No-Till Technology: Impacts on FarmIncome, Energy Use and

Groundwater Depletion in thePlains

W. L. Harman, D. C. Hardin, A. F. Wiese,P. W. Unger and J. T. Musick

Rapidly rising fuel costs for irrigation and tillage, combined with groundwater depletion,confront producers in the Great Plains. Maintaining profits while production costs escalate andwater levels decline emphasizes the need to increase water and energy use efficiency. A linearprogramming analysis for a ten-year period comparing conventional tillage practices with no-till practices based on an irrigated wheat/no-till feedgrain/fallow crop rotation indicates no-till increases both water and energy use efficiency. Returns to land, management, and risk aresubstantially higher using no-till practices.

Producers have been faced with theparadox of maintaining farm income whilebeing confronted with rapidly rising pro-duction costs in recent years. In manyareas, such as the Great Plains, declines ingroundwater levels have further contrib-uted to increased irrigation costs due toincreasing pumping lifts (Harris andMapp; Hardin and Lacewell, 1980;Hughes and Magee). Energy prices for ir-rigation, tractor fuel and farm vehicleshave increased four-fold since the early70's (USDA, 1980). However, the primary

W. L. Harman is Associate Professor and agriculturaleconomist, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station,Texas A&M University System, Amarillo, Texas; D.C. Hardin is economist, Texas Department of WaterResources, Austin, Texas; A. F. Wiese is Professorand weed scientist, Texas Agricultural ExperimentStation, Texas A&M University System, Amarillo,Texas; P. W. Unger is soil scientist, USDA-ARS, Pro-duction and Conservation Research Laboratory,Bushland, Texas; and J. T. Musick is agricultural en-gineer, USDA-ARS, Production and ConservationResearch Laboratory, Bushland, Texas.

The authors are indebted to Dr. Ronald D. Lacewell,Dr. J. Rod Martin, and Dr. Arden Pope for theirpreliminary review and critical remarks regardingthe analysis.

fuel used for irrigation in the southernPlains, natural gas, has risen ten times inprice (Energas, Inc.; Clarke; Shipley andGoss). Diesel fuel, the primary tractor fueland a secondary energy source for irri-gation, has risen 300 percent in the sametime period. More moderate price hikes,about double, have also occurred in agri-cultural chemicals since 1970 (USDA,1983).

Over 50 percent of the variable costsfor irrigating corn in Texas were energyrelated in 1975 (Skold). Costs have contin-ued to escalate largely due to rapidly ris-ing natural gas and tractor fuel prices. Be-tween 1975 and 1981, irrigated cornvariable costs rose from $173 to $248 peracre in the Texas High Plains. The break-even price per bushel to cover variablecosts increased 23 percent from $1.39 in1975 to $1.71 in 1981, and this considersa 21-bushel yield increase over the period(USDA, 1977 and 1983).

Skold suggests farmer adjustments canbe made by shifting to crops which re-quire lower energy related input levels,by substituting other inputs for the higherpriced energy inputs, by reducing the in-

Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, 10(1): 134-146© 1985 by the Western Agricultural Economics Association

No-Till Technology

tensity of input use while accepting re-duced yields or by adopting other strate-gies to conserve energy while maintainingyields. The latter option implies a re-quired shift in technology, i.e., to main-tain yields with reduced levels of energyrelated inputs requires a shift in energyuse efficiency. Since irrigation fuel is amajor component of energy use in theGreat Plains, a shift in water use efficien-cy enhances energy use efficiency.

Research scientists have been pursuingincreases in water and energy use efficien-cy through improved irrigation methods,cropping systems, and tillage options. Onepromising option for irrigated crop pro-duction is an irrigated wheat/no-till sor-ghum/fallow crop rotation (Unger andWiese; Wiese and Unger). No-till sor-ghum is planted in the stubble of the pre-vious wheat crop after an 11-month idleperiod. Maintaining stubble during the1975-81 period in the semi-arid TexasHigh Plains has resulted in a yearly av-erage of 2.2 inches more soil water storagethan by conventional disc tillage. This ad-ditional water storage is roughly equiva-lent to the gain from a preplant irrigationand resulted in an average 1,000 poundper acre increase (51 percent) in drylandsorghum yields per year over a seven-yeartest period (Unger). When compared tosweep tillage, no-till sorghum yields wereabout 550 pounds per acre higher (23 per-cent) from an additional 1.5 inches soilwater stored during the idle period.

Since no-till sorghum can also be irri-gated by using preexisting furrows of thewheat crop, Musick et al. evaluated no-till irrigated yields with 6-inch and 12-inch applications of irrigation water. Thetreatment with 6 inches of water yieldedover 900 pounds per acre more than sor-ghum on conventionally disced fields.With the higher 12-inch application rate,yields were increased by nearly 450pounds per acre. In another evaluationwith graded furrows similar to typical ir-rigated farming conditions, Musick et al.

report no-till sorghum yields increasedover 1,100 pounds per acre with about 10inches of irrigation water when comparedwith disc tillage. The next season, irriga-tion rates were reduced by one half andno-till sorghum yields were over 900pounds more than by conventional discingpractices.

