The most important factor to remember is that any successful farming operation is in reality a very complex and unique system. It is not possible to change only one component of the system without affecting other components. Consequently, the choice to eliminate tillage requires developing an entirely new system. If this is not done it is highly unlikely that the system will work properly. It will either fail to take advantage of the potential offered by zero-till or even worse will result in substantial management difficulties. If you attempt to change from a tilled system to a zero-till one without modifying the way you approach things; it is somewhat like attempting to change from gasoline to diesel power simply by pumping the out and filling the tank with diesel.

So where do you start? The best place is to reflect on your present operation. Why do you do this in a certain manner while your neighbors operate differently? Maybe you milk cows; have less available capital; or value fishing time more than your neighbor. These factors will not necessarily change. What do you like about your present system? What parts do you dislike? The next step is to study some successful and unsuccessful zero-till systems that have been tried both in your area and in other areas. Find producers with operations similar to yours and some quite different. Try to determine what makes the successful systems work and the poor ones fail. Resist the temptation to adopt someone else's system lock, stock, and barrel. It may work wonderfully for them and fail badly for you. Obtain as much professional advice and information as possible. In other words read the rest of this book and any others you can find. Attend no-till and zero-till seminars, field days, and workshops. In other words, do all you can the easy and cheap way by learning from other's successes and failures. In today's agriculture you cannot afford to learn by making unnecessary mistakes.

There is no recipe that can be given that will allow all producers to successfully make the transition to zero-till. There are some broad considerations that should be evaluated in determining how you will do it. To simplify this

discussion these will be broken into three categories: economic, agronomic, and psychological.

From an economic standpoint the best way to make the change will depend on your ability to take a risk how well you have done the homework mentioned previously, your labor situation, the type of machinery you own, and (if you live in the U.S.) whether or not your land is considered to be highly erodible. If you have done a sufficient amount of planning and are confident you have developed a system that is going to work for your operation; then the quicker the change can be made the better. Changing quickly limits the amount of time two sets of equipment are owned, allows taking full advantage of an improved system soon , and probably will provide better trade in value on unneeded equipment. This approach carries with it more financial risk if you have not adequately prepared yourself agronomically of physchologically for making the change.

A number of producers will choose to make the switch quickly for other economic reasons. So a U.S. farmers have land that is classified as highly erodible and consequently face substantial financial penalties if they do not adopt conservation practices relatively soon. in this case the financial risk associated with not being in compliance may outweigh he added risk of making the change quickly. Other producers may have reached the point where they are needing to trade equipment and wish to reduce the cost associated with this transaction. Perhaps a son is wishing to enter the operation but a substantial increase in horsepower would be required to farm the additional acreage needed to support two families. Some are facing change in their operation which will require them to hire additional labor if they continue to use expense and complications associated with obtaining dependable labor. Or perhaps more time needs to be devoted to other enterprises either on or off the farm.

Producers with less ability to take risks, less concern with HEL, or those who are not as confident in their choice of components may take a slower approach in changing over to zero-till. This will generally entail renting appropriate Equipment or hiring necessary work done to allow trying zero till systems on a limited number of acres. This approach will be utilized most extensively in areas where there is insufficient research or experience available to allow producers to adequately design a agronomic aspects of their systems without some field testing. I will also be used to allow the producer, a producer's partner, landlord, banker, etc. to become more comfortable with the idea If this approach is taken it is important that the same parcel of land be used each year, rather than trying the technique on different fields each year. The main reason to use the same piece or pieces of land each year is that it gives a more representative indication of what will happen once the change has been made. Many of the benefits of good zero-till systems may take several years to fully develop. Weaknesses in poor systems develop more quickly but may not be evident the first year.

The main advantages of the go slow approach are really more related to agronomic and psychological considerations than to economic ones. The only benefit of going slow from an economic standpoint is to reduce risk. It reduces the risk associated with poor agronomic planning, allows evaluation of machinery before purchases are made, etc. It does not produce totally reliable economic comparisons since it relies heavily on custom work and rented machinery. More importantly, many of the economic advantages associated with good zero-till systems result from improvements in workload spreading better timeliness, lower horsepower requirements, etc. which are not readily evident when only a limited number of acres are involved. This does not mean that there is not value in

using this approach but rather that it should be used no more than necessary.

