Agricultural producers across Central Illinois and the United States face numerous challenges and pressures on their operations. These can include policy changes, volatile market prices, fluctuating input costs, diseases and pests, and many other factors. Of extreme importance to crop producers is soil health. As Andrew Sloan Draper, President of the University of Illinois from 1898 to 1904, said, “The wealth of Illinois is in her soil and her strength lies in its intelligent development.” Without healthy soils and proper soil management, crop producers would be unable to achieve the highest yields possible. Conservation practices, such as no-till and cover crops, can improve the quality and longevity of soil. But what is the cost of implementing these practices? A recent study by the United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (USDA-ERS) examined the adoption of several conservation practices, the economics of those practices, and the impact on yields.
Agricultural producers have employed practices such as no-till farming and cover cropping for many years. But how many producers have adopted these practices on their operations? Data collected from various surveys showed the adoption of conventional tillage, reduced tillage, no-till, cover crops, conservation crop rotation, and a combination of practices for barley, corn, cotton, oats, sorghum, soybeans, and wheat. The table below shows the percentage of corn and soybean acres that adopted each practice. The data for each crop are from separate years, as each survey was conducted for that crop at a different time.
This table demonstrates that a significant amount of producers have adopted either reduced tillage or no-till on their systems. The report identifies an important trend: the number of fields adopting either reduced tillage or no-till has increased across wheat, corn, soybeans, and cotton. Additionally, the share of corn acres adopting reduced tillage has increased over time, but has been more variable for soybeans. The reason for this, according to the report, is that the initial introduction of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans (like Roundup Ready) led to an increase in the amount of no-till in soybeans. However, more glyphosate-resistant weeds, such as waterhemp and Palmer amaranth, have necessitated more intensive tillage practices.
The report further notes that the adoption rate of cover crops slowed between 2017 and 2022, but still grew to a total of 17% of all cropland in the United States. Furthermore, adoption rates of cover crops were highest in corn used for silage (20% in 2021), as many producers utilize cover crops to protect against erosion and nutrient depletion in continuous corn fields. The earlier harvest timing of corn for silage affords a more extended period for cover crop planting and establishment.
| Corn (2021) | Soybeans (2023) | |
|---|---|---|
| Conventional Tillage | 24.5 | 19.3 |
| Redueced Tillage | 39.9 | 35.9 |
| No-Till | 35.6 | 44.8 |
| Cover Crops | 8.4 | 11.1 |
| Conservation Crop Rotation | 23.9 | 22.2 |
| Conventional Tillage + Cover Crops | 4.3 | 4.7 |
| Reduced Tillage + Cpver Crops | 3.7 | 6.9 |
| No-Till + Cover Crops | 14.3 | 17.0 |
The report analyzed numerous academic studies that quantified the profitability of reducing tillage intensity and adopting cover crops. Several studies have investigated whether reduced tillage or no-till practices affect profitability. These studies found that no-till systems can improve profitability, but not from yield improvements. Instead, the impact would come from reduced passes in the field, resulting in savings on input costs such as fuel and labor. However, the long-term profitability compared with conventional tillage is not different. Furthermore, no-till systems may incur additional costs associated with chemical applications to control weeds and pests. Additionally, factors such as soil type, weather, and geography can further limit the economic benefits of no-till. Reduced tillage practices, such as strip tillage, also can have mixed results compared to conventional tillage systems.
The economic benefits of cover crops can also vary depending on a wide range of circumstances. In the short term, while the benefits to soil health may be valuable, producers can see higher costs from purchasing seeds and terminating. Additionally, several studies found that corn and soybean yields in fields with cover crops showed lower yields than fields without cover crops over time. However, this can vary from field to field based on numerous conditions, as well as practices such as grazing livestock or cutting for forage. Cost-sharing and other government programs can help offset the costs of cover crop adoption, and cover crops can reduce costs in situations such as weed suppression and soil nutrient retention.
The report concludes with a review of the effects that conservation tillage and cover crops have on yields and production costs for corn and soybean acres. The report uses data to compare the yields and production costs for adopters and non-adopters of each practice. While other factors can influence yields and production costs, the report found that conservation tillage in corn and soybean fields can result in higher chemical costs, but lower fuel, labor, and overall production costs compared to conventional tillage fields. Corn fields that use cover crops can incur higher costs for fertilizer, labor, and seed compared to fields without cover crops. For soybeans, fields with cover crops can have higher fertilizer and chemical costs than fields without cover crops. An interesting note is the lack of statistical significance in corn and soybean yields based on whether adoption or non-adoption. The report notes that a common concern among producers is the decrease in yields that results from adopting these practices. While the data does not confirm or deny that claim, it leaves the possibility open for future research to determine whether yields are significantly decreased when adopting these practices.
Healthy soil is the foundation of resilient and productive agriculture, and this USDA ERS report underscores its economic relevance. The data in the report shows that conservation tillage can reduce production costs and increase corn yields, while long-term use of cover crops can improve soil structure, reduce erosion, and enhance nutrient cycling. When used together, these practices can boost technical efficiency and long-term profitability. The challenge lies in bridging the gap between short-term financial pressures and long-term soil stewardship. With targeted support and informed decision-making, producers can adopt systems that not only protect their land but also enhance their financial stability. Investing in soil health is not just good conservation—it’s smart business.
To read the full report, visit this link: Economic Outcomes of Soil Health and Conservation Practices on U.S. Cropland (USDA -ERS, June 2025)