Soil & Tillage Research 67 (2002) 1±8

Economic risk, returns and input use under ridge and

conventional tillage in the northern Corn Belt, USA
David W. Archera,*, Joseph L. Pikul Jr.b, Walter E. Riedellb
a
USDA-Agricultural Research Service, North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory,
803 Iowa Avenue, Morris, MN 56267, USA
b
USDA-Agricultural Research Service, North Grain Insects Research Laboratory,
2923 Medary Avenue, Brookings, SD 57006, USA
Received 4 September 2001; received in revised form 7 February 2002; accepted 6 March 2002

Abstract

Ridge tillage (RT) has been proposed as an economically viable conservation tillage alternative for row crop production;
however the long-term economic viability of RT in the northern Corn Belt of the USA is largely unknown. Economic
returns, risk and input use were compared for RT and conventional tillage (CT) in a corn (Zea mays L.) and soybean
(Glycine max (L.) Merr.) rotation with high, medium and low nitrogen treatments. The analysis was based on 10 years of
experimental data from Brookings, SD on a Barnes clay loam (US soil taxonomy: ®ne-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid
Calcic Hapludoll; FAO classi®cation: Chernozem). Economic returns were signi®cantly higher at the highest nitrogen
treatment levels. Highest average net returns to land and management were $ 78 per hectare for RT at the high nitrogen
treatment level (RT-H) followed by $ 59 per hectare for CT at the high nitrogen treatment level (CT-H). Risk, measured as
the standard deviation of net returns, was the lowest for CT at the medium nitrogen treatment level (CT-M) followed by RT-
H and CT-H. However, net returns were substantially lower under CT-M at $ 32 per hectare. Average yields and average
operating costs were not signi®cantly different for RT-H and CT-H. Reduced equipment operating costs for CT-H were
offset by increased herbicide costs for RT-H. Equipment ownership costs were signi®cantly lower for RT-H than CT-H.
There were no signi®cant differences in fertilizer use for RT and CT. Pesticide use was signi®cantly higher for RT-H than
CT-H. Fuel use was 18±22% lower and labor use was 24±27% lower for RT-H than CT-H. Despite continued low adoption
rates for RT in the northern Corn Belt, our analysis shows that RT is an economically viable alternative to CT.
Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

Keywords: Corn; Soybean; Economics; Tillage

1. Introduction systems. Behn (1985) indicated that planting on ridges

provides the bene®ts of no-tillage such as erosion
Ridge tillage (RT) has been proposed as a compro- control, and time and fuel savings without the pro-
mise between conventional tillage (CT) and no-tillage blems of no-tillage such as delayed planting, poor
stand establishment and weed control.
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: ‡1-320-589-3411;
Despite claims that RT can be an economical system
fax: ‡1-320-589-3787. for row crop production (Exner, 1996), adoption of RT
E-mail address: archer@morris.ars.usda.gov (D.W. Archer). has been low. RT represents only 1.1% of planted

0167-1987/02/$ ± see front matter. Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

PII: S 0 1 6 7 - 1 9 8 7 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 1 6 - 8
2 D.W. Archer et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 67 (2002) 1±8

cropland acres in the United States, and this percentage 2. Materials and methods
has remained steady since 1990. In the midwest, RT
represents only 1.2% of planted cropland acres (Con- 2.1. Experimental design and management
servation Tillage Information Center, 2000).
Previous economic comparisons of RT and CT Data for this study were obtained from experiments
indicate mixed results. Smolik et al. (1995) showed conducted at the Eastern South Dakota Soil and Water
RT produced lower net returns than CT for a corn± Research Farm located near Brookings, SD (Pikul
soybean±spring wheat (Triticum spp.) rotation in et al., 2001). The experiments were carried out in
South Dakota. Similarly, Chase and Duffy (1991) the beginning in 1990 on Barnes clay loam soils (US
indicated that RT produced lower net returns than soil taxonomy: ®ne-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid
moldboard plow tillage and chisel plow tillage for a Calcic Hapludoll; FAO classi®cation: Chernozem)
continuous corn rotation and a corn±soybean rotation with nearly level topography. The experimental design
in Iowa. Jolly et al. (1983), showed RT generally was a randomized complete block with split plot
produced lower net returns than moldboard plow treatments and three replications. Main plots were
and chisel plow tillage systems for a corn±soybean tillage treatments, sub-plots were nitrogen (N) treat-
rotation in Iowa. In each of these studies differences in ments. Corn was grown in rotation with soybean and
net returns were largely due to reduced crop yields each crop was present each year in each treatment.
under RT. Plots were 30 m long and 30 m wide.
On the other hand Weersink et al. (1992) showed Typical crop production practices for each treat-
that RT produced higher net returns than no-till, chisel ment are listed in Table 1. Pikul et al. (2001) provide
plow and moldboard plow tillage for a corn±soybean further details on agronomic and soil related features
rotation in southern Ontario. Similarly, Doster et al. of this study. Primary tillage since 1990 on the CT
(1983) showed RT produced higher net returns than plots has been with a moldboard or chisel plow in the
fall plow, fall chisel, spring plow, spring chisel, and fall of the year except in 1995 and 1996 when wet
no-till systems for a corn±soybean rotation in Indiana. weather conditions precluded fall tillage. Primary
In both of these studies yields were maintained or tillage since 1996 has been with a chisel plow. Seed-
increased and costs decreased under RT. beds for corn and soybean under CT were prepared in
Our objectives were to compare economic risks and spring using a tandem disk and ®eld cultivator. CT plots
returns, and input use for three nitrogen treatment were cultivated twice during the growing season for
levels in an RT and a CT system. weed control. The only tillage on RT plots has been

