Progress report for FNE24-071
Project Information
The objective is to research the economic and soil health implications of transitioning from conventional tillage to no-till on a mixed vegetable
operation. Recognizing that previous research on no till has been conducted primarily on large monoculture systems and does not reflect the constraints that small-scale organic mixed vegetable farms face. Our goal is for the results from this study to give farmers the information they need to see if transitioning to no-till is a viable option for their farm without incurring unnecessary cost and risk.
For generations, farmers have relied on tillage to incorporate plant residue, prepare the soil for planting and reduce weed competition. In an organic system, mechanical tillage is currently the most cost effective method to achieve these goals. However, studies have shown that conventional tillage practices, such as plowing, disking and rototilling, lead to decreased soil health (Nunez et. al., 2020). Soil health can be defined as the “continued capacity of soil to function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals, and humans”(NRCS, 2023). Studies have shown that a reduction or elimination in tillage decreases soil compaction, increases soil organic matter, increases water retention and infiltration and increases soil organism activity (Nunez et al.,2020). Utilizing no-till weed-management practices including; cover cropping, solarizing, and mulching, further increase soil organic matter (SOM) (Magdoff et al., 2021). This in turn creates less demand on water resources and creates greater resilience to the impacts of climate change (NRCS, 2018). Overall, farmers that have adopted no-till methods report an increase in plant productivity that they link to the increase in soil health (Coleman, 2009)(NRCS,2018).
Studies report the ecosystem service benefits of no-till farming such as increased carbon sequestration and biodiversity, and improved climate resiliency (Lal, 2013). Existing payment for ecosystem service programs (PES) provide economic incentives for farmers to adopt regenerative practices such as no-till by developing a market-based approach (Bellows, 2020). Carbon market PES programs have gained interest recently, yet studies such as ‘Farmer perspectives on carbon markets incentivizing agricultural soil carbon sequestration’ have shown farmer distrust to participate in carbon market programs which utilize environmental modeling based on soy and corn production (Barbato, 2023). However, no-till vegetable operations also have the potential to have positive environmental impacts by improving soil quality and reducing erosion (Magdoff et al., 2021). To prepare for future opportunities with PES programs, the inputs and yield potential need to be studied to better support a transition to no-till.
We expect that the labor needed to maintain a no-till production system will increase due to the lack of mechanical or chemical interventions available for small farms practicing no-till organic farm management (Coleman, 2009). While farmers have written manuals on Northeast, no-till farming, there is a lack of scientific backing for their results. Many of the scientific studies utilize specialized equipment that is expensive, or not easily accessible to most small farmers while conducting their no-till research. The methods used in our research for no-till production use only tools that are readily available and easy to access by small-scale mixed vegetable farmers. We believe that this will create a higher labor expense, but a more accurate base-line of costs for a small farmer looking to adopt no-till practices. Our research will document the labor and input costs of a conventional tilled system to the no-till system on a small-scale mixed vegetable farm, and weigh them against the potential benefits to soil health, water retention and crop productivity.
By conducting this research we are looking to quantify and measure the inputs and outcomes of both a no-till and conventional till production systems and share our findings from this study with other Northeast Organic farmers. We will provide an estimate of costs and benefits to expect when shifting to no-till practices. Providing our results to the farming community will help educate farmers not only in what methods we chose to implement when transitioning to no-till, but also give concrete data on the risks & rewards of making the switch to no-till. We see the potential for this research to inform PES programs that would help incentivize farmers to strengthen the ecosystem services that their farms provide. Especially given the potential for no-till organic practices to increase overall farm sustainability and productivity.
We plan to provide our findings to the public in both English and Spanish to make this information available to a larger audience of Northeast Farmers. Including a continuation of our on-farm presentations for the Latino farming community about the importance of soil health.