Thus, weed-free wheat stubble main-tained with chemicals and followed by no-till sorghum, irrigated or dryland, resultsin increased sorghum yields over conven-tional tillage practices in the Texas HighPlains. In addition, a preplant irrigation isnot generally required to obtain satisfac-tory emergence of sorghum seedlings. Thisresults in additional water conservation.

Few documented corn-yield impacts areavailable from no-tillage practices in ro-tation with irrigated wheat. Some re-search has been reported from KansasState University (Hayes). Irrigated cornyields using the no-till system exceededthree alternative conventional tillage sys-tems by 10 to 30 bushels per acre.

Musick et al. indicate:

In the Southern Plains, irrigation water,rather than land, limits irrigated crop pro-duction. Using no-tillage chemical fallowfollowing irrigated wheat to increase soilwater storage and obtain plant stand estab-lishment without preplant or emergence ir-rigation is a promising practice for reduc-ing irrigation water needs and increasingefficiency of use.

While yield increases from no-till prac-tices are important, the variability of yieldswith alternative cultural practices shouldalso be considered. Based on the sevenyears of sorghum production data (Unger)in which disc and sweep tillage methodswere compared to no-till practices, a larg-er absolute variation in yields was expe-rienced with the no-till system than withsweep and disc tillage practices. However,the coefficients of variation which expressthe standard deviations as proportions ofthe means are similar (Snedecor andCochran). The coefficient of variation, for

135

Harman et al.

Western Journal of Agricultural Economics

example, of yields from using disc tillageis 0.439, from sweep tillage 0.426, andfrom no-till 0.441.

Objectives

The primary objective of the analysis isto compare the relative profitability of no-till practices with that of conventional til-lage practices. Secondary objectives in-clude evaluating the impacts of no-tillpractices on farm energy use and ground-water depletion. The objectives are ana-lyzed, for varying pumping depths, withrising and constant irrigation fuel pricesover time.

Technical advances in agricultural pro-duction having the potential to relieveprice-cost pressures may be profitable andmay also impact resource use. Normally,increasing profits from irrigation providesthe economic incentive to increase pump-ing activity and deplete groundwatersources faster. No-till practices, however,conserve soil moisture and reduce irriga-tion requirements. The analysis assesses theimpacts of no-till feedgrain production onenergy and water use in addition to po-tential changes in returns to land, man-agement, and risk.

Methodology

A recursive, linear programming mod-el, maximizing yearly returns to land,management, and risk, is utilized to eval-uate long-term profits, water use, and en-ergy requirements over time. A recursivemodel is used to estimate year-to-yearchanges in water levels and calculatechanges in irrigation costs, just as produc-ers operate on a year-to-year basis. Thesechanges over time determine optimumcropping adjustments, irrigated acreages,and profits, as a result of variations in sea-sonal pumping capacity and costs. Profitsfrom each year are discounted at one ofthree interest rates and summed over timeto evaluate the comparative present value

of returns to land, management, and risk.Thus, in a predictive sense, the model as-sesses the impacts of changes in economicvariables on net farm income, energy useand groundwater utilization (Hardin andLacewell, 1981).

A typical irrigated wheat and feedgrainproduction situation in the northern TexasHigh Plains is the basis for the analysis.This farming situation, based on conven-tional tillage practices such as discing,sweeping, listing, and cultivating, is thencompared to the same situation which has,in addition, optional no-till sorghum andcorn production activities.

The more important agronomic relatedassumptions made in the analysis are basedon the previously discussed research. Theyinclude: 1. No-till sorghum and corn yieldsare 750 pounds per acre higher than withconventional tillage, 2. Preplant irrigationis not required to obtain satisfactory seed-ling emergence with no-till, 3. Irrigationwater savings of 2.5 inches per acre occurwith no-till by replacing the larger 7-inchpreplant irrigation with a smaller but ad-ditional postplant irrigation of 4.5 inches,4. No-till sorghum or corn is only pro-duced following irrigated wheat (drylandwheat residue may be inadequate to storesufficient soil water and assure 750 poundyield boost), 5. Herbicides are used to con-trol weeds in the no-till system replacingconventional discing and sweeping oper-ations, and 6. Coulters are added to plant-ing equipment to facilitate planting inwheat stubble.

Crop prices, yields and most productioncosts are held constant at 1983 levels toevaluate the impacts of rising natural gasprices and no-till practices on optimal farmenterprises, water and energy use, andlong-run profits. Capital and labor are un-restrained but are priced at 14 percentand $5 per hour, respectively.

The model, due to the recursive nature,has no capital carryover ability from oneyear to the next but does have the capa-bility of using previously accumulated

136

July 1985

No-Till Technology

capital within a production period or year.Capital accumulated in excess of needsearns no interest. Thus, the discounted re-turns to land, management, and risk rep-resent a conservative estimate of the po-tential capital earnings over time.

