions. For example, available soilwater at planting time for winter wheat was 7 cm (2.8

135

30 R.L. Anderson, 1999, Cultural strategies reduce weed densities in summer annual crops, Weed Technol. 13: 314-319.31 Egley & Williams, 1990. Sagar & Mortimer, 1976.32 R.L. Anderson, 2000, A cultural systems approach eliminates the need for herbicides in semiarid proso millet, Weed Technol. 14: 602-607.

1700 3400 5100 6800

Crop residue level (kg/ha)W

eed

em

erg

ence

(%

)

100

80

60

40

20

0

a

d

c

b

Suppression of weed seedling density asaffected by quantity of winter wheatresidue on the soil surface (tillage elimi-nates this effect). Data represent weedemergence from March throughSeptember, and are averaged across twosites and two years in western Nebraska.Bars with the same letter are not signifi-cantly different based on Fisher’s LSD test(0.05). (Adapted from Crutchfield et al.,1986.)

Phot

o by

Dou

g Pa

len.

Redroot pigweed. From Anderson’sdata, pigweeds can produce over48,000 seeds per square meter (~11square feet), even with good cropcompetition. No wonder the weedpopulations can ‘blow up’ in a hurry.

inches) less after stubble mulch fallow compared with ano-till system.33 No-till systems increase soil waterbecause crop residues improve precipitation infiltrationas well as reduce water evaporation from the soilsurface.34 Tillage, by burying crop residues, reduces effi-ciency of precipitation storage in this semiarid climate.

Implications for Weed Management

Producers are adjusting their cropping systems toaddress herbicide resistance. Tillage is one option toreduce herbicide selection pressure on the weed com-munity. However, tillage with the sweep plow mayincrease weed density in crops and reduce crop yield.Tillage before planting warm-season crops may forceproducers to increase inputs for weed control in the cropbecause of higher weed density.

No-till systems provideother options for producersto manage herbicide resist-ance. The diversity of cropsthat can be grown becauseof no-till provides moreopportunities for producersto rotate herbicides with dif-ferent modes of action.35 Inaddition, producers follow-ing rotations comprised ofmulti-year phases of bothcool- and warm-season cropshave lowered weed commu-nity density such that herbi-cide inputs can be reduced50%.36 In 4-yr rotations withno-till, some crops, such asproso millet, do not need in-crop herbicides for weedcontrol.37

Nevertheless, a seriousobstacle in no-till systems is weed control during fallow;producers are seeking options to reduce glyphosate oratrazine use during fallow. Herbicides with different

modes of action that effectively control weeds during fal-low, but with costs similar to glyphosate or atrazine,would be helpful. Another option is green fallow, wherea cover crop is grown only for vegetative growth beforebeing killed with herbicides. For example, sweetclover(Melilotus officinalis) grown over winter reduced weeddensity 75 to 97% during fallow, compared with conven-tional fallow.38 In the central Great Plains, however,cover crop growth required for that level of weed sup-pression reduced winter wheat yield because of excessivewater use.39 In contrast, wheat yields were not affected ifa green fallow crop such as dry pea was grown in thespring for only 6 weeks.40 If green fallow could suppressweeds for part of the season, producers may be able toreduce selection pressure by glyphosate on the weedcommunity. The timing of green fallow suppressioncould be related to periods of peakglyphosate use inprevious years.

A further consid-eration related totillage is healthand productivity ofthe soil. Maintain-ing crop residueson the soil surfaceincreases soilorganic matter aswell as minimizeserosion.41 The win-ter wheat >>fallow system based on tillage has reducedsoil organic matter levels more than 50% during the last100 years; loss of organic matter reflects the low quantityof crop residues returned to the soil when growing onlyone crop every 2 years. In contrast, no-till systems areimproving soil health in the central Plains region, asinteractions among more favorable water relations, cropresidue production, and intensive cropping are continu-ally improving soil organic matter levels and crop per-formance.42 Tillage disrupts this soil regeneration by itsdetrimental effect on crop residue conservation andwater relations.

136

33 R.L. Anderson, R.A. Bowman, D.C. Nielsen, M.F. Vigil, R.M. Aiken & J.G. Benjamin, 1999, Alternative crop rotations for the central Great Plains, J. Prod.Agric. 12: 95-99.