Cooperators
- - Technical Advisor
Research
Methods:
We began by preparing the soil in our two half acre plots within West Haven Farm, one for conventional tillage treatment and one for no-till treatment. In March we took soil samples from both plots and sent them to Cornell Laboratory for sampling using the CASH method (2024 Control Soil test results 2024 No-till soil test results). We decided to collect data from the work being done on each plot as a whole, rather than choosing individual beds.
For the no-till plot:
On April 1st 2024 the cover crop was terminated with tarps weighed down by sand bags over the plot to reduce weed pressure; they were in place for 4 weeks. Once the tarps were removed, rocks were picked out by hand prior to adding compost to create beds (beds are 100’ by 30”with a 20” path). We began by applying compost with wheelbarrows and buckets in order to reduce compaction caused by larger machinery. We quickly found that this method was putting unnecessary stress on our workers, and so we decided to use a small tractor to help move compost onto the beds. We also amended the soil with an additional fertilizer to correct soil nutrient deficiencies identified by our initial soil samples. We used a tractor mounted subsoiler to loosen the soil before we used broadforks to continue aerating the soil, followed by a shallow-till with a walk-behind BCS for the crops that required a finer seed bed and more thorough incorporation of compost. Mixed vegetable seedlings were either started in the greenhouse and transplanted in the field by hand, or directly sown in the field.
Drip tape irrigation was installed along with the HOBO MX Soil Moisture and Temperature Data Logger directly after planting. Row cover was also installed after planting.
For the conventional tillage plot:
On April 1st 2024 the cover crop was terminated with tarps weighed down by sand bags that were in place for 4 weeks. Rocks were picked out by hand prior to adding compost to all of the beds. We aerated the soil with a tractor mounted subsoiler. Compost was added and spread with a tractor and manure spreader Next we rototilled the top 2-3” of the soil. Irrigation was installed. Mixed vegetable seedlings were either sown in trays in the greenhouse and transplanted with a water wheel transplanter, or directly sown in the field. The soil moisture and temperature data logger was installed directly after planting. Row cover was also installed after planting.
For both plots:
Throughout the summer maintenance such as harvesting, pest monitoring, weeding and watering took place as needed. Employees tracked the number of hours worked on these tasks. Produce harvested was measured and recorded, the dollar value of the produce was also recorded.
Soil samples were taken after the spring cover crop was terminated and sent to Cornell Laboratory for testing using the CASH method.
At the end of the season we terminated the crops (tractor mounted flail mower was used for the conventional till plot and a walk behind push mower was used for the no-till plot). We removed irrigation, plastic mulch, landscape fabric and row covering. We also removed the moisture monitoring system and downloaded the data.
On both plots we placed silage tarps, weighed down with sand bags; the tarps were in place for 4 weeks.
We then removed the tarps and prepared the two plots for overwintering following no-till and conventional-till methods on August 20th.
To prepare the soil in the conventional-till plot for winter cover crop: removed the tarps, disked the soil with a tractor mounted implement. A chest-mounted broadcast seeder was used to disperse seed. A shallow disking was done with the tractor to cover the seed. 
To prepare the soil in the no-till plot for a winter cover crop: Removed the tarps, and used a chest-mounted broadcast seeder to disperse seed. Placed row cover, held down by sand bags over the top of the seed. We returned a week later and found that, in the areas where weed management was poor, we needed to re-sow the cover crop to get a better establishment.
Our site selection method, field map, and updated list of tools and materials used can be found here: Materials, Site selection, Experimental Design.
Alterations:
In the first year of our two-year study, we noted some interesting finds and difficulties with our methodology. Though our original intention was to eliminate heavy machinery driving in the no-till plot, we immediately noted the increased burden on our employees when following the no-till soil preparation methodology. We identified a few key preparation tasks where the use of a tractor would be minimally invasive, but reduce the physical labor for our employees.
- Application of compost.
Physically moving yards of compost with wheelbarrows and buckets was too inefficient and demanding for the employees. We included the use of a smaller, light weight tractor with a loader bucket to finish moving the compost onto the beds before raking it to the edges would decrease the physical demand. We adapted to the needs of our work force and we plan to add the use of a small tractor to help move materials into the field in the 2025 experiment as well.