Most producers are probably going to take an approach somewhere in between the true "cold turkey" and "go slow" approaches. This will entail quickly adopting a relatively simple, low-risk, system.

As soon as it is working properly they will begin to evaluate ways to fine tune and change that system to make it better. This is very similar to what most farmers do with their present practices which are constantly being modified in an attempt to make them better.

The second category to be considered in making the switch is agronomic. A substantial amount of information has been published on the agronomic aspects of zero-till systems as compared to those using tillage. Initially many of this data appears to be contradictory; some trials show one system or technique to be superior while another produces almost the opposite result. The key to gaining useful information is to determine what circumstances existed in the trials and why these caused the results that occurred. This more casual analysis will produce a

more consistent view of what practice worked in which situations and just as importantly what components failed when a system performed badly. This approach is best illustrated with some examples.

Two tillage comparison studies conducted in central South Dakota produce apparently contradictory result. One shows conventional tillage producing greater average returns than zero-till or minimum tillage. The second study had no-till as superior to minimum tillage which was better than conventional tillage. On closer examination we find there were several differences in the management techniques used in these s dies which contributed to the results. Of these, probably the most important was rotation. The first study used winter wheat fallow and continuous wheat under the three types of tillage. The second study used wheat soybean and wheat-corn-soybean rotations. This area receives 18.5 inches of precipitation on average annually. The "rotations" used in the first study led to significant disease and weed losses when tillage was reduced or eliminated. Even if these "pests" could be controlled, water use was not sufficiently intense to take advantage of the increased moisture that resulted from tillage reductions except in drier than 1 years. The more diverse rotations in the second study limited disease and weed pressure resulting in reduced input costs for wheat production in the no-till system. In addition, they also contained high water use crops which could take full advantage of the moisture saved by reducing or eliminating tillage. Consistently successful production of corn and soybeans was not possible in this area when tillage was used. The advantage of no-till when proper rotation was used came both from reducing the cost of producing wheat and being able to compete with growers in more humid regions who grow corn and soybeans.

So which tillage method is best? It depends on which rotation is used. Which rotation is best: It depends on which tillage method is used. What on the surface appeared to be conflicting results make perfect sense when looked at more closely. The comparison which you need to make based on these studies is between the best till system (wheat fallow) and the best no-till system (what-corn-soybeans). Or even better, compare your present system against what could be done if eliminating tillage allowed more intense rotations.

Analysis such as this is essential to assure proper interpretation is made for each situation. Results of research in one location may or may not apply in other area or even to producers using different techniques in the same area a. However, the concepts learned from examining why the results occurred are applicable almost anywhere when you learn to understand why something happened.

The same concept is true when you begin to make comparisons and choices among the numerous products a programs that are presently being promoted as suitable for use in zero-till. There is a wide variation in the way different individuals define no-till, zero-till, and/or direct seeding. it is not important to argue about which definition is more accurate or politically correct. But the fact that different definitions exist requires that you examine claims made by other producers, industry representatives, and researchers more closely. Realize that differences in soils, climate, rotations, machinery used, and personality can make the results you obtain quite different than their experiences. No two farmers have ever done things exactly the same when they used tillage. They probably should: not do them the same when they zero-till either. If there were only one correct way to zero-till; it would be an extremely limited system suited to only a small geographic area. This does not mean you cannot learn from other producers and experts. Just that you must be sure the research or producer experience you are using as a guide fits what you wish to do.

On the other hand there are some general principles which apply to most situations where zero till systems are employed. Time and numerous bad experiences have proven that several management techniques are more important once tillage is eliminated from a farming system. These can be summarized in three words: rotation,

competition, and sanitation. Almost a l of the management problems reported to be associated with zero tillage systems can be traced directly to a failure in one of these categories.