34 Peterson et al., 1996.35 E.J. Retzinger, Jr. & C.A. Mallory-Smith, 1997, Classification of herbicides by site of action for weed resistance management strategies, Weed Technol. 11:

384-393.36 Anderson, 2003.37 Anderson, 2000.38 R.E. Blackshaw, J.R. Moyer, R.C. Doran & A.L. Boswell, 2001, Yellow sweetclover, green manure, and its residues effectively suppress weeds during fallow,

Weed Sci. 49: 406-413. 39 A.J. Schlegel & J.L. Havlin, 1997, Green fallow for the Central Great Plains, Agron. J. 89: 762-767.40 D.L. Tanaka, A. Bauer & A.L. Black, 1997, Annual legume cover crops in spring wheat-fallow systems, J. Prod. Agric. 10: 251-255.41 R.A. Bowman, M.F. Vigil, D.C. Nielsen & R.L. Anderson, 1999, Soil organic matter changes in intensively cropped dryland systems, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 63:

186-191. G.A. Peterson, D.G. Westfall & C.V. Cole, 1993, Agroecosystem approach to soil and crop management research, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57: 1354-1360.

42 Anderson, 2003.

No-Till Tillage

Wee

d s

eed

ling

s/m

2

120

90

60

30

0

b

aa

c

Normal~4000 kg/ha High~6000 kg/ha

Crop Residue Level

Effect of winter wheat residueand tillage on weed density incorn. Averaged across 3 years.Bars with the same letter arenot significantly differentbased on Fisher’s LSD test(0.05). (Adapted fromAnderson, 1999.)

Producers following rota-tions comprised of multi-year phases of both cool-and warm-season crops

have lowered weed com-munity density such thatherbicide inputs can be

reduced 50%.

137

Durable Production Toolsby Matt Hagny

Are your production tools gettingmore or less powerful? —This is the‘thought experiment’ proposed byrangeland specialist Kirk Gadzia.And a useful one it is. If you knowthat a technique is weakening, aprudent manager would be search-ing intensely for a replacementmethod, or looking for ways to shoreup the shaky scaffolding of the old—if only to delay the collapse.

Modern cropping agriculture makesuse of a wide array of yield-enhanc-ing tools. But like the wooden spearsof a tribe who has hunted most ofthe local large animals to extinction,some of our tools just aren’t veryeffective anymore.

Take herbicides for instance. Notonly are we getting a considerablenumber of weed species resistant tovarious chemistries, but many arejust getting more and more tolerant.Remember when atrazine first cameout? In the early years, it controlledmany annual grasses (foxtail, crab-grass), as well as velvetleaf, Venicemallow, and many other broadleafweeds. Nobody counts on thischemistry for even so much as sup-pression of those species anymore.It’s really not resistance, since 2X or3X rates would probably do thetrick—you’d be back (at least close)

to a level of control like we had 25years ago.

The same is true of SUs, aceta-mides, and many other products thatare used repeatedly in the samefield or nearby fields. In the firstfew years of use, you got great con-trol at rate X, consistently, or even3/4 of X. Now you only wish youcould see that level of control again,even at 1.5X. (Herbicide labels andcompany reps often creep the rec-ommended rates up over time, tocompensate for the reduced effi-cacy.) Even if the price of the herbi-cide drops accordingly, you are stillworse off—less weed control, morerisk of crop injury, more product tohandle, potentially more off-siteimpacts, etc. We’ve become relianton a steady stream of new chemistryfamilies being introduced. We nolonger control our destinies.

Insecticides and fungicides are thesame. It’s an arms race, and one thatoften proceeds even faster than theherbicide race. Repeated use ofthese pesticides often quickly leadsto resistance in the target species.All are stopgap measures—muchlike the legendary duct tape or bal-ing wire “field expedient methods.”Workable short-term patches, butyou wouldn’t want to run the whole

season on them. Another analogy:Once you start hunting pheasantswith shotguns and dogs you begin toselect for those that run versus thosethat fly to escape. The pheasant hasnot become resistant or tolerant tothe shotgun, but the shotgun is notas effective as it was initially.

Tillage, too, is a tool that is weaken-ing in its effectiveness.Once, tillage

was highly successful at releasingnutrients locked up in the prairie’ssoil organic matter. The first genera-tion of agriculturalists grew abun-dant crops on these soils—withoutfertilizers—and with only a modestamount of shallow tillage. As thesoils got mined out, the conventionalwisdom was that more frequent ordeeper tillage was the necessaryingredient. Soon, summerfallow wasimplemented, or subsoiling (rip-ping), or heavier disking or plowing,depending on your location and thelocal lore. We now know that soilorganic matter has other highly valu-able functions—holding water, time-releasing nutrients, and keeping thesoil in good condition. It is cheaperto buy the needed nutrients. Themain point is that 100 years oftillage effectively exploited what hadaccumulated over eons, and there’slittle left to mine.

