• Legislation
• Media Centre
• Publications
• What's New

No-Tillage for Sustainability

In recent years increasing attention has been directed towards reduced and no-tillage cropping systems by land management practitioners and local government policy makers, in the context of their responsibility to promote sustainable management under the Resource Management Act. Murray Doak reports on the following:

1. the history of direct drilling/no-tillage and present experiences;

2. issues which MAF Policy believes need to be considered carefully in the near future; and

3. some of the no-tillage activities in which MAF Policy has been involved around the country.

This article separates no-tillage/direct drilling techniques from minimum/reduced/one-pass cultivation. In reality, this separation is very difficult to make, as there is a continuum from over-cultivation (sometimes referred to as “recreational” cultivation) to sowing seeds directly into uncultivated ground. No-tillage drills are generally specially designed, and herbicides are used to remove vegetation before drilling.

Been There, Done That

No-tillage/direct drilling is not new. Many farmers have used the techniques for specific applications for many years. It is dangerous to generalise about what farmers do and don’t do, because there will always be at least one who has been quietly and successfully operating a full or partial no-tillage system with a modified conventional seed drill for many years!

There was a period in the late 1970s and early 80s where no-tillage was “in vogue”. The triple disc drill was the new technology of the day, providing an opportunity to reduce cultivation costs. Today’s farmers have long memories where risk is concerned, and most had first or second hand experience of crop failures under no-tillage during this time.

At the risk of generalising, and with the benefit of hindsight, the primary reason for many failing with this system was because the triple disc drill technology was not suitable for the wide range of situations to which it was put in New Zealand (various soils, climate, crops, and farming systems). The understanding and success of “chemical fallowing” were also not what they are today.

The Latest Craze or Here to Stay?

In recent years, farmers have accessed the most up-to-date machinery, developed both overseas and specifically for New Zealand conditions. Coupled with the reduced total capital employed in a no-tillage system, increasing fuel costs, and a shortage of skilled machinery operators, from any farmer’s point of view the option is worth a serious look. Add specific environmental issues such as wind erosion, climate change, and increasingly soil structure breakdown as crop systems intensify, and the signals appear to be very

Why then, are only about 10-15 percent of crops grown in no-tillage systems? Anecdotal evidence suggests the main reasons are a combination of the following:

• risk of crop failure (whether perceived or otherwise doesn’t matter – risk thresholds are different for everybody);
• the investment already made in conventional cultivation equipment;
• the crop types grown and the tight quality specifications required by customers; and
• the potentially daunting requirement to modify current or adopt new techniques, systems and skills.

In addition, the consumer trend towards reduced chemical use works against no-tillage/direct drilling. It is not yet clear whether enhancement of soil quality via no-tillage is more or less important in consumers’ minds than reduced chemical dependence via cultivation for weed and pest control. The benefit to the environment of no-till systems is also not yet clear in all situations. There are often other management techniques which farmers use to reduce risk of damage.

Given all these uncertainties, those farmers who are not faced with an immediate imperative to choose one system or the other will naturally steer a middle course. This is supported by machinery dealers noting an upsurge in interest in reduced or minimum tillage equipment in general (MAF’s Arable Farm Monitoring Report, July 2000). This suggests farmers are moving their whole conventional cultivation system towards the benefits offered by direct drilling/no-tillage anyway, while still retaining the benefits (that they perceive) of

Policy Issues

There is no room here to go into each and every permutation of soil, capital structure, risk profile and farmer preference that would need to be addressed when deciding on a change in cultivation system. Suffice to say, each farmer would likely have a unique set! I suggest that policy makers bear this in mind when considering the range of techniques available to influence behaviour e.g. education, regulation etc.

MAF Policy strongly believes individual farmers are best left to make these decisions themselves. Agencies can help the process by:

• undertaking appropriate research;
• providing information;
• assisting farmer/community groups find the answers; and
• above all, listening to the farmers’ experiences.

In particular, the decision to adopt no-till or even reduced tillage systems must be put in context of all the other market, financial and social pressures, and the unique risk profile, perceptions and attitudes of any individual farmer.

In future, no-tillage systems also may have to be considered in the context of New Zealand’s response to climate change by reducing CO₂ emissions and increasing organic carbon levels in arable soils.

In general, those who keep an open mind and are receptive to trying new approaches are more likely to achieve a sustainable balance between sometimes conflicting objectives. Extremists at both ends will probably suffer the consequences.

A particular difficulty this issue highlights is the selective application of research results and observations. What works in one area/year/crop may be due to several factors, including:

• soils;
• climate;
• farm system;
• drill type; and
• crop type.

For example, windblow minimisation may be the result of the climate e.g. fewer frost events that season, or may be achieved by other management changes e.g. cultivation patterns to reduce soil structure impacts.

There is considerable knowledge among farmers, both no-tillers and cultivators, about what works and doesn’t work for them, and why. What appears to be needed is some way of more people sharing in this knowledge, with the time and space for farmers to consider all the angles and get comfortable with considering a change. The following activities are known to be broadly aiming to provide this opportunity.

Current activities

A field day in mid-Canterbury in early 2000 led to the formation of No-Tillage New Zealand, which is a national association of farmers, researchers, companies and support agencies with an interest in no-tillage. No-Tillage New Zealand has recently received approval for a $160,000 project involving the employment of a co-ordinator to run monitor farms throughout the country. Many organisations and individuals have been involved in the practice, research and development of no-tillage techniques over the years. The association’s key objective is to facilitate the exchange of ideas and information on no-tillage in New Zealand. Membership is open to anyone. Contact David Hewson of Environment Canterbury for details on 03 365 3828.

The Hawkes Bay Regional Council, with help from MAF Policy, initiated LandWISE in 1999 to encourage and facilitate links between growers, industry, government, researchers and other organisations. To date, LandWISE has carried out trials on direct drilling sweetcorn into highly wind-erodible volcanic soils with good success, showing that no-tillage can give the same returns and yields as conventional cultivation, as well as improving soil quality and increasing organic carbon content. LandWISE has recently gained funding from the Sustainable Farming Fund to continue its research work and fund a full time facilitator. Contact Dan Bloomer, Hawkes Bay Regional Council on 06 835 9200.

These activities offer good opportunities for policy makers to gain an understanding of the broader issues confronting farmers, and to establish relationships with farmers. After a period of some suspicion, these contacts usually lead to better understanding of all parties’ points of view, and ultimately better policy. MAF encourages all those with an interest in the outcomes to get in touch with these groups and participate in the activities.

 

Contact for Enquiries

Amber Duncalfe
Editor - RM Update
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND

Tel: +64 4 894 0710
Fax: +64 4 894 0745
Contact this person