Analytical Situations

Since the underground aquifer is quitevariable in the northern Texas Panhandlewith respect to depth of water, three al-ternative pumping depths are analyzed.The average pumping depth is 353 feet.Variations of 75 feet above and below thislevel result in alternative pumping levelsof 278 and 428 feet. The range in pump-ing depths of 150 feet was selected afterreviewing area water level data and de-termining that over 75 percent of the ir-rigation wells fall in this range (NorthPlains Water Conservation District). Theinitial saturated thickness of the Ogallalaaquifer is 250 feet. Well yields are ini-tially 800 gpm but decline as the aquiferis depleted over time.'

Two natural gas price scenarios are alsoanalyzed-a constant gas price equivalentto the 1983 level of $3.90/mcf and a risingprice over time at an assumed annual rateof $.20/mcf. The latter situation repre-sents an initial natural gas price increaseof 5 percent over other input costs in pe-riod two and eventually declines to an an-

Due to the hydrologic isolation of the Ogallala aqui-fer, recharge is negligible. Well yields have histor-ically dropped over time in the southern High Plainswhen pumps were lowered to the bottom of thesaturated aquifer. Well yields decline from the ini-tial 800 gpm when the water level during pumping(including drawdown) is less than a predeterminedlevel. Thereafter, well yields are reduced by beingfunctionally related to the declining static waterlevel as water is used for irrigation. Thus, each year,a FORTRAN program interfaced with the linearprogramming model assesses accumulated water use,calculates the decline in the water level and devel-ops the adjusted well capacity (Hughes and Har-man; Mapp and Sloggett; Hardin and Lacewell,1981). Irrigation cost is adjusted each period by theyear-to-year increase in pumping depth.

nual 31/2 percent increase at the end of the10-year planning horizon.

A typical northern Texas High Plainsgrain farm is used for the analysis.2 Thissituation is similar to farming operationsin the Great Plains as far north as Ne-braska. An owner-operator tenure situa-tion is assumed. The farm has 1,300 acrescropland with 867 acres planted to cropseach year (U.S. Bureau of Census). Landand seasonal irrigation water availabilityare effective resource restraints. Three ir-rigation wells and a complement of equip-ment exist on the farm. Except for theability to add irrigation wells to the farm,no other expansion such as land or ma-chinery items are considered.

An alternative to drill wells is availableif current irrigated crop production prof-its per acre exceed the expected annualten-year average pumping and well de-preciation costs per acre. In the case ofconstant fuel prices over time, this resultsin a simple decision rule comparing cur-rent costs with current profits per irrigat-ed acre. A decision setting of this natureis necessary since the future stream of in-come and irrigation costs is unknown tothe producer in any one year in the re-cursive model. In the event irrigation fuelprices are expected to rise, a ten-year av-erage fuel price expectation is developedin the model. 3

2 The typical farm situation was developed from 1978agricultural census data by averaging all irrigatedfarms in a four-county Texas High Plains intensive-ly irrigated area with regard to cropland, harvestedcropland and irrigated cropland. The acreage ofirrigated cropland determines initial well numberson the farm but the model optimizes irrigatedacreages of each crop each year including year one.

3 The expected average natural gas price for the nextten years is:

AVPng = {P, + [Pt + 0.5(t + 10)- 0.01(t + 10)2]} - 2

where Pt = year t natural gas price per mcf andAVPng = average natural gas price for t = 1 to 10(Data Resources, Inc.; Texas Energy and NaturalResources Center; Reneau).

137

Harman et al.

Western Journal of Agricultural Economics

The expected fuel price is converted toa cost per acre-foot, given current wateruse and pumping lift conditions. The ex-pected yearly cost of irrigating is then di-vided by the current total of irrigated acresto develop an expected irrigation cost peracre. In the case of rising fuel price ex-pectations, the irrigation cost per acre ishigher in future years than with constantfuel price expectations. The expected ten-year average cost of irrigation per acre isthen calculated to compare with irrigatedprofits per acre. If profits per acre exceedthe expected average cost per acre, an ad-ditional well is drilled.

This decision criteria reflects uncertain-ties faced by producers each year in mak-ing decisions to drill additional wells. Themodel's recursive nature allows the deci-sion-making process to occur in the natu-ral setting of these future uncertainties.

Thus, the analysis includes two naturalgas price situations imposed on threepumping lifts. Each of these six situationsis then analyzed over a ten-year periodwith two tillage systems-conventionaltilled versus no-till feedgrain production.Comparisons are made of undergroundwater depletion, on-farm energy use andlabor requirements.

The comparative streams of farm in-come over a ten-year planning horizon areevaluated. Discount rates of 0, 5, and 10percent are used to evaluate the presentvalue of the stream of returns.

