Conservation Tillage Study

Prepared for:

The Cotton Foundation

December, 2002

Doane Marketing ResearchSt. Louis, Missouri

2

Study Purpose and Objectives

Purpose

The primary purpose of this study, is to evaluate how tillage practices in cotton have changed since 1997 to the present and to determine the impact herbicide tolerant technologies such as Roundup Ready and BXN have had on tillage practices during this period.

Objectives

The key objectives of this study include:

To identify the tillage practices cotton growers utilized in 1997 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 cotton.

To identify obstacles that are currently preventing growers from trying to reduce tillage practices in cotton.

3

Methodology/Sample

Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATI) were used to collect the data for this study. Interviewing was conducted from October 24th through November 2, 2002.

Qualified respondents must have planted a minimum of 250 acres of cotton in 2002 and be the individual responsible for tillage practice decisions in their farm operation.

Sample quotas were established in 13 Southern and Western states. The quotas were established based on the proportion of cotton acres in a state to the total cotton acres in the 13 state area.

Participants for this study were randomly selected from lists maintained by Doane Marketing Research, Inc.

Data was weighted to represent the universe of 250+ acre cotton acres in the 13 state study area. These universes were based on the latest available USDA estimates of acres.

4

Methodology/Sample

- Midsouth

- Southwest

- West

- Southeast

Study Area and Sample by Area

35

100

100

134

5

Key Findings

During the period from 1997 to 2002, the following events have occurred relative to cotton acreage among the study respondents (250 acre and above cotton growers)

No-till cotton acres have nearly doubled to 29% of the total cotton acres and reduced till acres have increased over one-half, to account for 30% of the cotton acres

Roundup Ready cotton acres have more than tripled to account for 77% of the total cotton acres grown in 2002.

The percent of cotton acres planted in ultra-narrow (7 to 10 inches) or narrow rows (11 to 29 inches) have increased by a fraction of a percent to account for slightly under 2% of the total cotton acres

In this same approximate time frame, study respondents (250 acre + cotton growers) stated they have undertaken the following cultural practices in cotton:

80% of the growers are making fewer tillage passes in cotton 75% of the growers are leaving more crop residue on the soil surface 52% of the growers have increased their no-till cotton acres.

6

Key Findings

Roundup Ready technology has been a key factor enabling growers to undertake this tillage reduction revolution in cotton. 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 cotton?” Growers stated on an unaided basis:

79% - Roundup Ready technology, including: the seed, weed control, lower costs, less cultivation, and increased yield.

26% - Better equipment, including hooded sprayers, planter technology… 12% - Better chemicals not specified 11% - Better/new seed out there-BT

When asked which of six factors had the greatest impact toward the adoption of reduced tillage or no-till in cotton during the past 5 years, growers indicated:

The introduction of Roundup Ready cotton 71% The availability for over the top or in crop herbicides 15% Improvements in reduced or no-till planters and drills 5% The availability of reduced or no-till planters and drills 4% Cost of burndown herbicides 3% The availability of burndown herbicides 3%

N= 269

7

Key Findings

Approximately 64 percent of the conventional till cotton growers surveyed indicated they have considered trying reduced or no-till cotton, but they currently do not practice reduced or no-till in their operation. Equipment issues are seen as a primary obstacle in trying reduced or no-till cotton, followed by ground and weather conditions. Factors or obstacles that have prevented this trial as stated on an unaided basis include :

The price of equipment 23% Ground conditions 17% Weather conditions—lack of moisture 14% Weed control 9% Crop rotation practices 8% Not willing to change 8% Tried reduced tillage, went back to conventional 6% Just haven’t done it yet 5% Don’t have proper equipment 5% Roundup not effective in killing certain weeds 5% Not making enough yield 5%

N = 64

8

Key Findings

When asked, “What one thing could be done that would strongly influence you to adopt reduced or no-till cotton in the next 2 years?” the conventional cotton grower respondents who have considered trying reduced or no-till cotton gave the following unaided responses:

Better price for crop 14% Not willing to change 14% Reasonable price for equipment 9% Reduced chemical cost 9% Convince myself that it works 9% Wouldn’t plant cotton 8% Government subsidy 6% Wouldn’t work on our land 6% Weed control is main factor 6%

N =

64

Conservation tillage results in a $20.13 savings for fuel and labor when compared to conventional tillage.

9

Key Findings

The no-till and reduced tillage practices have significantly increased in the past 5 years.

