A “Win-Win” for Soil Conservation? How Indiana Row-Crop Farmers Perceive the Benefits (and Trade-offs) of No-Till Agriculture

Abstract

To address problems of soil degradation, industrial farmers across the United States have converted to no-till agriculture, which can mitigate the effects of soil erosion and reduce operating costs without necessarily compromising agricultural output. However, producers still debate the benefits of this practice. Through participant observation and semi-structured interviews with 14 row-crop farmers in central Indiana, this study examines farmer perceptions of no-till as a soil conservation practice. Ethnographic findings reveal that adopters highlight no-till’s benefits for improving soil quality while also minimizing operating costs, including labor and fuel. However, both adopters and critics alike acknowledge trade-offs; for example, no-till disrupts entrenched management practices and norms—from the aesthetics of “clean” fields to the timing of spring planting. Furthermore, some non-adopters argue that no-till’s heightened reliance on herbicide contradicts the broader goals of conservation. This study thus shows that while a compelling case can be made for no-till as an environmental and economic “win-win,” this narrative also elides ongoing disagreements and trade-offs linked to its adoption. No-till’s appeal for many producers is that it advances soil conservation without fundamentally challenging industrial farming’s aspiration for ever-increasing efficiency and profitability.