|
|
|
|
|
Purpose |
|
|
|
The primary purpose of this study, is to
evaluate how tillage practices in soybeans have changed since 1996 to the
present and to identify what factors have helped bring about any changes in
tillage practices during this period. |
|
|
|
Objectives |
|
|
|
The key objectives of this study include: |
|
|
|
To identify the tillage practices soybean
growers utilized in 1996 and compare those to present day tillage
practices. |
|
To identify the changes in technology that have
made it possible for growers to reduce tillage in soybeans. |
|
To identify obstacles that are currently
preventing growers from trying to reduce tillage practices in soybeans. |
|
|
|
|
Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATI)
were used to collect the data for this study. Interviewing was conducted during the weeks of July 15th
& 22nd, 2001. |
|
|
|
Qualified respondents must have planted a
minimum of 200 acres of soybeans in 2001 and be the individual responsible
for tillage practices decisions in their farm operation. |
|
|
|
Sample quotas were established in 19 Midwestern
and Southern states. The quotas
were established based on the proportion of soybean acres in a state to the
total soybean acres in the 19 state area. |
|
|
|
Participants for this study were randomly
selected from lists maintained by Doane Marketing Research, Inc. Some participants were also randomly
selected from an ASA member list to ensure that a minimum number of ASA
members would be included in the results. |
|
|
|
A total of 452 farmers made up the sample for
this study, 201 respondents were American Soybean Association (ASA)
members. |
|
|
|
Data was weighted to represent the universe of
200+ acre soybean growers and acres in the 19 state study area. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A total of 452 farmers made up the sample for
this study, 201 respondents were American Soybean Association (ASA)
members. |
|
|
|
Data was weighted to represent the universe of
200+ acre soybean growers and acres in the 19 state study area. These universes were based on the latest
available USDA estimates of acres and the 1997 U.S. Census of Agriculture
estimates of farms. The farm
estimates were further adjusted to reflect incidence of ASA membership by
state as reported by the ASA. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Study Area & Sample by State |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the period from 1996 to 2001, the
following events have occurred relative to soybean acreage among the study
respondents (200 acre and above soybean growers) |
|
|
|
No-till soybean acres have more than doubled to
49% of the total soybean acres and reduced till acres have increased over
one-fourth, to account for 33% of the soybean acres |
|
|
|
The percent of soybean acres drilled or planted
in narrow rows of 20 inches or less have increased by one-fourth to account
for 75% of the total soybean acres |
|
|
|
Roundup Ready soybean acres have increased over
50 fold to account for 74% of the total soybean acres grown in 2001. |
|
|
|
In this same approximate time frame, study
respondents (200 acre + soybean growers) stated they have undertaken the
following cultural practices in soybeans: |
|
|
|
53% of the growers are making fewer tillage
passes in soybeans |
|
73% of the growers are leaving more crop residue
on the soil surface |
|
48% of the growers have increased their no-till
soybeans acres. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roundup Ready technology has been a key factor
enabling growers to undertake this tillage reduction revolution in
soybeans. When asked, “In the past 5 years, what changes in
technology such as equipment, chemicals or seed have made it possible for
you to reduce tillage or increase crop residue in soybeans?” Growers stated on an unaided basis: |
|
|
|
63% - Roundup Ready technology, including: the
seed, weed control, lower costs, less cultivation, and increased yield. |
|
|
|
47%- Equipment, including improved tillage
equipment and better planters and drills |
|
|
|
12% - Better chemicals not specified |
|
|
|
When asked which of six factors had the greatest
impact toward the adoption of reduced tillage or no-till in soybeans during
the past 5 years, growers indicated: |
|
|
|
The introduction of Roundup Ready
soybeans 54% |
|
Improvements in reduced or no-till drills and
planters 15% |
|
Availability of over the top or in crop
herbicides 12% |
|
Availability of reduced or no-till drills and
planters 9% |
|
The cost of burndown herbicides
6% |
|
The availability of burn down
herbicides 3% |
|
N= 376 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approximately 10 percent of the soybean growers
surveyed, indicated they have not considered trying reduced or no-till
soybeans. Equipment issues are a frequently mentioned obstacle in trying
reduced or no-till soybeans.
Factors or obstacles that have prevented this trial as stated on an
unaided basis include : |
|
|
|
The price of equipment 26% |
|
Slow growth/lower yields 20% |
|
Ground is too wet in the Spring 16% |
|
Don’t have proper equipment 15% |
|
Doesn’t fit rotation or system 11% |
|
Higher weed control costs 9% |
|
Ground is too cold in Spring 9% |
|
Poor soil/seed contact 6% |
|
Concerns about soil compaction 4% |
|
Roundup Ready seed is not available 2% |
|
N= 43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approximately 4% of the respondents interviewed
will probably never be influenced to consider or try reduced or no-till
soybeans. When asked, “What one
thing could be done that would strongly influence you to adopt reduced or
no-till soybeans in the next 2 years?” the 10 percent of the respondents
who have not considered trying reduced or no-till in soybeans gave the
following unaided responses: |
|
|
|
Nothing will influence me 41% |
|
Lower herbicide costs 14% |
|
Better equipment financing 11% |
|
Economics/higher yields 9% |
|
Don’t know what could influence my
decision 9% |
|
Equipment availability 8% |
|
Lower implement costs 5% |
|
Change in rotational practices 5% |
|
Better weed control 2% |
|
N= 43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASA members appear to be earlier adopters vs.
non-members of no-till and reduced till practices as evidenced by what
members were doing in 1996. By
2001, the tillage practices of ASA members and non-members appear to be
similar. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are important and significant differences
in farmers currently planting Roundup Ready soybeans compared to farmers
not planting Roundup Ready soybeans.
Specifically, farmers currently planting Roundup Ready soybeans: |
|
|
|
Have a significantly higher proportion of their
total soybean acres in no-till or reduced till and in drilled or narrow row
soybeans |
|
They state they are making fewer tillage passes
than they did 5 yrs. ago |
|
They state they are leaving more crop residue on
the soil surface than they did 5 yrs. ago |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several differences in Roundup Ready
soybean farmers and non-Roundup Ready soybean farmers perceptions toward
the advantages of no-till and reduced till and role of seed technology
plays relative to no-till or reduced till.
Both groups share the same perceptions that reduced till soybeans
save fuel and labor. Roundup Ready
users are more likely to hold the following perception as compared to non-users: |
|
|
|
No-till soybeans save labor |
|
|
|
Roundup Ready soybeans have made it possible for
more growers to adopt no-till or reduced till practices in soybeans |
|
|
|
Seed technology has made no-till and reduced
till soybeans feasible in their operations |
|
|
|
Lower herbicide costs have helped framers adopt
no-till and reduced till soybeans |
|
|
|
The overall profit on no-till or reduced till
soybeans is greater than the overall profit on conventional till soybeans. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes