“No-Till” Farming Is a 

Growing Practice

John Horowitz

Robert Ebel

Kohei Ueda

Economic

Research

Service

Economic

Information

Bulletin

Number 70

November 2010

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and, where 

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual 

orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an 

individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 

contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 

(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Cover photos: Thinkstock© (tractor in field) and 

USDA/NRCS (men kneeling in field and crop closeup)

www.ers.usda.gov

Visit Our Website To Learn More!

See ERS research on the economics of 

land use and land management at:

www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/globalclimate
United States

Department

of Agriculture

www.ers.usda.gov

A Report from the Economic Research Service

Abstract

Most U.S. farmers prepare their soil for seeding and weed and pest control through 

tillage—plowing operations that disturb the soil. Tillage practices affect soil carbon, 

water pollution, and farmers’ energy and pesticide use, and therefore data on tillage can 

be valuable for understanding the practice’s role in reaching climate and other environmental goals. In order to help policymakers and other interested parties better understand U.S. tillage practices and, especially, those practices’ potential contribution to 

climate-change efforts, ERS researchers compiled data from the Agricultural Resource 

Management Survey and the National Resources Inventory-Conservation Effects 

Assessment Project’s Cropland Survey. The data show that approximately 35.5 percent of 

U.S. cropland planted to eight major crops, or 88 million acres, had no tillage operations 

in 2009. 

Keywords: Tillage, no-till, Agricultural Resource Management Survey, ARMS, U.S. 

crop practices, National Resources Inventory-Conservation Effects Assessment Project, 

NRI-CEAP, carbon baseline, carbon sequestration

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Roger Claassen (ERS), Beth Scherer (Yale University), 

Rob Johansson (USDA-OCE), Jan Lewandrowski (USDA-OCE), Kent D. Olson 

(University of Minnesota), and an anonymous reviewer for their reviews and comments. 

Thanks also go to our editor Priscilla Smith and designer Wynnice Pointer-Napper.

John Horowitz, jhorowitz@ers.usda.gov

Robert Ebel, rebel@ers.usda.gov

Kohei Ueda, kueda@ers.usda.gov

“No-Till” Farming Is a 

Growing Practice

Economic 

Information 

Bulletin 

Number 70

November 2010
ii

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

Contents

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Changes in Tillage Practice as a Greenhouse Gas Control Strategy . . . 2

 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

 The Economics of Payments for Reduced Tillage 

 Under a Climate Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Tillage Practices in the ARMS and NRI-CEAP Cropland Survey . . . . . 4

 Data Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

 ARMS Data Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 NRI-CEAP Cropland Survey Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

 Main Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

 Data Limitations and Alternative Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
iii

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

Summary

What Is the Issue?

Tillage—the plowing of land for weed and pest control and to prepare for 

seeding—has long been part of the cropland farming enterprise. A reduction in how often or how intensively the soil is tilled allows the soil to retain 

more organic matter, which stores or “sequesters” carbon, which then is not 

available to contribute to global warming as carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas. The adoption of less intensive tillage practices on a large number 

of farms could sequester substantial amounts of carbon, allowing agriculture 

to contribute to U.S. efforts to reduce and control greenhouse gas emissions. 

Because of this potential role for tillage in U.S. climate-change policy, ERS 

researchers have compiled and analyzed available USDA data on tillage practices by U.S. farmers. 

What Do the Data Show?

Approximately 35.5 percent of U.S. cropland (88 million acres) planted 

to eight major crops had no tillage operations in 2009, according to ERS 

researchers who analyzed 2000-07 data from USDA’s Agricultural Resource 

Management Survey (ARMS). The crops—barley, corn, cotton, oats, rice, 

sorghum, soybeans, and wheat—constituted 94 percent of total planted U.S. 

acreage in 2009. In addition:

• No-till increased for corn, cotton, soybeans, and rice (four crops for 

which ARMS data are suffi cient for researchers to calculate a trend) at a 

median rate of roughly 1.5 percentage points per year. Although no-till 

is generally increasing, it did not increase in all States for all crops in the 

study period (2000-07).

• Soybean farmers had the highest percentage of planted acres with no-till 

(45.3 percent in 2006; projected at almost 50 percent in 2009).

• No-till was practiced on 23.5 percent of corn acres in 2005 (projected at 

29.5 percent in 2009). More acres are planted to corn than to any other 

fi eld crop in the United States.

• Cotton farmers practiced no-till on 20.7 percent of planted acres in 2007 

(projected at 23.7 percent in 2009).

• Rice farmers had the lowest percentage of planted acres with no-till (11.8 

percent in 2006; projected at 16.3 percent in 2009) among the major 

crops analyzed.

• Greenhouse gas benefi ts are largest when no-till is practiced over a 

prolonged period. In one of the Nation’s major growing areas, the Upper 

Mississippi River Basin, 13 percent of agricultural acres were in no-till 

for 3 consecutive years based on surveys conducted from 2003-2006, 

according to the National Resources Inventory-Conservation Effects 

Assessment Project (NRI-CEAP) Cropland Survey. 
iv

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

How Were the Data Compiled?

The bulk of this compilation is based on data from the 2000-07 ARMS. 

Because only one or two crops are typically targeted by the ARMS each year, 

tillage practices for crops not surveyed during a specifi c year were estimated. 

These estimates were based on the latest data available for that crop and 

tillage trends for all major crops for which trends could be calculated. 

Because the ARMS reports tillage practices for only 1 year at a time, the 

authors of this report also used data from the NRI-CEAP Cropland Survey 

for the Upper Mississippi River Basin. The Cropland Survey requests tillage 

practice information for the current year and the preceding 2 years, providing 

information on the continuation of farm-level no-till over time for a major 

crop-producing region of the country.

The National Resources Inventory-Conservation Effects Assessment

Project Cropland Survey examined farming practices in the

Upper Mississippi River Basin

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service based on data from USDA, Natural Resources

Conservation Service.

Kansas

Nebraska

Kentucky

North

Dakota

Iowa

Illinois

Minnesota

Missouri

Wisconsin

Indiana

Michigan South Dakota

Upper Mississippi River Basin
1

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

Introduction

Agriculture can be part of U.S. efforts to control greenhouse gases if farmers 

and ranchers take actions to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions or 

increase carbon sequestration. These actions may include reducing tillage 

intensity, reducing the amount of nitrogen applied to crops, switching to 

fertilizer application methods with lower emissions, changing livestock or 

manure management practices to reduce methane emissions, shifting crop 

rotations to include a greater proportion of perennial crops, reducing the 

frequency and duration of fl ooding of rice paddies, planting grass or trees, or 

enhancing grassland or forest management (Johnson et al., 2007). Because of 

these possible agricultural contributions, policymakers are considering ways 

to encourage farmers, ranchers, and other rural landowners to pursue climatefriendly activities. 

Of these activities, tillage—how farmers plow their soil for seeding and 

weed and pest control—has received considerable attention because changes 

in tillage practices could potentially be undertaken by a large number of 

farms and on a correspondingly large number of cropland acres across the 

U.S. The adoption of new, less intensive tillage practices on a large number 

of farms could sequester substantial additional amounts of carbon (Lal, 

2004; Uri, 2001). 

Because of the potential role for tillage in U.S. climate efforts, ERS 

researchers have compiled available USDA data on current and past tillage 

practices by U.S. farmers as measured primarily by the Agricultural Resource 

Management Survey (ARMS) with additional data from the National 

Resources Inventory-Conservation Effects Assessment Project (NRI-CEAP) 

Cropland Survey. These data can be used by policymakers, researchers, and 

other interested parties to better understand agriculture’s potential contribution to controlling greenhouse gases. Tillage practices also affect sediment 

and chemical runoff from farms; soil erosion; and on-farm energy, fertilizer, 

and pesticide use; therefore, these data can be useful for understanding tillage’s possible role in reaching other conservation and environmental goals. 

Widespread tillage changes also could affect farm incomes, commodity 

production, and input and output markets. 
2

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

Changes in Tillage Practice as a 

Greenhouse Gas Control Strategy

Background

Tillage refers to a set of farming operations that disturb the soil. Farmers have 

choices for how they prepare the soil; reduce weed growth; incorporate fertilizer, manure and organic matter into the soil; and seed their crops, including 

the number of tillage operations and tillage depth. In general, the less the soil 

is disturbed the more organic matter it retains. Organic matter consists of 

stored carbon that is therefore not available to contribute to global warming 

(in the form of carbon dioxide). In annual cropping systems, much of a fi eld’s 

organic matter exists in the form of residue from previous crops that is left on 

the fi eld. Therefore, tillage is often discussed along with rotations and other 

practices that affect crop residues. 

Agricultural scientists recognize several forms of reduced tillage, including 

mulch till, ridge till, strip till, and no-till (see USDA, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service defi nitions, available at: http://ecat.sc.egov.usda.

gov/Help.aspx/). These categories are sometimes lumped together as lowintensity or conservation tillage, which can be contrasted to conventional 

tillage. Conservation tillage means that at least 30 percent of the soil is 

covered by crop residues, measured just after planting the current year’s 

crop. Conventional tillage refers to any set of practices that leave less than 

15 percent of the soil covered by crop residues after planting. The precise 

tillage defi nitions used for ERS calculations are given in the Data Overview 

section of the chapter titled “Tillage Practices in the ARMS and NRI-CEAP 

Cropland Survey.”

Studies have estimated the additional carbon sequestration that occurs as 

a result of a farmer’s switch to reduced tillage or no-till. Eve et al. (2002) 

reported that, on average, a farmer in the Corn Belt who changes from 

conventional tillage to reduced tillage would sequester 0.33 more metric 

tons of CO2 per acre per year over a 20-year period, while the change from 

conventional tillage to the more restrictive no-till would sequester 0.64 more 

metric tons of CO2 per acre per year. 

Many uncertainties remain in scientists’ understanding of the relationship 

between tillage, soil carbon, and other greenhouse gases (VandenBygaart et 

al., 2003). Baker et al. (2007) and Manley et al. (2005) argue that reduced 

tillage has not been consistently shown to increase soil organic carbon. 

Boddey et al. (2009) and Franzluebbers (2009) argue against the claims made 

by Baker et al. Reduced tillage may also affect emissions of nitrous oxide or 

methane—two other greenhouse gases—from agricultural cropping (BlancoCanqui and Lal, 2008). 

The Economics of Payments for Reduced Tillage 

Under a Climate Policy

U.S. efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could take a variety of forms, 

including a nationwide cap-and-trade system, Government payments for 

reduced emissions, or industry-specifi c emissions performance standards. 
3

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

Under cap-and-trade, industrial sources of fossil fuels such as oil refi ners and 

electricity generators would be required to submit permits for every ton of 

their direct or indirect emissions, and only a fi xed number of permits would 

be made available. Based on current proposals, agricultural producers would 

likely not be required to submit these permits, but the policy could encourage 

agricultural contributions by awarding offset credits to farmers and ranchers 

who adopt management practices or land uses that are recognized as reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions or increasing carbon sequestration. If an agricultural activity such as no-till were eligible for these credits, farmers who 

voluntarily switch to no-till would receive credits that they could sell to 

industrial sources covered by the emission permit requirement. These offset 

credits would substitute for the emission permits that otherwise would be 

required for those sources under cap-and-trade. 

An alternative policy to cap-and-trade would be to provide incentive 

payments to farmers to reduce tillage intensity, an approach similar to current 

USDA conservation programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program. Under this approach, if no-till adoption were eligible for these 

incentive payments, farmers who voluntarily switch to no-till would receive 

an annual payment based on the rules of the program. The Government 

would set eligibility rules and payment amounts, just as it does for other 

conservation programs. 

For example, a Corn Belt farmer who shifted from conventional tillage to 

permanent no-till would receive credit for 0.64 metric tons of CO2 per acre 

per year for 20 years if those practices otherwise met the eligibility requirements, assuming the Eve et al. estimates were used as the offi cial basis to 

determine the number of credits awarded.1 If credits sold for $15 per ton—a 

commonly cited price for the near future under previous cap-and-trade 

proposals—the farm would receive approximately $10 per acre of no-till 

adoption in this example. Thus, sales of offset credits could provide an additional source of income for the farm, minus the possible additional production costs under no-till. The extent to which farmers adopted no-till or other 

greenhouse gas mitigation activities in response to this policy would depend 

on the eligibility rules for the offset credit, the costs of following the required 

practice (including possible effects on yields, soil properties, and pest populations), the number of credits the practice could earn, and the prices that 

farmers would get for those credits. 

The ability of no-till adoption to contribute to reaching U.S. emissions goals 

depends on the resulting increases in carbon sequestration. However, analysts 

cannot readily measure or monitor the sequestration occurring on any specifi c 

farm or fi eld under no-till, nor can they precisely assess the sequestration that 

would have occurred if the farmer had not participated in the offset-credit 

market or incentive program. The diffi culty in assessing how much of the 

carbon sequestration under no-till would not have otherwise occurred and 

thus represents an increase in U.S. soil carbon is known as the additionality 

problem. Tillage data can address this problem by helping analysts document 

baseline practices, predict what practices would have occurred in the absence 

of the offset market or incentive payment (thus allowing assessment of 

whether no-till is a new, additional practice), and estimate the consequences 

of eligibility rules or offset credit awards.

1These calculations are meant only as 

a general example of how carbon credits would work. Their specifi c application, if offset credits or incentive payments were introduced, would depend 

on the specifi c eligibility requirements 

and offset credit awards.
4

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

Tillage Practices in the ARMS 

and NRI-CEAP Cropland Survey

Data Overview

This section presents estimates of U.S. tillage practices drawn primarily from 

the ARMS, with additional estimates for the Upper Mississippi River Basin 

based on the NRI-CEAP Cropland Survey. The ARMS, sponsored jointly by 

ERS and the National Agricultural Statistics Service, is USDA’s primary source 

of information on the fi nancial condition, production practices, resource use, 

and economic well-being of America’s farms and farm households. The ARMS 

includes periodic in-depth surveys of the costs and production practices for a 

targeted commodity, such as corn, wheat, soybeans, or cotton. 

