By ANN HINCH
Assistant Editor

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. — Aside from controversies facing agriculture from outside forces, the industry still has its own inner conflicts – till, strict no-till or a mixture?

For farmers who are already no-tillers, last week’s “Charging Ahead With No-Till” conference at the Indianapolis Westin, co-sponsored by No-Till Farmer, was a chance to garner tips and technology to better their growing operations. But some of the presentations seemed geared toward tillers who might be considering a lifestyle change for their soil.

Ken and Rodney Rulon led off the 17th annual national conference by talking about their 5,200-acre no-till corn and soybean farm in Arcadia, Ind., Rulon Enterprises. The cousins are the family’s third generation to tend the land; Ken handles business management and Rodney oversees crop production.

“It’s almost like a state of mind,” Ken said, “and the people who have led us in no-till … are kind of religious zealots, if you will.”
Just driving around the state along highways leading into its capital, he noted well over half the post-harvest fields he saw were tilled. Many tillers perceive no-till farmers as lazy or not “good,” which Ken said is inaccurate – especially in light of increasing concerns about humanity’s contribution to global warming, such as the release of greenhouse gases, including carbon.

“I maintain society won’t let this go on forever,” he said of farm practices such as tilling, which releases carbon into the atmosphere. (The difference of opinion is whether it’s too much carbon, or even enough to make an impact.)

Phil Needham, a consultant with Needham Ag Technologies LLC of Calhoun, Ky., made a similar statement in a later presentation. He spoke specifically on fertilizer application differences between strip-till and no-till and noted that farmers might wish to be cautious in this on their own, so as not to end up government-regulated on application – as some European farmers are.

“We need to be ahead of the curve,” he said of U.S. farmers.
Ken pointed out going to no-till may afford a farmer more time for other pursuits – such as more family interaction, social activities and financial management and planning. He explained that not tilling requires intensive management of the land, as well as other kinds of investment not immediately apparent, such as the 380,000 feet of tile for drainage the Rulons buried in 2008 “while others were chiseling” their fields.

“It’s not the easy way out,” Rodney agreed.

And while the Rulons’ farm is profitable – Ken gave examples of how the no-till operation saves on costs over tilled farms in his region – he admitted it’s not perfect. There are spots where they still have compaction issues, for example, and soil fertility is always on their minds.

“It’s not a free ride,” he said. “It’s not like we’re doing everything right.”

Becoming more profitable by saving money on input costs, and improving yield, was at the heart of Ken’s talk. That combination may be agriculture’s holy grail, and many tillage farmers are not convinced that no-till has a yield advantage.

Ken said in 2008, the farm produced 199.1 bushels per acre of corn and 59.9 in soybeans – the multi-year average is 181.9 and 56.3, respectively. Seventeen years after the Rulons went to complete no-till, he said the land is producing at a 113 percent rate of tilled land in the county.

“We don’t claim we can grow corn better than the neighbors,” he said. “We don’t even try. We just make a lot of money growing corn.”

In 2008 he said the farm saves $93 per acre on input costs for corn over tilled land. The Rulons spend less on field preparation and overhead and use less fertilizer.

They spend less on N, P and K, Ken said, because they don’t lose what’s in the soil by turning it over and more, later on, through erosion.

“Most of the stuff that’s in erosion is the potassium and the phosphorous and the carbon” crops need, he added.

Rodney said much of the point of no-till is “keeping the dirt where it belongs” and it’s by being sustainable that he said he hopes farmers will prove they deserve their federal subsidies.

He believes consumers buy organic partly because they think those are the only environmentally responsible farmers out there, and that those buyers need to be educated about the benefits of no-till.
He pointed out even tillers can do things to save their land, such as cutting erosion by establishing buffer strips along waterways.

As times change, Ken said future costs farmers will have to budget may include payment of carbon and water quality taxes and the purchase of similar “credits” from other American farmers or overseas.

Too, he believes the value of the U.S. dollar will continue to degrade in the world market – the same place he thinks it will only become more expensive to buy fuel and fertilizer.

On top of this, Ken said while grain farmers have enjoyed some higher income to offset input costs the past couple of years, it won’t last. Ethanol plants are going bankrupt and livestock farmers are cutting down and selling out, partly because the grain overhead is too high. Monitoring input costs will become more critical for profitability.

Rodney said he’d once made the comment, “if you don’t no-till, you must be stupid,” but now voices a softer opinion. “You may not be stupid,” he said with a twinkle in his eye, “but you might be a little slow.”