The art and science of proper crop rotation was the cornerstone of agriculture until quite recently. Intensive tillage in conjunction with modern technology has allowed producers to play more fast and loose with rotations than was possible less than 20 years ago. Everyone is somewhat aware of the benefits of crop rotation in limiting disease, weed, and insects pressure but many lack experience at utilizing this concept. Proper rotation can prevent most pest problems from getting out of hand and significantly reduces the amount of reliance placed on chemical control methods. It is not uncommon in well managed no t ill systems to utilize less pesticides than would be required with resent conventional tillage system. on the other hand, zero-till without good rotation will usually require more chemical inputs than the same rotation done conventionally. The bottom line is that at good rotational planning is important regardless of the tillage used. It is imperative for successful zero-till systems.

Besides the pest management aspects of crop rotation there are other benefits that are less well understood and probably underutilized. These include the ability to better manage and utilize water, improved workload spreading, and the capability to control he seed bed environment experienced by the succeeding crop.

Workload spreading has very obvious advantages which allow substantial reductions in manpower and horsepower requirements, and machinery costs while improving timeliness. As discussed later, the biggest impact of this advantage may be improving the bottom line by allowing present labor, and machinery resources to handle more acres.

The use of rotations to better manage and utilize water has applicability to both humid an arid regions. Eliminating tillage saves water and allows it to enter the soil better. That can be either good or bad depending on whether that increased moisture is put to beneficial use or allowed to become a management problem. Soil, depending on type, can only hold about I to 2.5 inches of available water per foot of depth before it begins to become saturated. The secret in all environments is to have the soil full, but not over full, just when the crop begins to use water .

When the soil becomes too full, problems can occur do to leaching, denitrification, runoff, diseases, and lack of trafficability .Whether your realize it or not, the rotations you have found to be best under conventional tillage do this. That is why they have been successful and popular. Some years it is a little too wet or a little too dry and they don't look good, but most years the relationship between water received and water use fits quite well. When tillage is eliminated and water saved; the proportion of years when it is too wet will increase unless the rotation is changed to utilize more water. Failure to change rotations has led to the belief that no-till causes fields to be too wet. If proper rotations have been utilized that will be true only when conventional tillage systems are to wet also. In arid regions cropping intensity can be changed by introducing more full season crops into the rotation arid eliminating fallow or at least substituting a nitrogen fixing cover crop in lieu of fallow. In more humid regions where rotations are already heavily predominated by full season crops with conventional tillage, the options include double cropping or including a cover crop. Reduced tillage will only show advantages form a crop production standpoint in drier than normal years; and will probably demonstrate

The best way to determine proper rotational intensity for zero-till systems is to examine results from long term zero-till, rotational studies being conducted in your area in soils similar to those on your farm. This is usually not possible. The next best method is to use studies from other areas. To determine if a particular study has applicability to your situation compare the types of native vegetation which grow or would grow in your climate on the soils you farm with those which are native to the research site. Native vegetation is the best integrator of rainfall and temperature. For instance, , the data from Redfield, South Dakota which is cited often was developed on good soils for that area. These soils will produce a mixture of tall grass prairie with some short grass species being present. Trees and bushes will only grow in large drainage ways,. If your native vegetation si similar, then the rotational intensity which is proper at Redfield would suit your situation. The crops used may be different but the frequency of cropping and number of high water use crops in the rotation would be similar. East of Redfield 60 miles or so the native vegetation is all tall, grass, prairie with trees and bushes being common in sheltered areas and even small depressions. Good soils in this region would require higher intensity rotations than Redfield. At Pierre (where we farm now) the native vegetation o good soils is predominated by short grass species with some tall, grass, types mixed in. proper intensity at Pierre will be less than at Redfield. Soils with limited water holding capacity i.e. sands and heavy clays will be drier than good soils as evidenced by the vegetation they support. Our west-river rotation site is on very, heavy soils and consequently will support even less intensity than the main farm at Pierre. These soils grow mostly short, grass, species with some tall, grass, types mixed in. Proper intensity at Pierre will be less than at Redfield. Sils with limited water holding capacity i.e. sands and heavy clays will be drier than good soils as evidenced by the heavy, soils and consequently will support even less intensity than the main farm at Pierre. These soils grow mostly short, grass, species with tall species occurring in drainage ways and depressions. Trees and bushes are extremely rare. Rainfall changes very little amount the Redfield, Pierre, and west river sites but temperature, elevation, and soil type affect how efficiently the moisture is used. In general, it would be best to look southeast or northeast of where you farm to obtain the best information. Brandon, Manitoba and Watertown, S.D. have similar native vegetation. The area around Regina does not look much different than Pierre. Prince Albert may receive less precipitation than Regina but the native vegetation indicates it will support more intense rotations and is perhaps more similar to Brandon.