Characteristic Total

Ultra narrow or narrow row cotton- % of cotton acres 1997

2%

Ultra narrow or narrow row cotton- % of cotton acres 2002

2%

% of total 1997 cotton acres in no-till or reduced till

35%

% of total 2002 cotton acres in no-till or reduced till

59%

% of growers having more no-till cotton vs. 5 years ago

52%

% of growers making fewer tillage passes vs. 5 years ago

80%

% of growers leaving more crop residue vs. 5 years ago

75%

Mean percent of crop residue left on soil surface in 2001

52%

Sample size – unweighted base 369

10

Key Findings

The percent of no-till and reduced till acres seems to be significantly lower in the West region. In all regions the no-till and reduced tillage practices have significantly increased in the past 5 years.

Characteristic Total South-east

Midsouth South-west

West

Ultra narrow or narrow rowcotton- % of 2002 cotton acres1997

2% 5.5% 1% 1% *%

Ultra narrow or narrow rowcotton- % of 1997 cotton

2% 4% 1% 1% --

% of total 2002 cotton acres inno-till or reduced till

59% 65% 74% 52% 18%

% of total 1997 cotton acres inno-till or reduced till

35% 31% 58% 28% 2%

% of growers having more no-till cotton vs. 5 years ago

52% 56% 66% 43% 17%

% of growers making fewertillage passes vs. 5 years ago

80% 81% 83% 83% 57%

% of growers leaving morecrop residue vs. 5 years ago

75% 78% 86% 77% 31%

Mean percent of crop residueleft on soil surface in 2001

52% 61% 50% 41% 56%

Sample size – unweighted base 278 104 86 77 11

11

Findings

12

Respondent Profile

Characteristic 1997 2002 % Chg.

Projected cotton acres grown (000) 11,365 12,704 12%

Average acres grown 937 ac. 1,010 ac. 8%

No-till/ strip till acres (000) % of total

1,723 15.2%

3,682 29.0%

114%

RUR cotton no-till acres (000) % of total

931 54%

3,558 96.6%

282%

Reduced till acres (000) % of total

2,214 19.5%

3,787 29.8%

71%

RUR cotton reduced-till acres (000) % of total

671 30.3%

3,268 86.3%

387%

Conventional till acres (000) % of total

7,428 65.4%

5,235 41.2%

(-30% )

RUR cotton conventional-till acre (000) % of total

1,090 14.7%

3,323 63.5%

205%

Ultra narrow row acres (000) % of total

93 .8%

165 1.3%

77%

Narrow row 10-20” acres (000) % of total

77 .7%

62 .5%

(-19% )

Wide row 20”+ acres (000) % of total

11,196 98.5%

12,478 98.2%

11%

13

Profile of Cotton Growers by Region

Characteristic Total South-east

Midsouth South-west

West

Average cotton acres 1997 937 ac. 787 ac. 1,019 ac. 914 ac. 1,227 ac.

Average cotton acres 2002 1,010 956 ac. 1,037 ac. 1,039 ac. 919 ac.

Narrow or ultra narrow rowcotton- % of cotton acres –2002

2% 6% 1.2% 1% *%

% of total 2002 cotton acres inno-till or reduced till

59% 65% 74% 52% 18%

% of growers having more no-till cotton vs. 5 years ago

52% 56% 66% 43% 17%

% of growers making fewertillage passes vs. 5 years ago

80% 81% 83% 83% 57%

% of growers leaving morecrop residue vs. 5 years ago

75% 78% 86% 77% 31%

Mean percent of crop residueleft on soil surface in 2002

52% 61% 50% 41% 56%

% of growers less than 55years old

61% 64% 66% 54% 54%

% of growers with collegedegree or higher

37% 31% 42% 42% 29%

Sample size – unweighted base 369 134 100 100 35

14

Cotton Acres By Tillage Type 2002 vs. 1997

3.7 3.8

5.2

1.72.2

7.4

0

2

4

6

8

10

2002 1997

No-till

Redced till

Conventional Till

Q 1a Q 5a: How many acres of cotton did you plant in 2002? Repeat for 1997Q 3 Q 7: How many of these 2002 acres were no-till or strip till, reduced till, conventional till? Repeat for 1997

N=369 unweighted baseAcres (mil)

12.7 mil. acs. 11.4 mil. acs.

15

Cotton Tillage Practices by Region 2002

42.2%

29.0%

25.6%

35.1%

41.2%

47.9%

82.0%

32.2%

7.9%

29.8%

41.6%

14.2%

57.0%

10.5%

3.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

West

Southwest

Midsouth

Southeast

Total

Conventional Tillage Reduced Tillage No-till or Strip-till

Q 3: Thus overall, how many of these 2002 cotton acres were no-till or strip till, reduced till, conventional till?