The ARMS provides some of the most reliable nationwide information on 

production practices. Considerable effort has been devoted to making the ARMS 

highly representative of the acres that were planted to the target crop in the crop 

survey year. This effort allows researchers to assign standard errors to estimates 

of production practices, a feature that is not possible with most other available 

agricultural practices data. In designing the ARMS, surveyors also devoted 

substantial attention to ensuring both accuracy and precision of the responses. 

The ARMS asks farmers to list all fi eld operations conducted on a specifi c 

fi eld (which has been planted to the target crop) in the survey year. We used 

these responses to construct three series that illustrate U.S. tillage practices.2

In the following tables we fi rst report the estimated number of acres for each 

crop that had no reported tillage operations. A fi eld is said to have had no 

tillage operations if none of the following categories of machinery were used 

on the fi eld between the harvest of the previous crop and the current year’s 

planting: plows and disks (ARMS categories 01-16), including moldboard 

plow, offset disk, and tandem disk; cultivators (21-28); harrows (30-40); 

bedder-shapers (41-50); packers (51-53); and any miscellaneous tillage equipment such as Land-all, Do-all, Mix-n-till, mulch treader, rototiller, soil 

fi nisher, or stalk puller (61-68). Note that this defi nition does not depend on 

the planter, drill, or seeder used. 

ERS researchers then used known production relationships, cropping history, 

and fi eld operations data, all elicited by the ARMS, to estimate crop residues 

remaining on the fi eld (from the previous crop) after planting of the current 

year’s crop. We report the percent of crop acres that had crop residues that 

covered more than 30 percent of the soil surface following planting, and the 

percent of acres that meet both criteria: greater than 30 percent residue cover 

and no tillage operations. These data are presented to provide a complete 

picture of U.S. tillage intensity and crop residues but are not used in this 

report’s estimates of current no-till adoption.

Because the costs of a farmer switching to conservation tillage and the 

ensuing increases in carbon sequestration depend on previous years’ tillage 

practices, we also report the percentage of farms with crop residues after 

planting of between 15 and 30 percent (reduced till) and with crop residues after planting below 15 percent. Columns may not add to 100 percent 

2The defi nition of “no-till” agriculture that might be used for offset 

eligibility rules or carbon incentive 

payments, should these programs be 

introduced, has not yet been established. The data presented here should 

be informative for a broad array of 

candidate defi nitions.
5

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

because tillage operations could not be determined for a small percentage 

of respondents. 

To examine tillage over multiple years, we drew on data from the NRI-CEAP 

Cropland Survey for the Upper Mississippi River Basin, which includes 

portions of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, 

and South Dakota. The survey was conducted over 2003-06 on a sample of 

3,703 National Resources Inventory (NRI) points.3 The NRI-CEAP Cropland 

Survey asked farmers about crops and farming practices on the selected plot 

in the survey year and the previous 2 years. This multi-year record is the 

most widely representative data available to assess the practice of no-till over 

multiple years. More information about the CEAP’s assessment of the Basin is 

available from USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, 2010). 

The survey’s tillage question asked “Type of tillage” for each of these 3 years 

with four possible categories: no-till or strip till; mulch till; ridge till; and 

conventional till; note that the reported practices for the 2 years before the 

current year are based on the respondent’s recollection. When the respondent 

reported no-till or strip till for the point in question, we refer to that acreage as 

Reported No-till. Accompanying interviewer notes provide defi nitions of these 

tillage types, but it is not clear in the data whether any given observation is 

based on the farmer’s implicit understanding of what no-till means or an interviewer’s explicit defi nition.4 The survey also asked questions about machinery 

operations, identical to the ARMS, on that plot for the current crop year. 

ARMS Data Estimation

Table 1 reports our ARMS-based estimates of planted no-till acreage for 

eight major U.S. crops in the crop survey year and in 2009, using NASS 

estimates of 2009 planted acres. Because ARMS surveys were conducted in 

different years and because no-till farming has been expanding in the United 

States, we estimated the 2009 planted no-till acres assuming that the proportion of no-till acres expanded by 1.5 percentage points per year from the last 

crop survey year.5 For these calculations we used nationwide estimates of 

no-till adoption from the crop survey year rather than the State-level estimates because nationwide estimates are more reliable. 

Figure 1 shows no-till estimates for all crops that have been surveyed by ARMS 

since 2000. Tables 2-13 report State-level data for ARMS crops since 2000. Data 

are presented only for States with a suffi ciently large number of sample points.

The ARMS data allow us to assign standard errors to estimates of the percent 

of acres that fall into each of our categories. The coeffi cient of variation is the 

standard error of the estimate divided by the estimate. The higher is the coeffi cient of variation, the wider is the confi dence interval around the percentage 

estimate at any given level of signifi cance. In tables 2-13:

• all unmarked estimates have a coeffi cient of variation below 0.25 

• * = coeffi cient of variation between 0.25 and 0.50

• # = coeffi cient of variation between 0.50 and 0.75

• a designates a coeffi cient of variation above 0.75

• L = number of observations is too small to be reported

3The number of surveys was 1,204 in 

2003; 1,264 in 2004; 625 in 2005; and 

610 in 2006.

4“No-till is a tillage system in which 

crop residue is left on the soil and the 

soil is left undisturbed from prior harvest 

to no-till planting, except for nutrient 

injection. Strip tillage combines the 

benefi ts of no-till and full-width tillage, 

but tillage is confi ned to 6- to 8-in. strips 

into which dry fertilizer and/or anhydrous ammonia and seed are placed. 

Loosened soil in the strips creates a 

ridge or berm 3 to 4 in. high, which 

settles down to 1 to 2 in. by spring 

planting. Crop residue in row middles is 

left undisturbed, satisfying the USDA’s 

defi nition of ‘no-till’” (2004 CEAP 

Interviewer’s Manual, p. C-5027).

5No-till increased by 1.08 percentage 

points (ppts) per year for rice between 

2000 and 2006; 1.37 ppts. for cotton 

between 2003 and 2007; 1.86 ppts. for 

corn between 2001 and 2005; and 2.59 

ppts. for soybeans between 2002 and 

2006. We simulated the effect of 1.5 

ppts. per year because it was a median 

growth rate.
6

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 1

Estimated planted acreage with no tillage operations for eight 

U.S. crops

Crop

No tillage 

operations 

(most recent crop 

survey year)

No tillage 

operations,

2009 

(estimate)1

Planted 

acres,

2009

Estimated planted 

acres with no tillage 

operations, 2009

(column 2 or 3 

column 4)

––– Percent of crop acres ––– ––– Million acres –––

Barley 27.6

(2003) 36.6 3.6 1.0–1.3

Corn 23.5

(2005) 29.5 86.5 20.3–25.5

Cotton 20.7

(2007) 23.7 9.1 1.9–2.2

Oats 13.8

(2005) 19.8 3.4 0.5–0.7

Rice 11.8

(2006) 16.3 3.1 0.4–0.5

Sorghum 25.0

(2003) 34.0 6.6 1.6–2.3 

Soybeans 45.3

(2006) 49.8 77.4 35.1–38.5 

Wheat 21.9

(2004) 29.4 59.1 12.9–17.4

Total all

eight crops 35.52 248.9 73.7–88.3 

1Assuming 1.5 percentage-point growth per year.

