Episode Number
83
Episode Show Notes / Description
This episode of the Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction Podcast examines the economic and agronomic realities of cover crops through a panel discussion with three diverse Illinois farmers. Adam Dahmer, Brent Fowler, and Greg Thoren argue that prioritizing profit per acre and soil structure proves more financially viable than chasing raw yield metrics. The panel presents field-level observations indicating that the initial costs of cover crop establishment are consistently offset by systemic reductions in synthetic fertilizer and herbicide usage, alongside tangible logistical efficiencies during spring planting and fall harvest operations. Furthermore, the discussion details how long-term no-till and cover crop systems physically aggregate soil particles to increase water-holding capacity, effectively compounding the underlying asset value of the farmland while securing immediate, layered financial incentives through crop insurance discounts and carbon sequestration programs.
Cover Crop Conversations: profitability, soil health and yield
* Adam Dahmer, Williamson County, Illinois Farmer
* Greg Thoren, Jo Davies County, Illinois Farmer
* Brent Fowler, McDonough County, Illinois Farmer
Cover Crop Conversations: profitability, soil health and yield
* Adam Dahmer, Williamson County, Illinois Farmer
* Greg Thoren, Jo Davies County, Illinois Farmer
* Brent Fowler, McDonough County, Illinois Farmer
Transcript
NLRS 83
This episode of the Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction Podcast examines the economic and agronomic realities of cover crops through a panel discussion with three diverse Illinois farmers. Adam Dahmer, Brent Fowler, and Greg Thoren argue that prioritizing profit per acre and soil structure proves more financially viable than chasing raw yield metrics. The panel presents field-level observations indicating that the initial costs of cover crop establishment are consistently offset by systemic reductions in synthetic fertilizer and herbicide usage, alongside tangible logistical efficiencies during spring planting and fall harvest operations. Furthermore, the discussion details how long-term no-till and cover crop systems physically aggregate soil particles to increase water-holding capacity, effectively compounding the underlying asset value of the farmland while securing immediate, layered financial incentives through crop insurance discounts and carbon sequestration programs.
Cover Crop Conversations: profitability, soil health and yield
* Adam Dahmer, Williamson County, Illinois Farmer
* Greg Thoren, Jo Davies County, Illinois Farmer
* Brent Fowler, McDonough County, Illinois Farmer
---
Todd Gleason: This is the Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction Podcast episode number 83, cover crop conversations. Profitability, soil health, and yield. I’m University of Illinois Extension’s Todd Gleason. Today, we’ll hear cover croppers talk about the raw numbers. Their yields, their profit per acre, and the asset that underpins it all. The land. They’ll argue profit per acre supersedes raw yield numbers. That the cost of establishing cover crops are offset by financial benefits like reduced herbicide use, lower fertilizer cost, crop insurance discounts, and improved soil stability. You may read that last one as increasing the value of the asset. The farm. Three farmers sat down with University of Illinois Extension’s Rachel Curry to talk openly about their operations. They’re from vastly different parts of the state. Adam Dahmer farms at the very south end of Illinois not so far from the Ohio River in Williamson County. Brent Fowler’s farm sits halfway between the Illinois and the Mississippi Rivers, just about where the state of Illinois bulges to its widest point in McDonough County. And Greg Thoren farms in Jo Daviess County in the far northwestern corner of the state. It’s the driftless region where the glaciers did not level out the land. These farms are hours apart and have radically different soils and topography. Yet, each of the farmers has made a conscious choice to use cover crops to preserve the most important part of the landscape. The topsoil. They don’t see it as a trade-off with yield. Greg Thoren is adamant on that point.
Greg Thoren: My mantra has always been that yield does not pay the bills; it’s profit per acre. Financially, my idea was, even when I started cover crops, if it costs me say $40 or $50 an acre for seed, establishment, and termination—if cover crops are going to do what they’re supposed to do, take those dollars out of your fertility budget. If you stay net neutral on costs, I will almost guarantee you probably won’t see any difference in your yield. Basically, you’ll probably see more benefits than negatives, even if you yield a few less bushels. Investment-wise, we have been more profitable—even with some of the mistakes we’ve made over the years—just by greatly decreasing inputs. It’s really been amazing. Even with some lower yields, we’ve been more profitable because of the money we haven’t invested in conventional inputs for that crop. Putting money into cover crop seeds recycles nutrients, improves soil texture and quality, and increases water infiltration. There are so many other benefits on the back end of these cover crops that make them so much more profitable in the long run than a conventional system.