One can also make a strong casethat even fertilizers are becomingless potent. No, the analysis is the

Matt Hagny is a consultingagronomist for no-till sys-tems, based in Salina, KS.P E R S P E C T I V E

Herbicides are a good tool to have, but each chemistry gets less effective the more it is used.

Phot

o by

Dou

g Pa

len.

Many pests have escapedextinction by rotation—and they will only get

better at playing by yournew rules.

138

same, and at the molecular levelthey work the same as usual. It’s justthat with the increase of root dis-eases and root-damaging nematodes(resulting from the loss of diverserotations), combined with poor soilphysical properties (resulting fromdecades of tillage), plant roots are

no longer vigorously exploring alarge volume of soil. Poor rootexploration equals poor fertilizeruptake. It gets worse when you real-ize that a large portion of fertilizers(or manure) applied in tillage-basedagriculture is being lost with soilerosion, whether caused by water orwind. Further, as the soil’s organicmatter is lost through tillage andoxidation, the soil becomes less ableto hold nutrients, which makesthem more prone to leaching.

Even rotations are destined tobecome less effective—at least, themajority of rotations are. Nature isrelentless in trial-and-errorresearch. The extended-diapausecorn rootworm beetle is an exampleof a pest tracking the shift frommonoculture corn to a corn >>soyrotation. Another rootworm biotypenow lays eggs in soybeans—yetanother example. Do you reallythink the other pests will be farbehind? Do you really think you canmake them extinct? Remember it isa life-or-death ‘game’ for thosespecies. Soybean cyst nematode,

Sclerotinia white mold, Phoma stemrot, sting & lance nematodes, root-knot nematodes, Fusarium headscab, and many others have escapedextinction by rotation—and theywill only get better at playing byyour new rules.

What’s left inyour tool-kit?Improved traitsfrom alteringcrop geneticsvia traditionalbreeding isneutral, proba-bly neitherdeclining norimproving inefficacy. Thereason is that atleast some ofthe selection isat work onautopilot—

regardless of what the plant breed-ers do. The plants that succumb todisease or insects either don’t repro-duce at all, or don’t produce asmuch seed. The main

problem is that it’s error-prone, withthe humans involved sometimesartificially selecting for the wrong

trait, or placing the variety in a verydifferent environment from wherethe selection was done.

Improving crop competition isanother technique roughly holdingsteady in effectiveness. Things likepreferential access to fertilizer(placed near the crop seed), nar-rower rows, thicker stands, andtaller genetics may improve thecrop’s ability to cope with weedinfestation, and even prevent someweed seed production. Some ofthese practices may even increaseresidue levels and water-holdingcapacity of the soil.

What about transgenic traits—biotech? While the gene-transfertechnology itself is astonishing,many of the tools it has provided sofar (Roundup Ready, Bt, etc.) to thecropping industry will befall thesame fate as more traditional weed-and insect-control measures. Themore those target species areexposed to a chemistry, whether it issprayed onto the crop or producedby the plant itself, the more likelythose pests will find a way to over-come or avoid it. Heavy reliance onthat technology will make this crashseem all the worse, and there maynot always be a ‘next great thing’waiting in the development pipelineor lab.

Is there any hope? Yes. Some toolsreally are getting more powerful,especially those that harness biolog-ical processes. For instance, diverseshort-break/long-break rotations(‘stacking’ being one example) thatare not consistent in sequence orinterval may grow more powerful.The reason is that not only must thelocalized pests survive a very longtime, but also you are constantlymessing up their ability to adapt bythrowing in the short-break (thesecond year of the stack, forinstance). As Dwayne Beckexplains, even though it looks pre-dictable from our perspective, it isvery confusing to the pests. While

Eliminate tillage, and youhave more biology in the

field. Many organisms thatpose no harm at all toyour crops will feed on

weed seeds, threateninginsects, or disease organ-isms. Many soil organismstransport nutrients to vas-

cular plants, or unlocknutrients sequestered inthe soil, or keep soils in

good physical condition byproviding the ‘glue’ to

aggregate particles.