2Average, weighted by 2009 acres.

Note: See fi gure 1 for no-tillage defi nition.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of Agricultural Resource Management 

Survey data. Crop acreage data obtained from USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats/index.asp/.

Figure 1

No-till percentages have increased for four major crops, 2000-07

Percent of planted acres that are no-till

Note: A field is said to have had no tillage operations if none of the following categories 

of machinery were used on the field between the harvest of the previous crop and the 

current year’s planting: plows and disks (ARMS categories 01-16), including moldboard plow, 

offset disk, and tandem disk; cultivators (21-28); harrows (30-40); bedder-shapers (41-50); 

packers (51-53); and any miscellaneous tillage equipment such as Land-all, Do-all, Mix-n-till, 

mulch treader, rototiller, soil finisher, or stalk puller (61-68). 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of Agricultural Resource Management 

Survey data. 

2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

0

10

20

30

40

50

Corn

Cotton

Soybean

Rice

Wheat

Sorghum

Oats

Barley
7

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 2

Barley acreage and tillage practices, 2003

State Planted

With no 

tillage 

operations

With 

residues 

> 30 percent

(conservation till)

With residues 

> 30 percent 

and no tillage 

operations

With 15-30 

percent residues

(reduced till)

With residues 

< 15 percent 

(conventional till)

Acres ––––––––––––––––– Percent of acres –––––––––––––––––

California # 1,743,659 0.0 a 4.2 0.0 90.1 a 5.7

Idaho 8,419,010 # 10.9 26.2 # 10.9 * 32.3 41.5

Minnesota 860,806 0.0 * 23.9 0.0 * 27.9 * 48.2

Montana 21,972,050 40.7 77.6 40.7 * 5.7 * 16.7

N. Dakota 11,858,302 * 25.9 48.0 * 21.7 37.8 14.2

Pennsylvania * 1,009,131 # 6.7 # 50.4 # 6.7 # 9.0 # 40.6

S. Dakota 598,414 71.7 69.1 58.4 # 12.9 * 18.0

Utah * 309,081 0.0 # 20.8 0.0 # 10.9 * 68.3

Washington 1,650,683 * 12.5 42.7 * 12.4 * 24.4 32.9

Wisconsin 184,363 L * 20.1 L 28.6 51.4

Wyoming 862,252 # 1.4 # 10.1 L * 8.5 81.3

All 49,467,750 27.6 54.7 26.4 22.2 23.1

Unmarked estimates have a coeffi cient of variation below 0.25. 

* = Coeffi cient of variation between 0.25 and 0.50.

# = Coeffi cient of variation between 0.50 and 0.75.

a = Coeffi cient of variation above 0.75. 

L = Number of observations is too small to be reported.

Note: See fi gure 1 for no-tillage defi nition.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of Agricultural Resource Management Survey data.
8

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 3

Corn acreage and tillage practices, 2001

State Planted

With no 

tillage 

operations

With 

residues 

> 30 percent

(conservation till)

With residues 

> 30 percent 

and no tillage 

operations

With 15-30 

percent residues

(reduced till)

With residues 

< 15 percent 

(conventional till)

Acres ––––––––––––––––– Percent of acres –––––––––––––––––

Colorado 1,216,880 * 17.2 52.5 * 17.2 * 18.8 28.7

Georgia 261,800 # 23.9 * 20.8 # 12.3 # 16.6 62.6

Illinois 10,979,530 * 16.2 45.0 * 16.2 * 21.1 33.9

Indiana 5,795,127 20.1 45.6 19.6 16.5 37.8

Iowa 11,671,532 * 7.8 57.3 * 7.8 * 30.6 12.1

Kansas 3,440,174 * 39.7 57.7 * 38.3 19.1 * 23.3

Kentucky 1,198,834 46.4 71.3 46.4 * 13.7 * 15.0

Michigan 2,200,027 * 19.0 * 26.6 * 18.1 * 18.7 54.7

Minnesota 6,780,190 * 1.4 24.0 * 1.4 20.1 55.9

Missouri 2,686,540 * 20.5 41.5 * 20.5 * 25.0 33.5

Nebraska 8,070,062 * 15.4 68.4 * 15.4 * 24.0 * 7.6

New York 1,029,987 L a 16.3 L * 12.0 71.7

N. Carolina 696,386 * 34.8 * 40.2 * 31.2 * 6.9 * 52.9

N. Dakota 874,217 * 6.6 35.9 * 6.6 23.0 41.0

Ohio 3,389,541 * 21.2 42.3 * 21.1 * 26.8 31.0

Pennsylvania 1,499,993 30.3 40.2 29.8 * 11.6 48.2

S. Dakota 3,795,586 22.0 63.9 21.5 21.2 14.9

Texas * 1,599,256 a 1.9 * 25.2 a 1.8 * 23.3 51.6

Wisconsin 3,400,063 * 18.3 36.2 * 18.3 * 18.1 45.7

All 70,585,726 16.0 47.5 15.8 22.1 30.5

Note: See fi gure 1 for no-tillage defi nition and table 2 for defi nitions of *, #, a, and L.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of Agricultural Resource Management Survey data.
9

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 4

Corn acreage and tillage practices, 2005

State Planted

With no 

tillage 

operations

With 

residues 

> 30 percent

(conservation till)

With residues 

> 30 percent 

and no tillage 

operations

With 15-30 

percent residues

(reduced till)

With residues 

< 15 percent 

(conventional till)

Acres ––––––––––––––––– Percent of acres –––––––––––––––––

Colorado 1,100,119 * 35.1 58.4 * 35.1 * 13.4 28.2

Georgia 270,054 * 31.5 59.3 * 29.4 * 9.4 31.3

Illinois 12,100,039 15.9 44.2 15.9 * 23.1 32.7

Indiana 5,900,050 * 19.2 40.6 * 18.9 26.5 32.8

Iowa 12,800,064 * 22.8 63.1 * 22.8 * 21.9 * 15.0

Kansas 3,649,958 53.1 70.4 53.1 * 12.3 * 17.4

Kentucky 1,250,065 63.9 70.4 62.9 * 18.1 * 11.5

Michigan 2,250,029 * 13.3 19.9 * 12.1 28.9 51.2

Minnesota 7,300,110 L 27.5 L 22.1 50.4

Missouri 3,099,989 25.4 45.0 25.4 * 19.9 35.1

Nebraska 8,500,150 36.7 77.2 36.4 17.1 * 5.7

New York 989,953 a 2.4 # 8.1 a 1.9 * 7.5 84.4

N. Carolina 750,067 56.6 59.5 53.9 * 11.3 29.2

N. Dakota 1,410,170 * 18.5 52.6 * 16.7 * 10.1 37.3

Ohio 3,450,012 27.9 52.8 27.6 * 17.7 29.5

Pennsylvania 1,349,985 * 40.5 43.0 * 39.5 * 24.7 32.3

S. Dakota 4,449,961 36.2 65.7 35.2 15.5 18.8

Texas 2,050,024 * 9.5 * 19.7 * 8.6 * 11.9 68.4

Wisconsin 3,799,855 12.5 39.5 12.4 23.0 37.5

All 76,470,655 23.5 51.0 23.2 20.1 28.8

Note: See fi gure 1 for no-tillage defi nition and table 2 for defi nitions of *, #, a, and L.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of Agricultural Resource Management Survey data.
10