Table 1
Typical crop production practicesa

Tillage/crop Crop production practices

CT
Corn Fall chisel plow, disk, field cultivate, plant with starter fertilizer and insecticide, spray pre-emergence herbicide,
cultivate, spray post-emergence herbicide, broadcast nitrogen fertilizer, cultivate, harvest, chop stalks
Soybean Fall chisel plow, disk, field cultivate, plant with starter fertilizer, spray pre-emergence herbicide, cultivate, spray
post-emergence herbicide, cultivate, harvest
RT
Corn Ridge plant with starter fertilizer and insecticide, spray pre-emergence herbicide, ridge cultivate, spray post-
emergence herbicide, broadcast nitrogen fertilizer, ridge cultivate, harvest, chop stalks
Soybean Ridge plant with starter fertilizer, spray pre-emergence herbicide, ridge cultivate, spray post-emergence herbicide,
ridge cultivate, harvest
a
Actual crop production practices varied from year to year. Prior to 1996 primary tillage under CT was moldboard plow for H, alternated
between moldboard plow and chisel plow for M, and was chisel plow for L. Also, prior to 1996, herbicide and insecticide was applied to M
plots only when weed or insect counts indicated potential economic loss, L plots received no insecticide and received only post-emergence
herbicides when weed counts indicated potential economic loss. L plots received no nitrogen fertilizer.
 D.W. Archer et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 67 (2002) 1±8 3

Table 2
Fertilizer and pesticide inputs

Crop/nitrogen Years Starter fertilizera Nitrogen fertilizerb Herbicidec Insecticidec

treatment

Corn
H 1990±1996 111 kg/ha 13±14±11 8.5 Mg/ha yield goal Prophylactic Prophylactic
1996±1999 112 kg/ha 14±16±11 8.5 Mg/ha yield goal Prophylactic None
M 1990±1996 53 kg/ha 13±14±11 5.3 Mg/ha yield goal Threshold Threshold
1996±1999 112 kg/ha 7±16±11 5.3 Mg/ha yield goal Prophylactic None
L 1990±1996 None None Threshold None
1996±1999 111 kg/ha 0±16±11 None Prophylactic None

Soybeans
H 1990±1996 111 kg/ha 13±14±11 Starter only Prophylactic Prophylactic
1996±1999 112 kg/ha 14±16±11 Starter only Prophylactic None
M 1990±1996 53 kg/ha 13±14±11 Starter only Threshold Threshold
1996±1999 112 kg/ha 7±16±11 Starter only Prophylactic None
L 1990±1996 None None Threshold None
1996±1999 111 kg/ha 0±16±11 None Prophylactic None
a
Rates applied at planting (elemental N±P±K).
b
Nitrogen fertilizer was applied to corn based on soil nitrate tests for the speci®ed yield goal.
c
Prophylactic pesticide applications indicate routine applications regardless of weed or pest populations. Threshold applications indicate
applications based on weed or insect counts. Quantities and types of pesticides varied from year to year.