Mechanical control is eventually evaded by pests, also. Here, a chaffcart is used to catch weed seeds from behind the combine, which arethen dumped in piles to rot or be burned. In Western Australia, pro-ducers who commonly used such methods soon discovered that theryegrass (their worst weed) was shattering earlier and growing moreprostrate, in both cases eluding being gathered into the combine.

Phot

o by

Mat

t H

agny

.

139

other simpler rotations will eventu-ally weaken in their ability to avoidpests with repeated usage, the short-break/long-break rotations couldactually become more effective.1 (Ata minimum, they will remain effec-tive far longer than simple rota-tions.)

This power of certain rotations isbut a whisper of the real strength ofbiology. When you eliminate tillage,you have more biology happening inyour fields2—whether you want it ornot. Generally this added biology isa good thing. A great many organ-isms that pose no harm at all to yourcrops will feed on weed seeds, insecteggs or larvae, or disease organisms.Many soil organisms transport nutri-ents to vascular plants, or unlocknutrients sequestered in the soil, orcycle surface residues into soilorganic matter, or keep soils in goodphysical condition by providing the‘glue’ to aggregate particles. Theseprocesses grow stronger with time,

as the fieldecosystembuildsitself out,and astheseorganismskeepadaptingto theirclimateand toeach other.

I spend alot of timescratchingaround infields that

have been no-till for 8 to 10 years ormore. The visible biology is amaz-ing. In most cases, nothing out ofthe ‘ordinary’ was done—commer-cial fertilizers at appropriate rates,intensive cropping, and maximumresidue retention. With no-till adop-tion, the increase in biology is

largely unavoidable. Producers neednot get overly caught up in learningall the details of such things—theresearchers can work on that. It isenough that producers and agrono-mists recognize the field ecosystemas a complex swarm of processes,and one that can react or adapt overtime.

The choice of the mix of tools stillcomes down largely to economics.Many of the latest technological“fixes” certainly have an excellentfit—as an enhancement of othermore durable tools, not theirreplacement. An awareness of theweakening tools will prevent somenasty surprises, and a more

informed view will hopefullyimprove our judgment as to whichtools deserve more attention.

No-till is only the beginning of amajor revolution in agricultural pro-duction. For too long, we in agricul-ture have attempted to ignore thelaws of biology as well as the physi-cal and chemical properties of thesoil. Once the soil churning stopsand the water-cycling improves, thebiology flourishes. Whether this isof economic benefit to the producerdepends on many details—i.e., itcertainly does not repeal the laws ofeconomics (low overhead, cost con-trol, risk management), nor does itmean that the choices of other tools(pesticides, fertilizers, genetics) canbe ignored or rejected. But in thelong run, those with strategies thatincorporate the strengthening bio-logical tools will enjoy an advantage.

Preserving the power of rotations comesfrom not being consistent in sequence orinterval—‘stacking’ is one way of doingthat. Here, soybeans follow stacked milo.

Phot

o by

Mat

t H

agny

.

Crop roots must explore alarge volume of soil fornutrient & water uptake.That is nearly impossible toachieve in short rotations,where diseases and nema-todes inflict significantdamage on roots.

Phot

o by

Dou

g Pa

len.

1 This is true for the non-mobile pests. Highly mobile pests are not usually countered strongly by rotations, at least not directly. Some apparent exceptionsoccur, such as a mobile pest like greenbug being impacted by rotation because the amount, type, and color of the previous year’s residue hinders its abil-ity to see the target crop during migration flights. Milo into wheat stubble has fewer greenbug problems due to the light reflectance from the wheatstubble interfering with their sensing of the milo crop. Eventually, if everyone did no-till milo into wheat stubble, the greenbug would ‘learn’ to look forthat signal (more accurately, those better at doing so would be selected). Also, the highly mobile pests may be neutralized by predators nurtured by therotations, or be more effectively countered by healthier crops grown in rotations. But overall, the highly mobile pests will have some ability to track diver-sifying rotations (including short-break/long-break designs), while the non-mobile pests have few possibilities to ‘counter,’ such as with longer dormancies,or with alternate hosts—both of which will be frustrated by the short-break/long-break architecture. This is forcing the selection pressure toward morebenign biotypes. See generally Paul Ewald, 1994, Evolution of Infectious Disease, Oxford Univ. Press. Paul Ewald, 2000, Plague Time, Anchor Books.