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 5

Cotton acreage and tillage practices, 2003

State Planted

With no 

tillage 

operations

With 

residues 

> 30 percent

(conservation till)

With residues 

> 30 percent 

and no tillage 

operations

With 15-30 

percent residues

(reduced till)

With residues 

< 15 percent 

(conventional till)

Acres ––––––––––––––––– Percent of acres –––––––––––––––––

Alabama 522,699 50.6 53.7 45.8 20.5 25.8

Arizona 217,291 # 3.7 # 3.7 # 3.7 L 92.6

Arkansas 975,694 12.2 * 9.2 * 9.1 * 3.6 87.2

California 693,613 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Georgia 1,282,497 * 39.5 * 38.1 * 31.6 * 15.3 46.6

Louisiana 518,923 a 6.8 # 7.9 a 6.8 * 6.2 85.9

Mississippi 1,104,050 20.1 * 21.5 18.9 * 5.1 73.4

Missouri 394,201 21.9 23.3 19.4 * 8.6 68.1

N. Carolina 795,162 34.2 36.6 28.1 17.8 45.5

S. Carolina 220,000 L L L L L

Tennessee 557,258 54.0 51.3 49.8 * 9.8 38.9

Texas 5,540,529 * 1.7 * 4.1 # 1.6 * 8.7 87.2

All 12,821,917 15.2 16.2 13.1 9.1 74.6

Note: See fi gure 1 for no-tillage defi nition and table 2 for defi nitions of *, #, a, and L.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of Agricultural Resource Management Survey data.

Table 6

Cotton acreage and tillage practices, 2007

State Planted

With no 

tillage 

operations

With 

residues 

> 30 percent

(conservation till)

With residues 

> 30 percent 

and no tillage 

operations

With 15-30 

percent residues

(reduced till)

With residues 

< 15 percent 

(conventional till)

Acres ––––––––––––––––– Percent of acres –––––––––––––––––

Alabama 400,055 39.7 48.2 35.1 21.4 30.4

Arkansas 860,220 * 9.4 * 11.7 * 9.3 * 5.1 83.2

California 455,116 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Georgia 1,029,915 37.5 40.8 * 26.8 * 15.7 43.4

Louisiana 335,217 # 4.6 * 6.8 # 4.6 * 6.6 86.6

Mississippi 660,081 19.9 19.0 19.0 * 2.8 78.2

Missouri 380,025 * 19.8 * 22.5 * 18.8 # 8.6 68.9

N.Carolina 500,046 56.5 55.9 46.4 * 15.1 28.9

S. Carolina 180,081 48.1 48.6 44.5 * 10.8 40.6

Tennessee 514,912 80.4 65.4 64.9 * 17.1 * 17.4

Texas 4,924,855 * 9.8 * 8.4 * 5.8 * 13.1 78.5

All 10,240,523 20.7 20.2 16.1 11.7 68.1

Note: See fi gure 1 for no-tillage defi nition and table 2 for defi nitions of *, #, a, and L.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of Agricultural Resource Management Survey data.
11

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 7

Oats acreage and tillage practices, 2005

State Planted

With no 

tillage 

operations

With 

residues 

> 30 percent

(conservation till)

With residues 

> 30 percent 

and no tillage 

operations

With 15-30 

percent residues

(reduced till)

With residues 

< 15 percent 

(conventional till)

Acres ––––––––––––––––– Percent of acres –––––––––––––––––

Illinois 118,698 # 10.0 * 40.1 # 10.0 49.2 10.7

Iowa 443,187 # 6.4 34.5 # 6.4 40.2 * 25.3

Kansas 212,018 55.8 65.8 55.8 # 24.3 * 9.9

Michigan 229,318 a 1.0 # 2.8 a 1.0 * 10.4 86.8

Minnesota 828,831 0.0 * 28.7 0.0 * 23.3 48.0

Nebraska 267,478 * 29.4 70.2 * 22.2 * 14.7 # 15.2

New York 521,824 # 1.0 * 13.2 L # 3.6 83.1

N. Dakota 2,988,836 35.4 65.0 * 30.8 # 10.1 * 24.9

Pennsylvania 855,889 * 20.2 * 14.9 * 12.8 * 12.3 72.8

S. Dakota 1,473,441 * 20.1 55.7 * 14.6 # 7.8 36.5

Texas * 4,817,045 a 0.5 a 6.7 a 0.5 a 17.0 * 76.2

Wisconsin 1,869,051 # 12.2 * 31.7 # 12.2 30.3 38.0

All 14,625,616 13.8 31.8 * 11.8 * 16.9 51.3

Note: See fi gure 1 for no-tillage defi nition and table 2 for defi nitions of *, #, a, and L.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of Agricultural Resource Management Survey data.

Table 8

Rice acreage and tillage practices, 2000

State Planted

With no 

tillage 

operations

With 

residues 

> 30 percent

(conservation till)

With residues 

> 30 percent 

and no tillage 

operations

With 15-30 

percent residues

(reduced till)

With residues 

< 15 percent 

(conventional till)

Acres ––––––––––––––––– Percent of acres –––––––––––––––––

Arkansas 15,487,161 * 6.3 * 11.2 # 5.0 * 7.7 81.1

California 3,915,672 0.0 0.0 0.0 L 94.3

Louisiana 4,343,981 # 10.0 # 1.1 # 1.0 # 7.2 91.7

Mississippi 3,252,643 a 2.4 # 15.9 a 1.7 a 31.3 * 52.7

Texas a 1,064,419 L 0.0 0.0 L 90.6

All * 28,063,876 * 5.3 # 8.2 # 3.1 * 10.2 81.7

Note: See fi gure 1 for no-tillage defi nition and table 2 for defi nitions of *, #, a, and L.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of Agricultural Resource Management Survey data.
12

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 9

Rice acreage and tillage practices, 2006

State Planted

With no 

tillage 

operations

With 

residues 

> 30 percent

(conservation till)

With residues 

> 30 percent 

and no tillage 

operations

With 15-30 

percent residues

(reduced till)

With residues 

< 15 percent 

(conventional till)

Acres ––––––––––––––––– Percent of acres –––––––––––––––––

Arkansas 18,137,548 14.0 34.3 * 11.5 * 8.2 57.5

California 3,725,074 0.0 L 0.0 # 2.0 96.1

Louisiana 3,907,890 # 14.9 * 20.3 # 14.5 * 7.7 72.0

Mississippi 3,774,219 # 18.6 60.2 # 18.6 * 5.9 34.0

Missouri 3,062,627 # 5.8 * 18.0 * 2.1 * 6.8 75.3

Texas 1,215,434 0.0 0.0 0.0 # 0.7 99.3

All 33,822,793 11.8 29.2 * 10.1 * 6.8 64.0

Note: See fi gure 1 for no-tillage defi nition and table 2 for defi nitions of *, #, a, and L.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of Agricultural Resource Management Survey data.