Todd Gleason: To be clear, these three farmers are saying there is far more to farming than yield. They’ll even admit, despite Greg Thoren’s mantra, that there is more than profit per acre to the conservation practices they deploy. Including the cover crops. We’ll come back to the yield versus profit conversation in a moment, but first let’s hear about how Brent Fowler from Western Illinois thinks about the system.
Brent Fowler: The list of non-monetary benefits goes on and on. You can look at university research and read about organic matter, but a couple of unwritten benefits really stick out in my mind. First, the ground stays a lot firmer in the fall. I will never forget one wet, muddy fall when I was harvesting beans. I was sailing right through the field and getting along fine. Right across the fence—even though my field wasn’t tiled—a neighbor who had plowed his field the prior fall was cutting deep ruts everywhere. I was shocked and could not believe the difference in our harvesting experiences. We see that happen all the time, and it is a major gain.
Second, I am asked to speak as a guest to an agronomy class at Western Illinois University every year. You can always spot the farm kids sitting in the back, trying not to act too interested. During the Q&A, one of these kids raised his hand—he was very polite and respectful—and asked, “Aren’t you worried about these practices taking up a lot more of your time?” I was glad he asked because, actually, it’s just the opposite. We farm around 3,500 acres, and I don’t think we’d be able to manage that if we were entirely conventional. In the spring, we keep the sprayer running, pull out our 60-foot corn planter and 40-foot bean drill, and just go to town planting. Conventional guys have to keep a field cultivator running in front of both of their planters. To plant corn and beans at the same time, they need four big tractors instead of two, and five people running the equipment. Logistically, that’s incredibly difficult to manage. It’s way easier to do what we do, especially when it comes to planting.
Todd Gleason: I told you we’d get back to the profit per acre. Certainly Brent Fowler makes that case with both the combine and the planter. Adam Dahmer, the farmer from deep Southern Illinois was listening to all of this and just waiting to open up on the subject. Profit versus yield.
Adam Dahmer: To answer this question, the irony of this debate is that it’s typically brought up by those who do not understand their equipment costs per acre to begin with. When evaluating cover crop implementation, very few guys actually calculate what it costs them to run their tillage passes over the field. They are already spending that money, and nine times out of ten, they could save money by implementing cover crops and parking their tillage tools. It is unfortunate that, as an industry, we take so much of our agronomic guidance from equipment salesmen.
Regarding profitability and non-monetary gains, I see positive results year in and year out. We picked up a farm back in 2012 and another farm 10 years later with the same soil types and the same prior practices. Once they entered our system and were planted on the same day—managed with the same intensity—I saw an average increase of four bushels per acre on corn each year, driven entirely by no-till and cover crops.
Todd Gleason: Dahmer goes on. Remember, this is a panel discussion, actually a webinar, and so, there on the screen, is a soil profile.
Adam Dahmer: Those of us who understand soil understand the power of this picture. This structure is not attained through conventional tillage or non-conservation practices. For my friends up north blessed with good soil, I pray your soil looks like this consistently. That’s not the case in my environment; our soils have high clay content and are best suited for putting buildings on. But ideally, you want your soil to look like black cottage cheese. You can see the importance here—this picture speaks volumes. The soil particles are bound together into larger aggregates, which provides better stability. As we know, larger particles create more room for air and water movement. This soil doesn’t lay flat and compact. Its water-holding capacity is substantially greater than that of my conventional neighbors.
This is what we are working towards. It’s not achieved overnight, but the field this came from had been in no-till and cover crops for about 10 years, showing we can make real strides. How is this achieved? It happens through the secretion of sugars and root exudates, along with earthworm castings, bonding those soil particles together. This is how you build soil and raise a healthy crop. That alone speaks volumes. If your soil just crumbles and falls apart, you have much larger problems to be concerned about than the cost of a cover crop.
Todd Gleason: Cover crops and no-till change the water holding capacity of the soil because it changes the structure. It takes years to build it, and it can be destroyed with a single deep tillage pass. A farm that holds more water through the season, and can safely hold up equipment during critical operations, well that’s a very valuable asset. Those are the below ground benefits. Above ground, there are monetary impacts to these production practices, too. Here again, Brent Fowler.
Brent Fowler: This is important to me, so I want to list the financial incentives we receive. We automatically get $5 an acre off our crop insurance just by certifying our cover crops. We also apply for another $5 an acre through the Illinois Department of Agriculture. We participate in a carbon sequestration program with ADM, which pays $10 an acre for regenerative practices. Furthermore, while not a direct incentive, after meeting with our chemical rep to plan our herbicide program, we found that our chemical costs will be $24 an acre less on our rye fields compared to our conventional fields. Altogether, that equates to about $40 to $45 an acre in savings and incentives, which fully covers the cost of the seed and the drilling.