The No-Till Production System

The no-till feedgrain production systemis based on chemical control of weeds inirrigated wheat stubble. This prevents de-stroying previously constructed furrowsused for irrigating wheat so that they canbe used for subsequent irrigations on cornor sorghum. In addition, retaining stubbleduring the idle period conserves soil mois-ture and eliminates the conventional needto irrigate prior to planting. Atrazine ismixed with 2,4-D (Banvel in areas with

cotton) and applied to the wheat stubblefollowing harvest. Glyphosate (Roundup)or paraquat is applied later, as needed, toeliminate escaped grasses which tolerateatrazine. A follow-up application of atra-zine or propazine is applied for seasonalweed control in corn and sorghum withboth conventional and no-till systems. Ni-trogen fertilizer is increased 20 pounds peracre for no-till irrigated feedgrains to al-low for nitrogen being tied up in the res-idue.

Following sorghum or corn harvest inthe fall, the land is summer fallowed untilthe next fall at wheat seeding time. A re-cently developed herbicide, chlorsulfuron(Glean), is applied in early spring withboth conventional and no-till to suppressweeds and minimize fallow tillage costs.Prior to seeding wheat, beds are formedand irrigated for emergence. Wheat isthen planted and the next sequence of thewheat/no-till sorghum (corn)/fallow ro-tation is repeated.

Conversion from conventional tillagefeedgrain production practices to a no-tillfeedgrain production system requires nochange in land use. Unlike reduced tillagesystems for wheat production, little ad-aptation of machinery is required for no-till feedgrain production (Epplin et al.).Added machinery investments include theaddition of coulters to planting equip-ment at a cost of $200 per row. Deprecia-tion costs per acre for each machinery op-eration, whether conventional or no-till,were developed with a budget generator(Sammons). In the event a conventionaltillage operation is excluded in the no-tillsystem, tillage, labor, and depreciationcosts are omitted from the no-till produc-tion activity.

Table 1 compares selected input re-quirements and crop yields for conven-tionally tilled and no-till feedgrains. Thecorn and sorghum enterprises in Table 1represent the range of irrigation levels se-lected over time in the analysis. No-tillfeedgrain enterprises are added to the

138

July 1985

No-Till Technology

model while retaining all conventional til-lage options. No-till enterprises are select-ed over conventional tillage in any oneyear if additional contributions to annualprofits are realized.

Significant savings in tractor fuel, labor,and machinery depreciation are indicatedin Table 1 with the no-till system. Offset-ting these items is the use of more herbi-cides. Reductions in no-till irrigation re-quirements add to savings in energy useand labor requirements. Reduced ma-chinery depreciation costs of the no-tillactivities indicate the substantial reduc-tion in field operations.

Results of the Analysis

Results of the analysis are presented inthree sections: (1) influences on optimumenterprises, (2) water, energy and laboruse, and (3) impacts on long-run profits.

Influences on Optimum Enterprises

The only major influences on the mixof crop enterprises in periods (years) 1-6(prior to well yields declining) is the choiceof tillage system, Tables 1 and 2. In-creased profitability of dryland sorghumproduction with the no-till system reducesconventionally irrigated acres with bothnatural gas price scenarios by eliminating54 acres of irrigated sorghum and 40 acresof irrigated wheat. Ninety-four acres ofno-till dryland sorghum replace these con-ventionally irrigated acres.

Due to space limitations, yearly resultsfor periods 7, 8, and 9 are deleted in Ta-bles 2 and 3. However, gradual declines(or increases) in acreage, from period 6prior to period 10, occurred in the inter-im. By period 10, all situations, except theno-till system with 278 feet lift, reduceirrigated acreage and increase drylandacres due to seasonal irrigation limitsplaced on irrigation water by decliningwell yields. An additional well is drilledin period 10 in the 278 feet lift situation

with the no-till system when it is profit-able to irrigate increasing dryland acres.

In Table 3, rising natural gas costs causefurther shifts to lower irrigated acreagesby the tenth period in all situations exceptthe one which drilled a well. It is alsonoteworthy that generally a less severe re-duction in irrigated acreage occurs withno-till than with conventional tillage whengas prices are rising over time.

In general, reductions in wheat, cornand sorghum irrigated acreages occurredin years 7 through 10 due to the gradualdecline in well yields and the accompa-nying physical reduction in seasonal wateravailability. However, with rising naturalgas prices, substantial reductions in irri-gated sorghum acres occurred due to thehigh cost of irrigation. In the two highestpumping lift situations, sharply rising costsof irrigation lowered sorghum profits suf-ficiently to cause a shift to more, ratherthan less, corn acreage by year ten.

A major change in dryland croppingpractices occurs with the no-till system.No-till practices cause a consistent shift tono-till dryland sorghum away from dry-land wheat production. Only one no-tillsituation retains some dryland wheat-thehigh lift, rising gas price situation.

Water, Energy, and Labor Use

Resources used on the farm include theunderground water as well as energy de-rived from petroleum resources. The anal-ysis considers only on-farm direct energyuses. Other energy considerations formanufacturing, processing and marketingare beyond the scope of this analysis. En-ergy requirements for these purposes arepresumably paid for as production inputsby the producer and, therefore, are extra-neous to this analysis.

Energy Use

For the ten-year analysis, no-till consis-tently reduces on-farm energy require-

139

Harman et al.

Western Journal of Agricultural Economics

TABLE 1. Selected Input Requirements and Feedgrain Yields by Irrigation Level and TillageMethod, Northern Texas High Plains.