2 E.A. Paul & F.E. Clark, 1996, Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry, 2d ed., Academic Press.

Cropping Tools: Strengthening or Weakening?

herbicides(any given MOA)

insecticides, fungicides (any given MOA)

mechanical control

transgenic crop-protection mechanisms

tillage

fertilizers(under traditional management)

short or predictable rotations

crop breeding

certain long rotations (short-break/long-break)

biological processes in no-till fields➪

●

●

➪➪

➪➪

➪➪

➪

Understanding WaterInfiltrationby Rolf Derpsch

Rolf Derpsch is a researcherand international consultantbased in Asunción, Paraguay.S C I E N C E

140

It is aston-ishing thatoften theprocess of

water infiltration into the soil is notwell understood by farmers, butalso extension workers and scien-tists. Pictures showing the rain-drop’s impact on a bare soil surfaceand information explaining themechanisms of water infiltrationinto the soil go back to the 1940s.Despite scientific and empirical evi-dence explaining these processes,many people still think that the soilhas to be loosened by tillage toincrease water infiltration andreduce runoff.

Precipitation runoff is oftenaccepted as a largely unavoidablephenomenon associated with agri-culture on sloping land. But this isnot an unavoidable result; it ismerely a symptom of land misusefor that ecological environment. Inother words, inappropriate farmingpractices have been used. It is notthe properties of nature (slope andrainfall intensity), but rather theirrational farming methods used byman, which are responsible for thelarge quantity of runoff and its neg-ative consequences. The farmercan, through the utilization ofadapted farming systems and man-agement practices, effectivelyreduce or eliminate runoff byincreasing water infiltration into thesoil. Runoff water is lost as far ascropping is concerned, while infil-

trated water can be effectively usedby plants, which is very important indrier climates.

Conventional farming practiceshave had negative consequences interms of soil and water preserva-tion, as well as on the conservationof the environment as a whole. Thisis due to improper soil use, mono-culture, burning, and the use oftillage tools that leave the soil bareand pulverize it excessively, leavingit in such a condition that heavyrains cannot infiltrate. The utiliza-tion of inappropriate methods notadapted to local conditions (slope,rainfall intensities) results in runoff.

TheProcess

Runoff startswith raindropimpact on abare soil sur-face. Soilsplash seenon fence posts, or onstakes in a field or plotof bare soil, is evidenceof the force of largeraindrops striking baresoil.1 Other scientistshave reported that inone year, raindropsdeliver to an acre ofland an impact energyequivalent to 20 tonsof TNT (50 t/ha).2

The impact of falling

raindrops disaggregates the soil intovery fine particles, which clog soilpores and create a surface seal thatimpedes rapid waterinfiltration.

Due to surface sealing, only a smallportion of rainwater can infiltratethe soil; most of it runs off over thesoil surface, therefore is lost forcrop use, and causes erosion dam-age when flowing down the slopes.

Phot

os b

y U

SDA

.

The impact of raindrops on a bare soil surface. When it rains,drops up to 6 mm (0.24 inch) in diameter bombard the soilsurface at impact velocities of up to 32 km per hour (20mph). This force throws soil particles and water in all direc-tions on a distance of up to 1 m (3.3 feet). The photos datefrom the 1940s.

Research shows that thepercentage of soil coveredwith plant residues is the

most important factorinfluencing water infiltra-

tion into the soil.

1 L.L. Harrold, 1972, Soil erosion by water as affected by reduced tillage systems, in Proceedings: No-tillages Systems Symp. (21-22 Feb. 1972), Ohio StateUniversity.

2 L.L. Meyer & J.V. Mannering, 1967, Tillage and land modification for water erosion control, in Proceedings: Amer. Soc. Agric. Eng. Tillage for Greater CropProduction Conference (11-12 Dec. 1967).

Phot

o by

Dou

g Pa

len.

On the other hand, when the soil iscovered with plants or plantresidues, the plant biomass absorbsthe energy of falling raindrops andrainwater flows gently to the soilsurface where it infiltrates into soilthat is porous and undisturbed. Inthis way, soil cover impedes theclogging of soil pores.

The drying of the surface sealresults in soil crusting, which mayhinder the germination and emer-gence of crop seeds. Soil crustingonly develops under a condition ofbare soil. Soils regarded as highlysusceptible to crusting do not pres-ent this problem when no-tillageand permanent cover systems areused.