Todd Gleason: So there you have it. These three farmers, spread out over about 370 miles, north to south, in Illinois, and on radically different landscapes and soil types are firm believers by the numbers, that they can use cover crops, along with no-till, to better a farm and turn a profit. You’ve been listening to the Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction Podcast. It is produced in collaboration with University of Illinois Extension’s Rachel Curry, Nicole Haverback, and Luke Zwilling. Until next time, I’m your host, Todd Gleason.
This episode of the Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction Podcast examines the economic and agronomic realities of cover crops through a panel discussion with three diverse Illinois farmers. Adam Dahmer, Brent Fowler, and Greg Thoren argue that prioritizing profit per acre and soil structure proves more financially viable than chasing raw yield metrics. The panel presents field-level observations indicating that the initial costs of cover crop establishment are consistently offset by systemic reductions in synthetic fertilizer and herbicide usage, alongside tangible logistical efficiencies during spring planting and fall harvest operations. Furthermore, the discussion details how long-term no-till and cover crop systems physically aggregate soil particles to increase water-holding capacity, effectively compounding the underlying asset value of the farmland while securing immediate, layered financial incentives through crop insurance discounts and carbon sequestration programs.
Cover Crop Conversations: profitability, soil health and yield
* Adam Dahmer, Williamson County, Illinois Farmer
* Greg Thoren, Jo Davies County, Illinois Farmer
* Brent Fowler, McDonough County, Illinois Farmer
---
Todd Gleason: This is the Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction Podcast episode number 83, cover crop conversations. Profitability, soil health, and yield. I’m University of Illinois Extension’s Todd Gleason. Today, we’ll hear cover croppers talk about the raw numbers. Their yields, their profit per acre, and the asset that underpins it all. The land. They’ll argue profit per acre supersedes raw yield numbers. That the cost of establishing cover crops are offset by financial benefits like reduced herbicide use, lower fertilizer cost, crop insurance discounts, and improved soil stability. You may read that last one as increasing the value of the asset. The farm. Three farmers sat down with University of Illinois Extension’s Rachel Curry to talk openly about their operations. They’re from vastly different parts of the state. Adam Dahmer farms at the very south end of Illinois not so far from the Ohio River in Williamson County. Brent Fowler’s farm sits halfway between the Illinois and the Mississippi Rivers, just about where the state of Illinois bulges to its widest point in McDonough County. And Greg Thoren farms in Jo Daviess County in the far northwestern corner of the state. It’s the driftless region where the glaciers did not level out the land. These farms are hours apart and have radically different soils and topography. Yet, each of the farmers has made a conscious choice to use cover crops to preserve the most important part of the landscape. The topsoil. They don’t see it as a trade-off with yield. Greg Thoren is adamant on that point.
Greg Thoren: My mantra has always been that yield does not pay the bills; it’s profit per acre. Financially, my idea was, even when I started cover crops, if it costs me say $40 or $50 an acre for seed, establishment, and termination—if cover crops are going to do what they’re supposed to do, take those dollars out of your fertility budget. If you stay net neutral on costs, I will almost guarantee you probably won’t see any difference in your yield. Basically, you’ll probably see more benefits than negatives, even if you yield a few less bushels. Investment-wise, we have been more profitable—even with some of the mistakes we’ve made over the years—just by greatly decreasing inputs. It’s really been amazing. Even with some lower yields, we’ve been more profitable because of the money we haven’t invested in conventional inputs for that crop. Putting money into cover crop seeds recycles nutrients, improves soil texture and quality, and increases water infiltration. There are so many other benefits on the back end of these cover crops that make them so much more profitable in the long run than a conventional system.
Todd Gleason: To be clear, these three farmers are saying there is far more to farming than yield. They’ll even admit, despite Greg Thoren’s mantra, that there is more than profit per acre to the conservation practices they deploy. Including the cover crops. We’ll come back to the yield versus profit conversation in a moment, but first let’s hear about how Brent Fowler from Western Illinois thinks about the system.
Brent Fowler: The list of non-monetary benefits goes on and on. You can look at university research and read about organic matter, but a couple of unwritten benefits really stick out in my mind. First, the ground stays a lot firmer in the fall. I will never forget one wet, muddy fall when I was harvesting beans. I was sailing right through the field and getting along fine. Right across the fence—even though my field wasn’t tiled—a neighbor who had plowed his field the prior fall was cutting deep ruts everywhere. I was shocked and could not believe the difference in our harvesting experiences. We see that happen all the time, and it is a major gain.