Sorghum Enterprises

Dryland Preplant + 1a Preplant + 2a

Conv. No-till Conv. No-till Conv. No-till

Diesel (gal./ac.):Labor (hrs./ac.):

Fertilizer (Ibs./ac.):NitrogenPhosphorous

Herbicides (Ibs./ac.):Atrazine, no tillb2, 4-D, no tillbGlyphosphate, no-tillcAtrazine, conv.Propazine, conv.

Irrigation Application(ac. ft./ac.):Feb. 15-May 1July 1-10July 11-20July 20-31Aug. 1-10Aug. 11-20Aug. 20-31Sept. 1-10

Total Irrigation

Machinery Depreciation($/ac.):

5.361.04

.72 10.30

.28 1.93

65

3.0.5.2

2.0 1.5

17.70 8.32 34.38 10.49

Yield Per Acre:Corn, bu.Sorghum, cwt. 15.0 22.5 38.25 45.75 51.25 58.75

a Conventional nomenclature for furrow irrigation applications is:Preplant + 1 = preplant irrigation plus one summer irrigation (no-till receives two summer irrigations; no

preplant).Preplant + 2 = preplant irrigation plus two summer irrigations (no-till receives three summer irrigations; no

preplant).

Preplant + 6 = preplant irrigation plus six summer irrigations (no-till receives seven summer irrigations; nopreplant).

b Custom applied to standing wheat stubble following harvest.c Custom applied as needed for late season grass control following wheat harvest.

ments for all lift situations and both nat-ural gas price scenarios. The impacts oftillage on energy requirements and ener-gy use efficiency are summarized in Table4. Energy use efficiency, measured interms of total grain production per unit

of energy, is higher in all cases by usingthe no-till system. Two factors are impor-tant in this respect. The no-till system forirrigated sorghum and corn productionsaves some irrigation pumping (2.5 inchesper acre) and, therefore, some natural gas

140

1.42.28

85

3.0.5.2

1.5

10.301.93

100

3.0

1.42.28

120

3.0.5.2

1.53.0

.583 .583

.292

.125

1.000

.292

.250

.250

.792

.292

.250

.250

1.375

34.38

.292

.292

.292

.2921.168

10.49

July 1985

No-Till Technology

TABLE 1. Extended.

Sorghum Enterprises Corn Enterprises

Preplant + 3" Preplant + 4a Preplant + 4" Preplant + 5a Preplant + 6a

Conv. No-till Conv. No-till Conv. No-till Conv. No-till Conv. No-till

10.30 1.42 10.30 1.42 10.30 1.42 10.30 1.42 10.30 1.421.93 .28 1.93 .28 1.93 .28 1.93 .28 1.93 .28

115 135 125 145 140 160 160 180 180 200.- - - - 30 30 40 40 50 50

- 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0.5 .5 .5 .5 .5.2 .2 .2 .2 .2

..-- .. -3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.03.0 1.5 3.0 1.5 - --

.583 .583 .583 .583 .583

.292 .292 .292 .292 .417 .417 .417 .417 .417 .417

.250 .292 .250 .292 .375 .375 .375 .375 .375 .417

.250 .292 .250 .292 .333 .375 .333 .375 .333 .375

.250 .292 .250 .292 .209 .292 .292 .333 .292 .375

.250 .292 .250 .292 .250 .250 .292 .250 .375

.083 .040 .042 .249 .250 .250 .333

1.708 1.500 1.917 1.709 1.917 1.709 2.250 2.042 2.500 2.292

34.38 10.49 34.38 10.49 34.38 10.49 34.38 10.49 34.38 10.49

130.0 143.4 144.0 157.4 155.0 168.460.0 67.5 64.0 71.5

reduction per irrigated acre. In addition,the diesel requirements of dryland and ir-rigated conventional tillage practices arereduced dramatically.

With constant natural gas prices, totalon-farm energy savings with no-till rangefrom 14 to 16 percent over the threepumping depths. If natural gas prices riseover time, energy savings with no-tillrange from 8 to 16 percent.

Water Use

Table 5 indicates the total waterpumped by each tillage system for both

gas price scenarios. Water use efficiency(irrigated grain production only per unitof water) is also given in Table 5. As inthe case of energy requirements and en-ergy use efficiency, irrigation require-ments are reduced by the no-till croppingsystem for sorghum and corn. With con-stant gas prices, underground water usedrops by 10 to 13 percent and water useefficiency rises by 34 to 48 additionalpounds of grain per acre-inch of waterover the three pumping depths. If naturalgas prices rise over time, water savingsrange from 10 to 12 percent and wateruse efficiency increases from 41 to 48pounds per acre-inch.

141

Harman et al.

Western Journal of Agricultural Economics

TABLE 2. Optimum Cropping Enterprises, Conventional Tillage Versus No-Till, Constant Nat-ural Gas Price, Northern Texas High Plains.