Table 10

Sorghum acreage and tillage practices, 2003

State Planted

With no 

tillage 

operations

With 

residues 

> 30 percent

(conservation till)

With residues 

> 30 percent 

and no tillage 

operations

With 15-30 

percent residues

(reduced till)

With residues 

< 15 percent 

(conventional till)

Acres ––––––––––––––––– Percent of acres –––––––––––––––––

Colorado 270,000 29.6 73.5 29.2 # 3.4 * 23.1

Kansas 3,525,863 38.6 66.4 38.4 * 14.2 * 19.4

Missouri 215,000 21.6 30.1 * 20.2 * 15.9 54.0

Nebraska 656,731 51.6 69.9 51.4 # 18.8 # 11.3

Oklahoma 298,348 * 20.9 54.4 * 20.9 * 15.6 30.1

S. Dakota 266,598 44.9 70.1 41.0 18.2 * 11.8

Texas 3,155,845 * 2.8 14.1 * 2.8 10.8 75.1

All 8,388,385 25.0 46.0 24.7 13.1 40.9

Note: See fi gure 1 for no-tillage defi nition and table 2 for defi nitions of *, #, a, and L.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of Agricultural Resource Management Survey data.
13

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 11

Soybean acreage and tillage practices, 2002

State Planted

With no 

tillage 

operations

With 

residues 

> 30 percent

(conservation till)

With residues 

> 30 percent 

and no tillage 

operations

With 15-30 

percent residues

(reduced till)

With residues 

< 15 percent 

(conventional till)

Acres ––––––––––––––––– Percent of acres –––––––––––––––––

Arkansas 2,932,668 11.4 * 28.5 11.4 * 4.5 67.0

Illinois 10,515,054 43.7 75.8 43.6 18.3 * 5.8

Indiana 5,745,545 56.9 79.1 56.9 * 13.0 * 7.9

Iowa 10,383,139 22.7 76.8 22.7 17.2 * 6.0

Kansas 2,747,419 42.3 56.6 42.3 * 24.3 * 19.1

Kentucky 1,290,095 64.9 81.5 64.9 a 14.9 a 3.6

Louisiana 788,626 * 28.7 * 35.7 * 28.6 * 9.0 55.3

Maryland 490,028 72.4 76.3 72.4 # 19.8 # 4.0

Michigan 2,049,999 29.8 52.7 29.6 18.9 28.4

Minnesota 7,190,601 # 3.7 66.1 * 1.9 * 12.5 21.5

Mississippi 1,438,280 44.2 43.5 39.4 * 13.9 42.6

Missouri 5,025,784 25.5 60.5 25.4 * 10.5 * 29.0

Nebraska 4,685,807 24.4 78.3 24.3 20.5 # 1.1

N. Carolina 1,357,974 67.2 70.4 66.9 * 5.6 * 24.0

N. Dakota 2,660,854 # 8.3 * 33.4 # 8.3 * 47.3 * 19.4

Ohio 4,708,342 73.3 79.2 68.8 * 12.5 8.2

S. Dakota 4,249,995 * 39.0 * 66.3 * 38.7 # 27.8 * 6.0

Tennessee 1,159,939 70.1 80.0 68.9 * 7.7 * 12.4

Virginia 479,977 85.6 83.5 82.1 * 6.0 * 10.5

Wisconsin 1,537,319 * 26.0 63.4 * 26.0 * 18.3 # 18.3

All 71,437,444 34.9 67.8 34.3 16.9 15.2

Note: See fi gure 1 for no-tillage defi nition and table 2 for defi nitions of *, #, a, and L.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of Agricultural Resource Management Survey data.
14

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 12

Soybean acreage and tillage practices, 2006

State Planted

With no 

tillage 

operations

With 

residues 

> 30 percent

(conservation till)

With residues 

> 30 percent 

and no tillage 

operations

With 15-30 

percent residues

(reduced till)

With residues 

< 15 percent 

(conventional till)

Acres ––––––––––––––––– Percent of acres –––––––––––––––––

Arkansas 3,092,129 * 15.1 * 25.7 * 13.8 * 8.0 66.3

Illinois 9,989,941 52.8 83.9 52.0 10.7 * 5.4

Indiana 5,691,127 70.0 81.2 69.4 * 14.5 * 4.3

Iowa 10,057,515 40.8 78.8 40.3 19.4 * 1.8

Kansas 3,150,000 57.9 81.1 57.9 * 8.2 10.7

Kentucky 1,380,000 79.5 92.0 76.4 # 5.1 L

Louisiana 870,000 * 25.9 * 31.9 * 25.0 # 12.2 55.9

Michigan 1,971,480 47.7 65.8 47.1 * 18.4 * 15.8

Minnesota 7,224,606 11.3 76.8 11.3 9.9 13.3

Mississippi 1,670,000 34.6 40.7 34.6 * 13.8 45.5

Missouri 5,110,345 48.1 66.7 46.4 12.6 20.7

Nebraska 5,032,551 51.9 92.3 51.9 6.0 # 1.7

N. Carolina 1,370,000 73.4 59.9 54.9 30.5 * 9.7

N. Dakota 3,830,838 # 9.2 66.8 # 9.2 * 22.6 * 10.6

Ohio 4,650,000 77.4 85.3 76.8 * 7.6 * 7.1

S. Dakota 3,937,049 36.5 73.1 34.9 24.8 # 2.2

Tennessee 1,147,740 73.6 83.3 71.9 # 4.8 * 11.9

Virginia 520,000 82.3 92.5 80.5 # 3.4 a 4.0

Wisconsin 1,650,000 42.8 70.9 42.2 * 16.1 12.9

All 72,345,321 45.3 75.0 44.3 13.5 11.6

Note: See fi gure 1 for no-tillage defi nition and table 2 for defi nitions of *, #, a, and L.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of Agricultural Resource Management Survey data.
15

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 13

Wheat acreage and tillage practices, 2004

State Planted

With no 

tillage 

operations

With 

residues 

> 30 percent

(conservation till)

With residues 

> 30 percent 

and no tillage 

operations

With 15-30 

percent residues

(reduced till)

With residues 

< 15 percent 

(conventional till)

