For the Illinois Corn Precision Conservation Management program's recent data analysis, no-till emerged as a consistently profitable choice with an average yield of 219 bushels per acre over the past 8 years.

The annual data publication from the Illinois Corn Precision Conservation Management program (PCM) highlights trends and goes deep into the practices that distinguish the top 25% most profitable farms within the program. PCM is a program of the Illinois Corn Growers Organization that helps farmers adopt conservation practices that are both financially and environmentally beneficial, assessing tillage, cover crops and nutrient management.

“We work with farmers to help pull in their management data on a pass-by-pass basis and pull this into our platform and break this down from an economic standpoint and a sustainability standpoint," says Greg Goodwin, director of the Precision Conservation Management Program. “We work to provide agronomy resources and expertise to help them understand any questions they may have related to making a practice change or things of that nature, or connect them to expertise when we aren't confident we're the right resource for them.”

Gary Schnitkey, an agricultural and consumer economics professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, says data from 2015-23 reveals the impact of different tillage methods on yields and cost. The report focuses on farmers using no-till, 1 tillage pass, 2 tillage passes and strip-till in east central Illinois.

"One thing to note is 2021 and 2022 were profitable years,” Schnitkey says. “Those were the years of those high prices due to a number of factors. The Ukraine conflict was one of those things that spiked those up. In 2023, we were sort of back to normal.”

No-Till ROI

Schnitkey says while 1 tillage pass often provides a slight yield advantage over no-till, additional tillage passes do not significantly increase yields and do increase costs.

From 2015-23, no-till yielded an average of 219 bushels per acre, generating $944 per acre in revenue, with $432 per acre in direct costs and $108 per acre in power costs. 

Total non-land costs were $584 per acre, resulting in an operator and land return of $360. In contrast, the 1-pass system had higher direct costs at $437, with $116 in power costs and total non-land costs of $587, leading to an operator and land return of $365. The $360 land return in no-till was $5 lower than the 1-pass land return of $365.

Although there were higher non-land costs, 1-pass systems were shown to have a higher operator and land return in corn by $5, compared to no-till.

 “We see some advantage to tillage for yields, but it may not cover the cost of additional tillage,” said Schnitkey. “There's little advantage to more than 1 tillage pass.”

The chart below shows what happened as tillage increased in corn from 2015-2023. As the tillage in corn increased, the non-land costs increased by at least $10 as well, and operator and land return decreased nearly every time.

While 2-pass light systems had the highest operator and land return in corn, as the tillage increased, the more the operator and land return decreased.  

Schnitkey and the University of Illinois found the power costs by having every pass made across the system or across the field as they do a PCM, then multiplying the pass by the machinery cost that the university estimates.

Strip-Till ROI

Strip-till was found to be less profitable than 1-pass systems, primarily due to increased power costs and potentially higher seed and equipment costs associated with the practice.

For corn, strip-till showed a slightly lower yield per acre compared to 1 pass systems — by about 1 bushel per acre. In addition the total non-land costs in strip-till was $618, which is $31 higher than one-pass.

On the other hand, for soybeans, while non-land costs were still higher, data shows that strip-till had a yield of 73 bushels compared to 70 in 1-pass systems.

From 2015-23, Strip-till showed a higher yield than 1-pass systems in soybeans, but the operator and land return was higher in 1-pass systems.

“Tillage passes have a high relationship to environmental nature, soil erosion, carbon sequestration,” said Schnitkey.

Costs & Benefits of Cover Crops

To find the most effective cover crop strategies, Schnitkey and the Illinois Corn Growers Organization analyzed the practices of farms with cover crop fields that consistently ranked in the top 25% for profitability.

The data illustrates that while cover crops contribute to reduced herbicide costs and occasionally higher yields, the added expense of seed and planting can diminish overall profitability.

"The yield differences and reduced side costs do not entirely offset the cost of cover crop seed and planting," Schnitkey says.

By dividing cover crop fields into categories based on profitability, Schnitkey identified a group of farmers who consistently achieved high profitability with their cover crop fields. These top-performing farmers followed a specific set of practices that contributed to their success.

For corn going into soybeans, the most profitable operators used cereal rye as the preferred cover crop species. Cereal rye was favored for its low cost, ease of establishment and ability to overwinter effectively. Farmers typically planted cereal rye after corn harvest, utilizing various planting methods, such as broadcasting or drilling. Early planting of soybeans in the spring was also highlighted as a key factor in maximizing profitability. 

“There is a consistent advantage and we can find this in PCM data as well for planting soybeans early,” Schnitkey says. "We find the termination happens either before or after, and there's advantages and disadvantages to either method. Before planting reduces the risk of cover crops competing with the soybeans. After planting, you increase the risk of cover crops competing with soybeans, but you also increase the chance of eliminating a herbicide pass. That reduction in herbicide costs and increases in weed control are a benefit of planting cover crops.”

Schnitkey says farmers need additional revenue sources to cover the costs of implementing cover crops, such as equipment and conservation programs.

When transitioning from soybeans to corn, Schnitkey says the agronomic challenges of cover crops became more pronounced, requiring careful consideration of planting and termination timing. 

You can find the full presentation from Schnitkey and the Illinois Corn Growers Organization here.

Related Content

How to Choose the Right Soybean Seeding Rate

No-Tillers Make Decisions Based on ROI, Not Yield

How Early Is Too Early When Planting Corn & Soybeans?