Ini.~ .ti.~ al- Constant N.G. PriceInitialPumping Time Optimum Crop Conv. No-Till Ending Sat. Thickness

Depth Period(s) Enterprises Tillage System Conv. No-Till

-----------------.. acres ---------------------- --------------------------- feet -----------------------------278' 1-6 Irr. Corn 216 216 207.2 209.5353' and 428' Irr. Sorghum 150 96

Irr. Wheat 501 461Total Irrigated 867 773Dryland Sorghum 94Dryland WheatTotal Dryland 94

278' 10 Irr. Corn 193 266a 195.8 198.7aIrr. Sorghum 170 118Irr. Wheat 467 483Total Irrigated 830 867Dryland SorghumDryland Wheat 37Total Dryland 37

353' and 428' 10 Irr. Corn 194 200 196.0 199.6Irr. Sorghum 134 89Irr. Wheat 467 430Total Irrigated 795 719Dryland Sorghum 147Dryland Wheat 72Total Dryland 72 147

aDrilled a well in period 10. A longer planning horizon than ten years might result in more rather than lessgroundwater depletion compared to conventional tillage due to the increased irrigation activity.

Labor Requirements

The no-till system reduces labor re-quirements over the ten years by 35 to 40percent. Labor needs are reduced as a re-sult of less tillage time, changes in crop-ping patterns and varying levels of irri-gation applications.

Per acre labor reductions from no-tillpractices over time for all cropped acresaverage about 1.3 hours or about 1,100hours per year. This amounts to over one-half man-year.

Impacts on Long-run Profits

The discounted stream of profits (re-turns to land, management, and risk) foreach of the tillage systems and the twonatural gas price scenarios are given inTable 6. In each of the pumping lift andgas price situations, the no-till production

142

system results in higher profits to the own-er-operator than the conventional tillagesystem. Depending on the pumping depthand discount rate used, the constant gasprice case results in increased profits of$151,000 to nearly $255,000 by adoptingno-till feedgrain production practices.When gas prices are rising, the range inincreased profits is from about $151,000to $266,000.

Limitations of the Analysis

An implied limitation of adopting anynew technology-managerial expertise-also exists in this analysis. Weed controlvia chemicals requires that farm man-agers understand herbicides, applicationrates and timing for proper weed control.However, this particular no-till crop sys-tem is relatively easy to manage. New ma-

July 1985

No-Till Technology

TABLE 3. Optimum Cropping Enterprises, Conventional Tillage Versus No-Till, Escalating Nat-ural Gas Price, Northern Texas High Plains.

Initial Escalating N.G. PricePumping Time Optimum Crop Conv. No-Till Ending Sat. Thickness

Depth Period(s) Enterprises Tillage System Conv. No-Till

--------------------- acres --------------------- ---------------------------- feet ---------.--------------------278' 1-6 Irr. Corn 216 216 207.2 209.5353' and 428' Irr. Sorghum 150 96

Irr. Wheat 501 461Total Irrigated 867 773Dryland Sorghum 94Dryland WheatTotal Dryland 94

278' 10 Irr. Corn 194 266a 196.0 198.9aIrr. Sorghum 134 119Irr. Wheat 467 482Total Irrigated 795 867Dryland SorghumDryland Wheat 72Total Dryland 72

353' 10 Irr. Corn 194 236 196.3 199.8Irr. Sorghum 83 43Irr. Wheat 430 427Total Irrigated 707 706Dryland Sorghum - 161Dryland Wheat 160Total Dryland 160 161

428' 10 Irr. Corn 196 258 198.0 200.7Irr. Sorghum 25 20Irr. Wheat 378 354Total Irrigated 599 632Dryland Sorghum 149Dryland Wheat 268 86Total Dryland 268 235

a Drilled a well in period 10. A longer planning horizon than ten years might result in more rather than lessgroundwater depletion than conventional tillage due to the increased irrigation activity.

TABLE 4. On-Farm Energy Requirements and Energy Use Efficiency, Conventional TillageVersus No-Till, Ten-Year Total, Northern Texas High Plains.

InitialPuInitia l _ Constant N.G. Price Escalating N.G. PricePumpingDepths Conventional Tillage No-Till System Conventional Tillage No-Till System

Total Energy Use:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- m illion btu ------------------------------------------

278' 112,492 95,346 102,204 93,933353' 134,547 112,910 133,601 111,938428' 155,944 133,799 146,861 128,072

Energy Use Efficiencya:.--------------------------------------------------------------- pounds/1,000 btu ----------------------------------------------- - -----------------

278' .45 .53 .49 .55353' .37 .45 .37 .44428' .32 .38 .32 .37

a Based on total dryland and irrigated grain production. Includes only on-farm energy use such as natural gasfor irrigation, diesel fuel for tractors and gasoline for farm vehicles.

143

Harman et al.

Western Journal of Agricultural Economics

TABLE 5. Irrigation Requirements and WaterUse Efficiency, Conventional Til-lage Versus No-Till, Ten-Year To-tal, Northern Texas High Plains.