Research conducted in Brazil showsthat the percentage of soil coveredwith plant residues is the mostimportant factor influencing waterinfiltration into the soil.3 While virtu-ally all water from a simulated rainfallof 60 mm/hour (2.4 in/hr) infiltratedwhen the soil was 100% covered withplant residues, in the case of baresoil, 75 to 80% of rainwater left theplots as runoff. Similar results havebeen obtained by researchers inmany parts of the world.

Therefore it is important to maintainthe soil covered with plants or withplant residue all year round, avoid-ing soil exposure to climatic agents.Any attempt to control runoff anderosion via bare soil, by buryingplant residues with tillage imple-ments and maintaining the soil sur-face loose and uncovered, willsooner or later lead to failure.

Not tilling the soil, crop rotationcombined with the use of covercrops, and not burning plantresidues are the most importantagricultural practices that make itpossible to achieve the goal of per-manent, year-round soil cover.

While most of the numerous advan-tages of the no-tillage system comefrom the permanent cover of the soilwith plant residues, there are severaladditional advantages deriving fromnot tilling the soil. Tillage destroysthe vertical pore system (created byroots, earthworms and other soil ani-mals), destroys soil structure,depletes soil organic matter, andreduces aggregate stability. Fieldsthat are many years under no-tillagewill be expected to further increasewater infiltration as the vertical poresystem regenerates and organic mat-ter increases. In this way, no-tillallows for both the natural rebuild-ing of soil structure and porosity, aswell as protecting this developmentfrom damaging raindrop impact.

Besides increasing water infiltrationand controlling erosion, soil coverhas a major impact in moderatingsoil temperature extremes, reducingevaporation, increasingavailable water

for plants, enhancing soil life andbiological activity, and reducing soilcompaction and soil crusting, as wellas having positive effects on soilchemical, physical, and biologicalproperties. All this leads to higherproductivity. Furthermore, perma-nent cover systems are essential toachieve long-term agricultural sus-tainability.

141

Phot

o by

Rol

f D

erps

ch.

Rainfall simulator demonstration performedat No-Till on the Plains’ Winter Conference,Salina, Kansas, 2002. From left to right: 1)100% soil cover, little runoff, clear waterindicates very few soil particles in suspen-sion, 2) 30% soil cover, more runoff andsome soil particles, 3) Bare soil, no cover,resulting in a huge amount of runoff and thedark color of water shows a lot of soil in sus-pension, 4) Pasture with 100% soil coverand undisturbed soil—even less runoff thanunder #1. When afterwards the trays wereturned over, the tray with bare soil (#3)showed that water had only infiltrated about1 inch,while atthe bottomthe soilwas stilldry. Theother traysshowed awet soilfrom topto bottom. Ph

oto

by R

olf

Der

psch

.

The drying of the surfaceseal results in soil crusting,which may hinder the ger-mination and emergence

of crop seeds. Soil crustingonly develops under a con-

dition of bare soil. Soilsregarded as highly suscep-

tible to crusting do notpresent this problem whenno-tillage and permanentcover systems are used.

Maintaining surface residue cover all yearround is the key to maximum infiltrationof rainfall. Here, durable residues from‘stacked’ corn provide an excellent mulchin a field near Mitchell, SD.

Phot

o by

Tom

Will

.

3 C.H. Roth, 1985, Infiltrabilität von Latossolo-Roxo-Böden in Nordparaná, Brasilien, in Feldversuchen zur Erosionskontrolle mit verschiedenenBodenbearbeitungs-systemen und Rotationen, Göttinger Bodenkundliche Berichte, 83: 1-104.

1 2 3 4

142

Fifty miles northeast of the boisterous outskirts ofDenver, you can find the Midcap clan operating theirfarming enterprise with the quiet efficiency of a nuclearsubmarine. The shop, the seed cleaning plant, and everypiece of equipment is meticulously in its place, clean andproperly up to spec. Management displaces chance.

Midcaps successfully completed the move to pure no-tillover 7 years ago by the same studied discipline: thesearch for viable methods, and integratingthem into an existing operation.While they admitto doing theirhomework,Midcaps are also abit incredulousthat more farms intheir area haven’tconverted to no-till. For them, it is the only sensible way to farm theirland on an average of only 13 inches of precip per year.(Midcaps are 100% dryland; some of their land was onceirrigated, long ago, but as the water tables dropped thosewells became unprofitable to pump.) Plus, some of theirsoils are rather sandy. Referring to the old tillage days,Wayne says, “I just can’t imagine going back to the waywe used to do it.”