- Soil aeration and residue incorporation.
Though our winter cover crop was completely killed using silage tarps, the soil had settled over the course of the winter and was extremely difficult to broad fork manually. A tractor mounted sub-soiler was used to pre-aerate both the control and no-till plots, making broad forking less physically demanding. We plan to add this into our materials and methods in the 2025 season as well.
Another change that we made to our original methodology was the additional use silage tarps on both the conventional till and the no till plots instead of only using them in the no-till treatment. We were concerned that the tarps would have an effect on the overall soil temperature and lead us to a difference in yield that was not solely due to the lack of tillage and compaction. Even though we recognize that most “conventional till” operations would not use silage tarps to create a stale seed bed.
In 2024 we decided to change our data collection methodology to include tracking the yield of all 16 crops that we grew in our trial, rather than picking 3 representative crops. We found this to be labor intensive, misleading in some instances, and not necessary to our overall goals. We plan to return to our original methodology in the 2025 season.
Labor:
A direct comparison between hours spent on each farm-task involved in the growing of marketable produce in the conventional-till v.s. no-till trials can be found here: Hours Spent per Task Conventional-till v.s. No-till
Total Labor Hours No-till: 506.25 hours; Total Labor Cost: $9,177.25 SARE, Workbook - NO-till activity log
Total Labor Hours Conventional-till: 308.42 hours; Total Labor Cost: $5,801.46 SARE, Workbook - Control, activity log
Based on 1 year of data collection, there was nearly an additional 197.83 hours spent on labor in the no-till plot versus the conventional-till plot. While there was less need for “skilled” labor (ex: tractor operator and spray technician) in the no-till treatment, the sheer number of labor hours made a $3,376.00 difference in the overall cost of labor between treatments. In conjunction with receiving $1681.50 less in marketable yield, the no-till plot certainly did not make as much profit for the farm as the conventional till plot.
The increased demand of physical labor to prepare the soil in the no-till without the use of a tractor in the spring is the lead cause of this difference in labor hours. Though there were other challenges in production methods that led to increased labor that could have been eased by the use of specialized equipment, such as a no-till grain drill for cover cropping. We found that direct seeding and cover cropping was especially difficult in the no-till plot, as a fine seed bed is difficult to achieve without tilling, and covering the seeds with soil is nearly impossible without first loosening the soil. We were able to work around this by placing row cover over the top of the soil and seeding right before a rain event, but even then, we had difficulty in areas where the tarps did not fully kill the weeds and we had to re-sow and re-cover later on. We also needed to use a tilther, or walk behind tiller, in some instances where a fine seedbed is necessary (carrot, beet, and mixed salad green beds that were direct-sown in the field).
Supplies & Materials:
The cost of the supplies and materials used for the no-till plot was slightly lower than for the control plot. The full list of our materials and supplies expenses can be found here: Complete Expense Table 2024 SARE No-till V.S. Conventional-till Study
No till Material and Supply Costs: $2,673.20
Conventional till Material and Supply Costs: $2,914.36
The conventional-till materials would be significantly higher if we were to include the depreciation cost of the large equipment (like the mid sized tractor and the cultivating tractor) and the many tractor implements that we used throughout the experiment. As we did use the tractor a small amount in the no-till plot as well, we decided to leave out the equipment depreciation, but we included the difference in fuel usage, which can be seen listed in the conventional-till expenses. We used the equipment that we already had available on the farm to complete the no-till transition and therefore did not need to list any special expenses. For the most part, we believe that any small farm could transition simply by adapting the tools and materials in place on their farm already. Though there are some small tools and materials that we did not list in our budget because we had them on-hand that are not commonly found on conventional-till farms (broadforks, tarps, and tilther). Transitioning farms may need to consider the added cost of those items if they were to follow our methodology.
Crop Yield:
The overall yield was slightly less in the no-till plot as reflected in the value of produce sold.