two row cultivations per year for both corn and soybean Prior to 1996 H, M and L were termed management
crops. inputs levels for both tillage treatments. Primary
Fertilizer and pesticide inputs are listed in Table 2. tillage on CT plots varied with input level. Primary
High (H) and medium (M) N treatments (split plots) tillage on H was fall moldboard plow, on M alternated
for corn were determined according to yield goals of between fall moldboard plow and fall chisel plow,
8.5 Mg grain/ha for H and 5.3 Mg grain/ha for M. The and on L was fall chisel plow. High (H) N plots
low N (L) treatment plots received no applied N received prophylactic herbicide and insecticide treat-
fertilizer. Soybean plots received only starter fertilizer. ments, M plots received herbicide and insecticide
Nitrogen fertilizer prescription (NP) for each tillage only when weed or insect counts indicated potential
and N treatment for corn was calculated based on total economic loss, L plots received no insecticide and
soil nitrate (TSN) as (Gerwing and Gelderman, 1996): only post-emergence herbicide when weed counts
indicated potential economic loss. Riedell et al.
NP ˆ 0:022YG TSN:
(1998) provides further details on experimental con-
Starter fertilizer was applied at seeding to both corn ditions prior to 1996. Beginning in 1996, all N treat-
and soybean. Starting in 1996, H, M and L plots for ments within a tillage system have received the same
both corn and soybean received 112 kg/ha of starter herbicide treatments. No insecticides have been
fertilizer as 14±16±11, 7±16±11 and 0±16±11 (ele- applied since 1996.
mental N±P±K), respectively. Prior to 1996, H and M
plots for both corn and soybeans received 111 and 2.2. Economics
53 kg/ha, respectively, of 13±14±11 (elemental N±P±
K). Low (L) N plots received no starter fertilizer prior Annual crop budgets were constructed using the
to 1996. Prior to spring ®eld work in 1996 all plots USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service
received an application of triple super phosphate (NRCS) Cost and Returns Estimator (CARE) for each
providing 89 kg/ha of elemental P. treatment based on the actual tillage operations and
4 D.W. Archer et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 67 (2002) 1±8

inputs used that year. Operating costs include machin- (2000). A corn price of $ 90.56 Mg 1 and a soybean
ery repairs, fuel, labor, seed, fertilizer, herbicides, price of $ 220.13 Mg 1 were used for estimating
insecticides, crop drying costs, and interest on operat- returns. These prices are the average of the 1990±
ing capital. Operating cost estimates in CARE are 1999 marketing year average prices for South Dakota
based on American Society of Agricultural Engineers adjusted to 1999 dollars. The wage rate for labor is $
(2000) procedures. These procedures also provided 9.50 h 1.
estimates for fuel and labor use. Labor estimates are All data were subjected to analysis of variance using
for labor directly associated with ®eld operations, and SAS GLM with LSD for means separation of main
do not include such things as time spent in manage- effects where more than two means were involved and
ment activities, equipment repairs, and crop scouting. LSMEANS PDIFF for means separation of interaction
No land costs were included since land costs are effects (SAS, 1988).
constant across treatments. Equipment ownership costs
were calculated outside CARE following American
Agricultural Economics Association (1998) standards. 3. Results and discussion
A farm size of 223 ha of cropland was assumed in
selecting equipment size and estimating equipment 3.1. Economic returns
ownership costs. This represents a typical farm size
for the area. Several implements were used only in the A summary of crop yields, production costs and
early years of the study. A moldboard plow was used on returns is given in Table 3. Gross returns are crop yield
the CT-H and CT-M plots through 1995, a rotary hoe times crop price. Gross margin denotes returns over
was used on the CT-L and RT-L plots through 1994, and operating costs and is calculated as gross returns
a chisel plow was used in 1992 on the RT plots to knock minus operating costs. Net returns are the returns to
down the ridges. Ownership costs for each implement land and management and are calculated as gross
were included through their last year of use. Fig. 1 margin minus equipment ownership costs.
shows the decrease in equipment ownership costs as Nitrogen treatments within tillage systems had a
use of individual implements was discontinued. signi®cant effect on operating costs and returns for
All costs are calculated using current (2000) prices. both corn and soybeans. Average yields for both corn
Equipment prices and costs are based on information and soybeans were signi®cantly higher at higher N
from Lazarus (2000). Input prices and crop prices are treatment levels. Yield differences for both corn and
from South Dakota Agricultural Statistics Service soybeans were generally greater prior to 1996, when

Fig. 1. Equipment ownership costs per hectare for CT and RT at high (H), medium (M) and low (L) N treatment levels.
 D.W. Archer et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 67 (2002) 1±8 5