Second, I am asked to speak as a guest to an agronomy class at Western Illinois University every year. You can always spot the farm kids sitting in the back, trying not to act too interested. During the Q&A, one of these kids raised his hand—he was very polite and respectful—and asked, “Aren’t you worried about these practices taking up a lot more of your time?” I was glad he asked because, actually, it’s just the opposite. We farm around 3,500 acres, and I don’t think we’d be able to manage that if we were entirely conventional. In the spring, we keep the sprayer running, pull out our 60-foot corn planter and 40-foot bean drill, and just go to town planting. Conventional guys have to keep a field cultivator running in front of both of their planters. To plant corn and beans at the same time, they need four big tractors instead of two, and five people running the equipment. Logistically, that’s incredibly difficult to manage. It’s way easier to do what we do, especially when it comes to planting.
Todd Gleason: I told you we’d get back to the profit per acre. Certainly Brent Fowler makes that case with both the combine and the planter. Adam Dahmer, the farmer from deep Southern Illinois was listening to all of this and just waiting to open up on the subject. Profit versus yield.
Adam Dahmer: To answer this question, the irony of this debate is that it’s typically brought up by those who do not understand their equipment costs per acre to begin with. When evaluating cover crop implementation, very few guys actually calculate what it costs them to run their tillage passes over the field. They are already spending that money, and nine times out of ten, they could save money by implementing cover crops and parking their tillage tools. It is unfortunate that, as an industry, we take so much of our agronomic guidance from equipment salesmen.
Regarding profitability and non-monetary gains, I see positive results year in and year out. We picked up a farm back in 2012 and another farm 10 years later with the same soil types and the same prior practices. Once they entered our system and were planted on the same day—managed with the same intensity—I saw an average increase of four bushels per acre on corn each year, driven entirely by no-till and cover crops.
Todd Gleason: Dahmer goes on. Remember, this is a panel discussion, actually a webinar, and so, there on the screen, is a soil profile.
Adam Dahmer: Those of us who understand soil understand the power of this picture. This structure is not attained through conventional tillage or non-conservation practices. For my friends up north blessed with good soil, I pray your soil looks like this consistently. That’s not the case in my environment; our soils have high clay content and are best suited for putting buildings on. But ideally, you want your soil to look like black cottage cheese. You can see the importance here—this picture speaks volumes. The soil particles are bound together into larger aggregates, which provides better stability. As we know, larger particles create more room for air and water movement. This soil doesn’t lay flat and compact. Its water-holding capacity is substantially greater than that of my conventional neighbors.
This is what we are working towards. It’s not achieved overnight, but the field this came from had been in no-till and cover crops for about 10 years, showing we can make real strides. How is this achieved? It happens through the secretion of sugars and root exudates, along with earthworm castings, bonding those soil particles together. This is how you build soil and raise a healthy crop. That alone speaks volumes. If your soil just crumbles and falls apart, you have much larger problems to be concerned about than the cost of a cover crop.
Todd Gleason: Cover crops and no-till change the water holding capacity of the soil because it changes the structure. It takes years to build it, and it can be destroyed with a single deep tillage pass. A farm that holds more water through the season, and can safely hold up equipment during critical operations, well that’s a very valuable asset. Those are the below ground benefits. Above ground, there are monetary impacts to these production practices, too. Here again, Brent Fowler.
Brent Fowler: This is important to me, so I want to list the financial incentives we receive. We automatically get $5 an acre off our crop insurance just by certifying our cover crops. We also apply for another $5 an acre through the Illinois Department of Agriculture. We participate in a carbon sequestration program with ADM, which pays $10 an acre for regenerative practices. Furthermore, while not a direct incentive, after meeting with our chemical rep to plan our herbicide program, we found that our chemical costs will be $24 an acre less on our rye fields compared to our conventional fields. Altogether, that equates to about $40 to $45 an acre in savings and incentives, which fully covers the cost of the seed and the drilling.
Todd Gleason: So there you have it. These three farmers, spread out over about 370 miles, north to south, in Illinois, and on radically different landscapes and soil types are firm believers by the numbers, that they can use cover crops, along with no-till, to better a farm and turn a profit. You’ve been listening to the Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction Podcast. It is produced in collaboration with University of Illinois Extension’s Rachel Curry, Nicole Haverback, and Luke Zwilling. Until next time, I’m your host, Todd Gleason.