Conventional till harvest total: $30,501.00 SARE, Workbook - Control, Harvest log
No till harvest total: $28,819.50 SARE, Workbook - No-till, Harvest log
Though, we observed that some crops seemed to flourish under the no-till conditions when compared to the conventional-till conditions as shown in this graph of marketable value of each crop harvested in the conventional-till v.s. the no-till plot: Yield ($) per Bed Foot, Conventional-till v.s. No-till - 2024
We’ve identified three crops that we would like to take data on next season: Carrots, Onions and Broccoli. Due to a lack of land area in our no-till plot (three high tunnels were erected in 2024 where our no-till plot is), and the nuances of the markets we harvest for conflicting with the need for accurate data collection of continuously-harvested crops (like chard, perpetual spinach and kale), we need to reduce the number of crops we calculate yield data on for our trial in 2025. We also feel that the burden of collecting data on all 16 crops was more than is necessary to get an accurate representation for our study.
We had significant transplant death of cabbage and broccoli in our no-till trial, but not in our conventional plot. All were sown at the same time, raised in the same conditions, and planted at the same time. We would like to try again in year 2 and see if this is repeated. Especially as the yield data for the broccoli is comparable, and we saw larger and more vigorous plants in the no-till once the plants were established. The same was observed in the early cabbages. Less plants survived, but the plants that did survive were larger and yielded more than the control plot.
We noted that the onions in the no-till pot were larger than the onions harvested from the conventional-till plot even though they had a little higher disease pressure. We are excited to see if this observation holds true in year 2 trials.
We would also like to pay closer attention to the carrot and/or beets as we replicate the trial in year 2. These crops were especially difficult to maintain in the no-till as they are directly sown. Achieving a fine enough seed bed and seed coverage was difficult, and we expect that with our increased experience and knowledge after year 1, we can achieve better germination and yields in year 2 of the study. We would also like to observe a more direct relationship between the conventional till weed control (tractor cultivation) and the no-till weed control (hand tools) in areas where there is no material used for mulching.
Due to our existing market structure, we found that loose greens were difficult to get a concrete yield comparison because of continuous harvest after their regrowth, the trials were not always harvested in equal ratios (due to the needs of our different markets), we feel that the comparison data is not as reliable as the other crops. Going forward, we will continue to monitor the quality of those crops, and note significant differences (this year we didn’t see any significant differences other than being slightly healthier looking in the no-till).
We also noted that the lettuce grew faster than the control trial, and was ready too early for us to harvest in time for our markets in the no-till trial. The yield was likely similar but not at the time we expected, which led to a reduction in marketable yield in our data collection.
Soil Health:
Unfortunately, due to a delay at the laboratory where we sent our fall soil samples, we have not received the results from our fall soil tests. We do not expect significant differences in the soil tests taken from both treatments. We expect that our timeline of 2 years may be too short to identify what qualities the no-till methods would change on a standard soil health analysis.
However, we did see differences in the soil temperature and the soil moisture throughout the season as shown on these graphs: Soil Moisture & Temperature graphs & descriptions
Our data shows that the no-till soil was slightly warmer than the soil in the control trial overall. This could have contributed to some of the observations we made such as, broccoli and cabbage transplant mortality, increased onion yield, faster-than-expected lettuce growth etc.
Our data shows that the moisture retention in the no-till plot was less in certain crops, like the brassicas, and significantly higher in the fall cover crop than the conventional-till plot. In year 2 we will place the moisture monitors in the same positions, but the crops around them will change, helping us to narrow down a cause for this difference.
Net Profitability:
In year 1 we are able to conclude that there is a significant difference in the overall profitability of the two treatments for 2024. Net Profit Table - No-till v.s. Conventional-till
The conventional-till plot results show a $4,827.00 higher net profit based on the expenses and yields that we recorded through the course of our study. This shows the combined result of the increased expenses and slight decrease in marketable yields. This result suggests that a small mixed vegetable farm can expect a 22% decrease in their net profit in their first year of transition.