Table 3
Crop yields, production costs and returns to land and management for corn and soybeans under CT and RT 1990±1999

Data Tillage and N treatment levela

CT-H CT-M CT-L RT-H RT-M RT-L

Yield (kg/ha/year)
Corn 7714 ab 6890 b 4671 c 7697 a 6338 b 4536 d
Soybean 2354 a 2008 b 1732 d 2279 a 1882 c 1797 cd
Gross returns ($/ha/year)c
Corn 698.63 a 623.99 b 423.06 c 697.04 a 573.95 b 410.75 d
Soybean 518.27 a 442.04 b 381.30 d 501.60 a 414.29 c 395.60 cd
Rotation average 608.45 a 533.02 b 402.18 d 599.32 a 494.12 c 403.17 d
Operating costs ($/ha/year)
Corn 432.26 a 360.05 b 273.61 d 426.49 a 341.13 c 267.76 d
Soybean 288.44 a 263.32 b 222.77 c 284.24 a 257.61 b 234.18 c
Rotation average 360.35 a 311.69 b 248.19 d 355.37 a 299.37 c 250.97 d
Ownership costs ($/ha/year)
Corn 206.54 a 206.66 a 197.46 b 183.90 c 183.95 c 181.17 d
Soybean 171.54 a 171.37 a 170.64 a 148.43 c 148.36 c 153.09 b
Rotation average 189.04 a 189.02 a 184.05 b 166.17 c 166.16 c 167.13 c
Gross margin ($/ha/year)d
Corn 266.37 a 263.94 a 149.45 c 270.55 a 232.83 b 142.99 c
Soybean 229.83 a 178.72 b 158.54 c 217.36 a 156.68 c 161.42 bc
Rotation average 248.10 a 221.33 b 153.99 d 243.96 a 194.75 c 152.21 d
Net returns ($/ha/year)e
Corn 59.83 b 57.27 b 48.01 c 86.65 a 48.87 b 38.18 c
Soybean 58.29 a 7.35 b 12.10 c 68.92 a 8.32 b 8.33 b
Rotation average 59.06 b 32.31 c 30.06 d 77.79 a 28.60 c 14.93 d
a
CT-H: conventional tillage high N treatment level, CT-M: conventional tillage medium N treatment level, CT-L: conventional tillage low
N treatment level, RT-H: ridge tillage high N treatment level, RT-M: ridge tillage medium N treatment level, RT-L: ridge tillage low N
treatment level.
b
Means within rows joined by the same letter are not signi®cantly different (P ˆ 0:05).
c
Gross returns calculated as crop yield†  crop price†.
d
Gross margin calculated as (gross returns† operating costs).
e
Net returns calculated as (gross margin† ownership costs).

pest and tillage treatments differed with N treatment Results indicated no statistical difference in yields or
levels. However, since 1996, both corn and soybean gross returns between CT-H and RT-H. Operating costs
yields also showed signi®cant increases with N treat- also showed no difference, implying that the higher
ment levels. Phosphorus and K applications have been fuel and labor costs associated with CT were counter-
held constant across N treatment levels since 1986, balanced by higher herbicide costs associated with RT.
which indicated a soybean yield response to starter N Since gross returns and operating costs for CT-H and
fertilizer and a corn yield response to total starter and RT-H were not signi®cantly different, gross margins
side-dress N fertilizer applications. Operating costs were also not signi®cantly different. Ownership costs
were also signi®cantly higher at higher N treatment were $ 22.87 h 1 higher for CT-H than for RT-H. This
levels. However, the increased operating costs were re¯ects the added equipment needs of CT (moldboard
more than offset by the additional revenue generated by plow, chisel plow, disk and ®eld cultivator) compared
better yields, so average gross margin and average net to RT (RT planter and RT cultivator). This analysis also
returns were signi®cantly higher at higher N treatment assumes that a producer switching from CT to RT
levels. would have enough con®dence in the system that they
6 D.W. Archer et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 67 (2002) 1±8

Fig. 2. Annual net returns per hectare with standard errors for CT and RT at a high N treatment levels.

