A recent study from Purdue University’s Center for Commercial Agriculture, published in May 2025, dives into the economic trade-offs between no-till and reduced tillage systems for corn and soybean production, using data from the FINBIN database spanning 2014 to 2023. The study, authored by Michael Langemeier, provides a detailed comparison of net returns per acre, highlighting the interplay between yields, costs, and environmental considerations. While no-till systems are often championed for their environmental benefits, the findings suggest that higher yields from reduced tillage may lead to better financial outcomes in the short term, though long-term dynamics and other factors complicate the picture. Below, we summarize the key findings and explore whether no-till lives up to its reputation as a silver bullet for sustainable agriculture.
Key Findings: Yields, Costs, and Net Returns
The Purdue study analyzes net returns for corn and soybeans under no-till and reduced tillage systems, focusing on data from farms in the FINBIN database, which primarily represents Midwest U.S. operations. Here’s a breakdown of the findings:
Yields: Reduced tillage systems consistently outperformed no-till in terms of crop yields for both corn and soybeans over the 2014–2023 period. On average, reduced tillage produced higher per-acre yields, which directly contributed to higher gross revenues. This aligns with the conventional wisdom that tillage can enhance seedbed preparation, improve early-season weed control, and promote better root development in certain soil conditions, leading to higher productivity.
Costs: No-till systems generally had lower operating costs, particularly in terms of fuel, labor, and machinery wear, as they eliminate or minimize tillage passes. However, reduced tillage systems often incurred higher input costs, such as for herbicides or additional equipment maintenance, which partially offset their yield advantage. The study notes that the cost differential varies by region, soil type, and farm management practices.
Net Returns: Despite no-till’s lower costs, reduced tillage systems generated higher net returns per acre for both corn and soybeans. The higher yields in reduced tillage systems more than compensated for the increased costs, making them financially more attractive over the study period. For example, the study found that reduced tillage for corn and soybeans consistently delivered positive net returns, while no-till returns were lower, particularly in years with challenging weather or market conditions.
Beyond Yields: The Bigger Picture
While reduced tillage systems led to higher yields and net returns, the study emphasizes that yield alone doesn’t tell the whole story. Several factors must be considered when evaluating tillage systems:
Environmental Trade-offs: No-till systems are widely praised for reducing soil erosion and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to reduced tillage. By leaving crop residue on the field, no-till minimizes soil disturbance, preserving soil structure and sequestering carbon. The study acknowledges this trade-off, noting that farmers prioritizing environmental sustainability may accept lower short-term returns for these long-term benefits. However, the financial data from 2014–2023 suggests that the immediate economic advantage lies with reduced tillage.
Cost Management: The lower operating costs of no-till can be a significant advantage for farmers facing tight margins, especially in years with low commodity prices. The Purdue Crop Cost and Return Guide, referenced in the study, highlights the importance of scrutinizing input costs, as margins for both corn and soybeans are expected to remain tight in 2025 due to stable but high production costs and lower crop prices. No-till’s cost savings could provide a buffer for financially vulnerable farms, even if yields are lower.
Regional and Soil Variability: The study’s findings are based on aggregated data, but tillage performance varies by region, soil type, and climate. For instance, no-till may perform better in well-drained soils with low erosion risk, while reduced tillage may be more effective in heavier, poorly drained soils where compaction is a concern. Farmers must consider their specific conditions when interpreting the study’s results.
Is No-Till Overhyped?
The study’s findings might suggest that no-till isn’t the universal solution it’s often portrayed to be, particularly when short-term financial returns are the primary metric. Reduced tillage’s higher yields and net returns challenge the narrative that no-till is always the best choice for profitability. However, this conclusion comes with a significant caveat: the study does not account for the long-term yield potential of no-till systems, which is a critical point in the broader debate.
Proponents of no-till argue that its benefits—particularly in terms of soil health and yield stability—often take a decade or more to fully materialize. Over time, no-till can improve soil organic matter, water retention, and microbial activity, leading to more resilient fields that perform better during extreme weather events like droughts or heavy rains. Studies cited elsewhere, such as those by the USDA and sustainable agriculture researchers, indicate that no-till yields may start lower but can match or exceed conventional tillage yields after 10–15 years of consistent practice, especially when paired with cover crops and crop rotations. The Purdue study’s 2014–2023 timeframe may not capture these long-term trends, as it focuses on a relatively short window and does not explicitly track farms transitioning to no-till over extended periods.
Moreover, the study’s reliance on FINBIN data may skew toward farms with established tillage practices rather than those in the midst of a no-till transition, where initial yield reductions are common. This limitation suggests that no-till’s economic viability could be underrepresented in the analysis, particularly for farmers committed to building soil health over decades.
Implications for Farmers
The Purdue study underscores the importance of aligning tillage decisions with both financial and environmental goals. For farmers prioritizing immediate profitability, reduced tillage appears to be the better choice based on the 2014–2023 data, thanks to its higher yields and net returns. However, those with a longer-term perspective or a focus on sustainability may find no-till more appealing, despite its lower short-term returns, due to its environmental benefits and potential for yield improvements over time.
Farmers should also consider the following when choosing a tillage system:
Market Conditions: With corn and soybean prices expected to remain below production costs for 2025, as noted in the Purdue Crop Cost and Return Guide, cost-saving practices like no-till could help mitigate financial strain.
Soil Health Investments: No-till requires patience and complementary practices (e.g., cover crops, diversified rotations) to maximize its benefits. Farmers transitioning to no-till should plan for a potential yield lag and budget accordingly.
Policy and Incentives: Emerging carbon markets and conservation programs may offer financial incentives for no-till practices, offsetting lower returns in the short term. The study’s author, Michael Langemeier, has explored the economics of reduced tillage and cover crops in other presentations, suggesting that policy shifts could make no-till more economically viable.
Conclusion
The Purdue study provides valuable insights into the economic trade-offs between no-till and reduced tillage systems, showing that reduced tillage currently holds an edge in terms of yields and net returns for corn and soybeans. However, it’s not a definitive indictment of no-till. The study’s short-term focus misses the long-term potential for no-till to improve soil health and yields, which can take a decade or more to fully realize. Farmers must weigh immediate financial pressures against long-term goals, considering their specific soil types, climate, and market conditions. For now, reduced tillage may offer a practical compromise, balancing profitability with some conservation benefits, but the case for no-till remains viable for those willing to invest in the long game.