During year 1 of our no-till v.s. conventional-till research project, we set out to answer the question: What economic, yield and soil health impact can a small mixed-vegetable operation expect when transitioning to no-till. We found that there was a significant increase in expenses, coupled by a significant loss in yield, which resulted in a 22% decline in overall profitability during the transition from conventional-till to no-till. Unfortunately, we were not able to see a major soil health difference, as our fall 2024 soil test results have not been returned to us in time for this report.
The increased use of physical labor to prepare the soil in the spring was the main source of the increased expenses in the no-till plot. It is important to note that this significant increase to a farm's expenses will occur at a time of year when there is usually little-to-no income generated from crop sales. This means that a small farm will need to find a way to cash-flow the additional payroll in the early spring. For our farm, this cost is too high to justify transitioning any more acreage to no-till at this time. We will wait until year 2 to see if there is a significant enough increase in efficiency, yield, and soil health to justify the increased burden on the farmworkers and overall finances. If the results from 2025 data collection reveals a continued improvement in the quality of certain crops, we believe that it would be worth exploring a hybrid farming model, some acreage as no-till and some as conventional-till based on the needs and responses of individual crops.
Through our ongoing research and conversations with other researchers and farmers around transitioning to no-till, we have realized that there is no set-definition to what no-till means. Some would say that there is no tractor involvement at all, and others would say that targeted soil preparation with a tractor is an “allowable” practice in no-till farming. Based on ongoing research conducted by others, there is evidence to suggest that there may not be a significant difference in the quality of soil health when certain soil preparation tasks are done with targeted tractor usage. This would make a hybrid-no-till farm much more economically feasible without affecting the overall soil health. There is certainly more research to be done to help small farms understand the many factors at play during a transition to no-till farming, such as which tillage techniques effect the soil the most.
Education & Outreach Activities and Participation Summary
Participation Summary:
On July 28th 2024 we hosted a field day at West Haven Farm in collaboration with: Cornell Small Farms, New York Soil Health, SARE, and NOFA NY. Agenda Día de Campo- West Haven
The full-day event was designed to serve primarily Spanish speaking small farmers (farm owners and farm workers). All presentations were made in Spanish or in English and translated to Spanish. 64 farmers were in attendance, the vast majority of which are historically underserved farmers. We spoke on several topics, but most of the day centered around our work in no-till farming and cover cropping. Presentations were made by the farmers of West Haven Farm on the methods that we are using in our SARE funded no-till research study and other aspects of sustainable agriculture.
We discussed the practice implications of conventional tillage systems and no-till systems, specifically around the negative effect on compaction and other soil health factors that tractors and deep tillage have been found to contribute to. We demonstrated the use of the small tools (broadforks, tilther, tarps, push seeder) and how they have replaced the implements that are commonly used with a tractor. We demonstrated a 1 inch "rain" event in both conventional till and no-ill farming system to show the difference in the amount of runoff and potential for nutrient leaching between the two systems. Which led us to talk through the many benefits of cover crops in all farming systems. We also went through the different supplies that we use (landscape fabric and staples) and how they are usually reusable when compared to the conventional till and the overall cost difference between the two systems. For the farm workers that were considering creating their own operation, they were especially interested to hear the economic side of the no-till v.s. conventional-till. We were able to show them that with a very small startup cost, they could grow vegetables with no-till practices, versus the incredibly high startup cost of purchasing a mid sized tractor and the many implements that go with it. Since the event at least three farmers expressed that they were trialing some of he no-till techniques that we described on their farms.
In 2025 we plan to host another field-day for historically underserved farmers as well as present our findings from the conclusion of this study at NOFA-NY in 2026.
Learning Outcomes
Through our field day we described the tools and techniques that we used to execute the no till and conventional till trial. We presented to 64 farmers and all of them commented that they learned a new technique (tarping, and hand tools like the broad fork & tilther) or gained awareness of one of the many aspects of sustainability in our presentation (how to read and make use of a soil test). At least three farmers reported that they are actively trying the tarping techniques on their own farms that we described at our field day.