would sell unneeded equipment rather than keep it. years: 1991, 1997, and 1999. Net returns for CT-H were
Due to the higher equipment ownership costs under CT, signi®cantly higher in 1 out of the 10 years: 1996. It is
rotation average net returns were $ 18.73 per hectare generally believed that most producers are risk averse.
higher for RT-H than for CT-H (Table 3). All things being equal, they prefer less risk to more risk.
One measure of risk is the standard deviation of net
3.2. Risk returns. Fig. 3 shows the relationship between average
net returns and the associated standard deviation of net
There was considerable variability in net returns returns (risk) for each tillage system and N treatment
from year to year. Fig. 2 shows the annual net returns combination. Risk averse producers should prefer
for CT-H and RT-H. Very low net returns occurred for systems with higher average returns and lower stan-
both tillage systems in 1993 because of poor yields due dard deviations (upward and to the left on the graph).
to extremely wet conditions. Net returns for RT-H were For the RT systems average net returns increased and
signi®cantly higher than for CT-H in 3 out of the 10 risk decreased as the N level increased, indicating that

Fig. 3. Mean and standard deviation of net returns per hectare for CT and RT at high (H), medium (M) and low (L) N treatment levels.
 D.W. Archer et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 67 (2002) 1±8 7

risk averse producers should always prefer higher N Nitrogen fertilizer was applied to each sub-plot
treatment levels to lower levels. With CT average net based on soil tests and yield goals, so average applica-
returns increased with N treatment levels and risk tion rates could potentially vary by tillage for a given
decreased from L to M, but increased from M to H. N treatment. Average N application rates are shown in
A producer who is willing to give up $ 26.74 per Table 4. As expected, N application rates decreased
hectare in average net returns for a $ 7.32 per hectare signi®cantly as the treatment level goes from H to M to
decrease in the standard deviation in net returns may L, with either CT or RT. However there were no
prefer the M N level to the H. signi®cant differences in application rates between
The RT-H treatment produced the highest average tillage systems at a given treatment level, indicating
net returns overall and did so at lower risk than the that RT required no more N fertilizer than CT.
next best net return, CT-H. A risk averse producer Pesticide applications (insecticide plus herbicide)
faced with these two options should prefer RT-H to varied with input level from 1990 to 1995. Since 1996
CT-H. Risk preference is a matter of degree and it is pesticide applications have been constant across N
not inconceivable that a producer may choose CT-M, treatments, but do vary by tillage system. Table 4
with lower risk and lower average net return, over RT- shows the average pesticide expenditures for each
H. A producer willing to give up to $ 45.48 per hectare treatment. Pesticide expenditures decreased signi®-
in average net returns for a $ 4.30 reduction in the cantly as N treatment levels decreased. Pesticide
standard deviation of net returns may prefer CT-M to expenditures were signi®cantly higher for RT-H than
RT-H. CT-H as herbicide was substituted for tillage for weed
control. Lighthall (1996) noted that RT systems have
3.3. Labor, fuel and chemical use the potential to reduce herbicide use since they are
well suited to banding over the row with cultivation
Labor, fuel and chemical input use are important used for weed control over the middle of the row. Post-
factors in the feasibility of cropping systems. They emergence herbicides were not banded in this study, so
may also be the indicators of the sustainability of this potential savings was not realized.
alternative systems. In this study P and K fertilizer There were more tillage operations under CT than
applications were constant at each N level across RT. This affects both fuel and labor use for each
tillage systems from 1990 through 1995. From 1996 system. Table 4 shows the fuel use for each tillage
through 1999, P and K application rates were constant and N treatment. Fuel use was 10±13 l/ha less under
across all N treatments and tillage systems. As a result, RT than CT, an 18±22% reduction. Fuel use did not
there were no differences in average P and K applica- vary signi®cantly with N treatments under RT. With
tion rates between tillage systems at a given N level, CT, fuel use declined with N treatment levels mainly
although the average rates declined as N treatment re¯ecting the differences in tillage between input
level declined (data not shown). levels in 1990 through 1995, when moldboard plow

Table 4
Rotation average input use for corn and soybeans grown under CT and RT 1990±1999

Tillage and N fertilizer Pesticide Diesel fuel Labor use

input level applied (kg/ha/yr) expenditure ($/ha/yr) use (l/ha/yr) (h/ha/yr)