Acres ––––––––––––––––– Percent of acres –––––––––––––––––

Colorado 2,300,049 17.5 39.4 17.5 36.2 24.4

Idaho 1,249,711 * 19.1 54.5 * 19.0 13.6 31.8

Illinois 919,961 50.7 81.3 50.7 14.1 # 4.6

Kansas 9,999,916 * 8.7 34.5 * 8.7 # 12.7 52.8

Michigan 659,949 61.9 85.9 61.9 # 7.7 # 6.4

Minnesota 1,700,120 L 67.4 L 23.9 * 8.6

Missouri 1,050,020 45.5 64.5 45.5 26.8 * 8.7

Montana 5,470,726 42.7 76.0 42.7 11.1 * 12.9

Nebraska 1,849,977 34.1 39.0 34.1 21.2 39.9

N. Dakota 7,950,296 22.1 67.1 22.1 25.2 * 7.7

Ohio 920,009 79.1 90.3 79.1 * 6.6 # 3.2

Oklahoma 6,199,982 L * 3.8 L 29.4 66.8

Oregon 999,845 * 20.9 47.3 * 20.9 * 16.4 36.2

S. Dakota 3,249,988 65.2 80.7 65.2 * 13.0 * 6.3

Texas 6,299,602 * 11.8 * 28.1 # 10.3 38.9 33.0

Washington 2,330,045 * 5.6 * 33.8 * 5.6 * 31.0 35.2

All 53,150,196 21.9 47.4 21.7 22.3 30.4

Note: See fi gure 1 for no-tillage defi nition and table 2 for defi nitions of *, #, a, and L.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of Agricultural Resource Management Survey data.
16

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

NRI-CEAP Cropland Survey Estimation

Table 14 shows the percentage of acres that were reported as being in no-till 

for 0, 1, 2, or 3 years for surveys conducted between 2003 and 2006, based on 

the crop (corn, soybean, or all crops) planted in the survey year.6 

Because of the possibility that the respondent’s defi nition of no-till differed 

across farmers or from our ARMS-based measures, we also constructed a 

machinery-code defi nition of no-till identical to the one constructed for ARMS. 

Table 15 compares the two measures for 2004. Reported no-till is close to the 

machinery-based defi nition, with consistent classifi cations on more than 92 

percent of plots. The magnitudes of over- and under-reporting of no-till, relative 

to the machinery-code defi nition, are roughly equal. Acreage-weighted correlations between reported no-till and machinery-code-based no-till were 0.80 

for corn and 0.90 for soybeans in 2004. Although these statistics – percent of 

consistently classifi ed plots, relative magnitudes of contradictory classifi cations, 

correlations – suggest the two no-till measures are close, more information is 

needed to determine the policy-related performance of self-reported no-till 

(since the existence of an incentive would encourage farmers to report what 

they do as no-till) relative to the ARMS-based measures.

6If a plot is double-cropped, we 

counted it as no-till only if both crops 

were no-till.

Table 14

Percent of Upper Mississippi River Basin acres with no tillage 

operations for 0, 1, 2, and 3 years based on surveys conducted during 

2003-06, by crop planted in the year of the survey

Number of years Corn Soybeans All cropland

Percent of acres with no tillage operations

0 years 63 59 60

1 year 18 12 16

2 years 7 16 12

3 years 12 14 13

Million acres

Acres represented by CEAP samples 6.1 4.8 12.2 

Note: See fi gure 1 for no-tillage defi nition. See map of Upper Mississippi River Basin in 

summary, p. iv.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of National Resources InventoryConservation Effects Assessment Project (NRI-CEAP) Cropland Survey, conducted by USDA, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Table 15

Reported tillage vs. reported machinery operations, number of observations, 2004, 

NRI-CEAP Cropland Survey1

Farm practices reported 

in 2004 NRI-CEAP2

No tillage operations based on 

reported machinery operations

At least one tillage operation based 

on reported machinery operations

Total

observations 

Number of farms

No-till or strip-till 310 62 372

Other than no-till or strip-till 38 878 916

Total observations 348 940 1,288

1NRI-CEAP = National Resources Inventory-Conservation Effects Assessment Project.

2 No-till includes fi elds that were self-reported as no-till or strip-till in the NRI-CEAP Cropland Survey. Tillage practices other than no-till 

or strip-till were mulch-till, ridge-till, and conventional-till. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of NRI-CEAP Cropland Surveys conducted by USDA, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service.
17

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

Results

Main Findings

Approximately 35.5 percent of U.S. cropland (88 million acres) planted to 

eight major crops had no tillage operations in 2009. These crops—barley, 

corn, cotton, oats, rice, sorghum, soybeans, and wheat—constituted roughly 

94 percent of 2009 total planted U.S. acreage. No-till increased for all crops 

for which ARMS data exist to calculate a trend, at a median rate of roughly 

1.5 percentage points per year (see fi g. 1). 

No-till varies substantially across crops, however, even for crops that are 

quite similar. For example, barley has roughly twice the percent of no-till (27 

percent in 2003) as oats (14 percent in 2005), even though these crops generally have similar production requirements. 

Although no-till is generally increasing, it has not increased in all States for 

all crops. For example, estimated no-till cotton percentages fell between 2003 

and 2007 in more than half the States in which cotton was grown, although 

there was an overall increase in the national percentage of no-till cotton. 

States that had a relatively high percentage of no-till in one year tended to 

have a relatively high percentage in a subsequent year. The correlation in 

State-level no-till percentages across time periods was 0.89 for corn (2001 

and 2005), 0.90 for cotton (2003 and 2007), and 0.91 for soybeans (2002 and 

2006). Only fi ve States reported rice acreage in both rice surveys (2000 and 

2006); the correlation between their State-level no-till percentages was 0.67. 

When looking at multiple years of no-till, we found that just 13 percent of 

acres in the Upper Mississippi River Basin were in no-till every year over the 

3-year survey period, based on NRI-CEAP Cropland Surveys from 2003-

2006. If a farm adopts no-till, however, it is reasonably likely to remain in 

no-till over multiple crop seasons; for crop acres that were surveyed in 2004 

and were in no-till at least once during the covered period, 2002-04, close 

to 50 percent were in no-till for all 3 of those years.7 Note that corn and 

soybeans represented 89 percent of planted acres in this survey in 2004, in 

nearly equal proportions, which demonstrates the predominance of cornsoybean rotations in this region. 

Further information is needed to determine the practice of no-till over multiple 

years in areas with different crop mixes or, within the Basin itself, to determine 

how common it is for farms to practice for more than 3 consecutive years. 

Because of the role of tillage data from the Upper Mississippi River Basin in 

understanding multi-year no-till, it is necessary to consider the representativeness of this region. Therefore we compared this region to the rest of the 

country using the ARMS data. No-till corn was considerably less prevalent 

in the four States that constitute the bulk of the Basin (15 percent of corn 

acres with no tillage operations in 2005; the four States are Illinois, Iowa, 

Minnesota, and Wisconsin) than the remaining Basin States (31 percent in 

Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, and South Dakota) or the U.S. average (23.5 

percent). Reported corn no-till in the Basin itself was 11.8 percent according 

7We examined 2004 because it had 

the largest number of surveys.
18

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

to the 2004 NRI-CEAP Cropland Survey; however, this number cannot be 

directly compared to ARMS data estimates because the Basin does not correspond to a specifi c geographical designation in ARMS.8

Data Limitations and Alternative Data Sources

ARMS collects data on only one to two major crops in a given year, and 

each targeted crop has typically been surveyed approximately every 4 years. 