While we were familiar with many of the techniques of no-till farming, and have practiced them on the farm in other applications, it was a learning curve to apply them all at the same time, without the use of a tractor. We had to think outside of the box in many instances to find new ways of achieving our goals. For example, once we broadcast seeded our fall covercrop, we had no way of covering the seed with soil for the large, half-acre, scale. We had to mimic soil-seed coverage with a layer of row cover in order to achieve germination. All of our farmers gained awareness of how many times a tractor passes over a bed before a seed is even planted in the ground, and the difference in soil texture and compaction when there is limited equipment introduced in the field.
Project Outcomes
Overall, our farm has identified a few areas where we believe that a tractor is necessary to our overall success in vegetable crop production. Employee morale was drained after employees exerted so much of their physical strength on long days preparing the no-till plot for planting. Employees stated that though they were excited about the challenge of the project initially, they were exhausted and burnt out by some of the demanding tasks that would have normally been simplified by the use of a tractor.
For our farm, the key takeaway was that a half an acre seemed to be the maximum amount of land we could transition to no-till at any given time. The increased labor cost is significant, and requires experience and knowledge of the farmer and staff. Other small farms may also have a difficult time balancing the increased cost in labor at a time of year when there is not enough income generated from crop sales to balance it out.
We have identified some no-till techniques that work very well on our farm, such as tarping. And we hope to continue to implement those practices on a larger scale. We also are excited to continue taking data on some of the key crops that we identified that may benefit from the no-till methodology (cabbage, broccoli and onions specifically) and see if we can create a hybrid-no-till & Conventional-till model for our farm that works for our crop rotation after the conclusion of this project.
We were excited to share our findings and experiences with the transition to no-till and the research process. We are happy to report that several farmers in attendance were inspired to try some of the no-till techniques, specifically tarping, on their own farms. Several farm workers in attendance were especially interested to hear that the start-up cost was much lower than what they thought it would be when you consider that there isn't much need for large equipment, and that they could grow so much without relying on heavy equipment.
Our data collection method was fairly laborious. Keeping track of all 16 crops, yield and labor, was difficult and in 2025 we will adjust to data collection on 3 key crops, and the bed space associated with those key crops. Keeping reliable data on some crops (specifically the crops with continuous harvests) was a challenge for our farm and didn’t always work with our markets. We have decided to take observations on those crops, but not rely on data collection from them.
We made small adjustments to our methods including: adding the use of a small tractor to apply compost in our no-till treatment, adding the use of a tractor-mounted sub-soiler in our no-till treatment for soil aeration and compaction relief, and adding the use of silage tarps in the conventional-till plot in order to balance out the effect of raised soil temperature across treatments. In several cases we were made aware of specialized equipment that would make no-till practices much more efficient, like a drill seeder, or a walk-behind tiller, that we either didn’t have access to, or had to gain access to in order to complete the project.
It would be beneficial for other small farms that are considering adopting no-till strategies to consider our methods and equipment list to see if their farms can absorb the added labor cost. As this increased labor cost falls in a time of the year when there is little to no income from crop sales, cash-flow could be difficult to manage, especially during a transition period. Based on year 1 yield data, we see a greater difference in yield response from crop to crop than we initially expected. Cabbage, Broccoli and onion farmers may want to take specific note to this research as we saw significant increase in yield across those three crops in the no-till treatment, despite initial transplant mortality. Further crop-specific yield trials would be beneficial to mixed vegetable producers.
We do feel that there are certain areas where a hybrid method could be used (allowing a tractor-mounted implement for some tasks, but not all), rather than completely eliminating tillage or tractor usage. Further study would be needed to determine the effects on soil health, which we are unable to report on at this time. We plan to continue to promote the use of practices such as cover cropping, tarping, intensive farming, mulching and overall reduction in tillage.