Percent of acres

16

Cotton Tillage Practices by Region 1997

30.0%

15.2%

42.0%

68.7%

65.4%

72.5%

97.9%

28.0%

13.8%

19.5%

20.4%

1.0%

17.5%

7.2%

1.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

West

Southwest

Midsouth

Southeast

Total

Conventional Tillage Reduced Tillage No-till or Strip-till

Q 7: How many of these 1997 acres were no-till or strip till, reduced till, conventional till?

Percent of acres

17

Mean Cost of an Average Tillage Trip Per Acre

9.40

5.42

6.98

7.83

6.83

11.30

6.37

7.95

8.53

7.95

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20

West

Southwest

Midsouth

Southeast

Total

1997 2002

Q 9b 9c : When considering labor, fuel and wear on equipment, what would be the cost of an average tillage trip per acre?

18

Dollar Savings for Labor and Fuel on Conservation Tillage Acres Compared to Conventional Acres

29.77

15.21

20.13

19.75

22.55

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50

West

Southwest

Midsouth

Southeast

Total

Q 17: What do you believe the dollar savings for labor and fuel to be on conservation tillage acres compared to conventional till acres?

19

Cotton Acres By Row Width 2002 vs. 1997

0.16 0.061

12.48

0.09 0.08

11.20

0

5

10

15

20

2002 1997

Ultra narrow rows

Narrow rows 10-20"

Wide rows 20+"

Q 1c Q 5b: How many of these 2002 acres were narrow, ultra narrow row, wide row? Repeat for 1997

N=369 unweighted base

Acres (mil)

12.7 mil. acs. 11.4 mil. acs.

20

Cotton Acres by Row Width by Region 2002

1.20%

94.50%

1.60%

3.90%

0.00%

0.10%

99.80%

0.20%

0.30%

99.40%

0.00%

98.80%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Wide row

Narrow row

Ultra narrow row

West Southwest Midsouth Southeast

Q 1c Q 5b: How many of these 2002 acres were no-till or strip till, reduced till, conventional till? Repeat for 1997

21

Farmer Perceptions of How They Have Changed Tillage Practices During the Past Five Years

51.5%

75.3%

79.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Have more no-till acresin cotton

Are now leaving morecrop residue

Are now making fewertillage passes in cotton

Total Farmers

Q 9 Overall, compared to 5 years ago, would you say you: A. Are now making fewer tillage passes in cotton? B. Are now leaving more crop residue?

C. Have more no-till acres in cotton?

Percent Indicating “Yes”

N=369 unweighted base

22

Tillage Pass Reductions Over the Past 5 Years

6.4%

29.2%

33.9%

30.5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

1 less pass

2 less passes

3 less passes

4 or more, lesspasses

Total

Q 9a On average, how many fewer tillage passes are you making today in cotton compared to 5 years ago?

23

Average Number of Tillage Pass Reductions Over the Past 5 Years by Region

2.8

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.2

0 1 2 3 4

West

Southwest

Midsouth

Southwest

Total

Q 9a On average, how many fewer tillage passes are you making today in cotton compared to 5 years ago?

Mean Pass Reductions Over Past 5 Years

N=295 unweighted base

24

Average Crop Residue on Soil SurfaceRegion in 2002 and 1997

15.30%

13.20%19.10%

14.90%

15.70%

55.90%

41.450.40%

61.00%

52.10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

1997

2002

West Southwest Midsouth Southeast Total

Q 9d Q9e: On average, what percent crop residue were/are you leaving in your cotton in 1997/2002 ?

Mean Percent Crop Residue Level

N=278 unweighted base

25

Changes in Technology That Have Enabled Growers to Reduce Tillage and /or Increase Crop Residue Levels in

Cotton Over the Past 5 Years

Change Total

Roundup Ready technology 79%

Better equipment 15%

More and better chemicals 12%

Better/ new seed out there-BT 11%

Tillage improvements 9%

Hooded sprayers 7%

Planter technology 4%

Stacked gene cotton seed 3%

Nothing has changed 3%

Changes and improved irrigation

2%

Learning newer methods and ideas

2%

Sample – unweighted base 269

Q 10: In the past 5 years, what changes in technology such as equipment, chemicals or seed have made it possible for you to reduce your tillage and/or increase your crop residue in cotton ?