Escalating N.G.. Constant N.G. Price PriceInitial

Pump- Conven- Conven-ing tional No-Till tional No-Till

Depths Tillage System Tillage System

Total Water Pumped:-------------------------------------- acre-inches --------------------------------------

278' 157,488 141,756 156,120 140,808353' 156,000 137,208 154,488 135,744428' 155,868 136,008 145,644 130,800

Water Use Efficiencya:------------------------------------ pounds/ac.in. ------------------------------------

278' 325 359 323 364353' 323 368 323 366428' 323 371 319 367

a Based on irrigated grain production only.

will have some variability in the degreeof effectiveness from season to season.However, assumed yield boosts as a resultof the no-till system are generally set low-er than yields obtained by research to al-low for some lack of weed control in largefield conditions. Producers using no-tillsystems need to be aware of fall-back al-ternative strategies such as sweep tillageor use of additional herbicides.

The model is recursive rather than dy-namic in nature. Therefore, maximizingyearly profits may not result in optimumcapital accumulation over time. Yieldvariability is not considered by the model.Coefficients of variation from research plotyields were, however, found to be similarin each tillage system.

Conclusions

chinery developments are minimizingpreviously encountered no-till seedingproblems and chemical application diffi-culties.

Weather conditions can vary effective-ness of chemical control. Yield risks fromweather vagaries, chemical misapplica-tions or improper weed control are notconsidered in the analysis. Just as in con-ventional tillage, which also requires someherbicide use, the no-till system which isentirely dependent on chemical control

The adoption of a no-till feedgrain pro-duction system in a crop rotation with ir-rigated wheat production increases farmincome, reduces underground water de-pletion, conserves energy, and reduces la-bor needs. Simultaneous attainment ofthese items might be considered compat-ible multiple goals of Great Plains farmersfacing rising production costs, a decliningwater table and narrowing profit margins.

Benefits from the no-till system are dueto improved wheat residue management

TABLE 6. Long-run Profitability of Conventional Tillage Versus No-Till, Northern Texas HighPlains.

Constant N.G. Price Escalating N.G. Price

Initial Pumping Conventional ConventionalDepths Discount Rate Tillage No-Till System Tillage No-Till System

-------------------- - ---------------------------------------- dollars --------------------------------------- ------------------278' 0% 571,622 826,333 491,071 743,740

5% 444,228 645,854 388,236 580,64410% 355,096 508,177 315,179 466,617

353' 0% 537,764 733,155 427,762 637,1035% 377,909 567,870 300,392 500,274

10% 302,237 452,957 245,980 404,049428' 0% 371,801 620,765 243,222 509,132

5% 288,370 480,929 197,422 402,52510% 230,022 388,826 163,883 327,066

144

July 1985

No-Till Technology

techniques and the increasing availabilityof no-till equipment. Chemical weed con-trol in wheat stubble provides increasedsoil moisture retention, reduced soil ex-posure to wind and water erosion and, insome cases, a savings in total productioncosts when compared with conventionaltillage practices. Variable production costsare reduced somewhat by the no-till sys-tem in irrigated feedgrain production butare higher than conventional tillage fordryland sorghum production. Machinerydepreciation costs are reduced significant-ly for both no-till irrigated and drylandfeedgrain production.

Increased profitability of the no-tillfeedgrain production system over conven-tional tillage is due largely to three items:(1) increased yields, (2) reduced fuel andlabor requirements of irrigating and til-lage, and (3) savings in machinery depre-ciation costs. No-till practices, however,require larger expenditures for chemicals.In addition, harvesting expenses are in-creased due to higher grain yields fromthe no-till system.

In summary, the discounted stream ofprofits (5 percent) are 50 percent higherwith no-till using the average pumping liftof 353 feet and a constant natural gas pricefor the next 10 years. If gas prices rise inrelation to all other inputs, profits increaseby 67 percent with no-till practices. Prof-its can be doubled with no-till in the highlift, rising gas price situation at 5 or 10percent discount rates. With gas pricesheld constant, 67 to 69 percent higherprofits are realized with the respective dis-count rates. If the low pumping lift situ-ation is considered, profits are increasedat the five percent rate about 50 percentwith rising gas prices. If gas prices remainconstant, profits are 45 percent higher inthe low pumping lift situation. Somewhatsmaller increases in profitability are real-ized at a 10 percent discount rate.

Both water use efficiency and energyuse efficiency increase with no-till feed-grain production. Increased yields per acre

from no-till coupled with lower irrigationrequirements and diesel use for tillage in-crease resource use efficiency.

The implications of this analysis regard-ing increased profits, reduced energy andlabor use, and conservation of scarcegroundwater raise the question as to whyproducers are not rapidly adopting-no-tillpractices. Recent changes in the relation-ship of fuel costs versus herbicide costs areonly now being realized by many produc-ers. Availability of new herbicides is in-creasing each year supported by substan-tial research to indicate regional and cropspecifications. Improved machinery, par-ticularly planters and drills, is being de-veloped to compensate for seeding inheavier residue. Producer acceptance of"trash" farming has been slow, however.Clean-till attitudes and psychology arebeing gradually eroded by the currenteconomic advantages of limited tillagepractices in more arid regions (Stewart andHarman).