In addition to rotation studies, it is also helpful to use successful zero-tillers as a guide. Be sure their situation si similar by comparing native vegetation.

The rotational factors discussed above can be summarized by saying that good rotations have the proper mix of diversity intensity, and profitability. It is helpful to think of crop plants falling into one of four categories; cool-season grass; cool-season broadleaf; warm-season grass; and warm-season broadleaf. Wheat, barley, and oats are examples of cool-season grasses. Peas, lentils, flax, and canola would be classed as cool-season broadleaf crops. Corn, sorghum, millet, and various annual forages are warm season grasses Soybean, sunflower, safflower, dry 0at least three of the four crop types in a rotation Using less than three types will result in increased pesticide use or more losses from pests and creased pesticide use or more losses from pests and will increase the per/acre cost of labor and machinery. Proper intensity in a rotation is obtained by increasing the frequency of cropping and including more high water use crops as compared to conventional systems. Proper intensity in a rotation will vary among soils with better soils being able to support higher intensity rotations Intensity will also vary with a producers personality and ability to accept or withstand risk or their desire to maximize return. Rotations with insufficient intensity will limit he amount of average return over the long haul but will also assure that a drought year will occur very infrequently. There is risk of having years which are too wet but these seldom cause complete loss like a drought Rotations with excessive intensity will produce excellent returns some years and probably will average out better than those that are lower than desired in intensity. They will, however, have more of a boom and bust cycle which exposes the producer to cash flow risk. This brings us to the last consideration; profitability. Producers in some situations will choose to sacrifice some diversity in order to maximize return. Good example are those using straight corn-soybean rotations in the corn belt or prairie farmers growing peas, lentils, or canola every other year. They have chosen to trade risk (increased chance of weed, disease, or insect problems; herbicide resistance; etc.) for potentially greater return. Consequently, each producer must make the decision on how to balance diversity and intensity for their operation.

Be sure that you do all of the calculations before automatically assuming a certain rotation will be more profitable. For instance, those who use limited diversity also 1imit the amount of workload spreading which can be achieved with more diverse rotations. This means either more labor and machinery is required or less land will be farmed. This aspect should not be under estimated. Using some data from a long-term rotation study at Redfield, SD we find that the best average profitability was achieved with a corn-soybean rotation ($92/acre); followed by spring wheat soybeans ($76/acre); and corn-soybeans-spring wheat ($71/acre) . At first blush it appears the less diverse rotations are superior. However, the three way rotation would allow farming more land using essentially the same machinery and labor resources. For instance, someone farming 1000 acres of corn-soybeans spring wheat-soybeans could handle 1,500 acres of spring wheat-corn-soybeans. Total net return per year would then be $92,000, $76,000; and $106,000 for the three rotations respectively. The bottom line is that it may be better to make $71/acre on 1,500 acres than $92/acre on 1000 acres. When we take into consideration that custom rates were used to calculate profitability for this analysis, it is apparent that the diverse rotation would be even more profitable if actual machinery costs were used (more hours/year in the diverse rotation equals less cost/hour).

The problem with the three-way rotation is that some years cold wet conditions could be encountered with the corn seeded in to wheat This causes some risk. Conversely, the corn seeded into soybeans in the corn-soybean rotation sometimes suffers from water stress. For these reasons, many producers now follow our recommendation to combine these two rotations to balance risk, return, and diversity. This wheat-corn-soybean-corn-soybean rotation would have one-half of the corn seeded into wheat which is good in normal to dry years. One-half would be seeded into soybean stubble which can be seeded early and produces good yields in norm to wet years. In abnormally cool and wet or hot and dry years only half of the corn crop encounters less than ideal conditions. Since some diversity is sacrificed, only 1,250 acres could be farmed producing a total return of $100,700. The wheat year would significantly reduce long-term weed, disease, and insect problems in the row crops.