Brothers Wayne, Mike, and Fred took the reigns of theoperation at a relatively young age when their dad sud-denly died, and have been running hard ever since.Midcaps were essentially in a two-year rotation of winterwheat >>summerfallow through the 1970s and early’80s. By 1987 they had begun to add milo and proso mil-

let to the mix, for a wheat >>milo (or proso) >>fallowrotation. The milo and proso millet were generallyplanted with no-till methods, but tillage was used to con-trol weeds during the fallow year. In fact, Midcaps citethe inability to find a good method of no-till seedingwheat as the primary reason they weren’t in a permanentno-till system sooner. By ’97 they had made a Monsanto-sponsored bus trip to Dakota Lakes Research Farm aswell as an extensive demonstration of various air drillsnear Minot, ND—which cued them to pursue true no-till a little harder and to lease a Bourgault (pronounced“bore-GO”) air drill. Their success in seeding wheat withthat drill nudged them further down the no-till path.Indeed, it was some of the only wheat to survive in thearea that year—all the rest blew out in a screamer winterwind. “It was the turning point,” says Mike, and ledthem to buy a Bourgault drill with narrow knife pointsthe following spring. That problem solved, it was morecost-effective to chem-fallow than to v-blade. Fredremarks, “We haven’t pulled the v-blade since that time . . . . It sets there quietly collecting rust. We just nevergot around to selling it—not that it would bring much.But it would cost a pile to go buy a new one.”

That 40-foot Bourgaultdrill is still in service, andhas proved remarkablydurable. They’ve changedknife points but once, andhave yet to have a bearingfail in the mid-row banderdiscs (disc openers arepositioned ahead of the shanks—aligned between every-other shank—to put down additional fertilizer to feed

the two adjacent seed rows). They further notethat a few no-tillers in the area frequently plunkdown $10,000 to rebuild some other brands ofair drills, and aren’t so sure it is justifiable forsome slight increases in accuracy. Midcaps admitthat the knife buries more crop residues thanthey’d like, but they see the furrowing down asan advantage for winter wheat survivability intheir system, as well as just being able to get tomoisture in slightly sandy soils and a very aridclimate. (Editors’ Note: Winter wheat survivabil-ity in tough conditions can be accomplished byan upright stubble as an alternative to soil ridges

High ’n’ Dryby Matt Hagny

FE

ATURE FAR M

ER

WA

Y N E M I D C AP

FE

ATURE FAR M

ER

NI C K M I D C A

P

FE

ATURE FAR M

ER

M

I K E M I D C A

P

FE

ATURE FAR M

ER

F R E D M I D C A

P

Phot

o by

Fre

d M

idca

p.

Midcaps’ seeding rig.

Phot

o by

Mik

e M

idca

p.

Midcaps’ proso millet.

Referring to the oldtillage days, Wayne says,

“I just can’t imagine goingback to the way we used

to do it.”

created by openers. What appear to be lofty maintenancecosts of some opener designs actually add up to $1/a orless.)

Midcaps recently added a second Bourgault drill—a 33-foot “disc-machine”—to their seeding line-up, to helpthem handle some substantial acreage that they’ve beenhired to custom farm and manage. All their crops are put

in with these twomachines: both are on 12-inch spacing and “double-shoot,” meaning they haveseparate air streams to putdown a fertilizer blend inthe mid-row banders andseed in the other rows(since the carts have 3tanks, they can also putpop-up fertilizer with theseed). For milo, millet, andwinter wheat, all their fer-tilizer needs are appliedwith the air drills. At one

time they commonly top-dressed wheat, but think theyare more efficient putting all the N down with the drill.Fred notes, “Top-dressing is just one more trip acrossthe field.” Their fertilizer needs are largely dictated bysoil test results, although they temper those with experi-ence.

Continuous Cropping?

Midcaps’ rotations are not unvarying. Milo is usedinstead of proso on the sandier fields, since milo is amore durable residue, as Mike observes, “We’ve seenthat milo stalks last many, many years.” They don’t seemto have much trouble getting milo to maturity consis-tently, even in the short season available at a 4700-footelevation in northern Colorado, and in wheat stubble noless. They strive to have all of the milo in by June 1st,and preferably by mid-May. Midcaps use some of theshortest-season genetics commercially available. Weedcontrol in the milo is usually fall atrazine, thenglyphosate + atrazine at planting, and some touch-uppost-emerge work.