26

Farmer Perceptions of Factors That Have Had The Greatest Impact Toward Adoption of Reduced Tillage or

No-Till During the Past Five Years

Factors Total

The Introduction of RR Cotton 71%

The Availability of Over the Top or in Crop Herbicides

15%

Improvements in Reduced-Till or No-Till Planters and Drills

5%

The Availability of Reduced-Till or No-Till Planters and Drills

4%

Cost of Burndown Herbicides 3%

The Availability of Burndown Herbicides

3%

Sample – unweighted base 269

Q 12: Which of the following do you believe has had the greatest impact toward your adoption of reduced tillage or no-till in cotton during the past 5 years?

27

Have Growers Considered Trying Reduced Tillage or No-Till Cotton Operation? (Among Growers Having All Conventional

Till Acres)

45.8%

65.5%

80.0%

68.8%

64.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

West

Southwest

Midsouth

Southeast

Total

Q 13: Have you considered trying reduced tillage or no-till cotton in your operation?

Percent Indicating “Yes”N=100 unweighted base

28

Factors or Obstacles That Have Prevented Conventional Till Growers From Trying Reduced Tillage or No-Till Cotton - Unaided

by Regions

Factors Total

Southeast Midsouth Southwest West

Price of equipment 23% 46% -- 16% 18%

Ground conditions limit moisture and root development

17% 14% 25% 11% 27%

Weather conditions/ lack of moisture

14% 14% -- 32% --

Weed Control 9% -- 8% 26% --

Crop rotation practices 8% 9% -- -- 27%

Not willing to change 8% 5% 8% 11% 9%

Already tried reduced tillage, went back to conventional

6% -- 17% 11% --

Just haven’t done it yet 6% 5% 17% 5% --

Don’t have proper equipment 5% 9% 8% -- --

Round Up not effective in killing certain weeds

5% 11% 9%

Not making enough yield 5% 9% 8% -- --

Sample – unweighted base 64 22 12 19 11

Q 14: What factors or obstacles if any have prevented you from trying reduced tillage or no-till cotton?

29

What One Thing Could Be Done That Would Strongly Influence Conventional Till Growers To Adopt Reduced Tillage or No-Till Cotton In The Next Year Or

Two?

Influencers Total

Better price for crop 14%

Not willing to change 14%

A reasonable price forequipment

9%

Chemical cost needs to comedown

9%

Convince myself that it works 9%

Wouldn’t plant cotton 8%

Government subsidy 6%

Wouldn’t work on our land 6%

Weed control is main factor 6%

Sample – unweighted base 64

Q 15: What one thing could be done that would strongly influence you to adopt reduced tillage or no-till cotton in the next year or two?

30

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Mean Scores

Total FarmersNo/ Strip TillReduced TillConventional Till

Farmer Perceptions of Statements About Tillage Practices

Conservation tillage saves fuel

Q 16: I would like to read you a list of statements about tillage practices and find out if you agree or disagree with these statements. Using a five point scale where “1”=Strongly Disagree and “5”=Strongly Agree, please rate the following statements.

(Strongly Disagree) (Strongly Agree)

Conservation tillage saves labor

RUR cotton has made it possible for more growers in my area to adopt

conservation tillage

RUR cotton has made it possible for growers to use less residual herbicides

31

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Mean Scores

Total FarmersNo/ Strip TillReduced TillConventional Till

Farmer Perceptions of Statements About Tillage Practices

Seed technology has made conservation tillage feasible

in my operation

Q 16: I would like to read you a list of statements about tillage practices and find out if you agree or disagree with these statements. Using a five point scale where “1”=Strongly Disagree and “5”=Strongly Agree, please rate the following statements.

Conservation tillage allows me to

farm more acres

I believe the overall profit on conservation tillage acres is greater than the overall

profit on conventional till cotton

Lower herbicide cost have helped farmers adopt conservation

tillage

(Strongly Disagree) (Strongly Agree)

32

Farmer Perceptions of Statements About Tillage Practices

Top Box “5” % Strongly Agree Scores

Statement Total South-east

Midsouth South-west

West

Conservation tillage saves fuel 77% 74% 84% 78% 68%

Conservation tillage saves labor 71% 72% 75% 65% 64%

RR cotton aids adoption of conservation tillage 63% 72% 69% 53% 36%

RR cotton aids use of less residual herbicides 61% 66% 71% 40% 64%

Seed tech. makes conservation tillage feasible 46% 49% 55% 40% 21%

Conservation tillage allows farming more acres 43% 48% 54% 31% 18%

Lower herbicide costs aid conservation tillage 32% 29% 39% 32% 29%

Profit on conservational tillage is greater than profit on conventional till cotton

29% 29% 30% 31% 12%