The last aspect of rotation that needs careful study when adopting zero-till is the ability to control the ability to control the seed bed environment of the succeeding crop. The main purposes cited for the use of tillage are to control weeds and create a favorable environment for crop growth. When tillage is eliminated, a good share of this job must be done through proper rotational planning. This requires you to have a good understanding of your climate, the soils you farm, and what conditions different crops like both during their seedling stage and during the rest of the growing season. These factors can then be balanced with the requirements of the other crops in the rotation, the potential profitability of the crops, rotational needs for pest control, etc.. The best way to demonstrate this point may be to furnish a few examples. A no-till producer wishing to grow corn in eastern North Dakota or southeastern Manitoba is less concerned with a lack of soil moisture and more limited by soil temperatures than a producer in central South Dakota (like us)who normally finds moisture much more limiting to corn production than lack of heat. Consequently, the first producer will probably plant much of his corn following low residue crops such as soybeans, canola, or lentils; while a producer in the drier area would use small grain as a preceding crop for corn on most of his acres. A producer in a cool, dry, area such as Beach, North Dakota may well put this crop into a low, residue, crop with tall stubble such as canola in an attempt to produce a warm seed bed with good moisture. He might also use spring wheat or barley stubble and use equipment to move residue from the row area when planting corn. Where weather is highly variable from year to year (as is common on the prairies), it is usually wise to include some rotational sequences which do well in non-typical years. In other words the producer in the cool, moist, environment may plant some corn following wheat which will protect him in a very dry year. He would not do a great deal of this however since in cool and wet years this corn may not mature properly. Likewise, the central Dakota farmer could plant corn following soybeans or sunflowers on a limited acreage. This would produce ell in a "good" year and be utilized for forage when it was dry.

With conventional tillage the producer in the wetter, cooler, area probably planted much of his corn following wheat which had been fall plowed. This system worked since there was sufficient moisture accumulated between harvest in the wheat crop and planting the corn crop, to allow him to waste some with plowing. He ended up with a warm, moist, seed bed and a full soil profile most years. If corn was seeded behind soybeans using conventional tillage, it often suffered from lack of moisture later in the growing season. In other words, with conventional tillage there was not enough moisture available to allow corn to follow soybeans due to the water wasted by tillage. In this same area, corn following soybeans does however work well most years if water wasted by tillage is eliminated.

Another example involves the common practice of seeding wheat following other small grains in areas of the prairies using conventional tillage. This rotation does not work well in zero-till since the amount and type of residue left by corn hinders proper seed placement and early growth of wheat and can lead to severe disease and weed problems.

The above examples on rotational planning involved use of some crops that presently are not grown in the northern part of the prairies. The principles defined apply wherever zero-till is used. The crops and sequences will need local adaption. Perhaps sunflower, safflower, or chick peas are used as a warm season broadleaf instead of soybean. There will be only a minor difference in the effect they have in a rotation. No factor is more important to success than understanding what can be done by proper use of rotation. It is, in reality, an art which needs to be rediscovered.

The other two management considerations are sanitation and competition. These again are important in conventional farming but become more so when tillage is reduced. Sanitation refers to any practice that prevents weeds, disease or insects from being introduced and/or established on the farm. This includes the time honored practices of using weed free seed, cleaning equipment between fields, spot treating perennial and "new" weed patches before they become established, controlling volunteer grain and weeds to prevent insects from laying eggs, and preventing weeds from going to seed as much as possible. It also includes some considerations more specific to high residue systems such as mowing grass along field borders and waterways before it goes to seed or at least before the combine header has a chance to gather the seeds and spread them 30 feet into the field. Preventing a problem is much easier and cheaper than dealing with it later on.

In natural settings plants rely heavily on their competitive abilities to survive. Anything that can be done to create an environment that gives the crop an advantage will significantly reduce the ability of weeds to become a problem. This includes such normal practices as planting good seed, using sound fertility practices, well adapted varieties, etc. Some aspects of this concept specific to zero-till systems include use of starter or pop up fertilizers to assure a fast start; using seeding equipment with excellent depth gauging capabilities to assure uniform stands; increasing seeding rates from what is typical since more water will be available; using rows that are a narrow as possible to develop an early plant canopy; designing proper rotations to create an environment that favors the crop; and most importantly doing an adequate job of spreading crop residues at harvesting time. This last practice cannot be over emphasized. With the equipment available today it should be possible to spread both straw and chaff evenly over most if not all of the width of the header. If you utilize custom harvesters, most have chaff spreaders and the rest can obtain them if they want to cut your crop.

The last factor that fits somewhere in the sanitation and competition categories is use of equipment which minimizes soil disturbance. The urge to do it least some tillage while seeding or even before seeding has strong intuitive appeal to producers with limited experience. Those that have zero-tilled for a long period of time and have done a good job of developing proper rotations have elimination of soil disturbance s one of their primary goals. Equipment that causes soil disturbance seeds weeds, fails to operate properly in wet soils, and requires more power. It also generally lacks precise depth control and has more trouble handling heavy residue conditions. Common reasons cited for use of high disturbance equipment include warming the seed zone and eliminating sidewall compaction. The first goal is better achieved with proper rotational planning and in some instance the use of attachments designed to clear the row area of some residue without disturbing the soil. The second "problem" results from improper design of the closing system used. Some closing systems require loose soil to work properly. The answer is to use devices designed to work in firm moist soil instead of trying to provide the conditions needed for a poor design to work properly. Machines are now becoming commercially available which combine an air delivery system with low disturbance openers. There is no longer a need to put up with poor opener design in order to

benefit from the convenience and efficiency of an air delivery system.

As you can see most of the concepts discussed in the agronomy section are not different from those used with conventional tillage. The difference is that the systems are dissimilar. Some of the old limiting factors (such as lack of soil moisture) become less important and new ones have taken their place. The secret is to design agronomic components that allow you to take advantage of the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of zero-till systems. This is exactly what you did to develop your conventional tillage program.

When choosing these components always be aware that a tool or procedure designed to solve a problem perceived problem may well create a problem in another area. A good example, is the preference of some producers for using high disturbance openers in an attempt to provide a clean row area for their seed. The price they pay for this includes higher horsepower requirements, increased weed pressure due to disturbance, inability to operate in wet conditions, increased risk of crusting, more erosion on slopes; etc. Perhaps a better solution is to change rotation, modify starter fertilizer practices, or utilize an attachment that moves some of the residue in front of a low disturbance opener. Don't be fooled into thinking great improvements have been made in the system simply because early growth was better.

The last factor involved in making the change to high residue systems is psychological. Some producers relish the challenge of making changes in their operations. It is one of the things they like about farming. Other's actively seek to make changes for the sole purpose of improving the bottom line. They do not necessarily enjoy the process., but hope to enjoy the results. Still others choose not to make any changes in their operation until it becomes clear that what they are now doing is no longer feasible and change is necessary to survive. Most producers fall somewhere between these categories. Often a farming operation contains several "partners" each with a different philosophy. Consequently, as stated at the beginning of this chapter each producer must decide when and how he will make changes in his operation. Don't feel pressured by what your neighbors are doing or what you read in farm papers. Take an approach that works in your operation. If you have to go slow to convince grandpa so be it.

No matter how you approach it; be sure you are committed to expend the effort and gain the knowledge necessary to make the transition successfully. There will be problems. You will make mistakes. That happened when you conventionally farmed also. Keep in mind that residue on the soil surface did not cause the problem. Some component you had in your system caused the problem. If that approach is taken, you will sleep more comfortably and the transition will go faster and more smoothly.

If you gather nothing else from this chapter please try to remember the following thought. Good managers will be successful conventional tillage farmers; they will probably be even more successful with high residue systems. Marginal managers may succeed with conventional tillage systems but may not be able to take full advantage of the strengths of zero-till systems. A few poor managers have been able to get by using a conventional tillage system but it is unlikely that they will survive the present world market agricultural economy no matter which tillage system they use simply because their management skill is not equal to the task.

Nothing is more important in making the change to zero-till than careful observation, adequate planning and a positive attitude.

P.S. If you decide not to trade the plow or disk and instead park it in the trees; be sure to take the tires off. If you don't, grandpa may till all of your stubble while you're on vacation.