Therefore, ARMS does not provide information about tillage practices on all 

major crops each year. This approach makes it diffi cult to measure year-byyear changes in production practices for individual crops. This information, 

were it available, would enable more reliable estimation of the determinants 

of changes in production practices. 

The NRI-CEAP Cropland Survey data cover all crops in a survey year but 

are currently available only for a limited geographic area. The reliability of 

respondents’ recollections that no-till was used in previous years on a particular plot is unknown. We did not calculate standard errors for estimates based 

on these data.

Both ARMS and the NRI-CEAP Cropland Survey have accompanying 

expansion factors that allow calculations to represent acreage and farm types 

in the sample area. The reliability of these expansion factors for estimating 

no-till adoption is unknown.

The Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC), based in West 

Lafayette, IN, has been one of the main alternative sources of estimates of 

conservation tillage. CTIC estimates are used, for example, by the United 

Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (UN/FAO, 2009). According 

to the CTIC, conservation tillage was practiced on 41.5 percent of U.S. crop 

acres in 2008, the most recent year for which CTIC data are available (CTIC, 

2008). The CTIC data showed lower growth in conservation tillage than the 

ARMS does; according to the CTIC, conservation tillage increased from 

36.3 to 41.5 percent between 2000-08, an increase of roughly 0.6 percentage 

points per year, below the 1.5 percentage point median increase for no-till 

over 2000-2007 found in ARMS. 

Note that CTIC data were collected much differently from ARMS. CTIC 

estimates were constructed from a combination of local experts and roadside transects. In the roadside transect method, individuals drove a set 

course through selected counties (counties with over 100,000 cropland 

acres) and stopped at regular distances to assess visually the tillage method 

or residue percentage. 

The USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) uses the 

Soil Tillage Intensity Rating (STIR), which is based on machinery operations and the set of crops in rotation on the fi eld, to defi ne a rotation as 

“No-Till.” Because this defi nition can allow tillage operations in some 

years of the rotation to be balanced by less intensive tillage in other years, 

it represents a substantially different approach to assessing no-till adoption than reported here. 

8Corn no-till in the Basin was 9.3 

percent according to the 2005 NRICEAP Cropland Survey, which was the 

year of the most recent corn-targeted 

ARMS. Note that in addition to being 

a much smaller sample than 2004, the 

2005 NRI-CEAP Cropland Survey 

did not include any observations in 

Wisconsin.
19

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

Two States, Pennsylvania and Tennessee, collect and publish State-level 

tillage data. In Tennessee, 70.3 percent of acres planted to fi ve major 

crops (corn, cotton, sorghum, soybeans, wheat) were in no-till in 2008. 

In Pennsylvania, 50.0 percent of acres planted to fi ve major crops (corn, 

soybeans, barley, winter wheat, and oats) were in no-till that year. The relationship between these estimates and those derived from ARMS has not 

been explored. 
20

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

Conclusions

The aim of this report has been to provide an overview of tillage practices based on Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) and 

NRI-CEAP Cropland Survey data. These estimates provide a useful starting 

point for readers wanting to assess the possible contribution of reduced tillage 

intensity to U.S. greenhouse gas control efforts. More work needs to be done 

to better understand the motivations, barriers, and economic and environmental consequences of the adoption of no-till and other less intensive tillage 

practices. 
21

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

References

Baker, J.M., T.E. Ochsner, R.T. Venterea, and T.J. Grillis. 2007. “Tillage 

and soil carbon sequestration—What do we really know?” Agriculture 

Ecosystems and Environment 118:1-5.

Blanco-Canqui, H., and R. Lal. 2008. “No-Tillage and Soil-Profi le Carbon 

Sequestration: An On-Farm Assessment,” Soil Science Society of America 

Journal 72(3):693-701.

Boddey, R.M., C.P. Jantalia, B. Alves, and S. Urquiaga. 2009. “Comments 

on ‘No-Tillage and Soil-Profi le Carbon Sequestration: An On-Farm 

Assessment’,” Soil Science Society of America Journal 73(2):688.

Conant, R.T., M. Easter, K. Paustian, A. Swan, and S. Williams. 2007. 

“Impacts of periodic tillage on soil C stocks: A synthesis,” Soil & Tillage 

Research 95:1-10.

Conservation Technology Information Center. 2008. National Crop 

Residue Management Survey, West Lafayette, IN. Available at: http://

www.ctic.purdue.edu/media/pdf/National%20Summary%202008%20

(Amendment).pdf/. 

Eve, M., M. Sperow, K. Howerton, K. Paustian, and R. Follett. 2002. 

“Predicted impact of management changes on soil carbon storage for each 

cropland region of the coterminous United States,” Journal of Soil and 

Water Conservation 57:196-204.

Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and P. Hawthorne. 2008. “Land 

Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt,” Science 29:1235-38.

Franzluebbers, A.J. 2009. “Comments on ‘No-Tillage and Soil-Profi le 

Carbon Sequestration: An On-Farm Assessment’,” Soil Science Society of 

America Journal 73(2):686-87.

Johnson, J., A. Franzluebbers, S. Lachnicht Wyers, and D. Reicosky. 2007. 

“Agricultural opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions,” 

Environmental Pollution 150:107-24.

Lal, R. 2004. “Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change,” 

Geoderma 123:1-22.

United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization. 2009. Agriculture and 

Consumer Protection Department, conservation agriculture web page, 

available at: http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/6c.html/. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

Tennessee Field Offi ce. 2008. Available at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/

Statistics_by_State/Tennessee/Quick_Facts/tillage_2008.pdf/.
22

“No-Till” Farming Is a Growing Practice / EIB-70

Economic Research Service/USDA

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

Pennsylvania Field Offi ce. 2009. Pennsylvania Agricultural Statistics, 

2008-2009. Available at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/

Pennsylvania/Publications/Annual_Statistical_Bulletin/2008_2009/

PA%2008-09.pdf/.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

2010. Assessment of Effects on Conservation Practices on Cultivated 

Cropland in the Upland Mississippi River Basin. Available at: ftp://ftp-fc.

sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/nri/ceap/UMRB_fi nal_draft_061410.pdf.

Uri, N. 2001. “Conservation Practices in U.S. Agriculture and their Impact 

on Carbon Sequestration,” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

70:323-44.

VandenBygaart, A.J., E.G. Gregorich, and D.A. Angers. 2003. “Infl uence 

of Agricultural Management on Soil Organic Carbon: A Compendium 

and Assessment of Canadian Studies,” Canadian Journal of Soil Science

83:363-80.