Conventional
High 69.2 aa 114.40 b 58.1 a 2.83 a
Medium 37.5 b 95.05 c 56.5 b 2.75 b
Low 0.0 c 74.51 d 54.1 c 2.61 c
Ridge
High 69.8 a 126.65 a 45.1 d 2.08 d
Medium 37.1 b 100.70 c 44.8 d 2.06 d
Low 0.0 c 89.33 c 44.2 d 1.99 d
a
Means within columns joined by the same letter are not signi®cantly different (P ˆ 0:05).
8 D.W. Archer et al. / Soil & Tillage Research 67 (2002) 1±8

was used on H plots, moldboard plow and chisel plow task force on commodity costs and returns. American
Agricultural Economics Association, Ames, IA.
were alternated on M plots, and chisel plow was used
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 2000. ASAE
on L plots. Similarly, Table 4 shows labor use for each Standards. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Saint
tillage and N treatment. Labor use was 0.62±0.75 h/ha Joseph, MO.
less under RT than CT, a 24±27% reduction. Labor use Behn, E.E., 1985. Ridge tillage for erosion control. In: D'Itri, F.M.
did not vary signi®cantly with N treatment under RT (Ed.), A Systems Approach to Conservation Tillage. Lewis
but it did decline with N treatment levels under CT. Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, MI, pp. 41±45.
Chase, C.A., Duffy, M.D., 1991. An economic analysis of the
This decreased use of labor in CT across treatments is Nashua tillage study. J. Prod. Agric. 4 (1), 91±98.
again primarily due to differences in tillage from 1990 Conservation Tillage Information Center, 2000. CTIC National
through 1995. The labor savings under RT indicates Crop Residue Management Survey. CTIC, West Lafayette, IN.
that a producer might be able to farm more acres than Doster, D.H., Grif®th, D.R., Mannering, J.V., Parsons, S.D., 1983.
Economic returns from alternative corn and soybean tillage
under CT. However, this depends on whether the labor
systems in Indiana. J. Soil Water Conserv. 38 (6), 504±508.
savings occur at times when labor is a limiting factor. Exner, D.N., 1996. Practical experience and on-farm research with
weed management in an Iowa ridge tillage-based system. J.
Prod. Agric. 9 (4), 476±500.
4. Conclusions Gerwing, J., Gelderman, R., 1996. Fertilizer Recommendations
Guide, EC 750. South Dakota State University Publications,
Brookings, SD.
Despite continued low adoption rates for RT in the Jolly, R.W., Edwards, W.M., Erbach, D.C., 1983. Economics of
northern Corn Belt, our analysis shows that RT was an conservation tillage in Iowa. J. Soil Water Conserv. 38 (3), 291±
economically viable alternative to CT. At high N 294.
treatment levels, RT had higher net returns and lower Lazarus, W., 2000. Minnesota Farm Machinery Economic Cost
Estimates for 2000, FO-6696. University of Minnesota
economic risk than CT. The difference in net returns
Extension Service Publications, St. Paul, MN.
was due to increased equipment ownership costs under Lighthall, D.R., 1996. Sustainable agriculture in the Corn Belt:
CT. Yields and operating costs were not signi®cantly production-side progress and demand-side constraints. Am. J.
different between tillage systems. Alternative Agric. 11 (4), 168±174.
There was no signi®cant difference in fertilizer use Pikul Jr., J.L., Carpenter-Boggs, L., Vigil, M., Schumacher, T.E.,
Lindstrom, M.J., Riedell, W.E., 2001. Crop yield and soil
between tillage systems. Pesticide use was signi®-
condition under ridge and chisel-plow tillage in the northern
cantly higher under RT than under CT; however fuel Corn Belt, USA. Soil Till. Res. 60 (1±2), 21±33.
and labor use were signi®cantly lower. Riedell, W.E., Schumacher, T.E., Clay, S.A., Ellsbury, M.M.,
In general net returns were higher when N was used Pravecek, M., Evenson, P.D., 1998. Corn and soil fertility
more intensively. Yield improvements more than responses to crop rotation with low medium or high inputs.
Crop Sci. 38 (2), 427±433.
made up for increased operating costs at higher N
SAS Institute, Inc., 1988. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 6.03
treatment levels for both CT and RT, indicating the Edition. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, 1028 pp.
importance of maintaining soil fertility and control- Smolik, J.D., Dobbs, T.L., Rickerl, D.H., 1995. The relative
ling pests with either tillage system. sustainability of alternative, conventional, and reduced-till
farming systems. Am. J. Alternative Agric. 10 (1), 25±35.
South Dakota Agricultural Statistics Service, 2000. South Dakota
Agriculture 2000. South Dakota Agricultural Statistics Service,
References Sioux Falls, SD.
Weersink, A., Walker, M., Swanton, C., Shaw, J., 1992. Economic
American Agricultural Economics Association, 1998. Commodity comparison of alternative tillage systems under risk. Can. J.
costs and returns estimation handbook: a report of the AAEA Agric. Econ. 40, 199±217.