Reporting of on-farm results in recentyears supporting research findings indi-cates the importance of continued publicpolicy support of research and educationprograms. Economic analyses of this typeprovide the basis for evaluating ongoingresearch results. Evaluations of resourceuse, impacts on production efficiency andassessments of profitability can provideimpetus for continued public support. Inaddition, if higher profits accrue to agri-culture as a result of new and improvedmeans of efficient resource use, the finan-cial condition of commercial agriculturemay also be improved.

References

Clarke, Neville P. "Texas Agriculture in the 80's:The Critical Decade." B-1341, Texas AgriculturalExperiment Station, December 1980.

Data Resources, Inc. Unpublished data, 1982.

Energas, Inc. Personal communication with Bob

145

Harman et al.

Western Journal of Agricultural Economics

Carthel, Agricultural Representative, December1982.

Epplin, F. M., T. F. Tice, A. E. Baquet, and S. J.Handke. "Impacts of Reduced Tillage on Oper-ating Inputs and Machinery Requirements."American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64/5(1982): 1039-46.

Hardin, D. C. and R. D. Lacewell. "Temporal Im-plications of Limitations on Annual IrrigationWater Pumped from an Exhaustible Aquifer."Western Journal of Agricultural Economics,5/1(1980): 37-44.

Hardin, D. C. and R. D. Lacewell. "Break-even In-vestment in a Wind Energy Conversion System foran Irrigated Farm on the Texas High Plains." TR-116, Texas Water Resources Institute, College Sta-tion, Texas, October 1981.

Harris, Thomas R. and Harry P. Mapp, Jr. "A Con-trol Theory Approach to Optimal Irrigation Sched-uling in the Oklahoma Panhandle." SouthernJournal of Agricultural Economics, 12(1980): 165-71.

Hayes, W. A. Minimum Tillage Farming/No-til-lage Farming. No-till Farmer, Inc., Brookfield,Wisconsin, 1982.

Hughes, W. F. and W. L. Harman, "Projected Eco-nomic Life of Water Resources Subdivision No. 1,High Plains Underground Water Reservoir."Technical Monograph No. 6, Texas A&M Univer-sity, College Station, Texas, December 1969.

Hughes, W. F. and A. C. Magee. "Some EconomicEffects of Adjusting to a Changing Water Supply,Texas High Plains." Bulletin 966, Texas A&M Uni-versity, College Station, Texas, October 1960.

Mapp, H. P. and G. Sloggett. "An Analysis of RisingIrrigation Costs in the Great Plains." Paper No.83126, Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 20, No. 2,April 1984.

Musick, J. T., A. F. Wiese, and R. R. Allen. "Man-agement of Bed-Furrow Irrigated Soil with Lim-ited- and No-Tillage Systems." Transactions ofASAE, 20(1977): 666-72.

North Plains Water Conservation District. NorthPlains Water News, 26/1(1982).

Reneau, Duane R. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,Department of Agricultural Economics, TexasA&M University, College Station, Texas, 1983.

Sammons, R. "Texas Crop Enterprise Budgets, Re-gion I." Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Col-lege Station, Texas, 1982.

Shipley, J. L. and D. W. Goss. "Impact of EnergyCost on Irrigated Production: High Plains of Tex-as." Western Journal of Agricultural Economics,3(1978): 193-203.

Skold, M. D. "Farmer Adjustments to Higher EnergyPrices: The Case of Pump Irrigators." ERS-663,Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington,D.C., November 1977.

Snedecor, G. W. and W. G. Cochran. StatisticalMethods. 6th edition, Iowa State University Press,Ames, Iowa.

Stewart, B. A. and W. L. Harman. "EnvironmentalImpacts." IN: Water Scarcity: Impacts on West-ern Agriculture, Ernest A. Englebert with Ann Fo-ley Scheuring (eds.), Chapter 15, University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley, 1984, pp. 354-79.

Texas Energy and Natural Resources Center. Un-published data, 1982.

Unger, P. W. Unpublished research data obtained bycommunication, Agricultural Research Service,USDA, Bushland, Texas, 1982.

Unger, P. W. and A. F. Wiese. "Managing IrrigatedWinter Wheat Residues for Water Storage andSubsequent Dryland Grain Sorghum Production."Soil Sciences American Journal, 43(1979): 582-88.

United States Bureau of the Census. Census of Ag-riculture. Washington, D.C., 1978.

United States Department of Agriculture. Enlarge-ments, 1980 Handbook of Agricultural Charts.Economics and Statistics Service, Washington, D.C.,November 1980.

United States Department of Agriculture. Agricul-tural Prices, Annual Summary 1982. StatisticalReporting Service, Washington, D.C., June 1983.

United States Department of Agriculture. Firm En-terprise Data System. Economic Research Service,Washington, D.C., 1977 and 1983.

Wiese, A. F. and P. W. Unger, "Irrigation + Dry-land Farming + Limited Tillage: A ProfitableCombination." Journal of Soil and Water Con-servation, 38(1983): 233-36.

146

July 1985