Why milo and proso, but not corn?Midcaps explain they’ve never haddecent corn yields except in some verysmall plots, although the crop has donereasonably well over the years in ARS& CSU research at Akron, just a shortdistance east of them. Still, the addi-tional overhead for corn planting andharvesting makes the choice easy forthem.

Midcaps areokay withtheir chem-fallow pro-gram,althoughalways look-ing for some-thing better.On a largefield behindtheir shop,they’ve con-tinuouslycropped for6 years in arow, and“we’ve beenprofitable on every one of those,” comments Fred. Still,they recognize the cash outlay and hours needed to doall the extra seeding in a more intensive rotation may notbe worth the extra effort and risk. (Risk in this part ofthe world means not just the usual droughts and freezes,but frequent hailstorms.) Mike emphasizes, “With allthese tasks, there’s a window of opportunity—and ifyou’re not right there doing it, you’re missing out.”

They’ve dabbled at finding a broadleaf crop to replacethe chem-fallow, and are somewhat intrigued with soy-beans as a forage, which might let them get to wheat in atimely manner yet that fall. Nor do they rule out flax,spring peas, or dry beans. They are leery of sunflowers,however, with Fred explaining, “We’ve never seen any-one control weeds successfully in sunflowers, and theycan sure hurt your wheat yields in later years . . . . We doneed a broadleaf crop—it would be a great benefit.”

Modern Pioneers

Midcaps manage other aspects of their operation withthe same diligent intensity. Nearly all of their wheat pro-duction is cleaned and sold for seed. They also havefound a lucrative niche selling the proso into the birdfeed market in California. Having a good plan and stay-ing with it is a basic tenet of Midcaps’—“Last fall the

143

Phot

o by

Mat

t H

agny

.

Midcaps’ seedling proso millet. The proso islooking a little bedraggled from a recent hail-storm. Mike Midcap: “We cry when a hailstormchops up our residue—we know we won’t catchthe snow and won’t keep as much moisture.”

The Midcap clan harvesting wheat.

Phot

o by

Fre

d M

idca

p.

Midcaps’ Bourgault 120-footwheel-boom sprayer, whichhelps cover some additionalacres in a timely fashion.Another sprayer was built froma combine chassis, and has pro-vided many hours of depend-able service.

Phot

o by

Mik

e M

idca

p.

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

Non Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDPermit No. 69

Salina, KS

drought wasn’t broken yet, but we put down all the N onthe wheat like usual—if you’re going to be in the busi-ness, you have to keep on track.”

When asked about perennial grasses creeping into theirno-till, Wayne says he’s seen a little on the edges onoccasion, but says it really isn’t a problem. He reflects fora moment, and says, “If it were really going to be a prob-lem, we’d know by now”—referring to their 7 years ofexperience with large acreages under no-till management.

Midcaps like to measure their farm’s performance byseveral metrics, including both grain yield and profitabil-ity calculations. Fred produces numbers showing theirdirect costs to be similar to others in their county, butMidcaps’ yields are higher and their overhead substan-tially lower. Pushed a bit more, Fred bluntly states: “Oh,yeah—we’re way more profitable than we were with con-ventional till. Without no-till, we might not even be here.And Nick certainly wouldn’t be coming back,” referringto his son’sdecision tojoin the oper-ation lastyear, afterworking forNew Hollandfor threeyears follow-ing his earn-ing a degreefromColoradoState.

Midcaps cer-tainly do toethe line. Thedry Coloradoair often

affords them a crystal view of the Front Range. Midcapslike to keep their compass bearings with an eye on a dis-tant horizon ofanother sort—their economicfuture. Keepingtheir footing in theshort term helpsthem on that jour-ney. Still, theyaren’t looking forsome ‘off-the-shelf’ recipe forsuccess—as Mikesays, “Everyfarmer needs tofigure out whatwill work forthem.”

One of Midcaps’ seeding rigs running in wheat stubble.

Phot

o by

Fre

d M

idca

p.

2004 Winter Conference

The No-Till on the Plains ’04Winter Conference is sched-uled for the 26-67th ofJanuary in Salina, KS featur-ing Randy Anderson, highlyregarded Brazilian soil scien-tist Joao Carlos (“Juca”) deMoraes Morselli, Jr., range-land specialist Kirk Gadzia,Ray Ward, Bob McNabb,Craig Stehly, & Kevin Wiltse.